Gays In The Military

[MG]

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is dead.  It died last week. Did you know that? Most folks seem to have missed it.

I was a big fan of West Wing (go figure   ) In one episode, they dealt with this very issue. While two high level officers are vehemently defending the policy, the head of the Joint Chiefs walks into the room, listens for a moment and when the two officers start talking about how the changing the policy will lead to a breakdown on morale in military units, interjects, 'That's what they said back in 1948. Except back then, they were talking about people who look like me. "The unit" got over it then and the "the unit will get over this". Then he leaves the room. I thought the whole scene was brilliant.

I got pummeled, more or less, for posting a Frank Rich op-ed piece last week, but until someone tells me I can't, I'm probably gonna continue doing so. If nothing else, it gives us all something to talk about. Here's this week's diatribe:


Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet
   
By FRANK RICH
Published: February 6, 2010

A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark. John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington's attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule.

Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right's noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen's testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O'Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés. Michael O'Hanlon, an "expert" from the Brookings Institution, speculated that "18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden" soldiers who are "tough guys" might object to those practicing "alternative forms of lifestyle," which he apparently views as weak and testosterone-deficient. His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable "action alert" demanding a stop to "the sexualization of our military."

The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a "lifestyle" but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, "the right thing to do."

Mullen's heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation's own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had "served with homosexuals since 1968" and that his views had evolved "cumulatively" and "personally" ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.

But that's not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen's testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: "I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind."

Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of "don't ask" would lead to gay demands for "special rights." Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath.

The arguments for preserving "don't ask" have long been blatantly groundless. McCain — who said in 2006 that he would favor repealing the law if military leaders ever did — didn't even bother to offer a logical explanation for his mortifying flip-flop last week. He instead huffed that the 1993 "don't ask" law should remain unchanged as long as any war is going on (which would be in perpetuity, given Afghanistan). Colin Powell strafed him just hours later, when he announced that changed "attitudes and circumstances" over the past 17 years have led him to agree with Mullen. McCain is even out of step with his own family's values. Both his wife, Cindy, and his daughter Meghan have posed for the current California ad campaign explicitly labeling opposition to same-sex marriage as hate.

McCain aside, the most common last-ditch argument for preserving "don't ask" heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect "troop morale and cohesion." Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing "situations destructive to morale." History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then.

Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry. The big arena on that issue is now in California, where the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is becoming a Scopes trial of sorts, with the unlikely bipartisan legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson in the Clarence Darrow role. The opposing lawyer, Charles Cooper, insisted to the court that he bore neither "ill will nor animosity for gays and lesbians." Given the history of the anti-same-sex marriage camp, it's hard to make that case with a straight face (so to speak). In trying to do so, Cooper moved that graphic evidence of his side's ill will and animosity be disallowed — including that notorious, fear-mongering television ad, "The Gathering Storm."

The judge admitted such exhibits anyway. Boies also triumphed in dismantling an expert witness called to provide the supposedly empirical, non-homophobic evidence of how same-sex marriage threatens "procreative marriage." In cross-examination, Boies forced the witness, David Blankenhorn of the so-called Institute for American Values, to concede he had no academic expertise in any field related to marriage or family. The only peer-reviewed paper he's written, for a degree in Comparative Labor History, was "a study of two cabinetmakers' unions in 19th-century Britain."

In another, milder cross-examination — on "Meet the Press" last weekend — John Boehner, the House G.O.P. leader, fended off a question about "don't ask" with a rhetorical question of his own: "In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?" Besides Mullen's answer — that it is the right thing to do — there's another, less idealistic reason why President Obama might want to get into it. The debate could blow up in the Republicans' faces. A protracted battle or filibuster in which they oppose civil rights will end up exposing the deep prejudice at the root of their arguments. That's not where a party trying to expand beyond its white Dixie base and woo independents wants to be in 2010.

Polls consistently show that independents, however fiscally conservative, are closer to Democrats than Republicans on social issues. (In May's Gallup survey, 67 percent of independents favored repealing "don't ask.") This is why Scott Brown, enjoying what may be a short-lived honeymoon in his own party, calls himself a "Scott Brown Republican." A Scott Brown Republican isn't a Boehner or Hatch Republican. In his interview with Barbara Walters last weekend, he distanced himself from Sarah Palin, said he was undecided on "don't ask" and declared same-sex marriage a "settled" issue in his state, Massachusetts, where it is legal.

It's in this political context that we can see that there may have been some method to Obama's troublesome tardiness on gay issues after all. But as we learned about this White House and the Democratic Congress in the health care debacle, they are perfectly capable of dropping the ball at any moment. Let's hope they don't this time. Should they actually press forward on "don't ask" in an election year with Mullen and Gates on board — and with even McCain's buddy, Joe Lieberman, calling for action "as soon as possible" — they could further the goal and raise the political price for those who stand in the way. Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to "whatever the commanders want" extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights.

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won't happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman's desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen's powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

[GRAYWOLF]

I didn't see anyone pummel you over that last post....all of the responses were specific to that particular article. I'm not sure why anyone would ask you to stop posting...

As far as this post goes, I totally agree that DADT should go away. All the military has to do is handle it like any other issue, and not tolerate abuse.

The government has no authority to, in fact, it is prohibited from, interfering in any activities of consenting adults.

[MG]

My stock in trade, GW, is a certain hyperbole designed to elicit a wry smile.   

Like every schtick, it doesn't work all the time in every situation. Doesn't stop me from trying, though.   

[Ultra]

Let's pummel him!!

[Paul Jaray]

I think this question is rather funny.
I don't know how it works there, but here in Italy there is not a "male\female\confused" square to cross when you fill the form to join the military.
It is not relevant if you are attracted by males or females when you have to face rather different issues.
Do you think your doctors have to report their orientation? You don't care if you are undressing in front of a gay doctor because you trust him as a professionist.
I see only a logistic problem....we have barraks for men and for women...where should we put gays? In our government we had a trans (!) that used to go to the bathroom used by women, even if he\she is biologically a man.
When you join the army you have to be straight in your mind, the following will be a conseguence of that.
There can be a squadrons with man and women living in peace without "situations destructive to morale" , why should gays behave differently?

The marriage is totally a different matter and quite serious.

[MG]

The marriage is totally a different matter and quite serious.

Yes, that's true. But cannot two people of the same sex be as committed to each other as a man and a woman?  Some homosexual relationships are quite stable and long lasting. The key to any successful relationship is a willingness to share power more or less equally. It is only when one partner wants to "run the show" all the time that a relationship becomes poisonous.

The debate here is not so much about moral issues as it is allowing gay couples to have the same civil rights as others. As it is, if your gay partner is injured or killed, you have to legal right to make medical decisions on his/her behalf, you do not inherit from him/her as a matter of law and you are prohibited in having any say in making funeral arrangements.

I get pretty weirded out about various orifices being used for purposes they are not designed for, gerbils, enemas and all the way out stuff that passes for recreational sex in the gay community. But if two people commit to each other, I think they should be left alone by the government to honor each other in their own way and to have the same degree of legal standing as straight couples do.

:2¢:

[Otto Puzzell]

If anyone needs a pummeling, it's Rich. He's all atwitter because the response he's programmed himself to expect didn't happen. Which means, what, the folks who didn't replay as he had wished, must have adopted his view?

With this piece, and the GRAYWOLF's article on MSNBC, the message is clear - only one half of those in "public service", plus those who opine favorably about that half in the press, have their heads on straight. Everyone else is a hayseed, a bigot, and worse. Except, of course when they elect one of the anointed, or subscribe to their journalistic wares. How wonderful is must be to have such a self-righteous superiority complex.

To PJ's point, what's the fascination with sexual orientation? How is it pertinent to one's wish to sign up?

[Paul Jaray]

The marriage is totally a different matter and quite serious.

Yes, that's true. But cannot two people of the same sex be as committed to each other as a man and a woman? Some homosexual relationships are quite stable and long lasting. The key to any successful relationship is a willingness to share power more or less equally. It is only when one partner wants to "run the show" all the time that a relationship becomes poisonous.

The debate here is not so much about moral issues as it is allowing gay couples to have the same civil rights as others. As it is, if your gay partner is injured or killed, you have to legal right to make medical decisions on his/her behalf, you do not inherit from him/her as a matter of law and you are prohibited in having any say in making funeral arrangements.

I get pretty weirded out about various orifices being used for purposes they are not designed for, gerbils, enemas and all the way out stuff that passes for recreational sex in the gay community. But if two people commit to each other, I think they should be left alone by the government to honor each other in their own way and to have the same degree of legal standing as straight couples do.

:2¢:

What is your idea of marriage?
Two people loving each others and willing to share the rest of their life? Fine.
Two people that would like to have the same rights we have, in matter of taxes, medical decisions, funeral arrangements, etc? Fine.
Two people adopting a child or raising up a child? We need to discuss about this.
It's not about rights, gays are people just like all the others and if 2 lovers know that their love can be officialized by an institution, the comunity should not be worried about their sex: it just doesn't matter because it effects only themselves.

I get pretty weirded out about various orifices being used for purposes they are not designed for, gerbils, enemas and all the way out stuff that passes for recreational sex in the gay community.

I'm sorry to tell you that is the core of the problem.
You post it like an innocent sentence, but it can be highly offensive.
You have shown to think about gays with a direct connection to their sexual habits. You think that they can be like beast but it's up to them.
..but what if someone refers to you, me or all the other straight ones with that in mind? You think that only because we respect the standards there are not such deviations among us?

I'm used to make simple reasonings: gays are just like us, they have to have the same rights, unless it effects someone else (a child?).
I can join the army? A gay should be able too. I can be considered a family with my wife and have some rights? They should have the same rights.
The (civilian) marriage is like a contract, who cares if they are both males or females? There are some side effects and that's why the rights can't be all the same, but the differences have to be pointed out according to practical reasons and never according to the sexual orientation.

[Paul Jaray]

If anyone needs a pummeling, it's Rich. He's all atwitter because the response he's programmed himself to expect didn't happen. Which means, what, the folks who didn't replay as he had wished, must have adopted his view?

With this piece, and the GRAYWOLF's article on MSNBC, the message is clear - only one half of those in "public service", plus those who opine favorably about that half in the press, have their heads on straight. Everyone else is a hayseed, a bigot, and worse. Except, of course when they elect one of the anointed, or subscribe to their journalistic wares. How wonderful is must be to have such a self-righteous superiority complex.

To PJ's point, what's the fascination with sexual orientation? How is it pertinent to one's wish to sign up?

I'm sorry but I find harder and harder to follow these discussions:
All of you often refers to some of us with their names (not nicknames) and they can be obscure to some of us, referring to facts we may not know, situations we are not aware of and supposing things we can't get.
It's not about you Otto, I'm speaking in general, but I'm thinking to a new visitor, whising to share his thoughts and finding hard even to understand what are we referring to. And the same goes with the references to local politics, events etc you all know: take a look to the flag counter in the main page, there are many people who may find hard to understand that BO is your president and who may not be familiar with some slang you use...

[Otto Puzzell]

Sorry, PJ. "Rich" refers to Frank Rich, who authored the article MG posted above.

Graywolf is an Autopuzzles member who posts most often in this General Discussion area of the board. The MSNBC post I referenced is here: http://www.autopuzzles.com/forum/index.php?topic=11153.0 MSNBC is an American cable news and commentary channel.

In that this is very much an board with an international membership and content, I can see as a plethora of US-centric political commentary is curious at best, and of little interest to many here.

[Paul Jaray]

Thanks Otto, it was not about this specific post in this specific thread, but you got the point.
If there are many topics like that, it's a sign that is an interesting one, but making it too criptic will make it very hard to understand for who is not in the loop. 
There are 1500 circa visitors form english-speaking countries and 1100 circa from other countries.
I'm sure a topic about Spanish issues in the market will be not that interesting compared to big issues in your country (that will affect also the rest of the world) and that is why we should make it more "stranger-friendly"...IMHO 

[Ultra]

I think it is great Paul that you help to point out how to make these posts more user friendly.  Thanks.

[Ray B.]

... I can see as a plethora of US-centric political commentary is curious at best, and of little interest to many here.

Thanks, Otto. I approve. I had some of this curiosity for these topics at first, and even posted in some of them. Now I find it just boring (yet I am interested in US policy), especially when members post almost only in that category.

[Ultra]

In summary;

Issues of international interest are often related to what we all have in common.  Whether it be interests in human rights or whiskey, sharing interests or points of view on things of personal interest is often a more effective way of communicating across cultures. 

Or is that too gay?

[GRAYWOLF]

Or is that too gay?

Don't ask...

[Paul Jaray]

We are all gay people, loving whiskey, that got caught with a bomb in our underwear while we were boarding a plane, directed in a place where is freezing cold, to reach our friend in a cabin, to have a drift competition. If we are lucky we'll be judged by what will be left of the Supreme Court, live in TV thanks to CNN. Who do we have to blame? Obama of course. Sorry If I'm upset, I just quit smoking.

(this is a perfect exemplar of cryptic-non-friendly comment)

[Ultra]

We are all gay people, loving whiskey, that got caught with a bomb in our underwear while we were boarding a plane, directed in a place where is freezing cold, to reach our friend in a cabin, to have a drift competition. If we are lucky we'll be judged by what will be left of the Supreme Court, live in TV thanks to CNN. Who do we have to blame? Obama of course. Sorry If I'm upset, I just quit smoking.

(this is a perfect exemplar of cryptic-non-friendly comment)

[Bezor]

We are all gay people, loving whiskey, that got caught with a bomb in our underwear while we were boarding a plane, directed in a place where is freezing cold, to reach our friend in a cabin, to have a drift competition. If we are lucky we'll be judged by what will be left of the Supreme Court, live in TV thanks to CNN. Who do we have to blame? Obama of course. Sorry If I'm upset, I just quit smoking.

(this is a perfect exemplar of cryptic-non-friendly comment)

I'm what? What is that that I'm doing?.....oh yeah, I'm LOLing.

<   

Great post!

[GRAYWOLF]

We are all gay people, loving whiskey, that got caught with a bomb in our underwear while we were boarding a plane, directed in a place where is freezing cold, to reach our friend in a cabin, to have a drift competition. If we are lucky we'll be judged by what will be left of the Supreme Court, live in TV thanks to CNN. Who do we have to blame? Obama of course. Sorry If I'm upset, I just quit smoking.

(this is a perfect exemplar of cryptic-non-friendly comment)

Hey! you take that back!!!! I'm not a whiskey lover!!!!

[Paul Jaray]

We are all happy, hence gay.

[MG]

How's the non-smoking going, PJ? Did you buy the plastic straws as I suggested. Yeah, you look like a jerk sucking on a plastic straw in public, but no MORE so than sucking on a cigarette.  I recommend them highly.

[Paul Jaray]

I'm a professionist in non-smoking....when I was born I was not smoking and from that day on I never had a cigarette...
(that post was a mix of all your previous posts...)

[Allemano]

How's the non-smoking going, PJ? Did you buy the plastic straws as I suggested. Yeah, you look like a jerk sucking on a plastic straw in public, but no MORE so than sucking on a cigarette.  I recommend them highly.

I guess you've mixed up something, but that's a different topic... 

[MG]

Well, Paul said his rant was inspired by angst brought on by having quit smoking.  There was another thread a month or so ago about cigarettes in which I offered the benefit of my experience at quitting. So I was drawing on that prior discussion. But as to my being confused?  Yeah, most of the time!!   

[ateball]

Just curious.  What is the policies of the military's of other countries military?  I.E.  Great Britain, Austrailia, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Israel...............I think I know what Republic of China, and Russia would be, but maybe I need some enlightenment.

There is one point I might mention.  Our military in the past has had a "no tolerance" policy concerning even civil type offense committed by G.I.'s...I.E. aduterous conduct, failing to pay child support, etc...  In fact the military's section which is the Chaplain's domain often intercedes to make/encourage the G.I. to fullfill civil/legal obligations.  There is a moral code there.

As for the gay issue, as I believe announced or un-hidden hetero-sexual activity between non married members is taboo, I think that it would be the same when it comes to same-sex situations that are made public to the military.
****
As you know I'm a Christian, but can't stand the old "bible thumper" moniker........Never the less, for some unknown reason, homosexual acts are placed on a higher pedestal of sin as though they are the unpardonable sin.  Yet, when I read that book, I find that adulterous conduct with heterosexuals is on the same plain with any other sin.   I guess what I'm saying is naughty is naughty.  I think that what makes some naughties bigger in folks minds is their ramifications or when they are sown, the reaping part can be of much greater magnitude.

I.E.  Adultery can destroy a marriage, but if there's children involved the "reaping" what is sown bleeds down to the children, who seem to get the worst of it.........With a broken home.........and massive disfunctional outcomes for the future.  On the other hand, being a "crud" around people isn't a good thing either, but what is reaped from that action is filled with much less ramifications or impacts on others in most cases.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying, and I will be the first to admitt, that I used to see the homosexual act as something of greater accurse than when a person breaks their marriage vows and seeks out sexual favors not with their spouse.  I realize that these situations are not cut and dry, and there are many extenuating circumstances.  Note Again:  I said I used to think the above way about homosexual conduct concerning the sexual component of their relationships

If they just keep it in their britches amongst their comrads in-arms, and do their job, serving our country and defending the constitution, I'm fine with that.
****
I hope I didn't open up a can of worms.
*****