Gay Patriot Header Image

“Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?”

So, here we are two days from Thanksgiving and by odd coincidence, that other Turkey is in the news. That other Turkey shot down a Russian military jet overnight, which may have been prompted by Russia attacking the oil shipments Turkey has been receiving from ISIS-held territory in Iraq. (That Turkey’s population has a certain amount of sympathy for the Islamist cause is not much of a secret.) Since other news sites are all over this, there’s probably no need to get into it here, unless there’s a gay angle.

Guess what, there’s totally a gay angle.  It has to do with the Turkish Army. Turks can still avoid military service by claiming to be gay, but the Government has always demanded proof.

Turkey makes it difficult for potential conscriptees to avoid the draft, generally making exceptions only for those who are sick, disabled or homosexual. To receive an exemption based on their sexuality, men must publicly declare they are gay — a declaration that ensures discrimination will follow them for the rest of their lives. It’s either that, or they must successfully hide their gay identity for a year.

As if that isn’t bad enough, until last week, to receive the exemption men also had to prove their homosexuality by undergoing nude examinations and submitting photos of themselves engaged in homosexual intercourse.
Yup. To avoid military service, you would have to submit selfie-porn to Government officials. However, the Turks have recently eased up on their standards for proof.

Last week, however, the military silently amended the most controversial provisions in the regulation. Doctors will now merely observe the behaviors homosexuals display and the verbal declarations they make.

Observing behaviors?


Obama Nominates Unqualified Gay Desk Jockey to Lead Depleted Army

Posted by V the K at 8:02 am - September 21, 2015.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Obama’s nominee to be Secretary of the Army has not served in combat, has not even served in the military. He has little or no executive experience, but has been a lifelong bureaucratic hack and Democrat Party Apparatchik. His one and only qualification for the office would seem to be his sexual orientation.

The youthful-looking Secretary-designee, Acting Undersecretary Eric Fanning comes by his youthful looks honestly: he’s young (46) and callow, a career midrange bureaucrat without significant executive experience (.pdf), or private-sector experience, although he’s been parked in Democratic lobbying firms during Republican administrations. He has never served in the military and has never displayed much respect for those who do and have. They are there to serve him. He has never held a job in the productive economy.

Why pick him, then? To Send A Message™, to count a valuable bean among people for whom the military exists to enable bean-counting. Fanning is fabulously gay, and his tasking is to increase the social engineering pressure on the Army to make it more friendly to GLBTQWERTY individuals, and more hostile to those who are not, whilst presiding over the readiness and end-strength declines he’s already been managing as Acting Undersecretary. He has said that his highest priorities are to forbid criticism of gay (etc) soldiers and to encourage transgender soldiers.

Can’t add anything to that brutal assessment, spot on, it is.

Protection of the United States is not a priority of the Obama Regime; appeasing domestic interest groups is. In addition to being led by an unqualified, incompetent party hack to make a political statement, the US Army has been gutted by the Obama Regime and is down to 450,000 troops. That is smaller than the Armies of Pakistan (550,000 troops), India (1,100,000 troops)  Chinese People’s Liberation Army Ground Forces (1,600,000 troops), North Korea (950,000 troops). It is the same size as the Russian Army. Iran’s Army is not much smaller, 350,000 troops. ISIS, (whom Obama dismissed as “the JV Team” not so long ago) has 200,000 troops and continues to grow.

About that, we have now learned that the Army was ordered to cook the books to show that the regime’s scheme of limited attacks against ISIS were more successful than they actually were. None of the people who were Outraged(TM) that George W. Bush allegedly lied about national intelligence seem to be the least bit upset when Obama does it to make it seem like his failing policies are actually working.

The Progressive Military: Interrupt a Lesbian PDA, Lose Your Career

Lesbians are the most specialist snowflakes of all. Their mating rituals must never be interrupted.

The Army is moving to discharge a decorated combat pilot who intervened to stop two lesbian officers from showing what he considered inappropriate affection on the dance floor during a full-dress formal ball at Fort Drum, New York, in 2012.

A warrant officer had approached Col. Downey and complained that their prolonged French kissing, buttocks grabbing and disrobing of Army jackets violated Army rules against inappropriate displays of public affection while in uniform on base, his attorney said.

He said the captain, who since has left the Army, complained that she and her girlfriend, whom she later married and then divorced, were victims of discrimination.

Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers

SF Gay Pride Bans Military; Celebrates Traitor

Posted by V the K at 1:18 pm - June 15, 2014.
Filed under: Gay Politics,Gays In Military

Traitor Bradley/Chelsea Manning is an Honorary Grand Martial of the San Francisco Gay Pride parade; but the National Guard is, as Elizabeth Warren would say, “Heap unwelcome.”

The board of the San Francisco LGBT Pride Celebration Committee rejected a request from the Guard to set up an informational booth at Civic Center Plaza during Pride Weekend.

The military’s current ban on transgender service members serving openly, minority recruitment tactics, and sexual assault scandals were factors in the board’s decision, Pride Executive Director George Ridgely told LGBT news weekly Bay Area Reporter.

Maybe the Guard will be more welcome at the Folsom Street Fair.

Obama Guts the Military; Poor and Minorities Hardest Hit

Posted by V the K at 7:38 am - February 28, 2014.
Filed under: Gays In Military

President Obama’s aggressive reduction of American military power to pre-World War II levels (while environmental policies force them to buy biofuel at $59 per gallon) will have an adverse impact on minorities.

The Pentagon’s proposed defense cuts – shrinking the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War II – has Hispanic war veterans concerned about the thousands of current military personnel who are going to lose their jobs and worried about lost opportunities for the next generation of Latino youths.

That’s Obama for you, he lets gays into the military. Then, he destroys the military. But in the attitude of Democrats like Barack Obama and John Kerry only losers end up in the military anyway; and instead of learning the value of hard work, honor, and discipline, those people will be better off on the welfare, food stamp, and Obamacare programs those cuts to the military will help pay for. It’s not as though they can all get jobs in the booming Obama recovery. But maybe a few lucky ones with criminal records can get hired as Obamacare Navigators.

Update: Sensing Obama’s weakness, US Adversaries begin expanding aggressively.

Bradley/Chelsea Manning: Should we care?

All week, I’ve had a nagging feeling that the GP blog should say something on this…but what? And why? After all, it’s just celebrity nonsense.

But I will make this easy observation: If Manning likes men, and always felt herself to be a woman, then she was never actually a gay man whose struggle with homosexuality drove her actions. She was/is just a straight woman who broke her oath.

Bits on Morrissey, Reagan

Y’all know I love the economic issues, and sometimes avoid the “gay” issues (as unprofitable – heh). But hey, this is a gay blog, and courtesy of reader Peter Hughes, we have a couple of gay-themed tidbits.

First, the irrepressible, he-won’t-come-out-but-everyone-knows-anyway singer Morrissey enlightens us that if we had more gay men, we’d somehow have fewer wars:

If more men were homosexual, there would be no wars, because homosexual men would never kill other men, whereas heterosexual men love killing other men.

Where has Morrissey been hiding? Let’s set aside the famous gay male serial killers, let’s even set aside the ancient Greeks: The fact remains that some of the most aggressive (and best) men out there are gays who have made a career of the U.S. military.

And I say, good on them! Real men protect people from evil, and the roughness and aggression of the good men who protect all of us from terrorists, criminals, etc. may (if under good regulation) be a virtue. Sensitive, artistic men are also needed, but I don’t want a world where the type that Morrissey seems to prefer – the effete, self-indulgent eunuch who protects no one except himself and maybe a few cows – is dominant.

Next, we hear that ABC is ready to produce a Reagan-hating mini-series:

The Hollywood Reporter relayed on Thursday that “Mere days after the Academy Awards, ABC Studios has bought rights to David France’s film,” How to Survive a Plague, a hard-left documentary on AIDS activism in the Reagan years, when the Left claimed Reagan wanted them all to die off…

Clearly, the Gay Left’s mythology of Reagan-as-gay-hater is going to be with us awhile. Fortunately, no amount of repetition of a myth can alter the truth.

New “Benefits” but with a Creepy Requirement

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:08 pm - February 11, 2013.
Filed under: Equality (Real or Faux?),Gays In Military

So already I’ve been approached by a couple people (at work, no less) asking me for reaction to the Secretary’s announcement today that he’s extending certain benefits to same-sex partnered service members.

While to some degree I appreciate the effort the Department has put into identifying bones to toss us (so to speak) that won’t run afoul of DOMA, there already was, since the repeal of DADT a year and a half ago a nice list of Member-Designated Benefits on the books. The new list isn’t all that expansive, save for dependent IDs and access to base facilities.

Still, it’s a gesture. And a gesture more welcoming than the middle-finger one President Obama gave the military with his most recent choice for the Secretary’s replacement.

That said, however, you should read the memo announcing the new policy. Here’s a little clip:

These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners…once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.

Does that make you feel a little bit creepy? My first reaction was, ah, so I get to pronounce “the existence of [my and my partner's] committed relationship” in written form, no doubt filed with my personnelist. (To make things easier, the letter goes on to explain: “A blank copy of the proposed declaration form is in Attachment 3.”)

How romantic. All over America these days, gays and lesbians are fighting for the God-given right to “sign a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship” so we can be equal. Or something.

Frankly, I much prefer the stuff that’s on the prior list. For example, I have designated my partner as the beneficiary of my Service Members Group Life Insurance policy. No need to explain why or whom he even is to me. I could just as easily have left it to the nice little old lady down the block who used to watch my dogs when I deployed. And it wasn’t the DoD’s damned business who she was or why I named her. Just seemed a little easier is all.

I’ve not much expounded on my beliefs about gay marriage here. I don’t really like to get into the debate. Now that it’s kind of being directed toward me finally, perhaps I will… Perhaps soon.

Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HHQ)

Reinstatement of DADT unlikely if Romney wins (& GOP takes Senate)

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:00 pm - June 22, 2012.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell),Gays In Military

The Hill reports:

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said he doesn’t plan to try and reinstate “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT), the former ban on gays serving openly in the military, if Republicans were to take the Senate and Mitt Romney won the White House in November.

McKeon and other Republicans were opposed to repealing DADT when the Democratic-controlled Congress passed it in 2010, but McKeon said Thursday that he didn’t see a reason to re-start the fight over it.

“We fought that fight, and I think right now it’s more important to get the things that our warfighters need,” McKeon said at a breakfast roundtable with defense reporters, in response to a question about whether he would try to reinstate it under a Republican-controlled Congress and White House.

Seems McKeon has realized that allowing gays to serve openly in the military hasn’t compromised military effectiveness or unit cohesion.

H/t:  Jennifer Rubin.

Homosexuality is not an excuse for betraying your country

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:40 pm - December 17, 2011.
Filed under: Gay Victimization,Gays In Military

According to AP, the soldier “accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive items to” WikiLeaks, is using his sexual orientation as a defense:

The young Army intelligence specialist accused of passing government secrets spent his 24th birthday in court Saturday as his lawyers argued his status as a gay soldier before the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” played an important role in his actions.

Lawyers for Pfc. Bradley Manning began laying out a defense to show that his struggles as a gay soldier in an environment hostile to homosexuality contributed to mental and emotional problems that should have barred him from having access to sensitive material.

Gay groups should join us in denouncing this tactic.  It makes gay people out to be not just victims, but individuals lacking any kind of moral fiber, willing to betray their country when the going gets tough.  Tens of thousands of gay man and women served in the military in similarly “hostile” environments and did not break under pressure.  Indeed, many, if not most, of these individuals distinguished themselves in our nation’s armed forces.

We should not stand by when a man uses his homosexuality as an excuse for betraying his country.

Those who want to improve the image of gay people should join us in denouncing Mr. Manning and in faulting his defense team for using his sexuality to excuse his criminal acts.  What he did was wrong.  And just as there have long been bad apples among our number (a Mr. K. Philby comes to mind), so too have long been similarly rotten straight people (see A. Hiss).

Gay people (and those who presume to represent us) should not make excuses for the bad apples among us — particularly when they claim their sexuality made them rotten.  It speaks poorly of people like us if we accept this man’s defense.

And we at GayPatriot do not.

Rick Perry jumps the shark

Supporting the status quo on gays in the military, that is, after the repeal of the misguided Clinton-era Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT), may not help a candidate win Republican votes in states like Iowa with a large concentration of social conservatives.  That said, saying, as Rick Perry does in his new ad, that “there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school” is more the mark of desperation than of sound political strategy.

Now, I’m all for kids openly celebrating Christmas and praying in schools (if they so choose  – and provided they do so on their own, that is, not in prayer organized by a teacher or school official). As should all people. Heck, the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment guarantees it. (And the “establishment” clause does not trump it.)

It’s a nice rhetorical trick to contrast the open service of gay people in the military and the open celebration of Christmas, but the juxtaposition just doesn’t work, save perhaps to remind voters of the candidate’s social conservative bona fides.  In doing so, Perry is really jumping the shark.  His campaign is sinking and he is making a desperate ploy to gain traction.

I doubt this tack will work.  Even among socially conservative Iowa Republicans (as among Republicans nationwide), jobs and the economy are the key issues: (more…)

Santorum’s bizarre response to question on gays in military

To explain why I found former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum’s response to the question on gays in the military so bizarre, let me fisk the entire comment and offer a conclusion at the end of the post.  First, the question from Stephen Hill, a serviceman deployed in Iraq:

In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I’m a gay soldier, and I didn’t want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

And the candidate’s response:

Yeah, I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to –

I chose to break the former Senator’s comment here because up until this point, I agree with everything he is saying.  Our soldiers should not be engaging in sexual activity while on duty.  And the military shouldn’t give special privileges to any group.

To be sure, it’s bizarre that the Senator begins his response as he has, saying sexual activity has no place in the military.  (He’s right about that.)  Perhaps, he believes that if gay people serve, they would necessarily engage in sexual activity with their fellow soldiers.

and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military.

Well, he does quality his remarks with an “I think,” but his thought is at odds with the meaning of repeal.  Here he makes a huge leap from the first part of his response.   (more…)

Wonder how many gay lefty bloggers will report this?

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 6:57 pm - September 23, 2011.
Filed under: 2012 Presidential Election,Gays In Military

Some bloggers on the gay left are trying to make much of no more than three** audience members who booed a gay soldier asking a question in last night’s debate, with one blogger saying the Audience Boos Gay Army Soldier Asking Santorum About DADT. The audience didn’t boo him. At most, three disrespectful jerks did.

But, for some on the left if there is one nutbag in a conservative crowd, said nutbag defines the crowd.

Despite his unusual answer* last night, the inconsequential presidential candidate did the right thing today. The former Pennsylvania Senator condemned those who booed the soldier:

“Yeah, well, I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier,” said Santorum. “That soldier is serving our country, I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job. I hope he is safe, and I hope he returns safely, and does his mission well.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  V the K is “not sure that the soldier was being booed”:  “The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.”   Wonder which gay lefty bloggers reported that.  He also reminds us:

. . . multiple incidents of union violence, the display of socialist icons at Democratic party events, a pattern of cronies and campaign donors getting huge Government “loans” and subsidies … are all supposed to be aberrations that don’t typify the left at all.

* (more…)

A New Era in the US Military

Most of this summer I didn’t get to post too much because I had been quite busy preparing for another deployment. It’s from that forward location that I’m able to post for you today, this historic moment.

And it’s appropriate, I think.

I joined the military after Bill Clinton had signed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, so I never lived in a military where simply being homosexual was grounds for discharge. I lived my entire military career, up until today, as a closeted gay man in uniform. I followed the rules, kept it to myself (save a few other gay servicemembers and a handful over the years of closely trusted colleagues), and never ran afoul of the rules. I did my job, and I did it well.

I continue to do so, and I am not alone.

So it’s fitting, then, that I should spend this day—when gay “rights” groups back home will celebrate some sort of liberation of mine—simply doing what I’ve been doing for about 20 years: my job. While politically-minded activists will be slapping themselves on the back and praising the newly-granted privileges I and my fellow gay servicemembers now enjoy, we and tens of thousands of other deployed troops will spend today doing what we do: Our job.

While I appreciate your gladness on my behalf, please do take a moment today and keep in mind that there were some of us who were serving under DADT without regard for it.

While I am grateful that the era of homosexuality being the military’s business has ended, I am grateful more so for those who, like me, joined the military knowing the score and choosing this rewarding life anyway.

While I welcome those young men and women into the ranks of our military who heretofore had waited the policy out, I am much more proud of those who didn’t require their own terms be met in order to answer the call to serve in the first place.

It’s already Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 where I am, so I’m one of the first gay servicemembers in history who can legally come out. I won’t of course, but from now on, I’ll belay the gender-nonspecific pronouns and no longer demure when the stories turn to family. I just Skyped with my boyfriend back in the States and we talked about this whole thing. He’s proud of me, but I’m also proud of him (as all my colleagues are of their families back home). I’m in love with him, we’re quite a pair. And if I wanted to, I could take a picture of us into my office today and put it right on my desk.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from A Forward Operating Location)

Today In The Annals Of Democrat Party Governance

Today in 1993, President Clinton signed one of the most landmark anti-gay rights laws ever passed in the United States of America — the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law.

Gay leftist revisionist history types like to blame Republicans in Congress for *making* Clinton sign a law.

FACT: Democrats controlled the US House under Bill Clinton until 1995

FACT: THE leading elected official advocating for outright ban of gays in military and then DADT was US Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA)

FACT: Bill Clinton ran radio ads in his 1996 re-election campaign heralding his support of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act

Facts are stubborn things.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

DADT Pre-Emptive Fire from the 9th Circuit

News this evening coming down that the 9th Circuit Court has, once again, decided it knows better how to defend America than do our own Armed Forces, elected officials, or duly appointed and confirmed leaders of the DoD.

Still looking online for something official from the court, but the short story is that they’ve decided that, since DADT repeal is chugging along just fine, it’s time to screw up the entire process.

It seems that the court has used the continuing success of an orderly process combined with a lawless Administration which refuses to do its job to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” with respect to DOMA as its basis for deciding to run the US military regardless of what’s best for National Defense.

With former SecDef Gates predicting certification (the needed step for implementation of the end of DADT) occurring within the month, and current Secretary Panetta stating in his confirmation process that he supports repeal and will work to implement it upon certification, I’m still puzzled why LCR continued their suit.

No, I’m not puzzled as to why they said they were continuing: Because they don’t trust, apparently, the military and/or the Administration to actually do what they said they’d do (let alone follow the law). Naturally, having witnessed the current Commander in Chief in action lo these two long years, I can understand why you’d want to see the cash first. But there have been zero indications that there would be any problems with the repeal coming to fruition. Even the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps told his troops to “get over it” and press on with our duties to implement the new policy.

It boggles the mind, then, why anybody who respects the military and our mission would insist on pressing forward with this case. Let’s review the facts:

The whole purpose of passing the law last December was because everybody (except, apparently the 9th Circuit Court and the glory hounds at LCR) realized that we needed an orderly transition from the DADT world to the non-DADT world. As that process continues, it’s not any less important that it take place orderly. Any disruption is unnecessary and needlessly dangerous. (more…)

Top Enlisted Marine Cool with DADT repeal

The Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire blog features today some snippets from an interview with “Sgt. Maj. Micheal Barrett, recently selected to be the senior enlisted adviser to Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos”. With a “long military resume, including combat service in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Nathan Hodges quips that “he doesn’t need a microphone to get his point across.” And when he comes to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he cites a most important charter:

“Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is pretty simple,” he told a group of Marines at a base in South Korea. “It says, ‘Raise an army.’ It says absolutely nothing about race, color, creed, sexual orientation.

“You all joined for a reason: to serve,” he continued. “To protect our nation, right?”

“Yes, sergeant major,” Marines replied.

“How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?” Sgt. Maj. Barrett continued, raising his voice just a notch. “Right?”

Sgt. Maj. Barrett then described conversations with U.K. troops, who saw a similar ban lifted a decade ago, with little disruption. And to drive the point home, he produced a pocket copy of the Constitution.

“Get over it,” he said. “We’re magnificent, we’re going to continue to be. … Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines.”

Emphasis added.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  ILoveCapitalism offers:

What’s important is that the military preserve its high performance and no-nonsense attitude by applying a uniform code of conduct to punish those individual gays – or straights, whomever – who do undertake actions that disrupt morale and unit cohesion.


White House Bars Gay Group from military families’ event

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:44 pm - April 12, 2011.
Filed under: Gays In Military,Obama and Gay Issues

The folks at Servicemembers United, a group “which represents gay and lesbian troops and veterans” repotst “that the White House had barred civilian representatives of gay and lesbian military families from” a White House event spearheaded by First Lady Michelle Obama and Second Lady Jill Biden honoring military families:

“It is rather unfortunate that both East Wing and West Wing staff have refused to allow a representative of gay military families to even be in the room at an event that is supposed to honor their commitment and sacrifice,” said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United.

Kristina Schake, Communications Director for the First Lady, explained the decision this way in an email to CBS News.

“The President has been crystal clear that the Administration is moving forward with the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ quickly and efficiently,” she said. “However, it still remains the law. The White House, including the First Lady and Dr. Biden, look forward to working with the families of gay and lesbian service members after certification occurs and repeal goes into effect.”

Nicholson, from Servicemembers United, complained in his statement that “[t]he First Lady’s office has used the continued enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ as an excuse to exclude us, even though they know that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations.”

I’m sure other gay organizations will be rushing to criticize the White House for not including this group.

DADT Repeal Strengthens Commander’s Hands?

In an earlier thread, a reader brings up a legitimate beef regarding the treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers in a post-DADT world. His concern stems from a situation that happened when he was on active duty in the Navy:

It’s been my experience observing Gay sailors when I was in the Navy, that they’re perfectly fine when they’re sober. When they get drunk, they let it all hang out.

One guy [presumably* one of these gay sailors] on our ship got wasted, and decided to suck off some guy who was sleeping in his bunk. Needless to say, when the guy woke up he was rather upset. Created a huge stir on our ship for weeks.

But because of PC attitudes, even way back in the early 1980s, the Gay guy only got a slap on the wrist.

Now, I can’t speak for the commentor’s leaders, but I will say that military commanders (especially aboard a ship) normally exercise a great deal of latitude in dealing with issues of conduct within their units. Sometimes, however, their hands are tied.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would certainly have tied the hands of this commander given this incident. Again, I can’t speak for the commander’s decision, or the whole scenario, but it’s altogether possible that something other than “PC attitudes” was behind his choice to only give “a slap on the wrist” to the offending sailor.

DADT Repeal May Usher In A Colorblind Society

One of the best arguments I’ve heard against the repeal of DADT (which, as we say in the business is now OBE) is that it will lead to a new level of mamby-pambyness vis-a-vis gay troops demanding they be treated “fairly”. Often as we’ve noticed, when any “rights” group is looking for “fairness” it’s often simply code for “special rights”.

For the majority (based on my experience) of gay troops, our lives will likely not change much on a day-to-day basis. I, for one, am not planning to “come out” to anybody save a few close friends where I work. I’m expecting, in fact, that they likely know about me anyway. (After all, such a devilishly handsome man with so much going for him my age not married? He must be gay! Har har, but anyway…) Inasmuch, I don’t expect most gay troops will be demanding anything much more than simply not getting kicked out if we forget to use the gender-neutral pronouns when speaking of our dates.

This is not to say there won’t be a few (which will likely seem like much more than a few) flamboyantly unprofessional troops whose conduct will surely be seen as unbecoming and hopefully will be counseled right away. That will be a touchy subject I’ll save for another post.

For now let’s talk about “special rights”.

Many have argued this is a stepping-stone to a larger “gay rights” agenda. I’ve never seen it as such, and I regret that there will definitely be many gay “rights” champions who will misuse this to further their own agenda (much as those opposed to gay “rights” will also use it to further their agenda). They have no concern necessarily about the defense of the Nation nor about the military. We are a tool for them to use and they should be ashamed, if they knew any such thing as shame in the first place.

There’s another thing that I think might come of this which would be a good sign. Check out this quote from the DoD’s report on the repeal of DADT:

We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else.

(emphasis added)

This is a sentiment I (as most libertarian conservatives) have long espoused: Equal treatment, not special treatment. Which leads to the next logical question: Why should “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” be the basis for special treatment either? If gays and lesbians “will be accepted more readily” if not treated differently, wouldn’t that also be the same for members of these other groups? What an interesting outcome of this whole episode if the entire concept of “special” categories of troops went by the way-side?

For all the talk (and legitimate, I might add) of “unintended consequences” surrounding the repeal of DADT, what a happy accident it would be if, by virtue of this new policy change, we had to rethink how we treated everybody. Because if there’s no good reason to treat gays and lesbians as “diversity programs” (and there isn’t), then why do we need them in the first place? This could be a whole new chapter in respecting each other as individuals and as part of a larger team rather than the social balkanization the Left so often loves to use to drive us apart.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)