Kudos to CNN for featuring Lt. Daniel Choi on its American Morning program. The more people see this great American, the more they’ll see the folly of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy barring gay people from serving openly in our nation’s armed forces.
As you may recall, Lt. Choi is a West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran about to be dismissed from the military because he came out publicly as gay.
In his letter to the President, this soldier writes:
My subordinates know I’m gay. They don’t care. They are professional.
Further, they are respectable infantrymen who work as a team. Many told me that they respect me even more because I trusted them enough to let them know the truth. Trust is the foundation of unit cohesion.
After I publicly announced that I am gay, I reported for training and led rifle marksmanship. I ordered hundreds of soldiers to fire live rounds and qualify on their weapons. I qualified on my own weapon. I showered after training and slept in an open bay with 40 other infantrymen. I cannot understand the claim that I “negatively affected good order and discipline in the New York Army National Guard.” I refuse to accept this statement as true.
Here, we have an American who wants to serve his nation and help protect his fellow citizens. His very record shows him to be qualified. His colleagues don’t find his sexuality a detriment to his service.
He asks the President not to fire him, telling his commander-in-chief that he loves his job: “I want to deploy and continue to serve with the unit I respect and admire. I want to continue to serve our country because of everything it stands for.”
We should want more men like Lt. Choi in our armed forces. But, DADT means that we get fewer. Repealing this law would strengthen our armed forces by increasing the pool of qualified men and women from which they could draw. Not just that, it would save the military from wasting time rooting out gay service members when it could be training them to better defend this great nation.
I greatly appreciate that you state the case truthfully:
One example does not an argument make, but I thank Choi for his service and for finally serving honestly. However, rules are rules and he must be discharged.
Obama will ignore the plea. He gains/loses nothing by ignoring it.
Shame really.
It’s not like history is not lined with gay men and women who fought as hard (if not harder) for their homes and nations as straight soldiers. There is no proof that some how a gay soldier is incapable of doing his or her job simply because of their sexuality. And it’s not hard to find the fact that some of the greatest warriors, strategists and leaders in world history have been gay.
But, I’m preaching to the choir.
I do hope it turns out for the best for Lt. Choi, but again… not holding my breath…
#2 – “Obama will ignore the plea. He gains/loses nothing by ignoring it.”
And the lapdogs in the liberal LGBT movements will not even press him on it. They only go on the offensive if it’s a Republican in the White House.
Now THAT is the real shame.
Regards,
Peter H.
If only we could get Adam Lambert to star in Bye Bye Birdie–that would change peoples’ minds about DADT!
Ok, now I’m confused on somethng.
He came out? He actually came out and said ‘hello, I’m gay”?
Sorry, that makes me cynical. It’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell‘ right.
He simply decided that being gay was the most important thing in his life, instead of his military service.
No problem with that; people leave the military all the time because they think things are more important than military service. The difference is that only gay liberals whine about it and insist that it’s “unfair” that they have to choose.
No problem with that; people leave the military all the time because they think things are more important than military service. The difference is that only gay liberals whine about it and insist that it’s “unfair” that they have to choose.
Except that leaving the military because you want to spend more time with your family, or start a business, or make more money, or even because you find you no longer have the will, is different as it would be impossible or extremely difficult to do both. Nobody whines because they can’t, or don’t want to, serve and pursue whatever it is that’s “more important” to them.
But one can easily be both gay and in the military. One doesn’t by definition restrict the other. The choice forced upon homosexuals who wish to serve is artificial and unnecessary.
The President will undoubtedly send the good Louie a nice handwritten note, ignoring the fact that the office he holds requires leadership which on this he has shown very little of. The leadership of the DNC seems to reside in the Speaker’s chair where all we hear on DADT is the dodging cry of “Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!”. More’s the pity as Bill Clinton’s legacy of betrayal is allowed to continue and good soldiers are let go.
Now why would liberals favor that, besides the fact that it would be more spank bank material when they die in combat?
This makes me so sad. As ex Army I know the services are full of great people. And though they are very opinionated on this issue, if they are directed to incorporate openly gay service people, 99% of them will salute and make it happen. This is the most professional fighting force the world has ever seen. They changed to let women, blacks serve over the years. This could happen as well. Do it now, get it over with. Obamateleprompter is more powerful now than he ever will be the next 4 years. If he doesn’t make this change with a Democrat Congress, they are frauds and gays should feel disenfranchised. In my eyes Obama will look like a coward.
However, rules are rules and he must be discharged.
Perhaps, Ignatius. But stupid rules are stupid rules. That’s why rules can and should be changed sometimes.
He simply decided that being gay was the most important thing in his life, instead of his military service.
Maybe so, NDT. But I’m not sure what it has to be one extreme or the other. Why couldn’t it simply be that Lt. Choi felt that while serving in the military was very important, so was being honest.
No problem with that; people leave the military all the time because they think things are more important than military service. The difference is that only gay liberals whine about it and insist that it’s “unfair” that they have to choose.
Only gay liberals insist that it’s unfair? Many gay conservatives think so too, including GOProud. Oh, many straight persons, including Barry Goldwater thought the asinine policy should have been changed.
The President will undoubtedly send the good Louie a nice handwritten note, ignoring the fact that the office he holds requires leadership which on this he has shown very little of.
Agreed, John. Obama has provided little leadership so far, and none on this issue.
More’s the pity as Bill Clinton’s legacy of betrayal is allowed to continue and good soldiers are let go.
Sure, Clinton caved in, but he got us halfway there. It was Bush’s job to do the rest, but he had no inkling to do so. Still waiting on Obama, but not holding my breath.
If he doesn’t make this change with a Democrat Congress, they are frauds and gays should feel disenfranchised. In my eyes Obama will look like a coward.
Gene, I wouldn’t object to Republicans uniting and pushing the end of DADT. Or are you implying that would not happen and that Republicans are cowards as well?
OK, people–let’s apply this same concept to undocumented workers. Instead of constantly calling them “illegals” who need to be thrown out, why not see them as victims of a bad law which needs to be changed? My opinion on DADT is exactly the same as my opinion on undocumented workers–the solution is not enforcing an unjust law, but changing the law to help the people who are victims of that law.
Why couldn’t it simply be that Lt. Choi felt that while serving in the military was very important, so was being honest.
If honesty was so important to him, he should have said something before the taxpayers provided him a free education for which his sexual orientation made him ineligible to fulfill the conditions around it.
Does Choi intend to do the honest thing now and pay back the United States for the money spent on his education, since he can’t abide by the conditions that he agreed to to get it — or is he going to keep his free degree that he would not have been eligible for had he been honest in the first place and stated that he could not abide by military regulations?
Only gay liberals insist that it’s unfair? Many gay conservatives think so too, including GOProud. Oh, many straight persons, including Barry Goldwater thought the asinine policy should have been changed.
Oh, so NOW you’re paying attention to what other people think. Funny, that never happens on things like gay marriage.
12, I see your point Ashpenaz (Personally I think immigration laws aren’t enforced enough but that’s another arguement).
However, the law on the books is DADT. If Lt. Choi did come out (no pun intended) and say “Look, I’m here, I’m queer, I’m an LT!” Then yes, he should be booted. If his orientation was discovered by, oh, walking in on him and a boyfriend, or overhearing a phone call, or an anynomous tip, that’s different, as it seems to fall under the DA part, not the DT. And if that were the case (as I’ve said elsewhere) then President Obama should be able to use his powers as CinC to stop the investigation.
Look, I’ve a beard and long hair, and I’m fat. If I joined the army I’d have to shave and lose weight. If I were to grow the mullet back, get the goatee going, and bloom back up to 400 lbs, I’d be dischaged/imprisioned for breaking the regulations. I accept that part of the terms of the contract I voluntarily signed is that I’d go clean shaven and thinner of frame.
Lt. Choi took his actions, in a civilized society we all have to live with the consequences.
NDT, you have a point there. When he agreed to go into the military, I’m not sure what obligation he had if he decided he could no longer abide by DADT. Interesting how DADT harms both sides here. Another reason to get rid of it. I remember a similar thing happened years ago when a graduate of USNA came out (or was outed), and he was asked to pay back all the tuition. I don’t remember what came of it. In Choi’s case, he served for six years after graduation, including service in Iraq. Sounds like he’s paid back and then some.
The government obviously takes a risk in investing in 18-year-old’s education no matter what the circumstances are. Yes, we’re all adults at 18, but we don’t always have the same goals at 22 or 28 when we were 18. I think our military is at least well aware of that.
Oh, so NOW you’re paying attention to what other people think. Funny, that never happens on things like gay marriage.
I’ve been paying attention. But apparently you weren’t since you forgot to mention that many gay conservatives and GOProud support the end of DADT. And I have a pretty good idea on what people think about same sex marriage, and acknowledge that there are plenty of liberals (e.g. Obama), as well as conservatives that are against it. Fair enough?
So, when are we going to see gays who see themselves as the victims of an unjust law-DADT–march in the streets with undocumented workers in show of solidarity with those who suffer under unjust laws? When are we going to work to change unjust laws rather than define being a conservative as enforcing unjust laws?
The illegal aliens issue has absolutely nothing to do with the DADT issue. If someone of a foreign nation wishes to serve this country they are allowed to proudly serve. Lt. Choi should have offered his resignation at the same time that he declared/confirmed his sexuality.
That’s the old narcissistic gay attitude I’m used to! No one has ever been the victim of unjust laws but us!! We are the only ones who have ever had to justify our choices to an uncaring world!! My point is, gays never, ever see that working together with those who suffer similar injustice might build us some goodwill. Perhaps if we show up for Cinco de Mayo, they will show up for Gay Pride.
Ashpenaz, here’s the problem. My understanding is that most gay people are pro-choice. And some people like to link reproductive rights to gay rights. They are different issues, and as such, we’re all better off if they are treated separately. In fact, since I recall you’re saying that you are pro-life, I’m sure you don’t like when it when gay persons tie in pro-choice views with gay rights.
Also, besides the lack of connectivity to the issues, there are also varying opinions on what laws are unjust.
Perhaps if we show up for Cinco de Mayo, they will show up for Gay Pride.
Actually, this is an interesting point. I’m sure there are plenty of gay people that show up for Cinco de Mayo celebrations. And perhaps many of them share you view on illegal immigrants. There’s no problem with these people showing solidarity.
Sometimes groups of gay people aren’t allowed to show solidarity. New York has the big St. Patrick’s Day parade, and every year a gay Irish group tries to march under its banner. They are prohibited each year by the homophobes that run the parade.
Don’t be surprised if you find that illegal immigrants are indifferent to gay rights, or in many cases anti-gay themselves.
Pat,
They’re allowed to show solidarity as Catholics, or as Irish. Just not as a ‘gay group’ because that goes against the Private Organization’s rules.
I know, I know. Curse the Constitution and that pesky free association clause.
Livewire, that’s correct. I am not arguing against their right to allow many different groups, except gay groups. The courts have always affirmed the group’s rights as well. Of course, I’m allowed the right to state what I think about that group’s choices, and ignore the parade until the anti-gay bigots don’t run the parade anymore. In other words, we’re all using our constitutional rights here.
I apologize then, Pat.
I do feel the ‘bigot’ title is thrown around a bit heavily. Discrimination is good. If I’d been a bit more discriminating, I’d not have two divorces. 🙂
I’d attribute hatred as a component of bigotry. The Catholic Church doesn’t ‘hate’ gays. Indeed, not allowing a group you disagree with to promote their views is not bigotry. hunting down every available avenue of communication and stiffling them would be bigotry.
In that instance, I wear my bigotry of Nambla with pride.
Maybe we could break down walls of indifference to our unjust laws if we showed any visible interest in other groups’ unjust laws. You didn’t see the Stonewall people giving up their seats on the bus to any black people.
I do feel the ‘bigot’ title is thrown around a bit heavily. Discrimination is good. If I’d been a bit more discriminating, I’d not have two divorces.
And perhaps I did in this case. At this point, I really don’t remember the parade’s facilitators’ justification for pulling out all the stops to prevent a gay group marching under a banner (although, again, I’m not questioning their right to do so).
I think most people need to be more discriminating when it comes to dating and marrying if you ask me. Although I know some people who are way too discriminating and looking for Mr. or Ms. Superperfect. I just think the law should be less discriminating in that regard.
I’d attribute hatred as a component of bigotry. The Catholic Church doesn’t ‘hate’ gays. Indeed, not allowing a group you disagree with to promote their views is not bigotry. hunting down every available avenue of communication and stiffling them would be bigotry.
Agreed. In fact, I know a few nuns (even some older ones) who are very gay friendly, and support at least civil unions. Their logic being that we encourage straight people to settle down, the same should be for gay people.
In that instance, I wear my bigotry of Nambla with pride.
Well, that makes two of us.
Maybe we could break down walls of indifference to our unjust laws if we showed any visible interest in other groups’ unjust laws. You didn’t see the Stonewall people giving up their seats on the bus to any black people.
Ashpenaz, as I mentioned, we all have different opinions as to what unjust laws are. For example, my understanding is that most (not all) on this site believe that immigration laws should be enforced. Maybe not necessarily throw all illegal residents out, but do what we can to make sure no more come in. You seem to take the opposite view. I’m somewhere in between. Most gay people believe that laws that would prohibit abortion are unjust. Are you telling me that the whole gay community should side with that?
As for your Stonewall comment, I personally don’t know what those specific individuals regarding the civil rights of Blacks in the 1960s. But many gay people have supported their civil rights. Sometimes the majority of a group doesn’t return the favor, e.g., Prop. 8.
You are all gay.