Bill Quick offers the best succinct defense of these patriots I have heard to date, “Gays in the military have a greater respect for the liberties America offers than do those who hate them, and refuse to extend those liberties even to those who fight and die to preserve them.”
Shouldn’t we want more such soldiers serving in our armed forces?
This is the best I’ve ever read. My Vince was the toughest MF’er in his unit. And Bill Quick captures his spirit in its essence. Thanks.
Great post! I wonder what experiences, both good and bad, gays in the military services of the UK, Israel, France, etc. may have had.
It’s especially interesting that other US agencies have no prohibition against. Again, I wonder what is their experience?
I disagree.
I have trouble with the phrase “…extend those liberties…” in the context of DADT. DADT is at the behest of Congress and military culture is and should be separate from civilian culture; the policies governing our armed services should not be measured against the same standards as those enjoyed by those the members of these services have volunteered to protect. Our armed services do not fight and die to preserve their own “liberties” except indirectly; in utilizing conflation, the author’s premise upon which he builds his comparison is flawed.
I also have trouble with the phrase “…have a greater respect for the liberties America offers than do those who hate them…” because this is quite simply a rhetorical device meant to regard a so-called victim of discrimination (to which that victim volunteered to be subjected) with a piety that cannot be meaningfully measured. Who can state with any certainty the individual’s level of respect for anything (much less a group) any more than another, for example one that does not distinguish between those gay soldiers who wish to end the policy and those who do not? Which liberties does Quick mean — ones that allow hatred? Who is more hateful: those who support a policy that allows homosexuals to serve without disclosing their sexuality or those who will not allow that individual homosexuals have their own ideas and rationales, expressed in the willingness to serve in a system that subordinates their sexuality? Few assumptions are more hateful than the myth of the monolith.
Moreover, I also have trouble with the phrase “…than do those who hate them…” because the author assumes DADT is supported by those who hate homosexual soldiers and, by implication, homosexuals generally, i.e. that the policy is itself an expression of hatred in the form of the refusal to extend the dubious liberty of serving as openly homosexual. As the same-sex marriage argument has so often demonstrated, ascribing hatred is easy and lazy — but it sure makes for a succinct argument, especially if silencing the other side is one’s goal.
Iggy…Dude…you took the mental acuity pills tonight!!! That being said, excellent comments. I have a relative who came out several years ago and was accepted by his nuclear family. Since then, I have had the opportunity to meet many of his friends who are gay and serve either in the Navy or Marine Corps. This, frankly, opened my eyes to the numerous gay males who serve our Country in the Armed Services. I don’t believe they think (believe) they are more noble or special than the next person. They have chosen to be in the Armed Services for numerous personal reasons. I believe some cultural zeitgiest surrounding our concept of masculinity and fighting unconsciously prohibits accepting gays as being capable of being in combat.
I disagree with this interpretation. In fact, I find Quick’s presumption off-putting. Who is he to deign the motivations of gays in the military? Even I’m not arrogant enough to suggest that I speak for the whole of gays in the military and I’m one of them. His entire post seems bitter, confrontational, and self-serving.
What gets aggravating is this righteous indignation on my behalf from people who have frankly no dog in the fight. If you agree with me, that there is an honest national defense reason for DADT’s repeal, join that fight. But caterwauling over “discrimination” and “bigotry” hardly embraces the warrior ethos, and frankly makes me (again, I cannot speak for all of us) feel like you’re a) minimizing the sacrifice I’ve chosen to make myself, and b) infantilizing me by coming to my defense in some way which I don’t need or want.
Hey, Duffy — thank you. I’d like to think our gay servicemen and women choose to serve despite their sexuality (or if one prefers, aside from it); the last thing our military needs is homosexuals serving because of their sexuality and/or cheerleaders like Quick who place them on a pedestal while denying them reason.
The temptation to create and point to role models as living artifacts is a strong one, particularly when stereotypes such as those a minority has actively promoted can be challenged with presumed efficiency, in this case the homosexual in an understandably masculine environment. As a gay rightie, I understand the extra effort being true to oneself occasionally requires, but I would hate to be burdened with the aspirations of a community via a self-appointed spokesman — those for whom self-acceptance and assimilation are a chronic mirage.
It’s heartening to read some agreement on this. Kudos.
Thank you, Bill Quick. As a gay who acheived the rank of Sergeant, I feel that having served validates my right to speak out for ending DADT and any other gay issue that I feel strongly about.
Roberto:
You didn’t need to serve in order to validate your right to speak about DADT. Feeling you have to serve in order to have an opinion diminishes the entire debate.
Having served, however, you do have a responsibility to speak respectfully and from the position of someone who understands that sacrifice. I’m sure you do, but just remember to be respectful when the topic comes up. Far too many people put on the cloak of holiness just because they’ve served.
This weekend is Memorial Day. I salute all those that have served our country and who are currently serving.
Of course there were no gay soldiers who served in WWII or any other conflict before DADT was enacted/ just a bit of sarcasm.
CP
Thank you.