Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

It’s Time to Dump “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — A Voice Crying in a Different Wilderness

By

The same census data shows that almost one million gay and lesbian Americans are veterans. (Same reference). There are a total of 23.6 million veterans in the United States. This being the case, over four percent of our veterans are gay or lesbian. This number represents a greater percentage of veterans than the number of gays and lesbians in the general population. (http://media.www.kentnewsnet.com/media/storage/paper867/news/2008/11/10/News/23.6-Million.The.Number.Of.Military.Veterans.In.The.United.States.In.2007-3533856.shtml).

I don’t often side with those on the liberal side of the equation, and certainly not with Obama. But in this case, he got it right. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is an insult to those in the gay/lesbian community who are serving, and have served, their country in uniform. I am as proud of each of them as I am any of my fellow veterans, and I thank each of them for their service, as a grateful country should also do.

Best,

Chuck

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It cripples our country, too.  Approaching 60 Arab linguists have been pushed out of service, often reported by their bigoted “comrades-in-arms”.  I’ve always thought DADT a luxury — countries with existential crises are a lot less bigoted when it comes to getting help in defense.

      • Frank Luntz the Republican pollster in the Los Angeles Times:

        Consider this: A near unanimous 94% of Americans are concerned about our nation’s infrastructure. And this concern cuts across all regions of the country and across urban, suburban and rural communities.

        Fully 84% of the public wants more money spent by the federal government — and 83% wants more spent by state governments — to improve America’s infrastructure. And here’s the kicker: 81% of Americans are personally prepared to pay 1% more in taxes for the cause. It’s not uncommon for people to say they’d pay more to get more, but when you ask them to respond to a specific amount, support evaporates. (That 74% of normally stingy Republicans are on board for the tax increase is, to me, the most significant finding in the survey.)
        [Emphasis added -kbusch]

        That’s an awful lot of Keynesians.

        <

        p>h/t David Sirota

        • I’ve seen polls suggesting that 3/4 of Americans would favor (or at least not object to) more stringent gun control; the kicker is that apparently 2/3 of gun owners even feel the same way!  Yet the NRA scares a lot of people, though I’m not sure how successful they’ve been in carrying out their political threats.

            • You can Google “gun control polls” and come up with some interesting links.  I didn’t find specifically the numbers I cited, but there is some support for some stricter gun control.

      • These are the kinds of facts that need to be trumpeted from the rooftops, so that peoople can still claim that this is a country of, by and for the people. Right and left be damned in some instances, my brothers- and sisters-in-arms are still my brothers- and sisters-in-arms! Once you have been there, you understand.

        <

        p>Best,
        Chuck

    • Probably, we will learn something … :-). And I’d be interested in learning just how many active-duty and reserve/guard gay and lesbian veterans BlueMass and REDMASS subscribers know, if you/they know any. Names aern’t needed. Details about service achievements would be of interest, for research, in a currently under-construction novel of mine.

      <

      p>BTW, that novel has absolutely zero to do with why I posted the dairy. Heroes are heroes. Winners are winners. Veterans are veterans. And my fellow warriors are my fellow warriors. I’ve never considered that other creds should be needed to qualify.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • That is the headline on RMG. Looks a little different to me. As I have stated before, President Obama doesn’t need to placate every splinter of every plank of the party platform. You voted for him, deal with it. He doesn’t need you anymore.

        • “Of course there will be straights who decide to eliminate the gay menace by harrassment, assault, and murder and perhaps fratricide in combat.”

          <

          p>Soldiers can’t be trusted to follow orders not to kill other soldiers.  

          • But from the looks of it “Seaworthy” (the guy who claimed that quote) has a one-way ticket to crazy town.  There’s no way his way of thinking is in line many and most of today’s servicemen and servicewomen.

            <

            p>The repeal of DADT will not be a smooth transitition but after a transition period many of the concerns of “unit cohesiveness” will evaporate as everybody gets used to the openness. When Truman issued E0 9981 in 1948 it wasn’t as if racial problems in the army were over.  But people got over it.  They’ll deal this time around as well.

            <

            p>

            Executive Order 9981

            WHEREAS it is essential that there be maintained in the armed services of the United States, the highest standards of democracy, with equality of treatment and opportunity for all those who serve in our country’s defense:
            NOW THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows:

            1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having regard for the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.

            (http://www.milestonedocuments.com/document_detail.php?id=29&more=fulltext)

            • It’s still disturbing.  Excellent point on the historical predecessors.  I’m sure that generation’s “seaworthy” had similarly violent objections.

          • Here’s a fun snark from a related diary at Pam’s House Blend

            Weak-ass Straight Men
            Don’t we hear over and over from the fundies how important “correct” gender roles are? And don’t we hear over and over again from these same people how those big, strong, straight fathers perform invaluable services for their sons – ones that cannot be replaced by gay men or any woman? Well, apparently one of the things this big, strong, straight fathers are neglecting to teach their sons is how to defend themselves. According to this article, the straight men are all so scared of the big, bad faggots they are going to run screaming out of the barracks if they see one. And God forbid that one of those evil queens tries to hit on a straight man – they’ll be powerless to stop the sexual onslaught. Here I spent all those years worrying the straight guys were going to bash me and it turns out they are all cowardly lions.

            I wonder if our men and women and military like such accusations of weakness, particularly from allegedly supportive groups?  
            by: CPT_Doom @ Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 20:17:01 PM EST

            It’s always the most insecure who beat their chests the hardest.

        • I remember being dismissive of Jeff Beatty going into the recent Senate race. I thought he had a bad case of testosterone poisoning. Rarely does one get such better confirmation for one’s perspective than I got here

          All this talk about the army and machine guns is making me think about Jeff Beatty.  DAMN I wish he got elected and not John F’in Kerry.  DAMN IT!

          Thank you Republican Ram Rod Radio. (Yes, that is his handle. The handles are more inventive on RMG.)

  4. of course i agree that we should do away with dadt, and i’m glad to see you do too.  however, i’m confused by your support for the repeal because it seems in direct contradiction to every other comment you’ve made about lgbt people here on bmg.

    <

    p>for example, in a recent diary, you spent considerable effort trying to convince us that gay people should remain celibate, that gay sex is a sin.  yet in your rmg version of this dadt diary you opine the inability of a lesbian veteran you know who wasn’t able to be accompanied at a big formal to-do by her partner, saying

    She…was in the closet for her entire 26 year career. Under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” when she returned from a combat deployment, the person she loved most in this world, and whom she loved the most, could not go to Formation And Dismissal to welcome her home, without destroying her career…if you and I can be welcomed home from a combat deployment by our Significant Other, why couldn’t she?

    surely you’re not implying she and her significant other had nothing more than platonic love?

    <

    p>so let me ask you directly:  do you suggest that gays serve openly in the military but remain celibate?  or are you fine with sexually-active gays serving openly?  if the latter, aren’t you just carving out an exception to the celibacy rule for gay soldiers because, hey, one is a friend of yours?  if so, where does that leave your theology if you allow yourself to make exceptions to what you profess god has decreed?

    • You are absolutely correct when you say that I oppose gay sex. I do, and the reason is because of my conviction that it is both sinful and forbidden by scripture.

      <

      p>Having said that, I can say several other things. First, a gay in a committed relationship, or even one who isn’t, but enjoys an occasional pickup in a Saturday night meat market, isn’t likely to stop having gay sex because of my beliefs.

      <

      p>Second, reformed Christians are taught to hate the sin, but love the sinner, following Christ’s example. He didn’t have dinner with the mucky-mucks and priests, He had dinner with tax collectors and sinners. He condemned few, and loved many. With our feet of clay, we don’t always follow His example, but we try.

      <

      p>Third, what a person is inside cannot be helped. I long ago came to terms with the reality that for gays, it isn’t sexual preference, it is sexual orientation. Some folks are just wired differently.

      <

      p>Fourth, I oppose gay marriage, because I consider marriage a Christian Sacrament, but I don’t believe the religious beliefs, or moral scruples, or anthing else, that people or governments hold to, gives anyone the right to deprive any citizen, including gays, of that to which they should be entitled as citizens. That includes forming coupled relationships and civil liberties and rights. That includes property rights, domestic rights, and everything else to which straights are entitled, so long as it does not violate just law, or desecrate a sacrament.

      <

      p>I would never knowingly assign a gay couple to the same combat unit, just as I would never knowingly assign a married or otherwise committed hetero couple to the same combat unit. The reason is obvious.

      <

      p>In summary, yes, I would hope gays would not intentionally commit sin, as much as I would hope straights would not intentionally commit sin. That’s a pretty tall order, and the way the world works, a pretty futile hope. But religious beliefs should never stand in the way of civil rights.

      <

      p>And vice versa.

      <

      p>Hope that satisfactorily answers your questions.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • Oh, that’s why Alexander the Great or Epaminondas didn’t have a combat role.

        <

        p>I suspect that something is quite obvious but it might not be what you think it is.

        • A member of a committed couple, whether gay or straight, will generally see to the needs and safety of their significant other above and before the safety of a comrade. This is what I was addressing as obvious. And Alexander or Epaminondas may have been exceptions, but had it come to that, would they?

          <

          p>You can’t do that in combat. And if, as has been pointed out over at RMG, a unit with women in it is not in combat, but in a support role, they’re not immune to attack, so the same logic would apply. Try holding that discussion with the women who have had to shoot back — terrorists and enemy soldiers really don’t give a flying freep whether you’re working the radio or shooting a gun for a living!

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

  6. Personally, I never really understood why gay folks would want to serve in the military. As a woman, it’s always been a fringe benefit, knowing this country would never try to force me to strap on a gun and kill someone on behalf our lying ass leaders. I know there is no draft now. I’m just saying.

    <

    p>But of course, it’s not about me. And clearly there are gay people who want to serve, have been booted out of the military and in some cases harassed and everything else.

    <

    p>That’s just wrong. It was a stupid Clinton-era policy, he thought it up only after getting a thorough butt whipping from the GOP.

    <

    p>My question is the logic of allowing gays in the military now. And the big answer has been, because we need them. Military recruitment is down, casualties are adding up, we have run out of waving American citizenship in the faces of wait-listed immigrants, so we might as well allow the gays to serve. Allow gay folks to risk their lives out of necessity. I don’t know about anyone else, but that seems incredibly offensive to me.

    <

    p>  

    • I don’t know what our specific needs are right now, but those with greater need, such as Israel, show us that it can work.

    • but as christopher says, it’s the right thing to do.  after all, it’s not like we’re only now allowing gays to serve.  they’re serving already and always have.  it’s that we’re allowing them to serve honestly and not have to hide their families.  but i couldn’t agree more that it looks pretty shaky to all of a sudden get behind equality only after you can;t even find enough felons to fill out the ranks.

      • It’s hardly surprising that clarity comes with increased focus of thought.  One way that a precept can become the subject of more focused consideration is when it is conspicuously ‘in the way’ of a secondary desired result.  The serendipity can seem ‘convenient’, but nonetheless could be genuine.  It can just happen to be that intense need caused more thorough consideration.  

        <

        p>Sometimes: Need + Logic > Prejudice  

    • We’ve certainly had a lot of recent history, haven’t we, of the military being put to bad uses. The fault here lies with Presidents not with those who have served. We might imagine a day, though, when all military intervention will be done for good causes and be well-planned.

      <

      p>Can’t we say that military service is one way we Americans get to express our patriotism? Why bar anyone from doing that?

      • There is no question that everyone should be allowed to serve. It is, as you say, the ultimate display of patriotism to serve in the military. It’s just that the military’s tactics on this are pretty lame. Patriotism has not been the marketing tool they use. They recruit poor urban and rural folks with few options. They pay them very little and sherk on the benefits after it is all said and done.

        <

        p>But instead of addressing these issues, the military just strayed further into exploiting the disempowered: They first started offering to expedite the citizenship process for immigrants. Then, according to the above post, they were even allowing exceptions for felons. I know for a fact they have disregarded the requirement that you have a high school diploma. And finally, now they are turning to the gay folks. The same gay folks they were fighting tooth and nail to keep out. If they valued the service of the military, I don’t think they would be experiencing these problems.

        <

        p>With all that said, gays should be allowed to serve. But they should also be protected as they serve. The brass will have to make it very clear, as they have not yet done with women who serve, that intolerance will not be tolerated.

Archives