Brilliant. ( )

In The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America, Margot Canaday works to dispel the notion that “the extreme state repression of sex and gender noncomformity in the mid-twentieth century was a result of the sudden visibility of gays and lesbians during and after World War II” (pg. 2). Her scope, then, focuses on how the government defined homosexuality beginning in World War I, through the Depression, and finally during and after the Second World War with the advent of the G.I. Bill. While military and governmental personnel did their part in defining homosexuality prior to World War II, the G.I. Bill, more than any other piece of legislation, tied the gender roles associated with heterosexuality to the concept of proper citizenship. This bill serves as the focal point of Canaday’s argument.
Canaday begins her chapter on the G.I. Bill arguing, “The suggestive and symbolic removal of the sexually deviant from federal relief…has morphed into the actual removal of homosexuals from programs for veterans’ benefits” (pg. 139). The social stigma associated with receiving an undesirable, or “blue,” discharge prevented many veterans from using the advantages offered through the G.I. Bill and thus gaining the ideal rewards of American citizenship (pg. 145). Though the military initially used the blue discharge for a number of offenses, including drunkenness, the discharge soon transformed into a code for those dismissed due to homosexual acts or tendencies. Further, while the language of the G.I. Bill only prohibits those dishonorably discharged from taking advantage of its benefits, the Veterans’ Administration took the responsibility for determining which blue discharges were acceptable for benefits. The Veterans Administration, in explicitly linking homosexuality with undesirability, condemned American veterans who, despite serving their country, belonged to a different gender than those in power.
In denying benefits to those discharged for homosexuality, the Veterans Administration created a group of second-class citizens to whom the benefits of a college education or a home loan were not available. The 1957 Doyle Bill, intended to offer relief to those given blue discharges for behaviors other than homosexuality, further reinforced gender lines. Doyle’s rehabilitation program identified those who had married, started families, and sought employment as most likely to deserve rehabilitation. All of these traits fit in with traditional ideas of manhood. Tellingly, one congressman described a veteran deserving of this program as having “assumed the position of a man” (pg. 166). The use of binary language indicates that the other choice was the position of a woman, which would equate the veteran with a homosexual in the eyes of the government. Canaday summarizes this program, “In continuing the World War II-era practice of using the undesirable discharge for soldiers discharged for homosexuality, the military increased the association between undesirability and homosexuality” (pg. 167). The entire program served as a self-perpetuating system for ensuring only those that met strict heterosexual gender standards received rewards and full citizenship from the government.
Canaday’s book demonstrates that the government defined homosexuality more than homosexuals themselves. Concepts of manhood played a significant part, but the desire to prosecute or deny benefits, especially in the case of the G.I. Bill, dominated the discourse surrounding homosexuality. This discourse of punishment explains why homosexuality continues to suffer from a social stigma in the United States to this day. ( )