Senator Simpson was always a political hero of mine as a kid. I admired his bluntness and his smart wit. But it is only as a gay adult that I have truly appreciated Simpson’s compassion and true (“small c”) conservativeness.
He strikes another one out of the park on our behalf in this Washington Post column calling for the end of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. (Read the whole thing!)
As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review — and overturn — the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But much has changed since 1993.
My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation’s “foreign language deficit” and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a “straight” way to translate Arabic? Is there a “gay” Farsi? My God, we’d better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.
Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that “gay” is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman’s on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge.
In a relevant side note, my personal crusade against the Hypocritical Rights Campaign began the night of the HRC’s alleged Capitol Hill “vigil” following the murder of Matthew Shepard in Sen. Simpson’s home state of Wyoming. Simpson was booed by the gay-dominated crowd when he was introduced to speak at the “vigil”. (I put “vigil” in quotes because it immediately turned into an HRC-sponsored pep rally for Democrat Congressional Candidates on the steps of the US Capitol).
I was disgusted that people would treat Sen. Simpson with such disrespect when he spoke from the heart about the murder of Shepard in his backyard. Simpson was a rare Republican lawmaker speaking out on behalf of the gay community — and the gay community treated him like crap. So much for reaching out and broadening our coalition of supporters, right?
Finally, that evening crystallized my disdain with the HRC when… in the middle of the solemn “vigil”… someone was passing out pamphlets for a fundraiser at a DC bar immediately following the DCCC rally Shepard vigil. It was a night of complete disgust for me that cemented my place as a fighting gay conservative.
PS — THANK YOU, SENATOR SIMPSON!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bruce, great post about one of the Nation’s better statesman. His position on DADTDHDP is perfectly in sync with his 30+ yrs of service to America. I wish there were 100 candid, blunt, honest, self-effacing, direct and decent “Alan Simpsons” in the Senate… it’d be a far, far better place.
It’s important to remember that the laws and rules the Military runs under are codified by Congress.
The military couldn’t dump DADT if it wanted to, the Congress put the policy into law. The President cant change it either.
If the policy is to change, then Congress must be the one to change it.
Correct, Vince. Now what pray tell is taking so long since the Democrats have been in Congress for over three months now?
Is this is a priority for them OR NOT?
#3 – Bruce, I think you answered your own question. The Demoncrat-hijacked Congress is more concerned about passing an increased $20 billion in pork-barrel earmarks than playing to what some consider their core constituency.
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Regards,
Peter H.
Bruce: it’s been 2 months, not “over 3,” since the Democratic majority took over.
And guess what?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1246
The cosponsors include 105 Democrats and three Republicans.
Where is the rest of the GOP on this?
The more important question, vaara, is why Hillary and Obama are strangely silent on the issue of General Pace.
Let’s see – Hillary is a woman (as far as we know) and Obama is African-American (although Sharpton thinks he’s really a “mocha”). Both are not exactly willing to embrace gay voters without some damage to their “bases” (women and blacks).
Big tent? What big tent?
Hypocrites.
Regards,
Peter H.
Hey vaara — What exactly did the Democrat Congress do for you on gay issues between 1955 and 1995? Just curious……
I don’t hear Nancy Pelosi putting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on the voting schedule. It matters not how many Republicans are supporting it. The Dems have the majority votes to PASS it. If they wanted to.
Of course it’s not a priority for Democrats because Democrats on the national level dont really care about this issue. They agitage only so much as it serves thier purpose to attack Republicans. But to take on an issue for its sake is not something you ever see the Democrats doing. Asking them to reverse the very same policy they put into place is a lot to expect from the party of nothing.
I don’t recall overturning DADT was a priority in the last election. But it does seem like the House is considering the bill. GP, it may matter how many Republicans support the bill, if the President decides to veto it. Besides, it would be okay by me if as many Republicans did show support, and if Bush uses his leadership and asks for it.
Pat, all that is true. I think Bruce’s point was: If the Democrats are so pro-gay, they have the power to pass a revision or termination of DADT today. Or this year, let’s say. Are they going to? No.
Why not? Because the Democrats aren’t any more pro-gay than the Republicans.
The Democrats talk a better game, so as to pick up “gay dollars”. But it’s only talk. They are the ones who codified DADT (and Clinton signed it) in the first place. Same with DOMA. Kerry was at pains, in 2004, to stress that his position on gay issues was “exactly” (Kerry’s word) the same as President Bush’s.
So, we’re left with 2 largely anti-gay parties (though neither is entirely anti-gay). Not just one.
But, the many gays who have fallen for the Democrats’ line have developed a kind of Stockholm Syndrome where (in some cases) they defend the Democrats compulsively, even irrationally. As we’ve seen from certain commentors (Not you, Pat) on this blog before.
Hey, Gay Patriot, here is a sample of what your fellow conservatives think of you. Read this and tell me that you think its your fellow conservatives and Republicans that truly support your cause:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713865/posts
[I almost deleted this comment, but decided to approve it so I could make this point. It’s amazing how so many of our critics attempt to define conservatism by its most extreme elements. And freerepublic is certainly on the fringes of conservative discourse. in the 2 1/2 years since Bruce started this blog, we have received a warm response from the overwhelming majority of conservative bloggers — and pundits — with whom we have come into contact. Including a number of social conservatives. — Dan]
Heck, they even defend Radical Muslims. People who would kill all gays in a second. They defend those Muslims because Bush and some Republicans oppose Muslims.. since Republicans are the ultimate enemy, the enemy of the Radical Gay’s enemy is is his friend (in the Lefty mind anyway, the radical muslims dont even pretend to have common cause)
Guys, guys, guys.
Come on.
The Democrats in control of the House and Senate are not going to bring up DADTDHDP repeal bills or same sex social security benefits or EDNA or enforce open borders for gay immigration or promote sexual freedom and justice in Africa or put enuff $$$ into AIDS cure so we can all go back to having the artifice of “true gay love sans the condom” or mandate 10% federal judges be gay or sex aside federal contracts for the gay minority until they are certain that gays really support the Democrats. Civil Rights take time… NancyP said so. The time isn’t ripe.
The blacks have had to wait a hundred years and then some… women nearly as long. Come on. If we push, we’ll just get hammered.
Remember, when the jewish vote left the Democrats and teamed up with Nixon, the Democrats promised retribution. Even Carter made that clear with his “Scoop Jackson gets the jews” comment and “after the election we’re getting the jews”… and looked what happened: Carter allied the US with the terrorist PLO.
If we don’t be quiet and sit in the back of the bus, the Democrats are going to go after us… no matter how much be slave and sing on the bus to the Plantation.
Maybe in the next decade we can ask again for leadership on gay issues from Democrats… but for right now, we need to be quiet for the benefit of the Party.
And besides, no one is dealing with what I think the most obvious reason for keeping DADT around is — the fact that the vast majority of gays are completely and virulently anti-military.
If Eric Alva and SLDN want to demonstrate their commitment to the military cause, perhaps they should first go after the Pelosi pets like Mark Sanchez and Sandoval who have made it quite clear that gays and the military are incompatible.
That’s not true. I think military guys are HOT.
One of the very first things that Clinton tried to do, once in office, was remove the restriction on gays serving by executive offer. This caused a firestorm (thank you Sam Nunn). DADT was the best that could be done under those circumstances.
Yes, I wish Democrats would stand up to their convictions instead of worrying about getting elected. But saying that Republicans and Democrats are equally homophobic is just wrong.
#14 – NDT, if I personally have never dealt with that “reason for keeping DADT”, it’s because I don’t consider it remotely valid.
The American Way is to judge people as individuals. The fact that many gays are anti-military Gay Left Borg Types is no excuse for excluding many other, hard-working and patriotic gays whose skills the U.S. military needs terribly (e.g., the Arabic and Farsi translators).
Your comment makes sense if I understand it as merely about political dynamics: in other words, in the real world, if people continue to see a lot of gays on TV saying and doing anti-military things, abolishing DADT is realistically not going to rise to the top of any politician’s agenda.
You are absolutely correct in your interpretation, Cal.
Or, phrased differently, gays must demonstrate that we can deal with those who seek to harm the US military INSIDE our borders before we should be allowed to go after those outside them.
“But saying that Republicans and Democrats are equally homophobic is just wrong.”
So if Foley had a (D) after his name, he would have been treated by the Democrats exactly the same?
So the whispering campaign against Ralph Nader’s candidacy in 2000 that was begun by DNC staffers (“Nader is middle-aged and single; no telling who will be with him upstairs in the White House”) does not reek of homophobia?
So if Barney Frank had an (R) after his name when it was revealed that he fixed traffic tickets for his live-in boytoy (who ran an escort business right from Frank’s multi-million-dollar DC abode), it would have been treated as no big deal?
I see.
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
There is much concern about DADT and rightlly so. It is stupid to have it and I am sure those that were responsible for it were never “really” in the Army or Navy. If they had been in WW2, they would have known that there was no need for it. We did not have time to play around. We were there until “It was over over there” We did our job and some of us were lucky enough to come home. I am sorry I am too upset over it to write a better comment but I hope you all get the picture.
John W
Tom at #11 writes: “Hey, Gay Patriot, here is a sample of what your fellow conservatives think of you. Read this and tell me that you think its your fellow conservatives and Republicans that truly support your cause”
Tom, we all call that stunt of yours a “DriveBy”. Have you been taking debating tips from Carl and Ian?
I almost get the impression that some of you would rather not see DADT overturned if there’s any chance that the SLDN or the HRC or Martin Meehan might take credit for it.
This, of course, is the exact sort of “thinking” that you constantly impute to Democrats, who would allegedly rather see Iranian tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue than Bush taking credit for victory in Iraq.
Either you support repealing DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, or you don’t. If you do, then I suggest you all contact your members of Congress, especially if they’re on the Armed Services Committee, and tell them to support H.R. 1246. No matter whose idea it is.
I want whatever option is that which will maintain or improve the lethality of our military. I don’t know which side of this issue would be the right one.
Funny that the same people who want to have openly gay people serve are the same ones who are opposed to our military force to begin with.
Like Vince, I want the best for our country. If a lieutenant colonel can lead a platoon to victory against the enemy, but happens to be gay, more power to him. But I for one don’t think that orientation should be overtly flaunted to make a point.
Let’s face it – when was the last time you had a “Straight Pride” parade or a “Proud to be Straight” day at Disney World?
(Crickets chirping)
So why should we do the same? To be different? If that were the case, then shouldn’t we expect to be regarded differently?
“But that’s bigotry!”
Exactly. So why demand to be treated special?
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Whether your case is for or against repealing DADT is, however, a complete mystery.
My question was extremely simple, and the answer should be simple too. Either you support repealing DADT and allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, or you don’t. “Yes but no but yes but NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS!” is not a simple answer.
Try again.
I don’t see how having a Gay Day at Disney World is “special rights”. It’s just smart marketing by Disney. I guess Senior Citizen discounts are special rights as well. Or “Kids Eat Free” at restaurants or Lady’s nights at clubs.
As a Sponsor of the Log Cabin Convention in Denver this year, I am greatly looking forward to the private reception with him. I encourgage anyone who can get to Denver to get there May 3 – 6, even at the regular member level, to go to hear this truly great American. I think he was born to soon and started too late. Oh well.
Tim #25 – Exactly. I would add to that the comment that Pride is about the ability to express who you are in a public forum without fear of harassment or assault…at least that’s how I apply it. Straight folks can kiss/hold hands in public all day long without anyone making dumb ass comments. Not so for gay people everywhere.
Vaara #24 – I agree. A simple question, with, I think a simple answer.
#27 Kissing or holding hands in public is called PDA, public display of affection, and it’s against the rules in the military for everyone.
Simple answer, should DADT be repealed? Yes.
Do you think that’s all it takes? I read the proposed bill linked up there someplace and it doesn’t look too bad but I do wonder what the practical application would look like. It doesn’t really say anything about what the military will be allowed to do to accomodate homosexuals. Pretending you’re *not* homosexual isn’t very fair but it does solve some practical problems of assignment and housing.
And I should note that while other countries do have homosexuals in their militaries, from what I’ve seen, they are often limited to particular jobs. That is discrimination. Whould this bill forbid that? Women face the same restrictions. Should the military be allowed to assign gay soldiers according to their gayness the same way that women soldiers are assigned by their gender and for the same reasons?
It’s not enough just to repeal DADT. There needs to be something to replace it.
The idea that a person’s private life is their own business ends when they join the military. There is no going home at the end of the day, even when you do go home at the end of the day. The military is entwined into your life 24 hours a day. Base commanders regularly decide which activities and which off-base establishments are off limits. They regulate how far you’re allowed to drive on a three-day weekend. They require certain personal things to be put in order and they check on those things such as arrangements for child care and your financial dealings.
People who just happen to be homosexual won’t be in the military, they will *be* homosexual in the military.
Should DADT be removed. Yes.
But the congress has to be sure that what they pass into law doesn’t cause other problems (as, in fact, DADT caused).
Oh, and congress *must* pass a law taking the crime of sodomy out of the UCMJ. The military can’t do that. Congress must.
Right on, Synova. What the lower-case-libtrolls fail to grasp is how our military functions. (But then again, that’s never stopped them from making fallacious comments about the military. Or anything else, for that matter. But I digress.)
The military’s current policy does not ban how one thinks, how they allow their emotions to pulse through their bodies, or even what they believe spiritually or politically about homosexual acts. The current policy merely holds in place the rule that these impulses are not to be acted upon.
The comparison, for those of you libtrolls who are still deeply confused by such blatant simple truth, goes like this:
As a straight married man, a soldier may believe that adultery is okay. He may have no pang of conscience within him that restrains him from doing it. He may even have an “understanding” with his wife about the time they spend apart from each other.
He may often greatly crave a female soldier, or maybe even another officer’s wife, and even contemplate how he would approach it. But the military has designated acting on such impulses as being unallowable.
So for a straight man, if he acts upon his impulses – even if he FEELS that they are okay – that is wrong in the military. The same holds true for a gay man who gets the hots for that buff lieutenant who benches 260 pounds and lathers himself in the shower for 20 minutes afterwards.
This is not comparing apples to oranges, folks. What General Pace and the vast majority (according to polling data) of the military believe is that homosexual behavior (like adultery) is incompatible with military policy.
The armed forces are not a designed social experiment in how to achieve utopia. The armed forces are designed for a simple reason – to provide for the common defense. Or as Rush points out, “to kill people and break things.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter – while I think you just called me a troll and lower case at that, whatever that means, without provocation, I’ll respond anyway.
My issue has nothing to do with homosexual, or heterosexual, acts amongst fellow soldiers. Obviously, there should be rules against fraternization. My concern is not being able to admit to who you are in the first place. Maybe I’m wrong, but I understand DADT to mean I can’t publicly discuss my boyfriend back home. Whereas Johnny Straight can discuss his girlfriend all day long. To me that’s a problem, and I don’t see why being able to discuss said boyfriend should run contrary to military policy. I also don’t see how having a same sex partner back home equates to sleeping with a service member’s wife, or cheating on a wife with a fellow service member. Maybe I don’t understand DADT, if so please enlighten me. Question, since both you and General Pace used service member’s wife as an example…is adultery a problem if a soldier cheats on his wife with a random person outside the military? are folks consistently prosecuted for this kind of adultery?
Synova – My PDA comment was a tangent from the DADT conversation, not in reference to proposed military policy. I do, by and large, agree with all of your points. Something will need to be put in place to ensure that inappropriate fraternization among service members does not occur. Whatever that something is should be enacted with enough forethought to avoid creating further issues down the line. Congress, of course is empowered make these changes and not the military.
“I think you just called me a troll and lower case at that, whatever that means, without provocation.”
No sir, I did not. My statement was a blanket indictment of all liberals who troll on this board who have this “entitlement mentality” that Dan described in his brilliant post.
I merely use my words to design a shoe. If you want to put it on and loudly announce that it fits, that’s your business.
DADT was established under the Clinton regime in 1993 to allow Slick Willie to try and keep a promise he made to the HRC wing of the gay and lesbian population to allow gays in the military to serve openly. When the vast majority of the military brass and a vocal population in Congress expressed their dissatisfaction, he compromised by crafting the DADT legislation to “allow” gay servicemen to serve as long as they did not call attention to their orientation or make overt advances to others.
Conveniently, a lot of servicemen up until that time had served in the armed forces while hiding the nature of their orientation. DADT merely codified this practice into law. For Clinton, it was a win-win situation.
“I don’t see why being able to discuss said boyfriend should run contrary to military policy.”
Well, maybe YOU don’t, but that’s not what the armed forces is all about. As Synova pointed out, your individuality ceases to exist once you are sworn in to the armed forces. It also has to do with military morale and unit cohesiveness.
“I also don’t see how having a same sex partner back home equates to sleeping with a service member’s wife, or cheating on a wife with a fellow service member.”
You are making a wrong comparison. That makes no difference what your home life is like; in the armed forces, what is to say that you won’t face the same temptation to hook up with Capt. McDreamy? That would be the same as a straight guy taking up with Maj. Hot Lips Houlihan.
And as far as “fraternization” goes, again I postulate: the army is not some utopian social experiment. We need fighters, not lovers.
Regards,
Peter H.
So, Peter H., what you’re saying is that Senator Simpson is wrong, and homosexuality really is a legitimate basis for rejecting someone from military service.
At least now we know where you stand.
Vaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaara, you are as wrong as can be. Go back and re-read my posting and try to comprehend it this time.
Regards,
Peter H.