On DADT repeal and the limits of political labels
Welcome Instapundit Readers! I want to thank Glenn for this unexpected (but not unwelcome) link; it has led to one of the best comment threads we’ve had in some time. So, thank you Instapundit Readers for contributing to a spirited, thoughtful and civil conversation!
Every once in a while, I read 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 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.
His surprise made me realize that while I consider myself conservative, on some issues, I’m to the “left” of my party and even to the “left” of some of our critics. I put the word, left, in quotation marks because sometimes the traditional “direction” of our partisan politics just plain don’t work. When I have written about Lt. Choi, it just didn’t occur to me that someone might perceive me to be departing from principles I had put forward on this blog. (To be sure, I was aware that I am at odds with many in my party on the issue).
I’ve always supported a strong military, opposing restrictions, generally coming from well-meaning liberals, which decrease its effectiveness. And that’s how I see the ban on gays serving openly. It serves no purpose, save to placate those holding on to long discredited prejudices against gay people. And it deprives the military of qualified personnel.
Perhaps I’m more sympathetic to Lt. Choi’s outspokenness on this issue because, as a gay conservative, I see the benefits in being open about one’s sexuality. Coming out in right-of-center confabs has allowed me to see how my conservative confrères react to a gay man in their midst and to show that not all gay people subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxy of the far left.
In a similar manner, I welcome Lt. Choi’s openness. He provides yet another example of how ably a gay man can serve in our armed forces.
I guess the main purpose of this post is to show just how incomplete sometimes are our political labels. For example, as Mayor of one of the “bluest” cities in America, Rudy Giuliani had a far more conservative record than any of his rivals on several issues, notably on crime and fiscal matters. Yet, because he was to the left of the party’s mainstream on abortion, gun control and gay issues, he was deemed a moderate.
While supporting repeal of DADT marks me “liberal” on that issue, I don’t see the ban itself as a conservative policy. It just doesn’t advance the ideals of the modern American conservative movement, the basic tenets of which are limited government, a strong national defense and judicial restraint.
106 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’ve been having a sort of DADT problem at my church. I’ve made a decision to be entirely honest and answer all questions about my sexuality truthfully. I’ve also decided to allow people the space to let me know when they wanted that information. I’ve been going nearly a year, and NO ONE HAS ASKED. I’m all ready with my answer, and no one has the question.
This is perplexing. I’m not sure I like it that people see me as a 40-something, never married, never dating male who writes musicals and never want further clarification. In some ways, not asking can be as dismissive of my reality as condemning me. And yet, having a “Hey, World, I’m Gay!” moment seems wrong, too.
If Lt. Choi hadn’t said anything, would anyone have asked? And would that have been good? Or is not asking dismissive and oppressive? Can you really build trust with people who choose not to know?
My own experience with DADT is giving me some insight into the larger issue. Someone who chooses to identify themselves as gay when no one is asking needs to accept the consequences. On the other hand, people who aren’t asking are creating barriers, too.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 17, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - May 17, 2009
That’s just it, there shouldn’t be any consequences. There are, of course, if you are in the military. There are if you are in a conservative environment and there’s no job protection.
Most gay men and lesbians in the military are not like Lt. Choi, and bend over backwards to keep their status a secret from their peers and supervisors, creating fictitious girlfriends or boyfriends, etc. I really don’t know how these people do it. Just read this guy’s story: http://servicemembersunited.org/?p=227
Comment by Alec — May 17, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - May 17, 2009
“Perhaps I’m more sympathetic to Lt. Choi’s outspokenness on this issue because, as a gay conservative, I see the benefits in being open about one’s sexuality.”
I have to respectfully disagree with this. Obviously, you have never served in the armed forces. Our private sexuality and erotic desires have no place in the critical arena of military battle. Believe me, my fellow soldiers couldn’t have cared less about my sexuality – but they also didn’t want to hear me talk about some boy’s cute butt.
We are never going to gain respect as a community until we learn the simple fact that most people accept us as long as we don’t flaunt the lewd details of our sex acts. Whether I was posting guard duty or engaged in a firefight, the last thing my buddies wanted to hear about was me drooling over some guy’s package.
By announcing his bedroom behavior, Lt. Choi did the most selfish thing imaginable and showed little concern for the men in his unit. People forget that it was that idiotic DemRat Bill Clinton who created DADT. Before that came along, gay and straight soldiers had been getting along fine without the need to make public announcements of their most private behavior.
Comment by Ben — May 17, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - May 17, 2009
The DADT policy asks someone who is gay to serve without integrity. Integrity is a basic part, in my mind, of being a good soldier.
Comment by Swampfox — May 17, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - May 17, 2009
Integrity is being honest when asked–it’s not necessarily forcing people to deal with something they are choosing not to look at. I think–but my experience is giving me a new insight about that. Still, if no one asked, why did he tell? Why should I tell? I’m not lying, I’m not in denial, and I can’t really see how someone as obviously not-straight as me could be in the closet–but no one apparently wants further clarification. Why is it better to give them information they don’t want? Either at my church or in the military?
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 17, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - May 17, 2009
Ash #4 Your opening sentence strikes me as being very close to using situational ethics, i.e., does one only have integrity when no one is looking/asking, or does one have integrity at all times? I think Swampy’s comment is closer to reflecting reality.
There is a difference between broadcasting information and creating a fictional personae to hide behind when answering questions or simply discussing one’s personal life. I hope you see the point I’m trying to make.
Comment by jwxford2 — May 17, 2009 @ 8:27 pm - May 17, 2009
Don’t ask, don’t tell…………..well, what if someone asks and I refuse to answer. What should the person infer from my refusal to answer? And, of course there are no jerks in the military who would not ask the question.
Comment by Swampfox — May 17, 2009 @ 8:37 pm - May 17, 2009
The assumption is that I am creating a fictional persona.That’s the gay left’s answer to everything– unless you are wearing a pink triangle and singing We Are Family, you are self-loathing. I’m not doing anything to hide my sexuality. I’m not changing pronouns, I’m not making up girlfriends in Canada. I have spoken out in support of gay civil unions. I have told them my excitement about my new musical. Still, no one is asking for any further clarification. What, exactly, is false about my persona? What am I hiding? As I say, I am ready to answer any direct question honestly. NO ONE IS ASKING.
Why is it better to provide information no one wants?
On the other hand, they seem dismissive and oppressive for not asking–it’s starting to irk me that no one wants to be close enough to me to want the full truth.
Instead of lapsing into gay left talking points, why don’t you approach this with some genuine critical thinking? My dilemma is genuine–and I think that my life is as important as Lt. Choi’s. I, too, risk losing things that are very important to me.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 17, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - May 17, 2009
Ummmm….HELLOOOOO!!! What clarification is needed?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 18, 2009 @ 12:22 am - May 18, 2009
And you think they might have noticed the gasp and the pearl clutch when I saw the beautiful Easter lilies on the altar. . . .
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 12:32 am - May 18, 2009
Thank you for the morning laugh, Ashpenaz.
As to Lt Choi… Part of civil disobedience, I thought, was the willingness to take the consequences of the unjust law while pointing out its unfairness. I mean, wasn’t MLK arrested several times for peacably breaking the law?
I guess that’s my issue with this. To keep pushing the envelope, then to beg to be exempt from the consequences of the (admittedly antiquated) law bothers me.
Comment by The Livewire — May 18, 2009 @ 7:01 am - May 18, 2009
“Integrity” is a loaded word in semantics. A gay person who abides by the DADT rules is certainly showing integrity. On the other hand, if being openly gay is a core belief of the person, then he has a belief system conflict with DADT. In that case, you might question his “integrity.”
As I read these comments, I wonder what level of identity projection is wrapped around being gay. I have a good friend who has a large circle of male friends, some of whom are openly gay. If I were placing odds, I would bet that my friend is gay, as well. But, the subject has never come up between us and it is his right to make public what he wishes and to keep other issues of his life in private. I have no reason whatsoever to pry into what he wishes to keep private. I would consider this to be a form of DADT within the general society. I have no reason to question the man’s integrity. I have trusted him with investing my money for many, many years. And, I see no lack of integrity on his part for not “revealing” information I do not need.
Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2009 @ 9:24 am - May 18, 2009
“We are never going to gain respect as a community until we learn the simple fact that most people accept us as long as we don’t flaunt the lewd details of our sex acts. Whether I was posting guard duty or engaged in a firefight, the last thing my buddies wanted to hear about was me drooling over some guy’s package.
By announcing his bedroom behavior, Lt. Choi did the most selfish thing imaginable and showed little concern for the men in his unit. People forget that it was that idiotic DemRat Bill Clinton who created DADT. Before that came along, gay and straight soldiers had been getting along fine without the need to make public announcements of their most private behavior.”
I’ve never served in the military Ben, but it seems to me that this whole idea of “keeping sexuality to ourselves” is an old fashioned and unrealistic one. I mean, from what I’ve heard, straight soliders talk about their sex lives with their girlfriends and wives all the time, and frequently made sexual references that clearly demonstrate their sexuality. Why is it that straight soldiers should be allowed to do that kind of thing, yet gay soldiers cannot?
Comment by James — May 18, 2009 @ 9:24 am - May 18, 2009
Plus, I have a question that some of the people here might be able to answer: What happens when a gay soldier, who is being forced to stay in the closet, is invited to go to one of those USO shows the military holds with playboy bunnies or that kind of stuff. How is a gay soldier supposed to turn that down without people raising questions? Why is the military so heterosexist?
Comment by James — May 18, 2009 @ 9:29 am - May 18, 2009
Ben, I never served in the military either, so perhaps you can clarify something. First of all, I agree that the military is not a place where someone should detail personal sexual desires, and whatnot. However, didn’t your colleagues talk about their wives or girlfriends. Or talk about some hot woman they might have seen recently? It sounds like you didn’t have to make up fictitious girlfriends, so you were probably in a better position than most.
Ashpenaz, you bring up some good points here. First of all, keep in mind that being open about one’s sexuality does not have to be one extreme or the other. So if you decide to become more open, it doesn’t have to involve waving rainbow flags. I probably would have acted the same way that you have in your church when I’m in a similar environment. Sorry you haven’t been able to further the conversation.
The same may be true for the military. When DADT ends, we should expect that all in the military abide by the new rules, and not react to it by harassment, violence, and intimidation. On the other hand, we can’t expect one to be as social with an openly gay soldier than they are with other soldiers, just like at any other job. So an openly gay person has to take that into consideration if he wants to join the military.
Now the same is true with your church. It’s great that you are open and honest about yourself, and that there does not seem to be any backlash. But it also appears that your fellow congregants are not going to be as social with you as they are with others. Like a gay men who is considering the military, you now have to weigh if you want to continue at your church.
In your case though, it may be that your fellow congregants may be interested in this aspect of your life, but for several reasons, they don’t engage you in such discussion. It could be 1) they personally are uncomfortable with homosexuality and gay persons. Very plausible since they probably grew up in a tradition in which being gay is sinful, and there was really no one who knew one who openly gay in the past. So even though they like you, it’s still awkward. 2) they may see reluctance on your part, and interpret as meaning that you don’t want to discuss this issues beyond the information you have given already. 3) they may feel comfortable socializing with their “own kind.” For example, if it is a married person with children, they simply may feel more comfortable socializing with someone else who is married with children. Perhaps they socialize very little with single straight people who are doing the dating thing.
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2009 @ 9:36 am - May 18, 2009
Heliotrope, excellent points. I agree with what you say about your friend. It is up to him if he wants to be open with his sexuality. Perhaps in the future he will be more open. Perhaps he already is open to some in his circle of friends, and not to others. That happens, I believe, to most people who are in the midst of coming out.
As of now, a gay persons who enters the military has to keep in mind the DADT policy. If being openly gay is important, then this person should not enter the military. I suppose Lt. Choi originally felt this way, but then decided that he no longer wanted to hide his sexuality. So he and others can work on the outside to try to change the military’s policy.
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2009 @ 9:42 am - May 18, 2009
The most important requirement for a soldier is the ability to follow orders and respect the chain of command. Choi has proudly flouted the policy in question and now his supporters are wrapping him in a pious “integrity”, while his integrity to the National Guard and the policies that govern it are seemingly negotiable. Choi shouldn’t be lauded because sexuality should never place anyone above the law. His actions provide gays who support a strong, effective military — one in which rule of law is paramount — the opportunity to criticize the actions of someone who believes his personal life must not be subject to military policy and while serving chose to flout the policy.
Comment by Ignatius — May 18, 2009 @ 10:05 am - May 18, 2009
I went to the church picnic. Your 3rd paragraph is spot on about that kind of thing. Everybody was gathered with their families. I didn’t feel like being a single guy bouncing around from happy family to happy family so I left. Yes, church is an awkward environment for people who are not straight, married people–which is ironic, since it was Jesus who welcomed all kinds of single guys into His circle and who considered His family all who followed Him.
I want to help open doors I know Jesus wants open in His church. And I think building relationships is the right way. Still, I’m tired of awkward, uncomfortable moments. I suspect Lt. Choi wants the military to open its doors to all who want to defend freedom. Is it better to confront people or build relationships? I would say building relationships, except that gets really tiring when no one seems to want to build relationships back. I’m beginning to see the lack of questions as a kind of muted rejection.
So, is it better to be yourself, willing to be honest, and wait until people ask, or tell them so there’s no longer that kind of awkwardness?
Is it better to live with DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) or DKDC (don’t know, don’t care)?
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 11:39 am - May 18, 2009
I’m more of a DKDC individual myself. But then I’m admittedly a hermit, and don’t worry much about others social lives.
Comment by The Livewire — May 18, 2009 @ 12:13 pm - May 18, 2009
So, is it better to be yourself, willing to be honest, and wait until people ask, or tell them so there’s no longer that kind of awkwardness?
It depends on the other person, as well as your own comfort level. Some people are more outgoing than others. There’s probably some middle ground here, where can be more forward than you have been, but again, not to go to the other extreme. You’ll find out who is more willing to build on a relationship, and who isn’t. But don’t expect to be as close to family people than they are to other people. You might find more of a kinship with other singles, or even married couples without children. Heck, maybe there is a fellow gay person in your congregation who is also waiting to come out.
Is it better to live with DADT (don’t ask, don’t tell) or DKDC (don’t know, don’t care)?
In life, again, it’s one’s comfort level. In the military, people in close quarters start talking about their personal lives. Lying about one’s life is probably not a good thing. Neither is saying “No comment.” Allowing one to be open is the way to go IMO. Eventually, DKDC will follow when everyone realizes a big fuss is being made over a little thing.
Ignatius, yes following orders is important in the military. And when one doesn’t, he is disciplined. Well, that appears to what happened with Lt. Choi. In another thread, you were concerned that there would be some in the military who would have trouble following orders should DADT end. Well, then these soldiers will have to be disciplined. It’s 2009 now. Soldiers will have to deal with things just as they had to in 1948 when there was still some discomfort with having persons of a different race in one’s platoon. It’s about time that we stop excusing people’s discomforts in preventing the most qualified people from entering the military.
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - May 18, 2009
[...] GAY PATRIOT: Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell Repeal and the Limits of Political Labels. [...]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » GAY PATRIOT: Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell Repeal and the Limits of Political Labels…. — May 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - May 18, 2009
Who’s Ben?
Why do you think that you have to participate in discussions about sex with you coworkers? I outgrew that years ago. I haven’t served in the military, but I have worked jobs where your life depended on the guys your with. I don’t participate, beyond listening, in those types of discussions and when asked, I make that clear.
Nobody wants everyone in their bedroom, but they have no problem bringing their bedroom to everyone. How does that work?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 18, 2009 @ 2:11 pm - May 18, 2009
I have to laugh at you, Ben. If you’ve ever been in ANY locker room anywhere, you’ll know that men routinely talk about their sexual conquests in graphic detail. It’s a way of bonding, sharing and connecting, and it happens in the military all the time. I have no problem with it.
Your problem is with gay sexuality, so just come clean on it. It’s not like gay men are any more oversexed than straight men; it’s just that women haven’t got the same type of sex drive, so there is a natural check on straight men (there are no hetero bathhouses, for example). Don’t hold gays to a different standard than straights, OK?
Once you get over the novelty of gay men and the complexity they introduce into daily social affairs, you’ll be a lot happier. Military forces have successfully integrated gays all over the world, and have prospered as a result.
Comment by Tim — May 18, 2009 @ 2:39 pm - May 18, 2009
I feel sympathy for Lt Choi on the principles of the issue, but I think his wording in that initial message left me a little cold. It just seemed so over the top and dramatic that I sort of lost that edge of sympathy. I confess I didnt listen to the podcast interview.
For what it’s worth I agree they should move towards eliminating DADT, first with soldiers not in battle and then continue as able. I would only disagree with changing social policy in a war theater.
Comment by Dash — May 18, 2009 @ 2:43 pm - May 18, 2009
So, who is opening more doors for the military–Lt. Choi, who confronts it, or some other Lt. Spacey-Foster who quietly does his job, and doesn’t answer questions no one asked?
Who is opening more doors in the church–the confrontative Gene Robinson, or Ashpenaz who is building relationships and is willing to wait to answer questions?
And, to swing this back to one of my favorite points, who is opening more doors in society–the Stonewall/Pride/Prop 8 confrontors, or the quiet, lifelong pair of “confirmed bachelors sharing expenses” whom the whole community agrees should probably get some legal protection for that?
I’m extremely excited about Adam Lambert–who I think does a great job addressing the issues he’s asked about. Is he a self-loathing closet case, or a model for the future?
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - May 18, 2009
I’m only speculating here, but perhaps this might be some of the issue:
Someone brought up men talking about their wives / girlfriends, and why it should be different from a gay man doing the same thing. Leaving aside the legal or DADT-specific issue… perhaps it has something to do with the fact that straight men are also uncomfortable having those conversations in front of women? The shared sense of sexuality and experiences obviously must be replaced with a more neutral mode of conversation.
Is this a reason to continue DADT? I dunno. The changes in perception and assumptions about what acceptable conversation is, and how people believe others perceive them based on assumptions about the other’s sexuality, have got to be facets of the discussion though.
Comment by spool32 — May 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - May 18, 2009
Ok, who is Ben? I thought he was in the other ‘boy and his rat’ movie.
Comment by The Livewire — May 18, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - May 18, 2009
It’s the macho gays in the military who want DADT to remain in place. They fear the queens entering the ranks more than anyone! I was talking to a large group of openly gay marines in Palm Springs last april and they were all in agreement. Lift DADT and the pansies will be signing up in droves just to make a point, making them all look bad. It’s a classic macho gay v. queenie gay battle.
Comment by June — May 18, 2009 @ 2:59 pm - May 18, 2009
@Ashpenaz:
Don’t read so much into the church picnic experience… sadly, in today’s society any single man who’s good with kids is a suspected pedophile, regardless of his perceived sexual orientation. Families are going to be nervous and hesitant – that’s just the lay of the land nowadays.
Sad but true
Comment by spool32 — May 18, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - May 18, 2009
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is precisely the correct policy, not just for gays, but for heterosexuals as well.
Yes, some (by no means all) military people gab on about their sex lives. But if you’re in the military, you soon discover that these are not the people you want in your unit. They are at best crass and at worst cruel, most of them are liars, and those qualities show up in the rest of their performance. They end up at the bottom of the promotion list, not because of their sexuality, but because their decision (?) to emphasize their sexuality means they are paying less attention to their performance.
One of the major reasons many of us with military experience oppose allowing homosexuals to be open about it is that “gay activists” precisely fit that characterization. A straight soldier who spends his time in coarse boasting about how many whores he’s had is not going to be respected, but we know damned well from experience that gays doing the same thing are going to demand respect and have the lawyers on hand to extort at least the public semblance of respect. The result in terms of acceptance of homosexuality is going to be precisely the opposite of what you say you want.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — May 18, 2009 @ 3:05 pm - May 18, 2009
It’s amazing how good you people are at ignoring reality that doesn’t fit your desires.
How would you like to have your life dependent upon the decisions of someone who sees you as a sexually desirable partner, but who you do NOT see as even remotely sexually desirable?
There are lots of physical reasons why we shouldn’t put women into combat. But in addition to that there is a hugely important psychological reason:
You don’t want sex screwing up military discipline.
Did the Sargent send you on this dangerous mission because you’re the best person for the job? Or because you won’t have sex with him? Or because he is having sex with / sexually interested in someone else who should be on that mission?
Officers (including NCOs) in the military have a lot of power. Power that can be used in very arbitrary ways. Especially in combat. Adding sex to that mix is just stupid.
At least, it’s just stupid if you care more about having an effective US Military, than you do about using it as a test bed for your political desires.
Whah, whah “fairness”. Whah, whah “individual rights”. Whah, whah “I want”. Doesn’t matter, not relevant, unimportant.
What’s important is having the best damn military on the planet. Soldiers don’t get the rights we civilians do, because those rights would make the military less efficient. Less valuable.
IOW, they would get people killed.
If protecting your “individual dignity” or “integrity” comes at the cost of getting more troops killed, then it’s not worth it.
Until you accept and understand that the desires of individual soldiers are far less important than the goal of making the US Military the best military in the world, you have nothing useful to say on the topic. Until you accept and understand that the US Military isn’t a church social group, you have nothing useful to say on the topic.
Unless, of course, your church social group runs around with automatic weapons, hand grenades, and tanks, shooting at people and getting shot at.
If your “integrity” would be “violated” by DADT, don’t join the military. You’ve joined the military, then discovered you’re gay? Fine. Don’t re-enlist. If you’re really so owned by your genitals that you can’t handle finishing out your commitment to the military under DADT, then you’re a pathetically undisciplined slob, and the military is better off without you.
You really want to be in the US Military, but you’re gay? Tough. Your desires aren’t more important than the effectiveness of the US Military, and the lives of its members.
Comment by Greg Q — May 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - May 18, 2009
Ashpenaz,
I attend an Orthodox Jewish synagogue, albeit on the West Side of Manhattan with a rather sophisticated congregation. My situation is not that different from yours, but I have acted just a bit differently.
I have come out to a handful of people. In one case, a very persistent male yenta would not believe I had never been married and insisted on knowing why. I told him, and it didn’t faze him one bit. But I already knew he had a good relationship with a lesbian couple in our neighborhood. I then came out to the Rabbi, after he asked me to get more involved– I didn’t want him to be blindsided by gossip so I told him. There too, I happened to know from a distant connection that he had a gay relative and was cool with him. Both these people treat me with more respect now, so I’m real happy.
I’m still closeted with most people, and every now and then someone tries to fix me up with a woman, and I just can’t believe how thick people can be. One couple invited me to a private dinner with just one other person, an unmarried MALE cousin of theirs in my age bracket. Not my type; I never asked whether it was a deliberate setup, but I think so.
But I’m MUCH more comfortable because of even that handful of people who know. Maybe you should consider coming out to a very select few whom you feel you can trust. It seems to take the pressure off.
Comment by Barry Youngeman — May 18, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - May 18, 2009
Let’s deal with some fundamentals. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make the laws governing land and naval forces [a little inheritance from our Anglo experience of the Crown, the English Civil War, and Oliver Cromwell]. They implement that though Title X, United States Code.
Under Chapter 47, the Uniform Code of Military Conduct are punitive articles 125 Sodomy and 78 Accessory after the Fact.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000925—-000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000878—-000-.html
These are reinforced by Chapter 37 para 654
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_37.html
Unlike the 1948 desegregation order that ended policy, these are law, Constitutionally based. They belong to Congress. History has repeatedly shown you do not want your military to choose which laws they should obey and which ones they don’t. Get Congress to change them.
Article 78 is critical to good order and discipline. Unlike civilians who are permitted to ‘look the other way’, the military has to function on trust and responsibility, as such the article requires that if one knows, then one must report and take action, not just on personal issues or desires. That’s how we got to DADT.
When you get the debate finally going in Congress be prepared to address the facts that the military annually kicks out straights for fraternization, adultery, and sexual harassment. Gays will still be discharged for the same sexual behaviors that straights are separated for. Unlike gays who currently receive an administrative general discharge for the acts, they will be subject to the same Bad Conduct and Dishonorable discharges that straights receive which means a loss of Veterans Department benefits. If you really want equality be prepared and willing to accept the consequences.
Comment by Don51 — May 18, 2009 @ 3:12 pm - May 18, 2009
Interesting discussion. Unlike most of the posters, I have served in the military and I’m straight. In the military – in my experience – some men talk about sex a lot, some men talk about it a little, and some (a few) not at all. Other than not wanting a gay soldier to make a pass at them, most straight soldiers I knew could have cared less about another soldier’s sexuality as long as that soldier otherwise met the requirements of being a good fellow soldier — essentially, that means having the strength, courage and emotional make-up to be trustworthy in what may well be a life or death situation. Those criteria exclude some straight men who lack the physical strength, courage and emotional make up, and, likewise, exclude some gay me. In fact, it probably excludes almost the entire subset of men who exhibit effeminate behavior regardless of whether they are straight or gay. My suspicion — rebuttable in any individual case — is that most gays who want to openly discuss their sexuality are seeking some sort of affirmation from the group in which they want to “come out” – affirmation that even though they do not conform to the group’s traditional norms they’re still accepted. Those are generally not people I would want in a foxhole next to my foxhole — the only think I want my fellow soldiers to seek affirmation from the group for is their competence as soldiers and commitment to the group.
There are legitimate concerns with regard to the sexual tensions in a unit raised by openly gay soldiers involved in relationships with people in their units, in terms of superior-subordinate relationships and in terms of peer relationships. Whether those are sufficiently great to justify baring openly gay soldiers is not an easy question. The problem is that under some circumstances it probably matters, and under other circumstances it probably doesn’t – but when you make a rule it applies generally, so your rules tend to err on the side of caution. Caution, in this case, is to affirm the traditional Western military explicit exclusion of open homosexuals. DADT is not a great compromise, but it’s probably better than complete exclusion.
I find the comments of Ashpenaz puzzling. At least the way I was brought up, not inquiring into someone’s personal life — which would include his or her sexuality — is simply good manners. At church, you’re together because of common beliefs, and so it’s natural that the focus of your interaction will be around churchy things. Sure, some churches are full of gossip about who is dating (or screwing) whom, but it looks like you’ve found one where people’s minds aren’t focused on each others sins. Sounds good to me. Feeling out of place at a picnic as a single is not unusual or limited to being gay — for a very large number of people, church only becomes important in their lives when they marry and have children, and so their focus will be on the family related aspects and other young families. It doesn’t have to have anything to do with their opinions on your being gay. Get over yourself.
Comment by Cato — May 18, 2009 @ 3:13 pm - May 18, 2009
All-
I have to side with the Army on this one. LT Choi came into the service knowing the rules, and knowingly chose to violate them. Hence, consequences; that’s how the Army works. Regs are discipline. If he had an issue, he could have a) not entered the service, or b) waited until he got off of active duty to make his points. Instead, he chose to make a public spectacle of himself, which was at best mildly disruptive, and at worst subversive.
That said, the issues go beyond simple locker-room discussion. If you talk with NCOs and Officers in a co-ed unit, one of the biggest problems is illicit male-female interaction. This encompasses fraternization, accusations of discrimination and abuse, real discrimination and abuse, and general paranoia about what someone says or does around another soldier. Now, if you put OPENLY gay soldiers into the mix, you now deal with the same problems between women-women and men-men, which can (and probably will) compromise the chain of command at low levels. The best place to find romance is with people you are with constantly and for a long period of time. This fits the military to a T, and squad leaders have enough on their plates without trying to accomodate or deal with intra-unit romances. Oh, they’ll execute the order– but it would be a needless headache.
That, and, frankly, the last thing an infantry unit needs before a deployment (or on a deployment) is to lose soldiers to UCMJ action for illicit sexual activity. Please refer to the gay porn sex scandal in the 82nd a few years ago for an illustration. Having folks in your squad or the next squad over getting it on will cause all sorts of morale problems in most units. Again, talk to some active duty about problems in male-female units.
LT Choi may get along fine with his unit; however, it’s not for him that the policy is in place.
I welcome feedback and comments.
Comment by Paul — May 18, 2009 @ 3:18 pm - May 18, 2009
Ashpenaz:
What exactly is it that you want to tell your congregation or expect them to want to discuss with you?
Comment by JM Hanes — May 18, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - May 18, 2009
And Cato’s right on in his first paragraph.
Comment by Paul — May 18, 2009 @ 3:20 pm - May 18, 2009
#29
It ain’t just single males. It’s any male near a kid not his. You should see the shit a scoutmaster has do deal with to work with the kids. Similarly, a male teacher gets crap for stuff a woman would not.
I think its really simple. A lot of us don’t really want to know and I haven’t heard sexual exploits talked about in a locker room since I was in high school. PDA? Get your own room. I’d ask a straight couple to leave my home for that as soon as a gay one. Some shit should stay in High School
Comment by Kevin — May 18, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - May 18, 2009
Ashpenaz, it would have felt very awkward at that picnic if you were a 40-year-old, single, heterosexual guy, too. I am one, so I know.
It’s natural to assume that other people are obsessed with that aspect of our lives that we ourselves are obsessed with. Teen girls think that the entire world is whispering over whether she’s “too fat,” when in fact most folks couldn’t care less. The teen boy is just certain that everybody as school is staring at the zit on his face. Some men, because they are bald, think that the baldness is the first thing others notice about them. We are all heavily ego-centric in one way or another.
There was a great “For Better or For Worse” strip a number of years back. Elizabeth’s (or maybe it was April) mother had put her in pigtails, which she didn’t want. She was sure that she would be teased. She had her lines all ready to go, prepared for the teasing and the attacking. And it never happened. She got nothing but compliments. Then one obnoxious boy made a negative comment, and Elizabeth (or April) took that to prove her entire theory that she would be teased by “everybody” for the pigtails. It was her own thoughts, not the reactions of others, which were really colored by the fact of her pigtails.
This is not, of course, to suggest that your sexual orientation has nothing to do with the reaction of your church congregation to you, just that you’re probably putting much more thought into it than they are.
It’s a time of changing mores, and people are often legitimately not sure how to react. The lesson I learned for myself in school (I was geeky and awkward) was that the “different” person usually has to be willing to be a bit extroverted, if they want other folks too open up and accept them. That’s partly because they just don’t know what’s the right way to do it, and they need to be shown how.
I’m sure many of those folks aren’t asking about your sexual orientation because they’ve already realized what it is, and therefore there’s no need to ask you about it. If you brought a date to service one day, I suspect there would be plenty of gossip as to whether you were “dating” or “just friends,” just as there is with straight folks in such circumstances.
On the main topic, I found Lt. Choi’s letter to be one of the most persuasive arguments in opposition to DADT I’ve seen yet. I would note that there’s a vast difference between being honest about your sexuality (I agree with Lt. Choi that he would have been deceiving his fellow soldiers to hide such an important detail about himself) and flaunting your sexuality. I’m fairly certain Lt. Choi was not announcing his gayness by talking about guys’ butts. Sexuality is, as others have noted, a very common topic of discussion in military environments. If I were serving with a gay soldier, I’d much rather he told me, rather than let me assume that he’s straight. For one, I’d probably cover up a bit more in his presence, just as I would in the presence of a woman. I’d be ticked to find out I had been walking around naked in the locker room with him, not knowing that he was attracted to “outies” like mine rather than “innies” like the girls have.
Comment by PatHMV — May 18, 2009 @ 3:29 pm - May 18, 2009
Greg Q… and is the white sergeant sending the black corporal on the dangerous mission because he’s the most qualified, or because he’s black? The military has addressed similar problems before.
I grant that sexuality, sexual identity, sexual orientation, and the sex drive itself are much more fundamental components of human nature than race is. Because of this, it’s possible that the same arguments which were wrongly used to support a segregated army might have some validity to be used in opposition to allowing women and homosexuals to serve… but I think there’s some fair evidence out there that, while there are isolated problems, there are few systemic problems being caused by the sexual attraction issues you raise.
Comment by PatHMV — May 18, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - May 18, 2009
#36 JM Hanes:
Ashpenaz:
What exactly is it that you want to tell your congregation or expect them to want to discuss with you?
#34 Cato:
…seeking some sort of affirmation from the group in which they want to “come out” – affirmation that even though they do not conform to the group’s traditional norms they’re still accepted. Those are generally not people I would want in a foxhole next to my foxhole…
Near-definitional example.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Ric Locke — May 18, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - May 18, 2009
41 Ric Locke – you miss my point entirely – my issue is that I don’t want to go to war with anyone (straight or gay) who is focused on anything other than his (or her) military competence and who is not fully committed to the unit and the mission. I don’t want to go to war with anyone who has given me cause to doubt their ability, skill, or psychological make-up for combat. It’s all about making the other side do the ‘die for country’ thing, not your own people.
Comment by Cato — May 18, 2009 @ 4:07 pm - May 18, 2009
There should be only two main criteria for military service: Are you a warrior – will you be able to close with and destroy an enemy? Can you be counted on to cover another soldier in combat?
Comment by Dotar Sojat — May 18, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - May 18, 2009
A few things:
1. People seem to (want to) forget the special hierarchical discipline required in the military. In the not too distant past, junior military personnel, esp. enlisted, have been subjected to horrendous abuse of a homosexual nature. Even if only a small minority of gays were to engage in this, it is a significant challenge for good order and discipline — which is why courts have granted wide latitude for the military to ban homosexual behavior.
2. Gay marriage would become another serious issue to resolve. As States legalize same-sex marriage, the military would have to provide family housing, along with a series of other benefits, to homosexual couples. Perhaps these issues can be resolved, but do not for a moment believe that they are trivial or easy. There is more to DADT than guys in a foxhole — there are military communities that are very family oriented that would have to change in very significant ways.
3. Military communities are more deeply religious than their civilian counterparts. Gay marriage is not just a civil rights issue, it touches on fundamental religious beliefs for a number of denominations. Again, these issues could perhaps be resolved, but they are not to be trivialized, and will take years to work into full acceptance by relgious communities inside the military.
4. Racial integration happened in the military as a result of an executive order, and it was complied with, very successfully over the years. But that was one hundred years after emancipation. And it took two world wars where minorities fought valiantly in segretated units. The pressure for gay acceptance, while certainly hot burning for gays, does not, as a social problem, rise to the level that racial intolerance did even fifty years ago. That’s tragic for some gays, I’m sure, but it’s a political reality nonetheless.
5. Bottom line: don’t use the military for social experimentation at this time. When homosexuality has gained wide-spread social acceptance, the problem in the military will resolve itself. But that’s not the place to push next. The downside in recruiting and retention is just too big, at this point in time. The military is a much more fragile institution than most people realize — it’s a volunteer institution that attracts people who do not, at this time, accept homosexual orientation and behaviors. My own belief is that repeal of DADT will drive midlevel and senior people out of the military in a hurry. Right or wrong, I don’t think we can, as a society, take that risk for a group that is about 4% of the population, and probably a smaller than that in terms of representation in the military. So, push elsewhere, and leave this one alone.
Comment by CJD — May 18, 2009 @ 4:20 pm - May 18, 2009
Ladies/Gentlemen:
I read with great interest many of your comments. I am not a homosexual and I hope that I am not intruding where I am not welcome, but I am interested in the philosophical aspects of the DADT issue. Particularly interesting to me were comments regarding those who do not ask. Personally, I do not ask for two reasons:
First: because it is not my business – I have enough difficulty living my own life and maintaining my own privacy that I do not need to tell anyone else how to live theirs or violate anyone else’s privacy with questions that I have no business asking. I have no need to know what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom just as you have no need to know what I do in the privacy of mine. Your right to privacy is important to me because my right to privacy is important to me (how can one claim a right while denying that right to anyone else?)
Second: my clarvoyance skills are sadly lacking – I have not yet developed a reliable means of determining whether a person will be offended or worried if I do not ask about their private affairs.
So, please do not take it as a lack of interest in you as a human being if heterosexuals do not ask you about your orientation. I have friends who are admitted homosexuals – they told me because they did not wish for me to get caught up unawares in what could turn out to be a nasty social situation if some bigoted person were to call them out on their orientation in a vulgar or violent manner while I was out with them.
Finally (I apologize for the length of this comment), I would humbly recomend that you not worry about those who take no interest in your private sexual affairs, worry about those who do.
Comment by A.B. Osborne — May 18, 2009 @ 4:26 pm - May 18, 2009
I find the comments of Ashpenaz puzzling. At least the way I was brought up, not inquiring into someone’s personal life — which would include his or her sexuality — is simply good manners.
Cato, you mean to tell me that it is not commonplace for people to ask about one’s spouse? Or if someone is getting serious in a relationship? That the people you know would never think of having a picture of their family in their workplace, talk to colleagues about what they did with their families over the past weekend? Show people their engagement and wedding rings? You get the picture. The thing is, these are ordinary things that nobody would think has to do with anybody’s personal sex life. But as soon as a gay person says what they did with their partner in the same manner as a straight person would, then all of a sudden, a person is “openly discussing their sexuality” and it becomes rude.
I also have to ask, since when is dating a sin? Unless you are only referring to same sex dates. No, I’m not talking about idle gossip. But sometimes people like to talk to others about who they are dating. And take it easy. Asphenaz is simply trying to connect with others in his church group. Is that so bad?
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - May 18, 2009
Ash,
Two considerations:
The thing about the Christian church is there is something of a history of never-married males (such as Peter and the whole Papal line) and females that are not neccessarily homosexual. And the world now treats asexuality as the sort of terrible disease it used to treat homosexuality (for different reasons), except in the church where it has an honorable history. Chances are most of them have made a quiet assumption, but will not act so gauche as to mention it aloud for just those reasons.
If you feel the need to have your church reach out to the gay community, say so, and volunteer your time, help, and contacts. But don’t condemn people who by not asking may be making some people’s lives much easier.
Comment by Nony — May 18, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - May 18, 2009
41 Ric Locke – you miss my point entirely – my issue is that I don’t want to go to war with anyone (straight or gay) who is focused on anything other than his (or her) military competence and who is not fully committed to the unit and the mission.
One other thing, Cato. I would be very surprised to hear that you, as someone who was in the military, only focused on your mission. Obviously that is a number one priority, but we all need a break from work. And in a military setting, people do get close and start talking about things that have nothing to do with the military. And this includes spouses, girlfriends, and dates. No this does not necessarily have to do with talking about sexual details. But like, how you met your wife, when did you and your girlfriend start dating, what places have you gone together. In other words, normal things that people talk about all the time. Why shouldn’t a gay person have the same opportunity. Or at the very least, not feel they have to make sh&t up so that people won’t think he’s gay.
Comment by Pat — May 18, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - May 18, 2009
The only problem I really see with ending DADT (which was supposed to be a solution to asking and refusing to let homosexuals enlist) is that if gays serve openly their orientation is going to be taken into account the same as sex is now taken into account. When I enlisted we made beds for three days at basic training while we waited for enough females to arrive to form our “flight” and even then we had a “brother” flight and not a “sister” one. (All male squadrons called them “sister” flights.) Co-ed basic training is all well and good, but not co-ed barracks or showers. And even just skipping the issues of basic training entirely, there are any number of jobs that females are not allowed to do. If DADT is removed today it’s almost certain that checking “yes, I’m homosexual” on your enlistment papers will set a person on a separate career path limited to certain jobs and certain assignments only. And that’s not integration, is it?
Choi, as an officer, had more privacy than most. I would expect, at the very least, that the service being required to take notice of orientation would mean being stationed only in places where adequate privacy could be maintained. (In much the same way that a service-person’s family with a special needs child is not stationed at an overseas base without adequate facilities.)
The military not having to take official notice might prove to be the silver lining in DADT. Perhaps DADT could be changed to some version of “If official notice is not required than it’s all good… but if the commander has to become involved you’re all toast.”
Comment by Synova — May 18, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - May 18, 2009
44. Pat – If I don’t see a ring, I wouldn’t ask someone I saw only at church about a spouse or their marital status or the status of their relationships. Sometimes, status comes up naturally in conversation, other times it does not. I’m old fashioned, perhaps, but I respect others’ privacy and do not pry. I did not mean to suggest dating was a sin, rather that in some churches (alas!) people seemed to be gossiping about who was sleeping with whom (married or unmarried). In my own case, at least, I would have covered a fair bit of ground in other conversations before I would have discussed whom I was dating (back when I was single). I suppose I’m really from another era – as we used to say ‘we assume all the brothers are brave and all the sisters are virtuous’ — and gentlemen did not talk about their conquests. Oh, there were guys who did, but usually they were the ones who were insecure, and we all knew it. The guys who were successful in romance didn’t talk because they didn’t have to.
Comment by Cato — May 18, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - May 18, 2009
#44 But not *sex*! And not to walk up to someone who is 40 and single and say… so… have you been married? Are you divorced? Why haven’t you married? Since you’re not married, you ARE a virgin, aren’t you?
I really screwed up once (badly) by joking to my own cousin (I’d been away from home for a while) about when she was going to have more children.
People ask questions about what they already know. “Did you spend the Holidays with your parents?” can be a suicide inducing question for some people.
I suggest a puppy.
Ask everyone at church what sort of puppy you should get and then bring it to the next picnic to show off and from then on everyone will have something to *say*… “How’s that dog doing? Did it eat your couch yet?” And then the casual conversation about family can begin, “No, I got a great tip from my sister to keep the couch from getting eaten.” “Oh, you’ve got a sister?”
Comment by Synova — May 18, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - May 18, 2009
Everyone on this thread is asking the wrong questions and making points that simply don’t matter.
The important question is “what does the 18 year old PFC think? The twenty year old Corporal? And yes, the forty year old First Sergeant and the Colonel of the same age.
It has been over forty years since I was that nineteen year old Corporal, sleeping in a two man hole with a third man keeping watch. I depended on those two men for my very life, as they depended on me.
I do remember that it was hard enough to keep my thoughts on who and what might be in the tree line rather than the girls that were either ten thousand miles away or in the villes just outside the base camps.
It did not occur to me that one of my squad mates misght be thinking of my (then) cute little ass.
Don’t ask, don’t tell is none of our business. It is only important to those who have their lives on the line. I suspect it will go, someday. We will then find out if openly gay really works. I kind of hope it works, because if it doesn’t it won’t be me paying the price.
It’s real easy getting on a soapbox when there is no cost if your right and others will pay with their lives if you are wrong.
Comment by Peter — May 18, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - May 18, 2009
*looks around desk* No, no pictures of potential partners. I have gotten some questions about the ones I display (variations on where is that and what did you do there that have lead to some long conversations), but then if I wasn’t comfortable with the circumstances on display in the picture, I wouldn’t be bringing it in to work.
And I have to admit, there used to be a lot of talk around church about one single in particular. There’s not nearly so much after a move after it was made clear that this person would not get a leadership role after using their influence to… serially attempt to convince potential partners of their life-long bond for possible nefarious purposes. And then threatened to sue the landlord who had given them wide lattitude on deferred rent when the landlord asked when payment could be made, and generally was not considered a model of good behaviour.
Comment by Nony — May 18, 2009 @ 5:08 pm - May 18, 2009
SwampFox: “The DADT policy asks someone who is gay to serve without integrity. Integrity is a basic part, in my mind, of being a good soldier.”
You just called the thousands of gay soldiers fighting the Taliban as “without integrity”. I find that despicable.
Comment by Ben — May 18, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - May 18, 2009
After 26 years in the military, I’ve known gay people who were not open about it but just behaved as themselves. I would rather keep the DADT policy left in place because the whole point is who are you having sex with. To me, that’s no one elses business whether gay or hetero. Just join up, serve with pride and keep your own business to yourself no matter what your sexual orientation. Just my humble opiniion.
Comment by John — May 18, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - May 18, 2009
“The important question is “what does the 18 year old PFC think? The twenty year old Corporal?”
And the answer is… what the Sergeant tells him to think.
Not that it’s a non-problem, but that’s what military discipline is for and that’s what rebuilding social structure in basic training is for. (Some people think it’s to train good boys to be killers… we know better.)
And I don’t think it’s a non-problem. Not at all. But if the experience of women in the military is anything to go by, those in the trenches are usually more practical and more flexible than the critters sitting in Congress making the rules about who can be where and who can do what.
Comment by Synova — May 18, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - May 18, 2009
The assumption is that I am creating a fictional persona.That’s the gay left’s answer to everything– unless you are wearing a pink triangle and singing We Are Family, you are self-loathing. I’m not doing anything to hide my sexuality. I’m not changing pronouns, I’m not making up girlfriends in Canada. I have spoken out in support of gay civil unions. I have told them my excitement about my new musical. Still, no one is asking for any further clarification. What, exactly, is false about my persona? What am I hiding? As I say, I am ready to answer any direct question honestly. NO ONE IS ASKING.
That’s a feature, not a bug! Most people with IQs above room temperature would conclude that you’re probably gay, and that it would be bad manners to ask the question if you yourself don’t bring up the subject. What do you expect? “Hey, Ash — I’ve been meaning to ask! Are you one of them homos?
And how would you expect them to react if they asked and you told them the truth? “Um … er … that’s nice …”? Or how about “Cool! Hey, I’ve always wondered — just what is it that you guys do?” Or “You know very well that the Book of Leviticus condemns that! I’ll bet you eat shellfish, too! You’re going to hell!”
Comment by Murgatroyd — May 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - May 18, 2009
never going to gain respect as a community until we learn the simple fact that most people accept us as long as we don’t flaunt the lewd details of our sex acts
Speaking as a straight man in my 40′s, I’ll mention that I don’t really want to hear lewd details of anyone’s sex life, gay or straight. Fucking is a private matter, and bragging is a turn-off.
Comment by Some Guy — May 18, 2009 @ 5:32 pm - May 18, 2009
55. Or it could be the same as my reaction when someone I’d chatted with occasionally “came out” to me (we were of opposite gender). “Yeah, I know.” (Restatement of same) “Yeah, I knew. So?” I think my complete and total non-reaction to that threw them off their stride.
Comment by Nony — May 18, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - May 18, 2009
“You just called the thousands of gay soldiers fighting the Taliban as “without integrity”. I find that despicable. – Comment by Ben — May 18, 2009 @ 5:19 pm – May 18, 2009″
Sure, Ben, whatever you say.
integrity definition
in·teg·rity (in teg′rə tē)
noun
1. the quality or state of being complete; unbroken condition; wholeness; entirety
2. the quality or state of being unimpaired; perfect condition; soundness
3. the quality or state of being of sound moral principle; uprightness, honesty, and sincerity
Comment by Swampfox — May 18, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - May 18, 2009
You may not feel I have a right to comment, not being gay, but having served as an enlisted man in a combat arm some 40 plus years ago, when the military was much tougher on gays, I have to tell you there were gay soldiers in my unit. And I suspect most other units. And nobody cared unless that person made it an issue. Sure, there were yahoos, but no assaults, name calling, harassment, etc. Probably because the majority of the troops wouldn’t tolerate that type of behavior, and had a natural antipathy towards harassers (to say nothing of the first sargeant).
But, if a gay self-identified, he would be gone on a general discharge within 6 hours. That happened twice, one occurrence in each of two separate units that I served in.
In both cases they were draftees who were approaching the end of their tour.
And of course, the rules and society’s attitudes were much different then. Just some food for thought.
Comment by Charlie — May 18, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - May 18, 2009
Can someone point me towards the real military thinking behind DADT? (I.E. why is the brass in such a logically indefensible position? Even if you ascribe the true motivation to un-restrained homophobia, the brass would have some military justification.
The idea that tales of sexuality would be gross to the point of affecting cohesion can be fairly easily dispelled with a version of current PDA regulations. (Not to mention: “You shut up and I’ll shut up too.”) I don’t think many would assert “Gays can’t fight”. I don’t think many would assert that straights won’t serve with gays. (There have always been soldiers who are gay and people “knew” even if they weren’t told.)
It seems to me there has to be some justification on the grounds of military effectiveness that just cannot be openly stated.
I can think of only of a few possible answers: The experience of handling sex within the chain of command has been such a failure with women in the services is so bad they think they can’t deal with further similar problems. Another idea might be that the brass does not want the services to become a haven for gay males who they fear would become disproportionately represented. (I suspect the thinking is that 10% gay participation in the military is acceptable, but that 50% would destroy effectiveness and morale.) A third might be that the services fear the military becoming a battleground for gay rights. None of these seem convincing to me. Can someone enlighten me?
Comment by Bill Kovacs — May 18, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - May 18, 2009
“You just called the thousands of gay soldiers fighting the Taliban as “without integrity”. I find that despicable. – Comment by Ben — May 18, 2009 @ 5:19 pm – May 18, 2009″
Thousands? Hundreds? A handful? There’s no way to know. My estimate is a handful. Someone needs to explain how our armed forces are any worse off for the want of more gay warfighters.
Comment by Carlos — May 18, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - May 18, 2009
I disagree about Choi. While I respect the rights of gays to pursue the issue of having gays serve openly, Choi knew the rules when he signed up. The military is about following rules. If he feels he can’t be true to himself then more power to him.
Comment by Becky — May 18, 2009 @ 6:30 pm - May 18, 2009
Both the church and the military are places where gays have not lived out their lives openly, for the most part (at least in this and the earlier century). So my points about the church picnic seem relevant to Lt. Choi’s decision. Both church and the military appear to have the same DADT policy.
So, should gays just avoid places where they don’t have a defined social role? Or do we simply stay in the gay ghetto? My identity comes more from being a Chr–tian than a homosexual, so I relate on a more fundamental level with other Chr–tians than other gays. I suspect soldiers think of themselves as soldiers first and gays second. So it is perplexing when, having accepted you for your fundamental identity as a soldier or a Chr–tian, you are asked to keep silence about something which is less fundamental.
Yes, I want acceptance from the church. Soldiers want acceptance from other soldiers–I’m not sure why that’s a reason we should all get over ourselves. The problem is how to be a part of society which does not have a tradition for including gays–do you jump in with an announcement, hoping to wake people up with confrontation? Or do you build your relationships on another foundation and wait for the subject to come up naturally?
I would never, in a million, billion years address a child without at least 3 adults being present. Which is sad, because I am one of those single adults who is good with children and who is not a pedophile. I’ve often felt that one of gays traditional social roles was to help take care of the kids of exhausted parents–we were designed to be the “honorary uncles” of the family. I think it’s sad that prejudice has taken us out of that role.
Gays are also the best soldiers–look at Achilles, David, Gilgamesh, Alexander, Richard I, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. It’s sad that prejudice has not allowed us to play that role either.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 6:48 pm - May 18, 2009
P.S. I am out to both pastors. When I joined the church, I was fully honest with them about who I was. I told them that I was going to do exactly what I’ve done–build relationships with people and let the subject come up naturally. One pastor has suggested that the guys I hang out with do, in fact, know I’m gay, but don’t care and that’s why they’re not asking.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 6:56 pm - May 18, 2009
My gaydar works like a divining rod — and it has pointed in the wrong direction on occasion.
I actually like DADT. No policy can address every individual’s needs and we cannot expect policy to create each of our utopias. As imperfect as it may be anecdotally, I expect it’s the most workable solution for allowing homosexuals to serve while respecting the military culture that is — and should be — apart from civilian culture. DADT does not prevent homosexuals from serving; there is no gay ban in our military. This together with the voluntary nature of our military is, in my inexpert opinion, a minimal and acceptable level of discrimination. One sign of maturity is the ability to shut up and accept that one is not the center of the universe. From my observation, this is the homosexual’s greatest challenge.
Pat, we disagree but I’d like to say I really appreciate your respectful, civil tone. Thanks. In fact, this thread is remarkably civil despite plenty of disagreement and points of view. A salute to all.
Comment by Ignatius — May 18, 2009 @ 7:05 pm - May 18, 2009
# 65 Ashpenaz: Gays are also the best soldiers–look at Achilles, David, Gilgamesh, Alexander, Richard I, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. It’s sad that prejudice has not allowed us to play that role either.
So now we’ve gone from “Gays are perfectly competent soldiers” (which is a perfectly respectable statement) to “Gays are the best soldiers”? Heck, everyone, we’ve completely missed the boat– we need an all-gay army! And possibly one from ancient times judging by the selection of warriors you’ve picked, with the exception of Mr. Lawrence.
I don’t think anyone’s asserted that being gay causes inferior soldiering. The argument’s about the relative positive and negative effects (and there are both) of allowing gays to serve openly. Please maintain relevancy.
Comment by Paul — May 18, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - May 18, 2009
[...] Gay Patriot has more on this topic (and he’s better at expressing his thoughts than I am, besides): I’ve always supported a strong military, opposing restrictions, generally coming from well-meaning liberals, which decrease its effectiveness. And that’s how I see the ban on gays serving openly. It serves no purpose, save to placate those holding on to long discredited prejudices against gay people. And it deprives the military of qualified personnel. [...]
Pingback by One Stack Mind » Blog Archive » Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? — May 18, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - May 18, 2009
I am a retired 24-year veteran of the Air force. I served with several men I knew were homosexual, but they didn’t bother me and I didn’t bother them. In my experience, gay males were not a problem, generally. However, in the 70s, when large numbers of women entered the service, female homosexuals became a great disruption. At Clark AB, a group of them took over the inspection branch of an aircraft maintenance squadron. They got all the cute girls assigned to their branch. They controlled the women’s barracks and the women’s sports teams. They used this control to coerce heterosexual women to have sex with them and blackmail supervisors to turn their heads to what they were up to. Higher-ups were afraid of them because of Carter administration policies. A charge of sexual discrimination could end an officer’s career. This went on until the anti-fraternization rules started being enforced again under Ronald Reagan.
Comment by ken in sc — May 18, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - May 18, 2009
Item one: While I have plenty of sympathy for gay folk who want to serve but don’t because of DADT, I have none for those who flagrantly violate it. If you want to serve, for now you must submit yourself to the rules. Or else stay away — THAT’s integrity, by the way.
If you disagree with those rules (and many do), keep your mouth shut or don’t serve. Instead, consider lobbying for change without proving to me that you won’t fulfill a commitment you freely made — I will have only scorn for you. It’s not like DADT is some sort of surprise sprung unsuspecting volunteers No way would I ever want to serve with anyone flaunting it. It’s a trust thing.
Item two: I consider the military a vital tool in defense of the nation. Not “nice to have,” not “cool,” but “vital.” I raised my right hand and took an oath knowing that I might be asked to put it all on the line for this country. Because I believe that sometimes it’s necessary. If a policy change affects the readiness of the military, or it’s ability to win against any foe, whether or not any single citizen or group of citizens are “left out” because of that policy is NOT my primary concern.
Folks, I was taught how to break crap and kill people, normally very illegal, because someone felt (and I agree) that sometimes that’s the tool needed. If the normal rules against ** killing human beings ** are suspended, why be surprised that other rules we normally consider “civilized” (EEOC, etc) might be as well ?
IF having openly gay people serving (and I’m by no means certain of that) harms military readiness, then that’s too bad for the gay folks. My friend was crushed to learn that because of his vision he could not be a fighter pilot — but them’s the breaks. If allowing folks with poorer vision diminished the effectiveness of the Air Force, then those people’s desire to serve in that capacity must be suborned to maintain the standards.
Item three: If it can be demonstrated (note where I place the burden) that allowing openly gay people to serve won’t alter the social dynamics of the military — and if you’ve never served I doubt you have any idea what those are or how important they are — then I don’t care if they serve. I never asked anyone I served with, and as long as they did their job I really couldn’t think of a reason to. We certainly need as many intelligent, committed patriots as we can get, and there won’t be any fewer among gay people than among heteros.
But I do seriously wonder about what the team dynamics would be like. I can think of some places where I flat out don’t want women alongside men either, I served in a specialty closed to women, so I never encountered sexual tension or protectiveness. But a friend who was a marine sure caught some of the protectiveness, and she hated every patronizing minute of it.
In sum, my opinion is that the anyone volunteering needs to obey the policy. And as for change — the burden of proof is on those seeking to change the policy, not on those seeking to maintain it. The military’s first priority is not to provide an exciting adventure / deep, satisfying commitment / fun job / etc for every citizen seeking one — it’s to keep us alive as a nation. It’s literally not like any other job I have held.
So, how would we go about designing a policy to test the integration of gays into the military ? (A better one that the one that allowed women into the ‘combat arms,’ please. I considered that one a friggin’ disaster overall).
Comment by no one of consequence — May 18, 2009 @ 8:04 pm - May 18, 2009
Actually, if you define gay as “masculine loving masculine,” then gays would make the best soldiers. The qualities one associates with the military–honor, responsibility, discipline, physical strength, integrity, etc. are traditionally thought of as masculine. I currently watch shows like Deadliest Warrior or Warriors or even the Military Channel. Those men have a strong sense of their masculinity. If you read Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, Antony was brought down by his heterosexuality and the weakness it implied. Men who love men don’t have the same kind of soft, romantic weakness as straight men. Look at Yukio Mishima–esp. The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea. So, yes, soldiers who are men not drawn to marriage and family life don’t have the softer side that family men do.
Comment by Ashpenaz — May 18, 2009 @ 8:10 pm - May 18, 2009
I must take issue with that. That view went out after Reagan. Bush adhered to it, somewhat, but it has no place in the GOP of 2009. The basic tenets of the ultra-modern conservative movement are to “return America to Christ”, whatever that might mean. The moderates are being purged.
This too shall pass, but right now, I see evidence of increased , not decreased, wingnuttery. Labeling an extension to existing anti-terrorism statute as the “Pedophile Protection Bill” because it allows federal intervention if a victim is killed for being gay, and local law refuses to prosecute. Not forgetting the increased pressure to substitute creationism for science in the classroom.
This leaves conservatives of the “broad tent” kind out in the cold, as the Democrats are even less welcoming, and the President thinks “God is in the mix”.
Comment by Zoe Brain — May 18, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - May 18, 2009
Oh good grief Ashpenaz, Antony and Cleopatra?
As far as I’m concerned the issue here is skill sets. If you need an
Arabic translator, do you really refuse to use a guy who knows Arabic because he won’t pretend he’s not gay? How stupid is that?
Comment by JM Hanes — May 18, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - May 18, 2009
One big issue here is that what we currently have in the US is a volunteer military. While it is a “public” institution, whose role is national defense, it is not a mandatory experience for anybody at this time. Were we to reinstate the draft, then there’d be a much greater need for this issue to be truly resolved, but even though it’s a loss for our national defense that someone with skills such as Arabic language, or perhaps computer programming, or something be discharged, at the same time, the policy decision a) lies with Congress and b) is not the same as the issue of desegregation of a conscript force fighting in a conventional war, and the issue at hand comes down to labeling, and defining what people have to be forced to accept as “normal” within an arena where “normal” needs to be something reliable, i.e., in a combat or non-combat situation, they shouldn’t have to feel extremely uncomfortable with the person they’re working with, and therein lies a major difference between culture and sexuality, and is part of, i would guess, the reasoning behind the restrictions on women in forward combat situations.
Comment by Retcon — May 18, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - May 18, 2009
er, i meant to say “the difference between RACE and sexuality” as a function of culture… unless one believes that races are somehow less capable of self-control, which would, by definition, be racist.
Comment by Retcon — May 18, 2009 @ 9:43 pm - May 18, 2009
#62, the military brass doesn’t defend the policy; they only implement it. The military had no say in developing the policy–it was Bill Clinton and Congress’s idea. What we had before that worked okay, but the implementation of it varied across the services and units.
In the Marines, simply stating you were gay wasn’t grounds for discharge; only committing homosexual acts was. In some units, as soon as someone announced they were gay, the CO would do everything he could to find proof of homosexual acts so the gay could be discharged. In other units, the CO would yawn and say, “So what? Is he a good Marine?”
It was certainly ironic that after Clinton’s DADT policy went into effect, the CO never had that sort of discretion.
Comment by Rex — May 18, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - May 18, 2009
Ashpenaz,
I’m one of the church ladies who doesn’t ask. I knew a man in our church for almost 6 years before I leaned that he was gay (he shared the info with me and a few others). We talked about our kids, his parents (when they were ill), church activities, and the weather, but I would no more ask someone about their sexual orientation than I would ask a childless couple if they ever plan to have children. Now that I know, it hasn’t changed our conversations in the least.
Once my son asked if I thought this man was gay (another youth had said something to my son). I told him that I didn’t know, but that I didn’t think it made any difference- he’s a nice man and a great father. Also, I don’t know why I would know unless he mentioned something about someone he was dating, or some other reference. I’m not going to jump to conclusions based on someone’s marital status, career or where they choose to live.
I think most church people are just trying to accept you as you present yourself, not avoiding the issue.
Comment by JeanE — May 18, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - May 18, 2009
Folks,
I agree with alot of what is being said here, but won’t repeat it – at 70+ comments, it’s been said well already. Instead, I’d like to add comments that aren’t being said.
[1] The idea that our identity – our sense of who we are – critically involves our sexuality is an uncommon one in the straight world. Most straight men identify with their careers, most straight women, once they reach that age, identify with their families. What is important to consider, though, is not the general perspective but the exceptions: the exeptional straight male identifies with his family, the exceptional straight female with her career. Even the exceptions do not identify with their sexuality – it is just not a conscious factor in identification.
[2] DADT is not a policy, but a law. There is a policy, of course, but it simply enacts the law. Change has to begin in Congress. That said, change is coming, but it will not be gay-centric. The evaporation of DADT will fold into the broader winds of change blowing through the military (the expanding role of women, the shift of focus to asymmetric and information warfare, etc), change that will make the military more an instrument of diplomacy and national identity politics on an international stage, and less an instrument for ass-kicking indifference to other people’s defective cultures.
[3] The military is not a policy-driven, nor even a law-driven institution – not yet, anyway. Having a policy against gays in the military does not prevent gays serving in the military, any more than our policies against obese soldiers prevent the perpetually, unrepentantly, never-going-to-lose-weight obese soldiers from serving. It is hard for the non-military to grasp, but the military does not work that way. It is the ultimate personality-driven organization, not a rule-driven organization.
[4] The first thing that you learn in basic training is that you no longer have the precious rights that you fight to defend. In order to defend rights for others in “soft society”, it is necessary to have a class of servants who voluntarily waive their rights as a matter of attitude. Drill sergeants put it in colorful terms, like “you have lost the right to taste your food, maggot!”, but it is a broader aspect of the culture. The military is just not an ADA, OSHA kind of employer – at least not yet. That is coming.
[5] Finally, a bold prediction: when the change comes, when DADT is overturned, the result will be fewer gays in the military. DADT is an important factor in recruiting gays, because it gives them something their straight counterparts lack: an escape clause. The importance of this should not be underestimated by anyone who has never sat down with a recruiter to discuss the fine print of a standard enlistment contract.
Comment by Kristo Miettinen — May 18, 2009 @ 10:23 pm - May 18, 2009
#33, Don 51 Addresses the fundamental issue regarding DADT and comments on some very important issues.
DADT resulted from President Clinton trying to accomplish by executive order what is constitutionally a function of congress but DADT did not change the fact that regulations exist for good order and discipline and it not optional for Officers and Non-Commissioned officers to ignore these regulations.
There are many homosexuals who were serving honorably before and after DADT, they don’t make sexual orientation an issue and many just want to be left alone. Few commanders seek administrative discharges for service members and the majority of homosexual administrative discharge investigations originate with a service member seeking an administrative separation from the military.
Heterosexuality is more common and those caught engaging in sexual activity or other sexually related disruptive behaviors are often disciplined under the UCMJ. A very sad case that I recall was a young Marine that I completed a separation physical for after he served several months of confinement in the Brig before a dishonorable discharge for adultery. Fortunately he was able to save his marriage but a promising career with multiple combat deployments was ruined. Interestingly, this young man was not bitter because he considered his sentence as justified and appropriate.
It seems to me that Lt. Choi may be more interested in making himself a martyr than affecting change through congressional action. If this policy is to change then it should be debated in the House and Senate, hopefully recorded on CSPAN. With debate it will become obvious that changing this law will be more complicated than many realize. Likewise with legislative compromise few get everything they want and the end result may not be what is expected, but this is the process defined by our constitution.
UCMJ requires behavior different than what is common for many average citizens and many have difficulty making this transition from the civilian life which they are accustomed. It is a better case when someone is administratively separated for a failure to adapt, than to receive a less that honorable discharge for a pattern of misconduct or a dishonorable discharge from a Courts Martial. Although many homosexuals adapt well to the military environment, others who want to profess and publicly display a sexually promiscuous lifestyle may have difficulty reconciling this with a conservative military lifestyle based upon centuries of tradition. Furthermore, if congress passes legislation changing DADT, some aspects of a sexually liberal culture may be determined incompatible with military order and discipline and defined as an offense by the UCMJ. Ultimately what today may result in a relatively benign administrative separation, after a legislative compromise to allow for homosexual service could result in a less than honorable discharge for the same behavior.
Comment by Patrick — May 18, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - May 18, 2009
Is it just me, or is everyone else noticing this same talking point being plopped into every conservative blog over the last week or so. Funny how this EXACT point finds its way into the discussion no matter what the discussions is. (see post #72)
The set up: “the ideals of the modern American conservative movement, the basic tenets of which are limited government, a strong national defense and judicial restraint.”
Talking Point Response: “That view went out after Reagan. Bush adhered to it, somewhat, but it has no place in the GOP of 2009. The basic tenets of the ultra-modern conservative movement are to “return America to Christ”, whatever that might mean. The moderates are being purged. This too shall pass, but right now, I see evidence of increased , not decreased, wingnuttery.”
oooh. Thanks for the super secret tip! I guess we should all go back to the left where we can find solace in the fact that it is run by corrupt Chicago Gangsters and a president, who sat in Rev Wright’s church and has the same view on same-sex unions as Miss Ca.
Oh.. and drop the phrase “wingnuttery”. It just tips the hand that you have a parrot brain.
Comment by Becky — May 18, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - May 18, 2009
I figured that the Sacred Band of Thebes settled the matter of homosexuals in military service.
After that, there are disruptive aspects of sexuality that can not be tolerated in a military establishment. Adultery being one among many.
Comment by Don Meaker — May 18, 2009 @ 11:34 pm - May 18, 2009
#23 “Military forces have successfully integrated gays all over the world, and have prospered as a result.”
Not saying you don’t have it, but please some evidence of militaries that are demonstrably more effective after integrating openly gay soldiers? Surely you are not going to mention European militaries…
Comment by b — May 18, 2009 @ 11:41 pm - May 18, 2009
I support gay marriage and in theory openly gay service in the military. But I do think that it isn’t something that can happen without careful steps to avoid problems.
My main concern originally was the reaction of the regular troops and the problems involved as well as the additional layer of eggshells that everybody will find themselves stepping around.
But here is another issue that I haven’t heard discussed. It has been my experience that the gay community provides a very effective networking platform for young, ambitious people whether in business or whatever field they happen to be in.
When I was younger and in the entertainment business I watched guys my age spending valuable social time in the evenings with gay executives and exploiting that access to open up career opportunities that were closed to a straight guy like me.
When I was in the Peace Corps, our gay country director would have monthly gay dinners at his palatial apartment with all the gay volunteers and give each of them his personal attention to whatever issues they were dealing with.
I have to say that this can create resentment with people that are working their butts off side by side with gay buddies but don’t have that kind of exclusive access and thus don’t have the same opportunities to advance or get things done.
So I wonder if there will be a need to create some kind of firewall in the service that anticipates and reduces such issues. I know there are rules in place about officers and enlisted fraternizing but more may be needed in a post DADT world.
Comment by beb — May 19, 2009 @ 12:32 am - May 19, 2009
Oh please, houses have bigger closets now, just find one and stay there.
and please, when in the larger world, don’t ask and don’t tell. we already know, don’t care much, but really tired of the fuss.
Comment by ted logan — May 19, 2009 @ 1:45 am - May 19, 2009
Because straight soldiers use that as a mechanism for bonding and creating camradarie. How is that purpose served by having the one gay soldier start gabbing about his hot man sex?
It would be like going to a cocktail party and starting to talk about hunting or something. No one else can identify, so the purpose of even speaking is not served. The difference here is that not only is the purpose of the ritual no served (bonding and comradarie) since no one else identifies, it’s also especially awkward because it’s sexual, and especially reckless because it’s technically illegal.
So what’s the point exactly of wanting to participate? What does a gay guy get in exchange for this apparently coveted ability to discuss his sex life with a dozen straight guys?
Comment by DoDoGuRu — May 19, 2009 @ 7:19 am - May 19, 2009
The idea that our identity – our sense of who we are – critically involves our sexuality is an uncommon one in the straight world. Most straight men identify with their careers, most straight women, once they reach that age, identify with their families. What is important to consider, though, is not the general perspective but the exceptions: the exeptional straight male identifies with his family, the exceptional straight female with her career. Even the exceptions do not identify with their sexuality – it is just not a conscious factor in identification.
Kristo, of course not. When the assumption is that one is straight, no one needs to explicity mention he is straight. So when the straight male talks about his wife and children, or girlfriend, or that women he finds attractive, it does not become conscience to the observer that the person is being as blatant about their sexuality as a gay person who talks about his boyfriend.
The day will come when it will be the same for gay persons as you believe it is for straight persons. But we’re not there yet. Not as long as DADT is in place, different recognized status for relationships, and a culture that still keeps these differences in place.
Comment by Pat — May 19, 2009 @ 7:53 am - May 19, 2009
Somebody asked above what the background to the DADT policies was. DoD commissioned a study of homosexual policy from the RAND Corporation during the Clinton years, and this ultimately led to DADT. You can read it here:
http://rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/
It is still very relevant.
Comment by CJD — May 19, 2009 @ 8:30 am - May 19, 2009
DADT, for all its flaws, is the current law our soldiers live by. I welcome gays challenging it from outside the service, but if they choose to don the uniform, they need to abide by the law. Giving people tanks, guns and nuclear weapons only makes sense if they are willing to submit to the often-^H^H^H^H^H almost always-flawed political system.
The same discipline that made the Army quick to dispense with segregation (under orders from the CinC) should make them willing to endure DADT until such time as the Commander in Chief decides to dispense with it.
Comment by Wells — May 19, 2009 @ 8:34 am - May 19, 2009
Oh, and by the way, it’s amazing to me the sheer number of gay Arabic translators there apparently are in Hypothetical Land… Who knew that Arabic was the exclusive province of gay soldiers? Live and learn, I guess.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — May 19, 2009 @ 8:46 am - May 19, 2009
Becky – read that last line of my post again. In post 82, you wrote:
I’ve never been on the left, so can hardly go back. And I wrote:
I didn’t mention that he’s a Demagogue, a product of the corrupt Chicago machine, is OK on national security but a complete disaster on foreign policy,makes bothe the Harding and Grant administrations look like models of rectitude, and those are just his good points. Because I’ll take that as read, and that most in the DNC are even worse (Pelosi anyone?).
My concern is, for example, senior Republicans who profess to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that homosexuality should be criminalised, and that Evil-utionists are part of some New York Banker conspiracy.
And BTW, I’m Australian. I just want our ally to be led by someone who is competent, and neither Kleptocratic faux-Marxist nor Christian-Talibanesque.
Comment by Zoe Brain — May 19, 2009 @ 9:06 am - May 19, 2009
Examples of any “senior Republican” who has said one of these things please? Ron Paul doesn’t count.
Comment by DoDoGuRu — May 19, 2009 @ 9:36 am - May 19, 2009
Here is something from a lead Senior Republican. . .
“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. … People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.”
Would be bery difficult for a lead senior Republican to speak out against Gay Marriage and incur the wrath of Cheney. . .
but their are those who voice their opposition to gay folk and SSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY28jU8oCqM
Comment by rusty — May 19, 2009 @ 12:39 pm - May 19, 2009
Zoe, we’ve known each other online since before, but I’ve got to side with DoDoGuRu on this Republican/Christianphobia thing. I’ve lived deep in the Bible belt for most of my life and, contrary to what MSNBC et. al. would have you think, I’ve never met a single person who believes Jesus had a pet dinosaur. I think the characturization of all social conservatives as dumb, anti-science, illogical and even dangerous Christian zealots has been a carefully cultivated stereotype used by the left to force divides among the Republican party. As DDGR said, please provide examples of specific “senior Republicans” and we’ll talk.
My concern with repealing DADT is that any action taken will be donbe exclusively in a political vacuum without any consideration of legitimate issues. I would like the following openly and honestly discussed before taking action, but I’m not holding my breath:
- Privacy. Is it a reasonable expectation for a service member to not want to be the object of unwanted sexual attention or is the criteria set at unwanted sexual advances? If the latter, then why do we maintain separate berthing/sanitation for males and females? Or is it only female members that can reasonable expect this degree of privacy? Why or why not?
- Equal treatment. Will violations of good order and discipline related to consentual gay sex be treated the same as hetro sex? I have serious reservations it will. I woul dhave to agree with ken from sc, that semi-open lesbians are much more common in the military than semi-open gay men, and that even these days shipboard dalliances between women are often purposefully ignored since: 1) there is no risk of pregnancy, and 2) the risk of having to defend against charges of sexism just for raising accusations against a woman. With DADT gone, one now has to also worry about being accused of engaging in a gay witch hunt every time you bring a fellow up on NJP for playing hide the salami while underway. This sort of double standard is always contrary to good order an ddiscipline, and needs to be honestly discussed.
Comment by submandave — May 19, 2009 @ 1:24 pm - May 19, 2009
Submandave, regarding the privacy comment. We all agree that military life is different than civilian life. But military life still mimics a lot of civilian life. This includes separate rest rooms for men and women. We don’t have separate rest rooms or showers for straight and gay men. And for the most part, this works out fine.
As for equal treatment, I don’t see why that should be a problem. If there is a risk of a charge of sexism, then that’s another problem that has nothing to do with sexual orientation and needs to be dealt with.
Comment by Pat — May 19, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - May 19, 2009
Pat, I used the observed difference in the way women are sometimes treated to avoid “stigmatization as an oppressor” as an example of how I would expect gays to also be sometimes treated differently in a post-DADT military, given that both women and gays are part of a protected group. The double standard I speak of with regard to treatment of female violators of UCMJ proscribed conduct has been personally observed, as have the ill effects on good order and morale.
I hope those who have read my comments before realize that I’m not hell-bent on preserving DADT, but my basic conservative nature leaves me wanting an honest appraisal of pros and cons and not just political posturing before taking action one way or the other.
Comment by submandave — May 19, 2009 @ 3:25 pm - May 19, 2009
Zoe Brain, I apologize since it seems you are not a troll dropping a talking point, but rather someone who believes what you wrote. I feel that post #94 addresses my response better than I could have done so myself.
IMHO, you should get a mirror and ask yourself if you aren’t projecting your own bigotry on those whom you claim to be bigoted. I can point to any number of gay activists whom are bullies and who discredit the entire gay movement. If I were to focus on these high profile gay activists who have acted badly and then use them as an example of why gays should be pushed from the fight for limited government etc, you would be right to be offended that I had misrepresented the beliefs and behavior or the majority of gay individuals. Why then, should the majority of Christians not be offended at your attempt to smear them with the Christian boogey men whom I suspect you have never met, but believe lurk behind every tree?
You might as well be a troll because your goal is to divide and conquer. I suggest you decide what is more important to you. Is it more important to keep the values of freedom of thought and limited government or is it more important to you to have Christians “accept” your lifestyle. There is a big difference between fighting for acceptance versus fighting to end discrimination. The former requires that you change the way people think and the second requires that you change the way people act, regardless of how they think.
I don’t care if you accept my Christian beliefs, but I do care if you take action to prevent me from worshipping as I please. Likewise, you have the right to use the rules of the republic and democracy to fight for gay marriage and to include gays in the military. And others that have different beliefs have the right to fight against you. In a way it is much like the abortion issue. Do you think that those who either agree or disagree with abortion should be elimated from the tent to help push for limited government and the freedoms secured in the Bill of Rights? Because to do so would be silly. It is a moral issue and agreement of thought will never be reached. So why worry about what others think and focus instead on how they can work together to achieve goals common to both of them?
Comment by Becky — May 19, 2009 @ 4:37 pm - May 19, 2009
Does one join the military to serve or to find a soapbox from which to make public your political views?
When one joins the military you willingly subordinate everything the military tells you to subordinate of yourself to the military. Then, knowing this and making a voluntary pledge to adhere, why do you want to challenge it?
It is about YOU?
Comment by Michael — May 19, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - May 19, 2009
submandave – when you speak, I listen.
Maybe the US military really is different from the Australian, Canadian or UK militaries in a fundamental way. I doubt it though, and although the problems you raised did crop up – and still do – they’re no worse than existing problems regarding fraternisation in a mixed-sex environment. In Australia, we’ve dealt with the same-sex issue for well over a decade now, and have just about got a good handle on trans issues as well. Imperfect, but getting better, and I think we’re actually better in that area now than either the Canadians or the UK. Certainly far better than we were 10 years ago.
As for the growing anti-scientific bent of the GOP, I’ll just quote Gov. Sanford
When the Discovery Institute is used as the sole source of scientific background for most senior GOP politicians, we have a problem.
Gov Palin was libelled for believing in “Jesus Horses” etc. as part of aco-ordinated smear campaign. The thing is, such ridiculous things become believable when Senator Graham can say
And hecklers can say “Yes he is!” and not be lone voices. When there’s serious talk about rehabilitating crazy old Pat Buchanan, it doesn’t give me warm fuzzies about the future direction of the GOP.
And now I’ll have to go chase up the URLs of sayings from other senior GOP figures, especially the Texas ones about New York Bankers and Evil-utionists. For my sins, I’ve had to fight the good fight in comments pages in many local papers. Some of the comments, not by crazy individuals, but senior GOP state legislators, have been scary. I don’t like the way things are trending, and I think the backlash against the unprecedented incompetence of the Obama administration is going to strengthen the Wingnuts rather than the sane.
Comment by Zoe Brain — May 19, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - May 19, 2009
Just thought I’d point out that nothing in the Gov Sanford quote says that he believes that the Earth is 6000 years old or that Jesus had a pet Dinosaur.
And I think that demanding that GOP Senators, Governors or anyone else leap back and scream, “Get away from me you freaky God people!” just to be darned sure that no one can possibly think anything other than that they believe their constituents who *are* New Earthers are the very spawn of Satan… I think that’s a bit much.
Comment by Synova — May 20, 2009 @ 12:48 am - May 20, 2009
Pat, I used the observed difference in the way women are sometimes treated to avoid “stigmatization as an oppressor” as an example of how I would expect gays to also be sometimes treated differently in a post-DADT military, given that both women and gays are part of a protected group. The double standard I speak of with regard to treatment of female violators of UCMJ proscribed conduct has been personally observed, as have the ill effects on good order and morale.
Submandave, I appreciate your response. And I think I understood your point here. I see the problem that you observed. But that’s the problem that needs to be fixed. For example, I don’t believe you’re suggesting the way to fix the problem with women that you described is to ban women from the military.
There are plenty of gay men who are qualified and willing to serve in the military as openly gay men and would follow the rules. It seems to me that keeping the current policy because there would be some gay men would exploit the rule and the military may have difficulty dealing with a protected class would be a shame. To me, it would be like saying that men should not be world leaders, because some of them are hideous cretins.
There may be other reasons to keep DADT. I’m just saying that if there are problems that come up indirectly as a result of ending DADT, similar to problems that exist even now, as you suggest, then those problems need to be addressed and fixed.
Comment by Pat — May 20, 2009 @ 7:49 am - May 20, 2009
zoe brain. If that’s the best you can do, then you need to get off the stage. You use the words wing nuttery and bring up Sara Palin and Ron Paul, which supports my original theory that you are little more than a “seminar” blogger. It is obvious that you have no cause or convictions to be on this thread other than drumming up discontent with the GOP by promoting bigotry towards Christians, painting the GOP as anti-science (very lame attempt) and frightening the more traditional members of the party by bringing up Ron Paul. Funny how that fits right in with the assesment by the dem strategist, that was released last week, about how to temper the effect of the tea parties. I hope they aren’t paying you, as your attempts are feeble at best. And if they aren’t paying you, then there is something very pathetic about the marching minion-like purpose of your posts.
If I were gay patriot, I would be insulted that you used this particular thread to promote such crude attempts demean, dehumanize and to promote bigotry towards groups of “others” in order to futher your poltical cause.
Comment by Becky — May 20, 2009 @ 9:59 am - May 20, 2009
Pat, it sounds as if we’re in violent agreement. 8^D
Unfortunately, politics, and too often “PC” politics, colors too much of the operational world. Just as it is taboo to have an honest discussion or investigation to the adverse effects on unit readiness caused by “unintended” pregnancies while deployed, I anticipate there will be similar off-limit areas in dealing with issues unique to (or predominently concerning) gay service members. I agree that this is not neccessarily sufficient to justify a ban on either women or gays, but full and equal integration would be much easier without the “equal except when…” lobby weighing in.
Comment by submandave — May 20, 2009 @ 11:26 am - May 20, 2009
Becky, you don’t know me from Adam, but I hope you get a feel about from where I stand from my comments here. That said, I’ve known and read Zoe for a long time and she is no “seminar” commenter. As I said to her above, I think she’s drunk a bit too much Christainphobic Kool-Aid, but I’m sure this specific response has been precipitated by personal experiences with some rather non-Christ-like Christians. You’d probably be surprised how much you two would agree on other issues.
Comment by submandave — May 20, 2009 @ 11:31 am - May 20, 2009
Well, okay. I’m not a regular poster here. However, I do think it is important to note that regardless of her motives, she is doing exactly what the dem strategist suggested be the strategy to weaken the impact of the tea parties among democrats.
And as thus, she just doesn’t “advance the ideals of the modern American conservative movement, the basic tenets of which are limited government, a strong national defense and judicial restraint.” Rather, she wants a big tent that only includes those who share her point of view. She points her finger at one or two people and then paints millions of others with the same brush. That’s bigotry. Pot meet kettle.
Comment by Becky — May 20, 2009 @ 4:40 pm - May 20, 2009
One final snark, but as an Austrailian, why should anyone expect Zoe to “advance the ideals of the modern American conservative movement?”
Comment by submandave — May 21, 2009 @ 11:26 am - May 21, 2009