Podcast Interview of Lt. Daniel Choi
In three parts over at Ramble Redhead. Very interesting with Choi telling of his growing up, life at West Point, his service in the US Army over in Iraq, and of course coming out. Well worth listening to and I hope that the good Louie will join the fight against the unjust DADT law with a worthy group of gay vets like Servicemembers United. His voice is certainly a powerful one in this debate and his work with Knights Out should go a long way to helping bring DADT to the demise it so richly deserves.
You can find these podcast interviews here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Enjoy!
Spoiler: Choi’s first-generation Korean parents were oblivious to his being gay, so much so that when they suspected their older son of being gay they sought his advice on how to “change” him. Ironically the son they thought was gay is actually straight while the “straight” son they sought advice from is gay. Priceless.
– John (Average Gay Joe)
18 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have to honestly confess my surprise at how supportive the GP bloggers have been of Choi. I’m particularly surprised given that, as a moderate who is somewhat to the left of GP-residents, I actually don’t have a lot of sympathy for him. Obviously, as I’ve said before, I support the quick repeal of DADT and I agree with Dan and others who are criticizing Obama for a lack of courage on that front. But with Choi, it’s a little different. Here’s a guy who came out to his soldiers and his CO and, basically, got away with it. The news was accepted, there were no problems, and no discharge proceedings were started. Not content to leave well enough alone, Choi decided to go on national television and announce to the nation that he’s gay. There’s the problem. Choi chose to not only be out, but to actively challenge the military on its policy. He is now truly asking for special treatment. He is purposefully putting himself into the middle of a controversy and engaging in civil disobedience. I don’t have a problem with any of that — on one hand I think it’s great he’s doing it; he’s certainly bringing attention to a policy I hate — but while I appreciate what he’s doing to fight DADT, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him and I don’t think Obama should give him special treatment. I’m kind of surprised the locals feel differently.
Comment by CR — May 14, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - May 14, 2009
Fair point, CR.
While I agree he went overboard on this, I support him because I believe his intention was to draw attention to the absurdity of the policy.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 14, 2009 @ 7:38 pm - May 14, 2009
Dan, I think it’s great that you’re supporting him. I should add (or clarify) that my comment isn’t a criticism; just an expression of surprise to find myself to the right of you guys on this issue!
Comment by CR — May 14, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - May 14, 2009
I would bet there are many who think those who violently protested Proposition 8 went overboard, but still support them because they’re protesting what they consider an absurd policy/legal situation. This is a classic case of situational ethics — Choi’s and those of his supporters.
The military relies on rules and chains of command. I’m going out on a limb and assuming Choi knew he is gay prior to volunteering for the Nat’l Guard. I’m assuming he was aware of the DADT policy and what it would require of him while serving. To my knowledge, he’s not asking for an honorable discharge; rather, his behavior has been thoroughly dishonorable and is intent on being a test case. He is not trustworthy and refuses to subordinate his personal ambitions (and judging from his willing participation in a media campaign designed to make a sympathetic martyr or a historic first of him, I use that word deliberately) to national security. I’ve no doubt a book deal is imminent.
Comment by Ignatius — May 14, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - May 14, 2009
#4 Iggy
If there is a book deal in the offing, I will read it.
Comment by jwxford2 — May 14, 2009 @ 11:25 pm - May 14, 2009
Wow!
I wonder what his parents think now.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 15, 2009 @ 12:03 am - May 15, 2009
Well, if it was a criticism, it was a fair one. As to finding yourself to the “right” of me on this one, well, on DADT, once I started reading the studies on gays in the military, i became increasingly aware how bone-headed the policy was, not just from my perspective as a gay man, but also from my perspective as an American wanting the best military possible for our nation. So, I very much want to see it overturned.
Yet, you do have a point. It’s one thing to be open about one’s sexuality, it’s quite another to shine a light on it. And I gotta acknowledge, maybe my sympathy from Choi comes from the fact that sometimes I too shine a light on my sexuality to make a point. I often come out as gay at conservative confabs (as I did last night) to measure the reaction of the crowd. Both provides an opportunity to show conservatives that not all gays think like those most in the public eye — and to get a window into their attitude toward gays.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 15, 2009 @ 3:28 am - May 15, 2009
All good points above. I agree that DADT is well past its time, and its time to modernize the policy. I didn’t realize that Choi, for most intents and purposes, was able to serve openly and honestly. So it does seem that he is doing this to bring the issue out in the open and challenge the policy.
I’m afraid though that my criticism is directed at Obama. And who would have thought that part of it is coming from watching Jon Stewart last night. He began his show with this story and highlighted that Obama, during the campaign was fervently against DADT. Now here we have Choi who has the same point of view as Obama during his campaign, and Obama is doing a big O on this.
And I get the point about highlighting one’s sexuality. As a practice I certainly don’t. But as Dan pointed out, there are situations where it is useful and/or necessary. I’m sure if the Pentagon completely reversed the policy, allowing gay people to serve openly, and straight people could not reveal their sexuality, you can bet that a lot of straight people would highlight their sexuality.
Comment by Pat — May 15, 2009 @ 6:31 am - May 15, 2009
Not to put too fine a point on it, but
The U.S. military is so far ahead of its nearest competitor technologically, in most aspects of training, in funding, in terms of infrastructure, diplomatically, etc. that I just don’t buy the argument that open homosexual service will contribute positively to what is already an extremely well run set of organizations. I actually make the opposite argument: our military services are excellent — so much so that changes such as women in combat positions, co-ed units, open homosexuality, etc. can be to the detriment to effectiveness and national security.
My position is not that homosexuals are a detriment to our armed forces. My position is that those who volunteer to serve agree to temporarily put aside their personal issues in the service of their country. I maintain that this is a basic requirement for military service, one that Choi and others like him are not able to meet. His homosexuality is irrespective of his general attitude that demands that a culture he willingly joined must now change to reflect his inability to remember that there are greater concerns than his personal life and the discomfort he understood while signing up.
And because you want something relegates all other considerations moot.
Our military does not exist for individuals to make points or statements about their personal lives in order to measure opinion or change policy. Our military exists to defend our way of life such as the freedom to disagree at this wonderful blog.
Yes, I agree that Choi provides an opportunity to once again view homosexuals as ambitious, opportunistic members of a vocal minority intent on changing traditional, wonderful institutions in order to address their personal insecurities through the force of government validation.
I’m not trying to fight here. This is my honest assessment and $0.02.
Comment by Ignatius — May 15, 2009 @ 10:24 am - May 15, 2009
@ Ignatius: I’m not sure I understand your thinking. You say we have the best military, but it surprises me that you think it wouldn’t be strong or good enough to “withstand” women in combat, or openly homosexual soldiers. You seem to think these additions will weaken the armed forces, but I think having more qualified people, regardless of gender or open sexual status, couldn’t hurt.
I don’t really see Choi as being insecure, if he is so openly declaring his homosexuality. He’s trying to address the unfairness of the military’s illogical restriction about homosexuals, not validate himself through government change. It’s like wanting interracial marriages. Are the people who protested against not being able to marry outside their race projecting their insecurities and trying to change the “institution” of marriage as it existed just a few decades ago? No, anti-miscegenation laws were unfair and illogical and people protested it. The military’s DADT is also unfair and illogical and people are protesting it. I don’t see the validation issue arising from this. They’re trying to make change to a bigoted restriction.
Also, you say “And because you want something relegates all other considerations moot” to GayPatriotWest, but you obviously want to keep things the same. Should we say that because YOU want it to stay the same, all other considerations of other people, such as homosexual soldiers who want to be honest with themselves and the service, moot?
Anything that expects to survive and do well has to change and not all change is good, but not all change is bad either. Could you please further elaborate the harm to our military that would result from having openly homosexual soldiers? If I could maybe understand your reasoning a bit, that would help, thanks.
Comment by TAL — May 15, 2009 @ 10:52 pm - May 15, 2009
TAL, thanks for your polite, thoughtful reply. Hopefully, I can make my position a bit clearer.
As with any existing institution, those that want change must provide a compelling argument to do so, whether marriage or the military — two very important and traditional institutions. While marriage pertains to civilian life and therefore our armchair opinions have more weight, the military is a separate culture whose intent is national security. I first want to emphasize that our opinions expressed here have and should have less weight because without national security, all other benefits we enjoy are in danger and because the subculture of the military is a separate society with different rules. Thus, while we throw around our opinions re. DADT, we should always remember that our opinions should be especially subject to those who know the culture best and who are in a position to design the best possible fighting force we as a nation can muster.
Again, the nature of a military organization is particular to fighting, i.e. the nature of war determines the constitution of a fighting force. As you know, our biology has determined that men (including gay men) are physically stronger than women. Thus, throughout history most armies and other fighting forces are same-sex male units. For those nations who want the maximum impact, this makes sense. Should what makes sense be our policy apart from the considerations of academics and armchair opinionists who typically don’t fight wars? I believe it should.
Because our front-line, fighting forces are male, a naturally masculine culture has evolved. Obviously, a male culture of mostly young males in close quarters for extended periods will include some sexuality and the military has rules to deal with this. I have no doubt some sexual experimentation and some homosexual activity take place, as I have been told as much. However, gay males are naturally attracted to other men and it is natural to conclude that many such attractions will take place and will announce themselves in a military that includes a greater number of homosexuals who are allowed to announce their sexual orientation. I have several concerns with such a scenario:
1. Recruitment. Much is made of the increase in homosexual recruitment, but since the ratio of homosexuals in the general population is around 4-5%, this would be insignificant.
2. Homosexuals volunteering for reasons other than service. It isn’t far-fetched that gay men would join for the opportunity to meet other gay men and form relationships while serving.
3. Straight recruitment. It isn’t far-fetched that some (or many) straight recruits will ultimately resent this new openness, will be repelled by the increased visibility of gay individuals and relationships as well as the necessary rejection and stories of homosexual overtures that will likely take place, and recruitment will fall. Remember — those straight soldiers that are interviewed as supportive of their homosexual comrades are supportive under DADT, not open service.
4. Authority, chain of command, unit cohesion. Those who object to open homosexuality will possibly object to having to take orders from openly gay officers. Likewise with unit cohesion. This is not justified as homophobia isn’t justified, but is nonetheless a potential problem.
There are probably several other concerns, but it’s before 8 a.m. on a Saturday and my brain isn’t quite in high gear.
As for Choi, he has demonstrated that he is unwilling to follow orders, i.e. the policy of DADT. In my mind, that makes him unfit for service and he must be discharged. By trying his case in the civilian arena of public opinion that does not understand the quite different military culture and its necessity (depressingly obvious here at this blog, for example), he appears intent on testing the policy and will be either a martyr or a historic victory over oppression. Had he waited until his service was over to announce his sexuality in order to further the conversation over DADT, I would not have a problem with him, but he was unable and unwilling to do so. An acceptable strategy for dealing with what one considers an unfair law or policy is to work within it while working to change it. What is unacceptable is to flout it. Conservatives work within the law because they respect the rule of law, including DADT. Supporting an individual who flouts the law merely because one wishes the law changed is just as bad, imho.
I’m going to stop now because I’ve got to go to Costco and stock up. I’ll continue later, if need be.
Comment by Ignatius — May 16, 2009 @ 10:51 am - May 16, 2009
I find anyone so willing to grab the public spotlight, especially highlighting their own lives that have no bearing on the issue at hand–DADT–very specious.
Comment by Mark — May 16, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - May 16, 2009
[...] a comment from a civil critic which helps me put my own worldview into perspective. Responding to Average Gay Joe’s post linking a Podcast Interview of Lt. Daniel Choi, reader CR did just that: I have to honestly confess my surprise at how supportive the GP [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On DADT repeal and the limits of political labels — May 17, 2009 @ 4:39 pm - May 17, 2009
Wonder what Korean fag-hag Margaret Cho would make of this situation? (Not as if I really care, but it would prove to be a good source of humor.)
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - May 18, 2009
@Ignatius: Thank you for clarifying so extensively – I think a lot of the points you make are very valid, especially regarding the military as having a very masculine culture and that “arm-chair” civilian opinions should have less weight because they haven’t served and can’t understand what the service would be like. However, arguably, if my tax dollars fund something, I would like to have a say in it because even though I am a civilian, I think I could understand matters enough to form opinions. I can also see your point too about Choi waiting until his service was over to voice his objections to the DADT.
If I am understanding you correctly, you feel his inability to tamp down on this to serve is what rubs you wrong because it seems to indicate he couldn’t place his desire to be acknowledged as a homosexual behind his desire to serve. You also stated that the best thing to do would have been to stay within the lines of the law, to conservatively make change. Ideally, the idea is appealing, to be able to achieve great things within the legal limits, but I must admit that I have great doubts about the effectiveness of following the system.
For your recruitment #s, 4-5% can still be a lot, depending on the population #s.
I still think women and openly homosexual men should still be able to serve, if they meet all physical requirements. I am not sure I have read anything that makes me think otherwise. I feel that the homophobic environment of the military will never change unless we start allowing openly gay soldiers. I guess my reasoning is akin to de-segregating schools. If school officials had waited around until every white person in the schools was okay with it, nothing ever would have been changed.
A military is like you mentioned, a fighting force. But the soldiers making up that force are human, and try as we might to push them to be the very best fighting machines to protect us, we can’t ignore that they are also very human and that living a lie like Lt. Choi felt he was living can be wearing. By saying that there are soldiers who couldn’t obey a commanding officer who was openly homosexual or that people wouldn’t enlist because of stories of homosexual advances or etc. you seem to be indirectly saying that, of course, soldiers are human. I guess it just seems dissonant to me to allow those human qualities and make peace with them, but not Lt. Choi’s concerns.
Sorry for the bouncy thoughts – I’m not very organized right now, but I guess my final commentary is that I can definitely understand your POV and ideas and thank you for laying them out very clearly for me, but I still remain convinced that open gays and females should still be allowed to enlist.
Comment by TAL — May 18, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - May 18, 2009
*Sorry, I meant also to add that I feel that all the points you bring up about homophobia etc. are valid, but would pass eventually because we should give our soldiers credit that they are open-minded enough to accept the change.
Comment by TAL — May 18, 2009 @ 5:52 pm - May 18, 2009
“Wonder what Korean fag-hag Margaret Cho would make of this situation? (Not as if I really care, but it would prove to be a good source of humor.)” So Peter, all Korean-Americans think alike, huh.
Comment by Audrey the Libertarian — May 19, 2009 @ 1:04 am - May 19, 2009
Not unless they’re all named Margaret Cho. He was referring to her in the singular. Shame on you Audrey for generalizing that she speaks for all Koreans.
Comment by The Livewire — May 21, 2009 @ 2:03 pm - May 21, 2009