It’s hard to believe we’re going through this again.
Flush with his presidential election victory in 1992, President Clinton attempted during his first weeks in office to impose new hiring rules on the US military by executive fiat, proclaiming a unilateral right to change the federal law that governs the US military, in particular that code which”barred” people from service who were openly gay or lesbian. In doing so, he ran straight into a brick wall of Congressional opposition – after all, as the legislative branch, Congress felt that they had some right to be heard on the matter of what federal laws should or shouldn’t say.
The former president also got well ahead of public opinion, and suffered an early tarnish to his post-election shine while trying to satisfy a little-noticed campaign promise to a small but influential interest group. He learned an early lesson in the limits of his power and his pledge ultimately went unfulfilled, but the compromise plan hammered out between DOD, Congress and the President is still our governing guidance: When it comes to matters of sexual orientation, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t harass, don’t pursue.”
Less succinctly: It’s none of our business who you sleep with, or where you put your fiddly bits. We’re not interested. We don’t want to know. We’re very, very busy and we’d like to talk about something else.
Like how to fight and win the nation’s wars, for example. That’d be neat.
Clinton can be forgiven for at least doing what he thought was right (and what he knew would gain him some votes), but it’s harder not to be just a little skeptical about what seems to me to be nothing more than a rank political stunt:
Openly gay students Jessica Arvidson, Matt Hill Comer, Alex Nini and Stacey Booe tried to enlist in the U.S. Army this morning in an effort to challenge the 13-year-old “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy as part of a 30-city project called the Right to Serve campaign.
They weren’t allowed to enlist and then took part in a sit-in along with several supporters inside the Army Recruiting Center on Merritt Drive in Greensboro.
Booe left the sit-in after police said there would be arrests if they didn’t leave. The other three students and five other supporters were taken away in handcuffs.
It’s difficult to take these young people seriously, not while their peers – gay as well as straight – are fighting and all too often dying in the field, not least because this campaign follows hard upon the heels of of a failed strategy to use an activist judiciary and pandering politicians to change what the concept of “marriage” has meant for the last four thousand years or so. That acknowledged over-reach, and the ballot-box blowback which ensued set the gay rights agenda back many several years.
It is ordinarily weak and vile to issue for oneself proclamations of innocence to prejudice. But even given that, let me nevertheless insist that for my own part, I have no problem with gays, or lesbians, bi’s or trangenders. I don’t flatter myself that I am attractive to men who are attracted to men, and am not afraid of them.
I don’t believe one “chooses” to be heterodox in such a fundamental way – gays and lesbians are, I believe, as nature’s God has made them. Furthermore, I think that every man or woman must find beauty where they can, and that the more love there is in the world, surely the better off we all will be. And I know that the politically correct thing to say and think about this is that having to keep their sexual orientation private places an unfair burden on the LGBT community. They just want to serve their country!
But they can serve their country. They have served in every country that ever existed, nobly, honorably, heroically. They are serving their country still. They are merely not allowed to serve their country and make that service conditional on their preference for personal expression. One cannot say, “I will serve my country, but only if…” This is the service, there are no “if’s”, we are all about self-abnegation, the sublimation of individual will into the greater good. There may be differing levels of attendant sacrifice, but that is also nothing new: One who is disposed to gain weight will find the service harder than another who is naturally lean, while a soldier who is a single parent will have many more burdens than a married parent, who in turn arguably sacrifices more on deployment than a single serviceman with no surviving family.
We are made up of volunteers, after all. If someone can’t live with our pre-conditions,he is welcome to choose another calling.
This is not a free speech issue, because there are obvious limitations on speech. Tell your military boss that you think he’s a jerk, and don’t be surprised if he hands you your discharge papers. Same thing happens at Costco, I believe- tell your boss there that he’s a tool, and I’ll be damned if he doesn’t ask for his Costco vest and nametag back.
I suppose it’s possible that in case of dire national need,committed communists or anarchists might be so overcome by the moment that they decide to enlist, but they too had better limit their expressions and keep their political beliefs to themselves – these are also barriers to service.
This is not a civil rights issue: What is debarred is not an inherent, immutable character nor is it intrinsic identity, but an activity, and the rebuttable presumption that the statement “I am gay” represents a predisposition to engage in such activity. An activity, furthermore,the nature of which military leadership thinks might be prejudicial to good order and discipline. On such issues, especially in a time of war, those opinions ought to count.
Even conceding arguendo that there is a civil rights analogue here does not obliterate the fact – and it is a fact – that there is no inherent right to service. We routinely exclude people who are too short, too tall, too fat, diabetic, asthmatic, and so on. People in other words protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and against whom it would be normally be illegal to discriminate.
But here’s what it is, gentle reader: I don’t honestly believe these people really want to serve their country in an hour of need, because if they did, they could. Easily.
Furthermore, I don’t honestly believe that they’re really out to change the policy. They know they’ll get nowhere with this Congress and this President. This is a transparent election year stunt, and what they’re really trying to do is change the subject.
They want to make the discussion revolve around themselves, around their personal need to “be heard,” when what their country really needs is people willing to stand up and do the right thing. Support the war or protest against it, but don’t use it as a vehicle to further your personal agenda.
Finally there is this: The whole “right to service” thing has always been a canard, a way of side-stepping the state and federal legislatures and getting favorable federal case law – which US military law is – on the books. Once gays are openly allowed to serve, the next natural step for them is to sue or otherwise acquire for themselves and their partners the rights that married service members are eligible for; base housing privileges, hospital visitation rights, preferential pay and tax treatment, etc. The military codes granting these privileges would form federal precedent and would be useful to advance through the sympathetic judiciaries those policy goals they cannot achieve through normal legislation.
And as laudable as those goals might well be, the way to achieve them is through fostering dialogue and changing hearts and minds. That will lead to new legislation, if in fact their arguments are persuasive.
Don’t use us to side-step the process. We’re busy.
Non sibi, sed patriae.
Classy
Elegant
And right on the frickin’ $
well said friend.
TSP
Amen.
These fools have just insulted every military member, past and present, who have honorably served the Nation and placed their comrades’ welfare above their own, who always put Duty First–and who also just happened to be gay. Or black. Or female.
‘Service Before Self’
They. Just. Don’t. Get. It.
Well stated. The policy is not based on status but rather on conduct.
Technically, you can be as gay as the day is long, but if there is no homosexual conduct to establish that, you won’t be discharged under the policy.
Moreover, the policy doesn’t consider past homosexual conduct as a basis for discharge. Had these students not said anything and enlisted, the fact that they had done whole bunches of homosexual conduct prior to enlisting would not be grounds for discharge.
But then again, they probably weren’t all that serious about enlisting anyway…
I think the biggest problem with all of this, is the fact that we have to know that these people are gay. Once someone says that or is found out to be, that becomes the only thing one sees.
Personally I think we should not be asking or telling about any sexual conduct, gay or straight. I really don’t care who they sleep with so long as they show up for work on time. However, unitl society can become comfortable with the idea of being gay (and I think most Amreicans are not) the gay folks need to be back in the closet. Like I said, once you know that one fact, it becomes all you see. Maybe that makes it my problem, but it is just the way it is.
Skippy-san, America can’t become comfortable with gays by forcing them back into the closet. That’s where they were and look at how it didn’t work.
Capt., You are truly on point here. Only one question/clarification. I have read that many more gays have been fired in the last (3) years or so. Do you know if this is true and what is your opinion if true. Thanks !
Greensboro, too. Where the first real sit-in happened back in 1960.
Excellent observations.
I totally agree that gays should be allowed to serve in the military. I really don’t give a rat’s ass if you’re straight, gay, male,female, caucasian, african-american, asian, jewish, christian, wiccan or even muslim…. If you want to serve our country with dignity and respect, GO FOR IT. As long as you do your job, I really don’t care what you look like or who you sleep with at night.
I think you’re spot on with observations about these kids. They wanted to make a point about being gay- not about being barred from the military. I’m pretty damn sure there are PLENTY of gay people in the military who don’t make a big deal out of it. They just wanted to join, so they did. End of story. These kids were looking for publicity and got it.
“One cannot say, ?
“One cannot say, “I will serve my country, but only if…” This is the service, there are no “if’s”, we are all about self-abnegation, the sublimation of individual will into the greater good”.
The essence of what it is all about, folks. I didn’t serve because I only wanted to protect one half of the country. I didn’t serve because I only wanted rights for my clan. I served because everyone who is an American, right or wrong, needs protection from people whose only concept in life is to kill Americans, good or bad, right or left.
And the fact that Americans are all about goodness and protection of the weak as well as the wronged and downtrodden is what makes Men and Women sign up, do their duty, and defend the ideals enshrined in the Constitution for every American.
I’m just amazed by how often their training for war and warfighting skills have to be diverted to handle sensitivity training for some imagined slight to religion, sexual orientation, race, and any other characteristic of their shipmates they already serve with which might have offended some newspaper writer on the beach. Soldiers and Sailors and Marines and Airmen are warriors, not social engineers. Let the service decide what is best for fighting wars. Not a politician looking for votes from one sliver or splinter group of the American diaspora.
It don’t matter who they are. It matters what they will fight for.
Subsunk
Web Reconnaissance for 09/22/2006…
A short recon of what?
Web Reconnaissance for 09/22/2006…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….
for riceburner147 up at #6: one possible correlating data point could be the number of servicemembers seeking to voluntarily terminate their service obligation early in times of peace, compared to what that number is in time of war. one might expect it to go up.
if so, one easily available path would be to self-declare a disqualifying condition (for which the standard of “proving” your own disqualification is merely your own statement”.
Well, no matter what you think, say or write, some folks are so wrapped up in themselves that any opposition to their tactics becomes something other than an opposition to their tactics. One of the protesters in the post above picked up on this post and labelled your correspondent “anti-gay.” Which is a convenience, I suppose, since such labelling allows him to skip the substance of the argument put forth and focus on my bigotry.
Which I am a bigot now. Because he says I am, and as the victim, it’s him that gets to say.
What thin gruel.
Lex, you’re anti-gay.
Sorry, can’t read you anymore.
And yes, the tongue was in the cheek.
Which tongue? Whose cheek?
Gee, I never venture into this topic when Lex brings it on. I just see it as another change I don’t like. I won’t characterize my opinion though…. (who cares-I’m just a dino). Though I can say that I wouldn’t want to be in an 8man stateroom with the Village People – for 6 months…
Lex, it’s amazing how lightly you walk the tightrope. Defending the status quo and all…It was tried 14 years ago and now we gotta new “quo”…Like to see you younger dudes defending it. Good luck.
re- “as nature?
Gee, I never venture into this topic when Lex brings it on. I just see it as another change I don’t like. I won’t characterize my opinion though…. (who cares-I’m just a dino). Though I can say that I wouldn’t want to be in an 8man stateroom with the Village People – for 6 months…
Lex, it’s amazing how lightly you walk the tightrope. Defending the status quo and all…It was tried 14 years ago and now we gotta new “quo”…Like to see you younger dudes defending it. Good luck.
re- “as nature’s God has made them”-
Oblique Lex. However, if someone can prove to me scientifically/genetically, that it is a condition established at birth, I would be enlightened. Far as I can tell, despite all the recent scientific breakthroughs and all the $$ spent attemting to establish that “fact” it still hasn’t been PROVEN. I mention this because like a lotta “facts” out there, this fact hasn’t been proven as TRUE (at least scientifically)…yet.
B2
Hmmmm. You know, on every contract there is a “Needs of the Secretary of the Army” clause.
It might have been interesting to enlist them, send them all to different basic trainings (preferrably at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO in the depths of the winter), and then “Needs of the Army” changed their MOS’s to the nastiest things the Army could come up with.
Infantry duty at Ft. Polk, LA would work.
Then again, it looks like only Stacey Booe has any brains.
Well, as I said, I believe it to be true, based less on science – although there is some evidence there – and more on observation of the human condition. Sexuality is such a fundamental element of our being that heterodoxy almost hast to be hard wired.
It is like eating or drinking. If I discover someone who drinks from their nose for example, rather than their mouth, my presumption is not that they prefer to do so – because who, being equipped for the alternative, could prefer to do that? – but that this is the way they are constructed, that there is no other way for them.
And the innate nature of this is self-supportive even before one gets to the issue of disappointed social expectations and even opprobrium – not everyone who is gay lives in San Francisco.
Lex-
Having just come home from a gay mates housewarming her (male) gay friends would have a field day with that question
Folks I couldn’t agree more. These people had no more desire to serve than I have to have my teeth pulled. I work closely with a gay man who served in the National Guard with honor. He did his job and did it well and by his own admission nobody treated him as less than an equal. He didn’t advertise he was gay just like I don’t walk around screaming “I’m straight”. He was also never hassled or mistreated despite the fact his manerisms don’t hide his sexuality.
If they really wanted to enlist they would have without hesitation and served their country not just their pet cause.
I agree. re – “there is no other way for them.” and I also, in my gut, agree with your hypothesis (mainstream and almost taught as “fact”- sort of like evolution).
However, as even the Boston Globe article you link points out (caveats the article, actually):
“has suggested a biological basis..”
My brain says, despite all the research and the ability to break down things at the molecular dna level, it STILL is not a fact. It is as much a scientific mystery today as it was 100 years ago.
Why do I care? I want people to know that because the fact is, that homosexuality has NOT been proven to be something you are born (IE result of genetics). That is the irrefutable truth- right now.
Therefore, sexual orientation as a condition, is not the same as race, eye color or whether you will go bald..
Therefore it has to be a “choice” brought on by the environment (voluntary/involuntary) and that it’s origin/manifestations must be a psychological condition.
If you accept what I offer above as the present truth, than any argument shitcanning “don’t ask-don’t tell” is specious……
re- “opprobrium”. Ouch. Do you use words like that in your memos while turning the crank? No wonder.
B2
B2-
Absence of proof not being proof of absence your argument tends to fall over.
Don’t much care what’s the cause of the inclination, but rather the effect of something other than “don’t ask, don’t tell” — which seems to be getting the job done and should remain so.
Be very wary of the “right to service” argument because the game is over the day that becomes a 5th/14th Amendment right. The military couldn’t maintain order and effectiveness if it had to prove that its interest in each and every regulation that barred or ended an individual’s service was sufficient, in the eyes of a federal judge, to outweigh the individuals right to serve. I didn’t get my butter bars because of a minor vision defect that surfaced at the last examination prior to commissioning. I did just fine at the last trip to the ranges and was a good cadet and all–I think the defect was “nonwaiveable” because the Army gave out a lot more scholarships in 1990 than it needed 2LTs in 1995, not because of anything to do with my fitness for service. My own personal “worst day ever” but still not enough to send me running to my congressman (or my local ACLU chapter).
Re: “An activity, furthermore, the nature of which military leadership thinks might be prejudicial to good order and discipline.”
How is that any dfferent from hetero men and women serving in the same unit? Couldn’t the fraternization rules be applied and be done with it? How does “good order and discipline” suffer more between members who are gay than two hetero PO3s in the same unit who find each other attractive? If someone who is gay is interested in someone else and that person, gay or straight, is not interested and is uncomfortable about being approached, that’s sexual harassment, and there are rules governing that, too.
Re: “Therefore it has to be a ?
Re: “An activity, furthermore, the nature of which military leadership thinks might be prejudicial to good order and discipline.”
How is that any dfferent from hetero men and women serving in the same unit? Couldn’t the fraternization rules be applied and be done with it? How does “good order and discipline” suffer more between members who are gay than two hetero PO3s in the same unit who find each other attractive? If someone who is gay is interested in someone else and that person, gay or straight, is not interested and is uncomfortable about being approached, that’s sexual harassment, and there are rules governing that, too.
Re: “Therefore it has to be a “choice” brought on by the environment (voluntary/involuntary) and that it’s origin/manifestations must be a psychological condition.”
So, Dr. B2, is there a pharmaceutical treatment for this “condition” much the same for depression, anxiety, PTSD, and other psychological conditions? Maybe make it part of the innoculations you get at boot camp?
“Which tongue? Whose cheek?”
*grin*
Wouldn’t you like to know….
SGT Jeff (USAR),
What have you got against the crunchies at Ft. Polk?
If you’ve served, you’ve probably served with unstable young enthusiasts. Some of these kids turn out OK eventually…I did. But it takes a lot of time and they leave a swath of distraction and destruction all around them for a long time. All this without adding in the extra dimension of condoning sexual expirementation. How bad are the grunts in Ft. Polk that you would wish more unstable enthusiat E-1’s on them?
Lex is right when he says we don’t have time for this crap. Take your protest to your Congressman’s office and leave us the hell alone.
OK… in all seriousness… I believe there *is* a biological reason for sexuality. Some people are hetero, some are homo. Some are both. Some are SO homo they choose to become the opposite sex, believing that they were born with the wrong sex organs and hormones.
I didn’t choose to be heterosexual any more than gay people choose to be homosexual. Hell, if they wanted it easy, they’d deny their homosexuality and pretend to be hetero. Admitting your sexual orientation is out of the norm is *not* the easy path.
Society expects us to follow God’s “one man-one woman” rule, but there’s something chemical that makes people NOT do that. And it’s not just rebellion- it’s a real sexual urge to be attracted to same-sex partners.
for my own opinion, i boil it all down to this.
i will fight alongside anyone else who is willing to fight, willing to serve, and has taken their oath to the Constitution.
as a part of the Executive Branch, there is an inherent obligation to ensure the faithful execution of the laws as written by the legislature.
the legislature promulgates the UCMJ, which contains specific prohibitions regarding some specific acts.
some people, based on thier own actions and choices (or even their very nature), from time to time take part in activities that are prohibited by law.
if the legislature would ever actually have the intestinal fortitude to pass a set of laws one way or the other, good soldiers would follow (and see to the proper execution of)that law as well.
some legislators prefer the comfortable position of straddling the fence on this one, railing against the military on the one hand, and completely failing to initiate legislation that would remove the percieved obstacle on the other.
as for me, put me down as one who favors the rule of law (whichever way they write it).
Right now, with the “phrase that pays” Someone can eject from service at any time. I’m not sure that’s a good thing in the long run.
I attended the hearings on this issue they had in Norfolk in 1993. The place was packed. I still remember Strom Thurmond telling one of the gay cowboys testifying, in his southern accent, “Have you ever considered psyhcological counseling for your problem?”
One other point. There are probably parts of the UCMJ that need to be deleted. In that hetero sexual’s are violating it every day……(sometimes on ship, no less…..)
Hey jpr,
I think any military leader will tell you that there are plenty of problems that arise from men and women serving in the same command.
I have no doubt that most (if not all) of the women who flew in the navy after the combat exclusion was lifted were better than me and warriors to the core (with the exception of the infamous Pilot “B”!) but that doesn’t mean that putting them in my squadron made my squadron better or more combat ready. I’m not anti-woman, I worship them in all respects, but I am anti-mix-people-who-will-screw-in-the-same-command.
N
What the good MAJ Mike said.
Because while we’re earnestly debating this, the bad guys continue to steal a march on us. ‘Cause the scimitar don’t care what orientation of infidel it cuts.
To them, us kuffars are all the same. We only ‘think’ we’re different…
Read something in “4 Mile Creek”’s blog about this post.
I generally understand and agree with this post. DADT needs to go. It was a sword over my head for over 6 years and nearly lead to me finishing off what the Haji started with an IED. While I was recovering I wished I was dead because I was gay and someone might figure it out.
I never was asked and never told – but in hiding I only created the conditions of dishonor by deception. Some of those I had to deceive never made it back home and now I am left here wondering why it was so important to have to hide. These guys were my brothers and I believe they would have accepted me. Now I live with their memories and feel that now they are gone and never really knew me. I knew some of their girlfriends, wives and parents and yet they never knew me.
I pray for them everyday.
Thanks for the post Sir.
A.M., thank you not only for your service, but the challenging personal psychological conditions under which you did it.
…but in hiding I only created the conditions of dishonor by deception.
That is something that has always bothered me about DADT. Is being deceptive by omission or outright lies compatible with personal honor? DADT permeates so much of social interaction. I mean, just to use one example, a bunch of guys are sitting around talking about girls as they are wont to do… and what does the gay guy do? Make up a story/preference (“I’m a leg man?” and “You should’ve seen the hot thing I met in ________?).
I knew some of their girlfriends, wives and parents and yet they never knew me.
Exactly. Sexual identity is a fundamental part of being human. Having to hide that part of oneself both impedes the emotional intimacy of relationships and creates the (often erroneous) message that one is fundamentally unacceptable to one’s peers–”If they really knew me would they still love me?” Even though I suspect a gay man would be pleasantly surprised at the level of acceptance among many of his military brothers, following DADT doesn’t allow for that acceptance to be experienced.
I’ll never forget the day at the USO that a large group of reserve medical people walked in. A effeminate little man in his mid-twenties pranced up to me and handed me an ID card. It said “USMC.” I about fainted. I was amazed at his personal courage because although I suspect he’s been met with acceptance since boot camp, boot camp must’ve been absolute emotional hell for him (for the record, the Marines I call friends knew who was gay in their units and it didn’t matter to them, but I know enough about young heterosexual men/recruits to know what this man likely went through as a recruit. There are easier ways to be a flaming gay in the military than join the Marine Corps!). He was obviously accepted in his current unit and there was a sense of warmth and brotherhood with them. But I thought again of DADT and homophobia (not to equate the two) and the emotional minefield that is life as a gay man…
DADT is unsatisfactory to me on intellectual/ethical and compassionate levels. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m not comfortable with DADT. It may be necessary at this time in our society, but that doesn’t make it right.
Once again, thanks, A.M.
Re- “Nature vs nurture”
“I believe” is not the sam as “I can prove”, eg- The Islamo-facist believes many things he cannot prove.
re- “Couldn?
Re- “Nature vs nurture”
“I believe” is not the sam as “I can prove”, eg- The Islamo-facist believes many things he cannot prove.
re- “Couldn’t the fraternization rules be applied and be done with it?”
Sure they could.
And as Skippy says above those very same rules would be broken every day like they are now, at sea, between men and women. The closest held secret in the US Navy, and probably DoD, is the pregnancy rate on AD. Even the officers up to 0-5 now almost accept this situation as the status quo and an underwater iceberg just waiting to cause havoc. I say why compound the problem x 2 from a practical standpoint? Despite our individual tendencies the miltary is not a labratory experiment in social engineering, or is it?
What’s more important? Defense during a time of Global War against Islamofacism or throwing more “change” out there??
Look. I’ve done my time. All y’all still on AD and those just starting out have to deal with it and lead in the environment you inheirit. For the civilians both straight and gay it’s just an academic or emtional argument….
B2
My personal belief is that the criteria should be ‘unit effectiveness’. If sexual conduct interferes with unit effectiveness then that should be grounds for discharge. Note that I am NOT saying ’sexual MIS-conduct’ but any sexual conduct, including coercive sex with juniors, sexual conduct with the spouses of unit members, and maybe even ‘Don Juan’ types. In my opinion homosexuality should not automatically be considered as detrimental to unit effectiveness. Do we really care whether our doctor or our dentist is a homosexual? Most people don’t, they only care if they are any good. As long as a persons sexual preference does not impact the units ability to get it’s job done, do we even care?
I don’t disagree – my question is “who gets to decide what contributes to military effectiveness?”
The military? Or an activist group that obviously has an agenda apart from service. Remember, if these people really want to serve their country, they can.
FbL – It was my honor and privalage to serve and would continue if I was not messed up physically. So thanks for the nice words on my service, but it is like thanking me for eating ice cream
Also, FbL thanks for the words on everything else too.
Lex: Sir, I am confused a bit. Are you against or for DADT? I did not read or see the protest, aside from what you said. A bunch of protestors are not the issue in my book. Sure something like that might bring up some talk, but isn’t some discussion what we need. Like you making this post and people commenting – in my book this is a good thing. Thank you Sir.
S/f
A.M.
A.M.,
I think Lex’s point is irrespective of DADT and written so on purpose; the issue is of necessity inextricably linked, but not the issue that is bothering Lex enough to post.
My own blog has a couple of posts (one eventually mentioning retired Navy captain, then congressman Schrock, who spent just a little too much time in the closet for some other gay folks to accept, and one about a war story that’s a bit of a tough read) that sort of mention DADT.