Over at Powerline, Paul Mirengoff offers nuanced take on the Pentagon report on DADT and offers this nugget which gets at the nub of the issue:
If repeal can be accomplished at no appreciable cost to the military’s ability to fight, then DADT should be repealed instantly. Otherwise it should not be repealed.
And that’s really what it’s all about. Read the whole thing.
(Please note, I am writing this as I prepare for bed Thursday evening, with a brain fried from a day spent doing last-minute edits of my dissertation. I expect to offer some commentary on his post in the morning, as I believe, he addresses the important objections to DADT repeal — and in a civil manner. Those who favor repeal should address his concerns in a similar manner.)
FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: I had hoped to offer commentary on Paul’s post this morning, but a number of things came up, mostly related to my dissertation, but also thought it important to post on the Kors’ resignation.
The gist of my reply would be that the current legislation puts the ball in the military’s court, so once it passes, the brass can address the concerns raised by the study, perhaps putting forward a tiered approach to repeal, starting e.g., with translators and implementing repeal on a unit by unit basis, addressing the concerns with each unit. Again, I’m not a military guy, so don’t know exactly how to do this, so, let’s have more knowledgeable guys implement the particularities of repeal.
will be looking forward to your response dan.
Sweet heavenly goodness, these people are trained to face death and torture. Every day, they are confronted with complex, life and death situations. Somehow, having to work alongside a gay person just doesn’t seem to be their biggest problem. It’s hard to believe these well-trained soldiers are able to face probably the worst conditions on the planet, but they wouldn’t be able to handle the same working conditions as a clerk a J. Crew.
Can anybody please explain why Sen. John McCain has a hair across his butt on DADT? It’s hard to believe that this is the same guy who gave a stirring speech after Mark Bingham’s death. Politics, gotta love it.
O I get it.
Your position: Screw you gays on DADT repeal. You have to answer every bigoted concern of every bigoted bigot in America before you earned the right to die for your country.
That’s your final answer?
“Can DADT repeal be accomplished without hampering military’s ability to fight? ”
—————–
Not the way they’re doing it; “If you have a problem with gays in the military, you should leave the military.”
How the hell is this supposed to encourage acceptance and cooperation? It sounds more like someone is trying to sabotage the process. If gay & straight will eventually be expected to fight on the same side, what purpose is served by setting the groups against each other?
.
According to a number of the military personnel I’ve talked to about this, their biggest dread is not serving alongside an openly gay person, but rather:
(A) Having to sit through yet another Equal Opportunity sensitivity training session;
(B) Having to play referee in the inevitable feuds between gay personnel and religiously conservative personnel, which can be quite an imposition on the time and patience of those who are neither gay nor religious and don’t really give a damn one way or another;
(C) Having to serve under a gay version of Holly Graf — i.e., mediocrities and incompetents who advance by “gaming” the Equal Opportunity policies.
(Note that all of these can be condensed to “an aversion to bullshit,” rather than an aversion to homosexuals.)
Oh, we see Obama Parrot Dogma; you could care less about military readiness and effectiveness. You’re just using this as an excuse to attack people you don’t like, and if it negatively affects the military, it doesn’t matter.
Typical Bradley Manning gay. You don’t care who gets hurt or killed as a result of your actions. That makes you patently unfit to serve — and since you insist your attitude is the result of your sexual orientation, that anyone who shares your orientation is also unfit.
Another military acquaintance likened the process of ending DADT to having a root canal done with only a slug of whiskey as an anesthetic: you know intellectually that the tooth has to be fixed, that it can’t be put off forever, and that you’ll be better off once it’s over and done with — but that doesn’t mean you aren’t looking for excuses to delay the unpleasantness!
Granny Goodness I’ll make you a deal. If the estimates are accurate that the combat troops decline by 30% if DADT is repealed, then we draft enough gay men and women to make up the difference. Sound fair? You get your ‘right’ to serve in the military, and we keep combat effectiveness.
eresting, how Bradley Manning has become the poster child for social conservatives wishing to keep all gays out of the military. In this, they reveal that they do, indeed, think more like liberals than they do like anybody philosophically recognizable as a conservative. Conservatives think in terms of the individual. They would say that the individual, Bradley Manning, chose to betray his country. They would not therefore creatively extrapolate into making a generalization punishments administered to individuals — regardless of sexual orientation — for transgressions that have happened in fact, rather than vague prohibitions administered against broad groups of people — for transgressions imagined to possibly take place in the future. Big government statists, both L
sorry about #10. . .was trying to revisit Lori H. comments:
31.Interesting, how Bradley Manning has become the poster child for social conservatives wishing to keep all gays out of the military.
In this, they reveal that they do, indeed, think more like liberals than they do like anybody philosophically recognizable as a conservative.
Conservatives think in terms of the individual. They would say that the individual, Bradley Manning, chose to betray his country. They would not therefore creatively extrapolate into making a generalization about ALL gays. Therefore they would recommend punishments administered to individuals — regardless of sexual orientation — for transgressions that have happened in fact, rather than vague prohibitions administered against broad groups of people — for transgressions imagined to possibly take place in the future.
I am really taken with this perspective. THX Lori.
Finally, I’ve heard some military people say: “I’ve served alongside known homosexuals and it wasn’t a problem because DADT prevented them from being open about it.” Note that there is an implicit distinction here between being “known as homosexual” (okay) and being “openly gay” (not okay).
I think many people intuitively recognize that there are “degrees of outness,” though of course there may be a lot of disagreement about where exactly the lines are drawn in distinguishing among:
A. “closeted”
B. “neither closeted nor totally open”
C. “so Out that Helen Keller could spot him in a satellite photo.”
Some opponents of DADT repeal insist that gays in the military already have the freedom to choose between A and B even under DADT, and thus what gay activists are “really” agitating for is a right to C. (And since the speech and behavior of military personnel is already restricted in many ways, the implication from these DADT supporters is that gays are demanding a Special Right to be less restricted in their speech than non-gay military personnel.)
So, in arguing with those who support DADT and oppose its repeal, we should emphasize two points: First, that gays who choose to serve in the military actually do understand the importance of professional demeanor and discreetness, and aren’t pressing for Option C (i.e., being flamingly out); and second, that as long as DADT remains in effect, Option B (i.e. being openly homosexual in a quiet and low-key manner) doesn’t truly exist, and gays are stuck with Option A only (pretending that their off-duty social lives are some kind of Highly Classified national security secret).
I’ve always found Sen. McCain’s recent vitriol on DADT puzzling. He has two sons, Jack (USN) and Jimmy (USMC), currently serving and you would think that he would have asked them about DADT and asked of their personal experiences. From the very little either son have been seen in public neither son strikes me as the troglodyte-type, so where does this vitriol come? It’s certainly not from the distaff-side of the McCain clan.
Something that happened to one of the boys? Or maybe something that happened to McCain personally that he’s never discussed… Lots of horrible and literally-unspeakable things were done to POW’s while in Vietnamese or Viet Cong captivity.
Otherwise I have to assume that it’s just cold, cruel political calculation…and I wish a better man had run for President as a Republican in 2010.
And now bigot gays Wayne Besen and Evan Hurst are demanding that chaplains be expelled from the military.
Why does Gay Inc support and endorse the blatant antireligious bigotry of these people?
Rusty, when you can show gay and lesbian organizations condemning Manning and his behavior, then you can plead for individualism.
And since he used his sexual orientation as an excuse for what he did, there’s no reason they shouldn’t — unless, of course, they agree that gays and lesbians can engage in traitorous behavior.
NDT. . .aka Miss Rita Beads. I was commenting on Lori’s perspective.
maybe you should consider her sound advice and use the floor mop to clean off your pedestal.
“Rusty, when you can show gay and lesbian organizations condemning Manning and his behavior, then you can plead for individualism.”
Why, NDT?
Seriously, why should we abandon the principles upon which this country was founded just because of the very identity politics you yourself claim you oppose?
You didn’t sell military secrets. I didn’t sell military secrets. Rusty didn’t sell military secrets. But we’re only to be treated like real Americans, and real human beings, if gay Leftist organizations say the words you want to hear?
The difference between gays and straights is that straights are generally recognized as individuals and judged accordingly. There is nothing wrong with gay conservatives standing up to demand the same thing.
The difference is, Lori, that straight people do not have a ninety-mile long track record of screaming “homophobe” at anyone who dares criticize a straight person, nor do they have national organizations set up to do exactly that.
Someone over at Good As You brought up the whole Moscow embassy and Marines debacle. As I then pointed out, that was a prime example of how STRAIGHT people were not only able to criticize, but condemn and punish, straight people for engaging in such behavior — and the contrast it with the support and endorsement and excuse-making for Manning on the part of the Left and its puppets at Gay Inc.
Again, if you want your individualism, start demanding that the bigots and idiots of Gay Inc who claim to speak in your name condemn Manning. Otherwise, the only line is the official line they push, which is protecting and making excuses for a traitor who should have been drummed out of the military long before this happened.
The head of the Army joins the head of the Marines in opposing repeal now.
Auntie, guess you didn’t read my point about civility.
Please identify the bigotry in the post linked above. Thanks!
.Vitriol??? Really??? Could you provide some examples of his “vitriol on DADT” — with quotes and sources please.
“Again, if you want your individualism…”
NDT, it is not MY individualism. It is the founding and most basic philosophy of Western civilization. It is found in the very Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our society.
I have — and will again — condemned the gay Left and its habit of attempting to justify bad behavior by pointing to bigotry. But that in no way exonerates the bigots. They are the ones who claim to believe in something they call individual responsibility — and they remain responsible, no matter what misbehavior others may indulge in.
Integrity is doing what you know to be right, regardless of whether everyone else is doing it. Pfc. Manning should probably be shot for treason. I simply don’t believe every other gay or lesbian in the military — much less everywhere else in society — should be shot with him.
There is no hope for a return to civil society if we are to abandon an understanding of personal responsibility, of individual will, in a swirling sea of blame. I think you know that. I think most of us do.
The way I see it, Currently, DADT focuses on orientation/feeling rather than acts. I as a straight former Marine, I do not care what my fellow Marine’s orientation is or even what he/she does in private. My concern is their non-private conduct. i.e., any Marine (or service member for that matter) should not conduct themselves in a manner that disrupts unit cohesion.
There are regulations regarding fraternization in units/chain of command. All that has to happen is to modify those regulations to incorporate appropriate behavior by both straight and gay service members along with regulations to eliminate the current ban.
The reality is that a gay in the military is not going to be going around parading like Brüno (Sacha Baron Cohen) wearing a Dolce and Gabbana belt with his uniform.
In the Military, we follow lawful orders, if not then we are punished appropriately. plain and simple. This is not rocket science.
“Can DADT repeal be accomplished without hampering military’s ability to fight?”
Exactly the question. After we resolve this, let’s tackle our govt treating the military as political pawns while they fight on the field – next to their fearless flock of legal eagles.
which annoys the living h*ll out of me.
Anybody else get the sense that Lori isn’t even reading NDT’s comments?
Now Scott Brown is stepping up
“I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.
“I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary’s recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed.”
and to #25 TCG. . .who ever really pays attention to Miss Rita Beads rants.
TGC, I most certainly AM reading NDT’s comments. And he and I do not totally disagree.
I have stated that I agree Bradley Manning — and other miscreants — should be punished. But I reiterate that other than voicing our agreement that they should be punished, there is really nothing else we can do — except live our lives far differently than the Bradley Mannings of this world choose to live theirs.
As I have never been in the least shy about condemning immoral and irresponsible gays, it is certainly unjust to try to lump me in with those who make excuses for them. I will repeat: perhaps Pfc. Manning should be shot for treason. But that doesn’t mean it’s okay for stray bullets to hit the rest of us.
When I talk with my Leftist friends about why I’m a conservative, they voice all sorts of misconceptions about what being a conservative means. They think, among other things, that all we do is make apologies for Right-wingers, while acknowledging nothing of the reasons so many gays seek refuge on the Left to begin with.
Attacking all gays, willy-nilly, simply because the Left pretends to offer us refuge only makes it look even more as if it is our only option. You and I know better. It would help us to persuade others in “the community” if we could provide a clearer argument for what we do — and do not — believe.
I refuse to make apologies for reactionary jackwagons who piss on all gays simply because of what the gay Left does. I have disavowed the gay Left. But everyone who comments here — including NDT — knows that not all gays toady to the Left. We can’t go on letting those who are hostile to us lie about us, lump us together with those from whom we stand distinct, and get away with it.
Incidentally, there is a considerable difference between demanding that someone do something and having the magical ability to force them to. NDT is good at telling us what we should demand to do. But he also condemns those of us who do demand it — because those of whom we are doing the demanding refuse to comply.
I agree with NDT that we should make this demand. But as I stopped believing in magic a long time ago, I am realistic enough to know that when our demands are refused or ignored, it does not fall on our heads, but on theirs.
Lori, I’m a bit confused. I don’t understand why you invoked the “Judeo-Christian underpinnings” of America and Western civilization since you seem to be at total odds with those underpinnings when it comes to your sexuality. The Judeo-Christian tradition you referenced defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and it explicitly calls homosexual behavior a sin. Is that your belief, too? If not, then at least have the honesty to admit that your views contradict the very tradition you claim to uphold.
Ah, Seane-Anna, it must truly suck to be you. I am an Episcopalian — a Christian. I do not interpret six selected passages from Scripture the way you do. I have taught adult catechism and written professionally on the subject for many years, so obviously I have had time to think about what I believe about both faith and my sexuality.
As a matter of fact, I believe that you are the one whose views contradict the tradition you claim to uphold.
We are at an impasse. And so it will remain.
Which begs the obvious question: then why the hell do you even respond to him and call him “Miss Rita Beads” (whatever the hell that is), asshole?
He tends to make valid points as opposed to you who copies and pastes bullshit that has little, if anything, to do with the thread. Ergo I find his comments more interesting, even if he overuses some phrases, his points are still valid. Whereas I tend, more often than not, to scroll over anything you post.
As far as him being kicked off of blogs, I say bully for him.
It’s old School TCG. . .ah great pontificator with the Big A commentary.
It’s been almost 30 years and despite challenges from thousands of hilarious contenders, Rita Beads remains my all time favorite drag name. Rita was a hairy chested, butch mustached, roller-skating, pregnant nun sort of drag queen, back in late 70’s Orlando.
The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness.
“Don’t make me read your beads, bitch!” via JMG
Scott Brown’s military service is in the National Guard, so it’s somewhat de trop for him to speak of 31 years of service. Of course, service in the Guard is service for our country. Yet the gullible might presume that he’s had some sort of continuous service for all those years. Weekend duty hardly equates to active duty. Sen. Brown just wants to be an opportunist: with thy education get a little learning, Scott.
Lori, you are a righteous dame!
[Bowing with a kung-fu salute to your verbal sparring style]
Throbert, right now I could use a few more lessons in Kung Fu. My latest post over at NewsReal Blog on the subject of DADT has really brought on some hysteria. One of the few positive comments has been that the picture I posted of Ann Coulter is “hot.”
I wish I knew how to embed a link in these comments, but the instructions mystify me.
We can’t go on letting those who are hostile to us lie about us, lump us together with those from whom we stand distinct, and get away with it.
If you were speaking about the gay Left, Lori, you would be absolutely correct.
And you are right. A life well lived is the best testimony. But I would submit to you that the problem is not from the right, but from those on the gay left who are hostile about conservative beliefs and those who differ from the gay left, try to lump people together on the basis of sexual orientation to create support for their social and economic perversions, and get away with it.
The Obama Party and the left wish to own gays as slaves, just as they own black people and are desperately trying to own Hispanics. They need to be attacked as delusional, racist, hatemongering slavers, because that is exactly what they are. I fear Obama crippling our economy and our national defense far more than I do marriage amendments, and that is the lesson that needs to be hammered home.
But it will not happen as long as guns are trained on Republicans, and not on the perverse gay leftists like Bradley Manning and his supporters at HRC, NGLTF, GLAAD, “Equality” California, and the other Gay Inc organizations that got us to this state.
NDT, I do not disagree with you in the slightest about the gay left. But you make an awfully big — and totally insupportable — assumption when you claim that I say nothing against what the gay left does.
Your focus is your focus, and I don’t criticize it even when others do. You feel you have your own mission in life, and it has a dignity of its own. But I prefer to reason with at least the gay progressives who will listen. Many don’t — there are certainly plenty of Levi’s in this world — but I’ve found that a surprising number do.
Some of them hear yammering and all they hear is noise. They don’t hear anything but an attack — and they respond accordingly. Maybe that works with some people, but I haven’t met very many who do. Those I respond to with anger are those who merely harrass us without reason, because of whatever demons they carry with them in their own minds. Seane-Anna is a good example. It’s no use even trying to reason with her.
Many of my progressive gay friends are actually interested in why my opinions on many issues have changed. Maybe it’s different in San Francisco. If I lived there, as you do, I might be as frustrated as you are.
Last night I had dinner with two very good friends, both of whom are decorated combat veterans of Vietnam. One of them, until now, I didn’t even know had served in the military. Both are gay. When they came home, they were spat upon and called “baby killers,” even though they’d risked their lives — and one of them was seriously injured in battle.
They deserve better than the sort of crap they’re getting now. There’s nothing even remotely patriotic about it — and certainly nothing “Christian.” You can honor those who serve, I suppose, by complaining about Bradley Manning. I prefer to do it by supporting the removal of the unjust taint placed upon them by a policy I see as not only irrational, but insane.
You are an honorable man. I’m sure that in your way, you are doing what you believe you must.
My main concern is still for the gays who are in the military. They are, in many ways, protected from harm because they have a way out if they become targeted or endangered in stressful situations. Also, their love lives are healthier because the repressive nature of the military shields them from the namelessness and abandonment-prone world of gay civilian life. Repealing DADT would remove certain cultural features that would in the end make life more difficult and lonely for gay people who are in the military, and probably cause many of them to become depressed and commit suicide.
The end result of repealing all chapters about same-sex conduct would be a dangerous environment, and I don’t think it’s good to remove the ban entirely. I wrote this piece recently as a plea for gay activists to question whether they have subconsciously turned to the DADT debate as an extension of the community’s pornographic obsession with military men.
http://colorfulconservative.blogspot.com/2010/12/jaccuse-gays-want-dadt-repealed-because.html
It seems to me that the court case last summer and Gates’ own changes to the policy implementation (i.e., excluding irrelevant parties’ accusations, etc.) make the law as it exists innocuous and largely helpful. I think we can stop where we are now. The main thing we need to do is clarify what the law is to gay activists who continue to perceive it as an insult rather than a protection for gays.
One point of confusion is that the military does not, by and large, want to have laws that imply people can quit their contract. The official party line is that once you sign the contract you are bound and can only be separated at the will of the armed forces. Therefore many parts of the separation chapters are designed to allow people to quit the military under the guise of being separated by their command. The problem with DADT up to this point has been that this feature has caused a small number of gays to get fired against their will. But the vast majority of separations were resignations expressed, as is typical, as a separation by command.
The DADT chapter is essentially a way for people to quit without technically quitting. If you remove the DADT chapter, then gays cannot quit. That would be fine if the US military were not uniquely exposing its troops to combat situations where normal sexual civilities keep people safe from rape, harrassment, abuse, and sabotage. We aren’t Belgium or Denmark, though. We have two demanding theaters of war and our troops are often plunging into situations where stress removes normal inhibitions and causes people to act out violently, often around sexual impulses. Openly homosexual troops are immediately vulnerable and commanders should have a way of preventing them from getting into such life-threatening situations before they are deployed and it’s too late.
@ROL
“Also, their love lives are healthier because the repressive nature of the military shields them from the namelessness and abandonment-prone world of gay civilian life.” Wow, is this true? Have their been studies on this?
“community’s pornographic obsession with military men.” I read your colorful conservative article. You had me up until a point. It was about the time you got into the endless string of redundant military-gay-porno descriptions that I stopped reading.
I identify as gay. And I’ve considered serving my country, but not because of any military-sex-fantasy fueled by porno, but because I would want to serve my country. I don’t watch porn and I really don’t have any sex. And perhaps what you have to say speaks greater truths, but I don’t fall into your description of a “civilian gay.”
“If you remove the DADT chapter, then gays cannot quit.” That’s an excellent point. I wish I came here first before the Scott Brown thread.