GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

The Big Question:

by

Prelude: There’ll be plenty of opportunities to discuss DADT in the future, and in fact I’ve engaged here many times previously as a commenter on other posts. Undoubtedly many will turn what follows into a debate over the policy, but my goal here simply is to help the reader understand from where I come when that discussion does occur. With that disclaimer, please indulge me in a common situation in which I again recently found myself:

I was talking with a business associate yesterday who, when the topic arose, inquired, “You joined the military? Why’d you do that? You know, as a gay man?” This may seem like a sensible question, and believe me, I’ve heard it countless times during my career. In spite of the frequency with which I am presented this catechism, I’m still surprised by the presumptuous nature of it. How could anybody bring himself to that? they seem to be asking. What gay man would ever do such a thing?

For the longest time my response to this question had historically been a truthful and reflective, “Well, I didn’t know I was when I joined.” However, as time went on and I passed up more and more opportunities to get out of the service (and in fact as a result of certain career choices, I incurred more years of commitment), I came to realize this wasn’t the whole story.

In fact, what I realized was that I love the service and the fact that I am a gay man has no bearing on it whatsoever. When I look at all the sacrifices I’ve made (and I’m not trying to martyr myself to tell you there have been many) to continue my service, I’d have to say that being in the closet (at work, that is), has hardly been the most cumbersome. For some that is asking too much. For others, not smoking pot is asking too much. For some, even having to wear a uniform and have a particular haircut is asking too much. Regardless, the truth is that military service isn’t for everybody, and it’s not simply a career choice, but a calling. It’s a thankless job and what’s equally frustrating is those who don’t understand it who are trying to “advocate” for you and those who don’t understand it who are adversarial to you for having made the commitment in the first place.

Over the years as I reflected more on what the military means to me and what my fellow soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines mean to me, it became much more clear to me what the more accurate answer is to my friend’s question. For the sake of letting you know a little bit more about me, I’ll share with you what my answer is nowadays:

“I love my country and want to serve in her defense.”
And as an old mentor of mine used to say, There’s a period at the end of that statement.

Cheers, All.

This is Moving On?

by

Have you ever suddenly been taken aback by something that’s been around for a while and just never really paid it that much attention before?

Yesterday I was on my way to the gym and must have seen about 5 or 6 “Kerry-Edwards” bumper-stickers. That may not seem like many, but when you consider that it was 443 days ago that Bush trounced Kerry (442 days since Kerry figured it out) with the largest number of popular votes ever by a presidential candidate in American history, you start to wonder: Aren’t these the people who made popular the phrase “Move On“?

Kind of makes me want to do an informal survey: How long did it take you to remove your Bush/Quayle ’92 and/or Dole/Kemp ’96 stickers after they lost?

I’ll go first: It was the next day. For that matter, I removed the Bush/Cheney stickers the next day in ’00 (in spite of the so-called “Constitutional Crisis!“) and again in ’04. You see, in a democracy, you have an election, then you have a president. Do Kerry supporters understand that?

One Last Brokeback Post

by

Mind if I chime in about Brokeback Mountain? Seems everybody’s had their moment on it, and I finally saw it last week on a break from skiing, so here’s a quick note:

As many have already said, the star of this movie for me was the scenery. Being from out West, I was taken immediately by the grandness of the cinematography and beautiful backdrop for this love story. After that I liked the sheep. The way they moved like a river of wool through the mountain valleys must have been quite a trick to choreograph. Sure, Heath was alright, Jake was alright (although I liked him much more in Jarhead), but I’ve never been much for mushy love stories (even when tinged with two hot guys going at it).

Then there’s Gene Shalit. Wow, how the “Community” has gone after him. Big-shot Colorado Gay Society Guy Tim Gill has posted Shalit’s groveling reply to critics which has received mixed results from those commenting. So he called Jack a “sexual predator”. Yikes. Certainly the connotation of a trench-coat-wearing, panel-van-driving pervert who stalks children’s playgrounds isn’t what Gene could have meant. But I can definitely see how super-sensitive victim-baiters in the Gay Left could have seen it that way and seized on it for publicity’s sake. Gene was right to apologize for a bad choice of words, but seeing the firestorm coming from the “Community” kind of makes me laugh. Have they grown so bored with arguing with James Dobson and Pat Robertson they’ve now got to pick on Gene Shalit? That’s like right-wingers boycotting Disney because they offer same-sex partner benefits to their employees. To all, I say, get a life.

And in defense of Gene Shalit, it’s certainly not deniable that Jack’s character is a predatory one. Think about it: After that first summer on Brokeback, he initiates every communication, he’s the one who drives all the way from Texas to Wyoming, he’s the one who is constantly harping on Ennis to leave his wife and run away with him so they can have their own ranch. He’s the one who goes to Old Mexico and then hooks up with that other rancher (and even suggests the same living arrangement to him). And in the end we’re led to believe that it was perhaps his carelessness with his cravings that leads to his outing and violent demise (and NO I’m NOT “blaming the victim” or excusing his murder, and anyway it’s a movie, lighten up). Not a “sexual predator”, but definitely does sound predatory. Yes, there are emotions involved too, between those guys, but you don’t have to deny those feelings to admit that Jack was predatory.

At the end, unfortunately, a yawner. Good story, good flick, beautiful backdrop, but not nearly worth all the hype. I think I’ll go see an ape movie to cleanse my palate.

Washington State Free-For-All

by

What’s going on in the Evergreen State? In a rush to show how “accepting” they are, the Washington State Senate is poised to pass a new anti-discrimination bill. But are they going too far? Check out this little part:

“Gender expression or identity [on the basis of which, if this passes, it would be illegal to discriminate] is defined as having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior, or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth. “

(Emphasis added.)

If this law passes, all men in Washington will be excused for using the ladies’ room. Is this what they really want?

(Hat-tip: James Taranto’s indispensable BOTW.)

Columbia University Wants It All

by

Taking a break today to give Ullr a chance to replace the snow I scraped off the mountain yesterday, I’ll take a chance to answer some email:

My thanks to Eric Chen, former spokesman for Advocates for Columbia ROTC, who recently wrote inquiring about my views regarding his university’s treatment of ROTC and the broader issue of some elite campuses’ active shunning of the military.

Columbia University—and many other elite schools—of course objects to DADT. This is the chief reason cited for banning the military from recruiting on campuses (also why they bar ROTC). The military has an unacceptable policy toward gays, the logic goes, so just as any other prospective employer with an anti-gay policy, the US Armed Forces are not welcome. Sounds reasonable.

On the other hand, the federal government has decided (through the Solomon Amendment), “Fine, then we won’t give you funds.” This also sounds fair. Eric, an Army veteran himself (thank you, Eric) and current student at Columbia, wanted to know my opinion “particularly as gay servicemember”.

There will be many opportunities to discuss DADT and Solomon (in fact, SCOTUS is currently reviewing it). However, the more I researched this specific issue, the less I thought it had to do with either the military, homosexuals, or DADT. To me it sounds more like Columbia, et. al., wanting to have their cake and eat it too. Look at it this way: If a university is receiving grants from a company or organization it finds repugnant, should they expect the right to deny the company’s recruiters on its campus while at the same time demanding a continuation of the funding? How is this different?

If the faculty of Columbia or any other institution is so offended by what the federal government does (in any way or for whatever reason), they should have the courage of their convictions and put-up or shut-up. Criticize that policy all you want, but when you come hand outstretched to the federal government, you should expect to follow their rules if you want the funding. If Columbia University doesn’t want the federal government on its campus, fine. But they shouldn’t expect federal dollars.

Soldier Beaten, Booted; And Gay Media Tells only Part of the Story:

by

If you’re reading only what you GayWired feeds you, you’d know that Private Kyle Lawson, formerly of the 309th Military Intelligence Battalion at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, was beaten by fellow soldier Private Zacharias Pierre. You’d know that charges were not brought against Private Pierre and that the military was not seeking further action against him. You’d probably know civil charges had been dismissed and the whole incident had been taken over by, and then supposedly dismissed by the military. You’d know that Lawson is now out of the military for being gay while Pierre goes on unscathed, and you’d be indignant that such an injustice was done.

Unfortunately, you wouldn’t have the whole story. For example, you wouldn’t know that Lawson voluntarily outed himself last month and therefore secured his separation from the US Army. You’d also not know that Lawson was coming on to Pierre. You might also not know that, according to his recruiter, Lawson knew exactly what the policy was and had been briefed on what to expect once enlisted. You also might not know that it’s common practice for the military to take charge of a situation that involves only military members and that such decisions and deliberations are by law and practice not open to the public.

Ultimately, it’s the commander’s responsibility to protect the troops under his charge. I don’t know the details about this incident, but it certainly smacks of a lack of discipline and morale within the unit that allows a troop to feel it’s appropriate or even excusable to assault his fellow soldier for any reason. Unfortunately, the leaders of the “Gay Community” have already seized upon this event as an opportunity to attack Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Just as in 1999, when a soldier at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, was beaten to death by his fellow troops, of course gay groups (and Hon., Barney Frank) will jump on the bandwagon and those who don’t appreciate the military sufficiently will miss the more important issue in order to forward a political agenda. It’s a shame that when something as base and simple (and obvious an example of lack of proper commander’s authority and presence) as a soldier beating up another soldier is diffused into simple gay politics. We do a disservice to the military when all we see in a clear-cut case of abuse and lack of esprit-de-corps is who’s gay.

When The Truth Is Right Before Your Eyes

by

Is Malcolm Lazin a cynic? Or is his headliner just lazy and clichéd?

Check out this op-ed today on GayWired.com titled “Corporate America – The Unlikely Gay Ally”. In spite of the puzzling title, read the piece and you’ll find what I and many other gay conservatives have been saying for years: Gays are a market force.

With higher disposable income, more free time to spend it, and a disposition towards leisure, Gay America (as it were) is a fertile market. Businesses are smart, and they see this. While Lazin reaches some bizarre conclusions (about, for example, how conservatives “find themselves up against core American values”), and throws out the typical red meat to the “community” (“equality” and “fairness” twaddle), the structure of what he’s saying has been sound for a long time. However, it’s a naive ‘mo who is just now realizing this. Witness the thriving of gay-themed businesses and abundance of gay publications. Business has known for a long time how much power we have, and it appears some are taken aback by this.

Why? Why title Lazin’s op-ed “Unlikely”? For conservatives and capitalists, this is a no-brainer, a dog-bites-man scenario, hardly even worth mentioning. Characterizing Corporate America’s hospitality toward homosexuals as “unlikely” bespeaks either a victim mentality prevalent in the gay community or a lack of familiarity with the fundamentals of capitalism. Both of these explanations make sense of course. I’d suggest it’s the “community’s” whorish relationship with the American Left (or vice-versa) that brings such shock to its “leaders” when they realize how much power we actually have.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot)