I was hoping to post something tonight about the fantastic veterans event I attended today, but unfortunately I forgot the USB cable to my digital camera at work and it will have to wait until Monday. A bit disappointing as I truly was in the presence of greatness today that left me still on a bit of a high as I type this. However, it’s probably better to post it on Veterans Day anyways. For now though I’d like to share something I posted on my blog the other day:
A superb trailer for an upcoming documentary about the ban against gays serving in the military. I’m not surprised to hear about some military chaplains using a hit-piece video depicting the worst aspects of so-called “gay culture” to tar everybody who is homosexual. I recall being in boot camp, standing at attention with the rest of my company, while the Navy chaplain was yelling at us to shape up and not be like Clayton Hartwig. Does the name sound familiar? Probably not. The Navy tried to cover up an accident on the Battleship Iowa by falsely accusing this sailor who died in the accident of sabotaging his gun turret because supposedly a homosexual affair he was having went bad. It has never even been shown that Hartwig was gay. They lied, flat-out and it took a few years for his family to clear this sailor’s name. I remember all of this, along with the anger and fear I had that this is what others thought of people like me. Even at that time in the fall of 1989 there were many questions about the Navy’s accusations against Hartwig yet with the flimsiest of evidence they tarnished this sailor’s name and this was used against all gays. Though the years have passed and Hartwig had his name cleared, I still remember all of this and what this kind of senseless bigotry has done to my beloved Navy. The reasons for this policy have been shown time and time again to be baseless, leaving nothing but bigotry remaining (fear of change as well no doubt). It’s time for this to go and God I hope that day is soon so those who currently are in uniform and those to come, whether they are gay or even perceived to be, can serve openly and honorably.
— John (Average Gay Joe)
Joe, if I might piggyback on your post, a note about a campaign by the VA. They are encouraging Veterans to wear their medals or ribbons on their civilian clothes (“rack”ed up properly of course đ ) on Veteran’s Day.
It seems a couple of years ago the Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs (the one that stepped down not long ago – forgot his name) was traveling in Australia with his wife, and one day they were there happened to be Australia’s Veteran’s Day. They have a tradition of wearing their medals so that folks can know who among their neighbors has served. He brought the idea home. The campaign has not had much attention, but it’s an interesting idea.
Thanks to all our veterans.
I am a WW2 GI veteran. If GP alows me I would like to include a chapter from a book that I have written:
Forward 50 Years
During the 90’s the air waves and newspapers were full of the military and homosexual comflict. The President signed a “No Ask Mo Tell” bill. Afterwards it was reported that 200 to 300 military personnel were being discharged a year on acount of homosexuality. Due to the remarks that the psychologist put on my record at my induction, I would not be accepted in any branch of the Service toda. I asked my WW2 GI friends if they had gays in their units and if any got kicked out. The unanimous answer was, “I am sure there was some but we were more intent on winning the war and going home than we were in hunting out homosexuals. We needed every able body and that included everybody.
Everyone wanted to win WW2, the news media, the college professors, and especially the VIP in Washington. The VIP knew if we lost, it would be their ass instead of the Germans sitting on the docks at Nuremberg. So the gays were left alone to fight along side of the other young men but that changed as soon as the war was over.
During the Korean War my sister was working for the military in Japan. Since she had taken a secretarial course in college and could do short hand, she was asked to be the court recorder during a trial. A lieutenant was up for court martial. He was supposed to have made sexual advances toward another man. At the same time our young men were fighting and dying in Korea but weeding the homosexuals out of the military was more important than winning that war. Other than the men fighting, the only person wanting to win and end the war was General McArthur, and he was fired.
End
This is one of the more important front page posts I’ve seen at GP. Thanks Joe, for your service and for a post to remind us of what Hartwig had to endure. I remember the Iowa incident well and how shaky the story seemed even at the time, and was gratified that Hartwig was later exonerated. Thanks too for the service of the first two commenters, the second of which was an amazing recount of the bigotry can actually get in the way of winning wars.
Veteran’s Day seems fitting for the post.
I think it is high time DADT was pushed through the gate. You can’t convince me that any concerns about behavior or harassment can’t be dealt with through the UCMJ.
I direct your attention to the book:
ASK & TELL by Steve Estes.
Gay and Lesbian veterans speak out.
John W and others, thanks for your service!
As usually excuse my many typing mistakes.
Interesting, John: you were in the Navy around the same time as my partner. He joined in 1988 and served on the Constellation and the Independence (aka “Queen Mary”by the large gay contingent in the crew.)
I would like to include a chapter from a book that I have written
Do you have a site with more info? The link you include doesn’t go anywhere.
#6
You mean Joe. Wow. I was a sophomore in 88.
Ian S
I was in the Signal Corps and when it was disbanded, I was put in the Army Air Corp. That was from 1942 to 1946.
TGC
No I don’t have a site. I will try to add parts from my book when it pretains to the main article.
#8: Oops, wrong John: I meant Average Gay Joe, the author of the post who is also John.
It’s “John” actually, not “Joe” which comes from my blog’s name. Not a bad idea you have, but I suspect that many are like my Dad and reluctant to do so. While I have no problem at all with veterans showing their medals, a scene from Karate Kid II just popped into my head so perhaps it’s time to quote Mr. Miyagi on this:
An irritating pattern the military has in many conflicts. One can easily see how disacharges go down during the conflict, only to rise sharply afterwards. This puts the lie to the “unit cohesion” argument more than anything else. Thanks for your service, John. Is your book available anywhere?
Indeed, though I imagine that Art. 125 which applies to both gays and straights would have to go as well. I want DADT repealed immediately which I’ve made clear more than once here, but I do not want to see hyper-sensitivity ‘training’, separate standards, quotas, etc. take its place when it is. I want gays to be able to serve and prove themselves like anybody else and that’s good enough for me.
Cool. I was an airdale myself and spent most of my service at NAWS Pt. Mugu in CA.
What is the real fear about gays in the military. We know there are gay people in the active military now and always have been. Is it just homophobia? Is it based on stereotypes of gay men as weak and effeminiate? Or is there a fear that a gay man in an authority position will abuse that power and sexually harrass subordinates? Or is it simply a resistance to change?
#!3 John
Actually when I wrote my book, I thought only my family would be nterested in reading it but I was happyly amazed to find so many friends and strangers wanted it. It is now in the 4th printing. I do not charge for it. I am well paid by the people that read it and tell me how much they really enjoyed it. If I had your address, I would send you one.
Itâs âJohnâ actually, not âJoeâ
My humble apologies – should have read more carefully. đ
#17: I think it’s because a lot of the brass consider homosexuality to be immoral. General Peter Pace stated that pretty clearly.
Do you think this is generational? Meaning: do you think that we have to wait for an older generation to retire before a younger group that came of age in a culture more accepting of gay people to be in charge.
I think it’s going to be hard to get rid of DADT when the military leadership goes on TV during the debate and argues that it’s necessary. Most Americans respect these guys, even when we don’t agree with them. That was the problem in 93 when Clinton originally wanted to get rid of the ban and the backlash was huge and we would up with the current policy that no one left or right is fond of.
#12
I got confused last night. Forgot AGJ is a John. Sorry
#21
I think itâs going to be hard to get rid of DADT when the military leadership goes on TV during the debate and argues that itâs necessary.
Exactly. That’s the reason McCain and Rudy G. have given for opposing the removal of DADT.
#21:
In a word, yes. I also think that’s how gay marriage will come about. The key is to hold a Constitutional amendment at bay until the supporters die off.
Still, it’s galling to learn that the military is giving out all sorts of waivers for recruits convicted of criminal behavior yet continues to kick out highly qualified gay servicemembers.
The anti-gay in the military started in 1946. I think it is “easing-up” now. I don’t know if its because of the present conflict, but I do know one soldier, a sargent, who his whole company know that he is gay. While stationed in the States, he came home every weekend to his lover. I think after the problems in the Middle East is over (if it ever is) DADT will be a thing of the past.
Pity that Truman had more cojones when military leaders of his era were dead set against integration. Opponents of DADT will trot out retired military leaders and probably use testimony from leaders of our Allies in response. Under Rudy I believe this might work. It’s possible that it may not directly given that he will be beholden to the extreme Right somewhat if he won. However, if it’s slipped into a bill he wants and enough pressure is brought to bear I think he’ll sign no matter how “reluctantly”. Personally I think he wants to but politics in the GOP being what it is could prevent him unless his hand is ‘forced’. As for McCain, he becomes more problematic. He has the resume to fight back and will owe a lot to the extreme Right if he wins that could prevent him from being ‘forced’ into it. I doubt he would sign a repeal on its own. He does have a history of bucking the GOP, but as president it’s doubtful he’ll stray too far from the party line. Eh, my two cents for what it’s worth.
However, if itâs slipped into a bill he wants and enough pressure is brought to bear I think heâll sign no matter how âreluctantlyâ.
Why the hell does it have to be “slipped” into anything?
I definitely think this is generational.
Still, itâs galling to learn that the military is giving out all sorts of waivers for recruits convicted of criminal behavior yet continues to kick out highly qualified gay servicemembers.
I agree that this is troubling-and in the long run not even arguably the best thing for the military itself.
How refreshing to read the widespread agreement on this issue here from people with otherwise very different viewpoints.
Politics. If “President Giuliani” or “President McCain” is unwilling to sign a repeal of DADT directly due to pressure from the extreme Right, I for one am perfectly willing to have it attached it to a bill either man wants to have passed. We like to moan about that on both the Left and the Right but the fact of the matter is that such is the name of the game in DC and has been since the founding of the Republic (although it would have been NYC and then Philly prior to DC).
John, I’ve been reading Stephen Hayes’ new book “Cheney” and Cheney thought that the military’s anti-gay discrimination policies should go… but that was way back in 1989 while he was Bush 41’s Secy of Defense. During a ’91 House Budget hearing, Barney Frank tried to pin Cheney down on gays in the military… Cheney went on to say that he thought the security aspect of the issue was “a bit of old chestnut” –it was not relevant. He didn’t restrict his civilian staff but the military side was different in two important ways: 1) there’s no privacy in the military and 2) fighting & winning wars is job #1 and if anything appears to impede the effectiveness of job #1, it isn’t germane as a policy. His advice from military leaders was that the privacy issue couldn’t be adequately dealt with and therefore, a policy change wasn’t in the cards.
When Clinton 42 came in and botched the issue so badly it led to DADT, the gay activists in DC threatened the Cheneys that the activists would go public on Mary Cheney unless the former-Secy of Defense helped in the botched fight to end gay discrimination in the service. In fact, the GayLeft activists also threatened to go public on Cheney’s gay Defense Dept press secy, (now NBC’s) Pete Williams, if Williams didn’t get in the fray and start advocating for the end of discrimination in the service.
The gay activists’ hardball tactics didn’t work on the Cheneys then. It didn’t work on Clinton 42 either.
In fact, the rebuke from leading Senate Democrats was so strong on this issue that Time magazine had a cover asking the question: Is Bill Clinton the incredible shrinking president? Is he up to the job of being president? I think gay activists tend to forget what a bungler Clinton 42 was on this issue… but then, it was Clinton 42 aide George Stephanopoulos who offered “We kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep”.
It’s a good book. No apologies from the author. None from the subject (Cheney). Great read.
So that’s the name of this book, thanks. Dan referenced it in the last podcast but didn’t give the name of the book. Sounds like an interesting reading on the life of the Veep and some history on this particular issue.
Indeed. Yet that was in the early 1990s and much has changed since then. The attitude of society has softened on this matter and we have the examples of our Allies which was missing back then. I’m beginning to think that a Republican president will have to be ‘forced’ into signing a repeal of DADT given how beholden they will be to the extreme Right which brooks no compromise on the matter (or anything to do with gays). Such a repeal can and should pass directly on its own merits but if this is going to degenerate into nothing more than a rehash of the same old canards of 15 years ago, I’m not opposed to political machinations to get it through. After all, that is precisely what proponents of DADT are using to keep it in place.
John there isn’t a way for the president to slip any kind of repeal of DADT in.
Probably Clinton’s biggest mistake was to make the change he did with a presidential executive order-he should have lobbied congress for the change, or at least opened it up for debate at that time-because the reason there is DADT was because Clinton’s move (and he later signed DADT into law) scared people who weren’t ready for the changes. Back to the whole “it’s a generational thing” argument.
The congress went nuts and they wrote DADT into law. The only real way at this point to repeal it is for congress to do so. But I don’t think congress will get behind it for real unless you have the pentagon making the case in tandem with a president and pressure from the voters.
Right now the status quo along with some stated “well I don’t support DADT” is the best bet for most congressmembers who in general don’t like to take political risks.
John, I wonder if society’s attitude has changed enough since the early 1990’s to provide political cover to politicians who would likely have to buck the military brass and their strong allies writ large.
Granted, more people today think that gays should be able to serve openly in the military than did in 1990’s (and, for me, that makes Dick Cheney’s personal preference on the policy even more instructive) but it’s really not until the brass and their allies change THEIR opinion on the issue that it will be ripe for political movement.
Do you think the leadership of the military is any less homophobic today than it was in 1990? I don’t know… it seems military schools keep that drumbeat loud and clear– and that’s where the military leadership rises from.
I don’t know if it’s ripe for change even now. But I do now, from reading “Cheney”, the much-hated by the GayLeft and Democrats Dick Cheney was waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of the game on this issue –and lots more.
I know, that would be Congress’ job. The president gets the choice of signing the bill or vetoing it.
Agreed. I have no problem excoriating Clinton’s spineless betrayal and lack of wisdom on this issue, but I’m looking towards the future in passing the repeal.
Divided government might be able to do it. Say Giuliani or McCain is in the WH and the Dems still control Congress, I can see it getting passed though not without a fight of course.
Given the rank partisanship on both sides during the last 2 presidencies, it’s difficult to say. The will among the People is there, among the politicians is debatable.
Their views will be solicited but ultimately are not the deciding factor here, any more than the opinions of the military brass were on racial integration. The problem we have now though, thanks to Clinton, is the president cannot just sign an executive order to force a change but must go through Congress.
Among the lower officer corps, I think it has improved greatly. As far as the senior leadership? I’m not sure either.
I think the fact that gays tried to use sexual orientation to blackmail Cheney demonstrates beyond a shadow of the doubt why the military leadership believes gays should not serve.
And as I’ve said before, until SLDN and other organizations that are against DADT speak out against people who justify antimilitary bigotry under the guise of “gay rights”, such as universities, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the JROTC-banning San Francisco Independent School District, it is very difficult for me to argue with the military’s belief that being gay and in the military are contradictions in terms.
NYD. You are perfectly right. The organizations that you mentioned are doing more than any thing else to keep the gays down on the plantation. I do see some easing of the DADT inspite of them. I have some friends that came to the Folsum Street parade. I got the feeling from them that they think that San Francisco is a foreign country and what goies on there has no effect on the our country.
Which only goes to show what I’ve always believed about some activists on the Right: they are no different and no better than those on the Left. For all their talk about individual rights and personal responsibility they are just as bad as the Left when it comes to “groupthink” and judging people not on the “content of their character” but on which group they can be pigeon-holed into. In fact, as many from the Religious Right demonstrate repeatedly, they strongly favor Big Government when it suits them. At least many on the Left are open and honest about their views on the role of government, but some on the Right choose to cloak their agenda with pretty-sounding rhetoric. If what you say here about these military leaders were accurate than they need to be removed as they have violated their oaths and placed themselves in a position the military has no business in: making public policy.
There are many in the country who would agree with them and wouldn’t have a problem if Frisco decided to go it alone.
John, you offered: “Their (military brass) views will be solicited but ultimately are not the deciding factor here, any more than the opinions of the military brass were on racial integration.”
Really? Wow. You have a thing for NOT learning from history, don’t you? The Cheney ’89 story, the way Clinton 42 botched his effort to deliver on the pie-in-the-sky campaign promise to gays, and the fact that the policy remains solidly in place in light of the recruiting pressures of a wartime footing… I’d say the opinion of the military brass is KEY.
This isn’t like racial integration of the service in 40s and when gay activists try to compare the two, they sound more like they’re starting to believe their own spin instead of the political reality on the ground.
Sorry to disagree, but the military brass’s opinions on ending gay discrimination will be KEY in any effort to reverse DADT. No amount of “society’s changing attitudes” will trump that puppy.
NDXXX, the Advocate mag was the media outlet that first used the pressure tactic on the Cheneys… earlier they went after Pete Williams with a threatened outing when he was Cheney’s PR staffer at Defense, then went after the Cheneys with family blackmail when Clinton was in… and during the latter part, threatened to out Mary unless Dick and Lynne got more vocal, fought Sam Nunn and worked on behalf of ending the discrimination. Imagine the impact of Cheney offsetting Powell’s opinions in the MSM?
No trouble understanding why, some 15+ yrs later, that the Veep got a pissed look on his face during the VP debates when JohnEdwards tried to use Mary as yet another pawn in GayLeft agenda.
I don’t think the military brass is justified in judging gays in the military by just the GayLeft’s (or MikeyRogers’) blackmail actions anymore than mainstream Americans are in gauging all of us by what BoyGeorge does to models. And I’m not sure the problem is with gays in the military… it’s with the other guys who can’t fathom sharing their privacy with a gay male.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009154941
Of the gays I know in service, they place a very high premium on honor to self and corps, loyalty to their oath and service to their country… far, far different than the GayLeft.
I understand political realities that their views are important, yet I do not agree that they should be the deciding factor. Their role is to advise, not determine policy and the moment they move into the latter they need to be replaced. The military takes orders from the civilian government, which they took an oath about.
Actually, it is like racial integration as far as the arguments go. However, with Clinton’s spineless betrayal changing changing the policy is now different since an executive order no longer cuts it to do so.
That’s one of the ironies about all of this. People in the military, regardless of race, gender or sexuality, tend to be more conservative than in civilian life. Even many of those who lean Left are generally not as liberal as those on the outside. Once DADT is gone, watch how many more gay conservatives, libertarians, and Lieberman-like liberals pop up.
John the realith is that DADT is going to have to be at congressional action.
As long as the military brass isn’t arguing in favor of ditching it, congress isn’t going to touch it. It makes for better soundbites for a congress member to tell his constiutents his opinion on the issue than to actually risk any fall out from following through on it.
When the brass starts saying it is time, and actively starts telling congress to move, then you will see a change, but I think the arguement for change is going to have to come from within the military rather than outside it.
I do think some polls indicate that younger service members are open to serving with gays, and a repeal of DADT. I think as you poll downward, you find more openess among people in general to gays and gay issues. The problem is that those guys aren’t the ones in charge of the Pentagon or Joint Chiefs-and those are the guys whose opinions have to be changed.
Even the president 100% behind the repeal has got to convince those guys of the rightness of his position before getting congress behind them. The last thing a president or congress needs is the military feeling cut out of the decision making process (another area where Clinton screwed this whole thing up).
For all their talk about individual rights and personal responsibility they are just as bad as the Left when it comes to âgroupthinkâ and judging people not on the âcontent of their characterâ but on which group they can be pigeon-holed into.
Given the overwhelming support of the gay community for such blackmail and outings — and the silence on them, or outright encouragement of them, by groups like SLDN — what exactly is the military supposed to think?
Once DADT is gone, watch how many more gay conservatives, libertarians, and Lieberman-like liberals pop up.
Better question: since there are allegedly so many of them who have already served, why aren’t they making more noise when leftists try to co-opt homosexuality to promote antimilitary bigotry?
Show me one press release in which SLDN condemned the bigotry of the San Francisco School Board, with the connivance of Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in banning JROTC — pure, unadulterated, antimilitary bigotry, with the usual leftist screeching about baby-killers, and hilariously transparent because JROTC did NOT discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
Obviously, but without a president to push for any such legislation or at least signal a willingness to sign it most Congressmen are not willing to put forth the effort (other than if its seen as way to score points).
Military leaders didn’t argue in favor of racial integration or women serving (even without combat service being a factor). From their perspective it makes perfect sense not to mess with something that’s not broke or what they know and are used to. Hence why the military brass is slow with most changes, whether it involves personnel, strategy, technology, etc. This is not to say all of them are, but there is enough.
You won’t find the top brass doing this for the next 50 years at least. Even those who don’t oppose gays serving will be reluctant to “rock the boat” once they reach higher rank. Hence why Truman did his job as CiC and cut through the BS by issuing an executive order on integration. Clinton’s cowardice took that option away in the case of gays serving.
To an extent, yes. However, as CiC the president has far more influence over matters unless he is politically weak when he attempts to do so. The power of the “bully pulpit” is more than just persuading the People and Congress.
Who cares? Hurt feelings are irrelevant to whether we judge people as individuals or as part of a group they’re put into. The former is what conservatism, like that of Barry Goldwater, is supposed to be about while the latter is what I find so objectionable about some proponents of liberal ideology. You make an ‘excellent’ case for racial discrimination based upon stereotype.
Probably the same reason why most Americans do likewise: they are not partisan activists and spend little time thinking about politics. You and I and everyone here and on other political blogs are in the minority: we care about politics and speak about it often. Most Americans do not like the whole mess and avoid it as much as possible.
Are you sure you are conservative, NDT, or do you just play one when it’s convenient? The entire mindset behind this line of questioning is straight (no pun intended) out of the liberal playbook and puts ‘groups’ above individuals. You know SLDN’s website, feel free to question them on their response or lack thereof. Whatever their answer may be is of little consequence to whether gays should serve in the military or not.
I think the best argument for getting rid of DADT is the many men and women who have served admirably in the armed forces throughout the history of our country.
But what will end this is the next draft. That’s how this is probably going to play out. In Viet Nam there was a huge stigma attached to being gay. Not that some guys didn’t try saying they were homosexual to get out of being drafted, but it was a risky move back then. These days, not so much. It would be a nightmare for draft boards. Now, I don’t know when we will have a draft again, but if we keep expanding our military presence overseas it is inevitable. And that will end DADT once and for all.
Perhaps I can explain it better this way, John.
SLDN: “Judge us as individuals!”
Military: “OK; what do you have to say about the gay community’s antimilitary bigotry?”
SLDN: (crickets)
Military: “OK….so you want to be judged as individuals, but you have nothing to say against your community invoking your sexual orientation as grounds for antimilitary hate and bigotry?”
This right here is where you err because unless you are willing to subscribe to the liberal notion that such groups do indeed speak for whomever they say they do and only them (NAACP for blacks, SLDN for gays, NOW for women, etc.), this is contradictory. In such a case, liberals have every right to condemn blacks who disagree with the NAACP, gays who stray from say HRC, or women who don’t believe NOW represents them. You are using a special interest group to hold individuals responsible for their actions and failures to act. I am not a member of SLDN and while it may at times be a useful ally, it does not speak for me. Now if you want to argue in favor of adding groups like SLDN to the list that prevents one from serving, feel free to do so.
Military leaders didnât argue in favor of racial integration or women serving (even without combat service being a factor).
When my husband was in the Navy-they decided to move to place women on “combat” ships. AT the time women were restricted to non combat ships to the complaints of both the women (who wanted better billets) and the men (who complained that women were taking up their good shore leave billets, because there weren’t enough billets on the non combat ships so they served in shore billets).
When the move was made, there were people protesting, but the brass was indeed behind the move and supportive of it-there were some complaints, but they were careful to plan how to do it, and the phased in the ship assignments. My husband never actually served on board ship with any women, because he was discharged just as the first women were entering the pipeline for his rating.
I think one thing we sometimes forget is when Clinton made his executive order the loudest protests came from the military Brass and congress and resulted in DADT. To ignore that past means other mistakes may be made in the future, best to learn from them, and lobby and push for change among the brass and congress-the president has a bully pulpit, but at this point very little real power to change the policy.
The same happened when Truman issued his executive order on desegregation in the military. That Clinton lacked the moral fortitude of Truman was the main problem and we ended up with DADT.
It is indeed more difficult now, since after Clinton’s spineless betrayal it will take another act of legislation to repeal DADT, yet don’t underestimate the power of the presidency to effect change in this matter.
I frequently visit this site and feel compelled to relate an experience from a number of years ago. It has always haunted me. My room mate in a United States Air Force tech school in early 1961 was a light-haired young man with some effeminate traits. He was the object of crass jokes, snide remarks, and snickering. Being his room mate, and his friend, I tried to stop it but was generally included in their little game. After weeks of this torment my room mate slit his wrist with a razor and had to be taken to the emergency room. He survived, and I am sure he was discharged. I never heard from him again although I think of him often, even 46 years later. Being only 18 at the time I could not understand that kind of cruelty that people could display toward thier fellow man. It is interesting to note that while my room mate lay in his room bleeding many of our classmates frantically tried to get the bleeding stopped, some of them the very people who taunted him. And yes, he was gay because he made a pass at me but I told him I was straight and he accepted that and never bothered me. I never told anyone that, including the Office of Special Investigations who interviewed me afterwards. I eventually made a career of the AF, retiring in 1980 and thought my room mate should have had the same opportunity.
Retired Air Force – I’m sorry about your young friend, but THANK YOU for your service.
John – I’m not sure you’ve been entirely fair to NDT’s viewpoint. If SLDN values military service – and one should presume they would – then it should not be very difficult for them to speak up in the more egregious instances of the gay community’s anti-military bigotry.
Let me draw an analogy to GP and GPW’s objections to LCR National office. One would expect LCR National to put the ‘Republican’ in their name by being a little more willing to educate the gay community about traditional Republican (i.e., libertarian-conservative) principles, and being a little less blatantly eager for the approval and funding of the Gay Left. They aren’t. Why not? Likewise, while SLDN’s primary goal must always be to help gay service members, however, as a third or fourth priority, one could expect them to occasionally dash off a couple paragraphs of protest when the self-appointed “gay community” engages in anti-military bigotry. Why don’t they?
As to what effect all that has on practical politics: I interpreted NDT’s statements as more descriptive, than normative. In other words, it is a fact that most human beings *do* think in terms of groups and stereotypes, and if we (and SLDN, etc.) let the stereotype flourish that gays are anti-military, we shouldn’t be too surprised to find that some in the military look at gays skeptically, or think gays are of little worth (militarily). That’s a purely descriptive, practical statement; it doesn’t mean I believe in group identity politics (or that I would support NDT, if he really believed in them – which I don’t think he does).
Long story short: If we want to change DADT, we have to *persuade* some skeptical people. And all that anti-military crap from the Gay Left is plain bad marketing. Especially if it isn’t contested by other visible gay voices or groups, like SLDN.
I hate it when I make a comment I care about, and it gets hit by the filter.
I disagree. NDt or anyone else is entirely free to excoriate SLDN or whichever group they please for whatever reason they see fit. They are not, however, to hold all gays responsible for these groups’ alleged misbehavior. That’s a liberal mentality, not conservative.
I was soooo tempted to put this one comment of yours in the spam box just to see what your reaction would be. đ
Well, you certainly ignored my points đ (i.e., what I used to support the topic sentence you did quote)
Because the main premise was flawed the supporting points were irrelevant. đ NDT’s comments went beyond practical politics, on which we’d probably find much agreement, and delved into identity politics which I have problems with. It’s rather ironic too that he’d make such an argument since he says he’s conservative, conservatism usually pooh-poohs identity politics and this is a conservative blog…
“Iâm not sure youâve been entirely fair to NDTâs viewpoint”… that’s a statement about my own state of mind.
NDTâs comments went beyond practical politics, on which weâd probably find much agreement, and delved into identity politics which I have problems with.
Sorry, John, but that’s the way the world thinks – especially since the majority party in Congress encourages it.
You and I both know that there are gays out there who are perfectly trustworthy to serve. But the simple fact of the matter is that we know many more who are not, and that makes their railing against DADT nothing more than opportunistic hypocrisy. Thus, as long as antimilitary bigots like Tom Ammiano and Mark Sanchez keep banning JROTC as evil and trying to ban the Blue Angels from flying for the same reason under the guise of their homosexuality, I have very little problem with DADT remaining in place.
Until the gay community fights back against leftist antimilitary bigotry under the guise of “gay rights”, DADT should stay.
OK, now that I don’t agree with. The word “should”. I should have put it,
So yeah, I didn’t understand NDT 100% correctly. Thank you for the clarification.
another filtered!
Who cares? They are not and will not serve in the military, so they can take whatever view they wish — as can you. Yet like the liberals do, you have no problem judging those who are “perfectly trustworthy” by the misbehavior of others instead of on their own merits.
I’m gonna start charging ya for having to retrieve your posts! đ
Yet like the liberals do, you have no problem judging those who are âperfectly trustworthyâ by the misbehavior of others instead of on their own merits.
The misbehavior of others who are speaking on their behalf, I might add.
Again, John, the strongest argument against DADT would be for gays to come out against antimilitary bigotry under the guise of gay rights. But to do so would be devastating to SLDN’s fundraising and get gay veterans ostracized, so it’s not happening. It’s the same reason that Soulforce has nothing to say when antireligious bigot gays attack Christianity; their popularity is more important than their principles, and it demonstrates that the latter are meaningless.
Bluntly put, these gay groups are using gay veterans and SLDN as cover in attacking and destroying the very institutions that gay veterans and SLDN supposedly respect and revere — and gay veterans and SLDN are just letting them do it.
Irrelevant and spoken like a closet liberal, not a conservative.