On November 27th at 9 PM (Eastern), Gay Patriot’s America podcast will be hosting an interview with Alexander Nicholson and Jarrod Chlapowski of Servicemembers United. Both are gay veterans whose organization works for the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning homosexuals from openly serving in all branches of the military. Join Bruce, Dan and I as we find out more about their personal stories and talk about the upcoming “tribute on the National Mall to honor the 12,000 Americans who have been discharged under the [DADT] law since its inception”. This tribute is currently scheduled Friday November 30 – Sunday December 2, 2007 in Washington, D.C. I will be there giving my own support and will report on the event at this blog and my own. If you are able to, please join us.
To listen to great past interviews with Nicholson, Chlapowski and others from the Ramble Redhead podcast, along with links to videos and other information click here. On a somewhat related matter, The Frontlines is running an excellent series I recommend on other gay veterans during this week before Veterans Day.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
I am glad to see some gay conservatives lend support to try to get the DADT policy rescinded and to open military service to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation. At last, an issue that conservatives and liberal can join together for the good of our country. But I am disappoined to see the lack of comments from regular posters to this blog. Makes me wonder just how much some gay conservatives really care about our own community. Or is it that regular posters just want to bash the liberal community?
John, I cannot physically be with you in DC but I support you 100 percent in your endeavor. Thanks for caring.
Horace: I care about the nation. I dont care specifcially about some narrowly defined non-community.
I want what is best for the military.. if the military supports the overturning of DADT, then fine, get rid of it.. if the mitliatary insists on keeping DADT, then fine, keep it.
We’re in a war. A war against people who will kill all gay people before moving onto the rest of our friends and family and killing them is more important then playing politics with the mitliary.
“I want what is best for the military.. if the military supports the overturning of DADT, then fine, get rid of it.. if the mitliatary insists on keeping DADT, then fine, keep it.”
Vince P, have you ever been in the military? Do you know how it operates? It is not a democracy. I spent over 26 years in the military, and I can tell you first hand, that the reason for discharging gays is the homophobia of the elder generals at the top. As far as the troops are concerned, the vast majority of them could care less what the sexual orientation of the other troops are. Almost all our allies, including Israel, allow gays to openly serve without any problem at all. It has been demonstrated that allowing gays to serve does not affect the ability of the military to do its job.
“We’re in a war. A war against people who will kill all gay people before moving onto the rest of our friends and family and killing them is more important then playing politics with the mitliary.”
Deciding the issue of allowing gays to openly serve is not just playing politics with the military. Discharging trained soldiers who do their jobs and do so with distinction, just because of their sexual orientation, is just plain stupid. And it is not playing politics with the military to destroy the careers of people, good people, just because the generals in charge hate gays. Allowing gays to serve openly is just the right thing to do for the military and the country.
VinceP, I understand what you’re saying (at least, I think I do), and I guess my reply would be: When we say “if the military supports overturning DADT”, who is “the military” in that case? Is it a lot of senior officers who are out of touch with the social attitudes of our young troops? Or is it the troops themselves?
I think the quesiton is important, because the presence of gays in the military has always been objected to as “bad for unit cohesion”. But I’m not sure that is necessarily true. Today’s troops are increasingly comfortable with, and know and are friends with, openly gay individuals. My own experience was that when I came out after I left the service, all of my fellow servicemembers said, “Why didn’t you tell us? We’re just glad you’re happy.” I really think that the majority of our servicemembers represent some of the best we have to offer as a nation, and these attitudes reflect that.
I agree with Horace’s point that I think most of the objection comes from senior commanders who don’t share the same social mores of the men and women who are out on the frontlines every day. We should listen to those troops. If they are more concerned with their “battle buddy” doing his job and not with who that person sleeps with (as I suspect they are), it’s time for DADT to go.
I agree with you, Vince, on the point that we should want what is best for the military. I only wish more on my side of the aisle felt the same.
When it comes to the military, I’ll gladly shake hands with Charlie Rangel whose politics suck but the man showed his mettle in the frozen ditches of Korea. When I was in I didn’t give a damn about the politics of the men and women I served with, only how good they were at their jobs.
Well-spoken. Thanks for your service, Horace.
My straight buddy just sent this too me.
Ironicly enough him and I (I am a gay servicemenber) just produced a podcast yesterday that gives a straight and a gay perspective of the dont ask dont tell policy from our personal view points.
i have to admit we do get a bit crude in the first episode but its something that was both on our hearts to do, and after reading your website i have to send kudos to you as well
How do we access your podcast, John? I’d be interested in listening to it. Thanks.
When you say “the military” do you mean the generals or the majority of enlisted people and officers in the various branches of service?
If this was the argument about integrating the troops, we’d probably still have a segregated military.