I remember back in the early 90's when President Clinton attempted to lift the ban on gays serving in the military, and the howls of protest, not to mention the snickering, that emanated from the public at large as well as from within the ranks of the armed forces.By position then was, and still is, that such decisions would be better left to the military to decide.
I also thought it was pretty ridiculous for Clinton to carry the rainbow banner so early in his administration. Just plain silly stupid on his part. He paid at the polls for that one.
I've heard all the arguments of how homosexuality doesn't fit well with the military lifestyle and then all the other tangents that to me really weren't legitimate issues at all. I've never served in the military, but most-to-many of my friends had served in some capacity or another. They basically all said the same thing: it just wouldn't work. (Although they didn't seem to think it would be as strong of an issue for lesbians.)
Now, President Obama is getting the pressure to lift the ban that President Clinton didn't.
The early 90's were a long time ago. Things have changed. Social attitudes have become more accepting of homosexuality, and living conditions among military personnel are not the same as they were back in the early 80's. I'm assuming they have also become less communal since the early 90's as well.
But human sexuality and the military's need for behavioral discipline have not changed. And likely never will.
And once again, I think this issue is best left for the military to decide, maybe on a gender by gender, service by service basis. Whatever they decide, I think it's a fool's game for civilians to attempt to force the issue in one direction or the other.
24 comments:
The military members in my life have always felt that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" works just fine. I wouldn't particularly care, if only they would stop treating homosexuality as a denigration in everyday on-the-job conversations. I know how they talk.
Anyway, I wish Obama would forget about the military and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act already. (As also mentioned recently.) Unless he's going to do that, the rest is just BS.
I think the importance of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is more symbolic than anything else. Unless, of course, you are one of the 13,000 or so people discharged under it.
I find it interesting that the main arguments against allowing openly gay people to serve in the military fall along the lines of "maintaining discipline" and "unit cohesion". I fail to see how gay people would do any more to undermine discipline by their mere presence than women do. And as far as unit cohesion goes, this is true only insofar as individual members of the military aren't comfortable with being around gay people (or just don't like them). But if the military had a policy of accommodating pretty much any other sort of prejudice (racial, religious, etc.) there would (rightfully) be holy hell raised about it.
I don't really have a problem with civilian authorities directing the broad policies of the military. (Day to day operational decisions, of course, are another matter.) They do work for us, you know.
Civilians run the military. That's the system we've adopted.
"Shoving down throats" means nothing more than "commanding," and we've always had a civilian commander-in-chief.
The military used to specifically ask you if you were a homosexual. Answering in the affirmative would disqualify you from service.
Today they don't ask. It is up to each individual to maintain behavior as to not put thyself in a position to be discharged.
Today they don't ask. It is up to each individual to maintain behavior as to not put thyself in a position to be discharged.
Which includes, among other things, not entering into a marriage, even in the states in which it is lawful to do so.
This is not a "reasonable" compromise, and it never was.
Reasonable? Compromise? What do you think you are talking about?
Why can't some people follow simple rules?
Imagine a homophobe getting the job to coordinate a gay pride festival and then being shocked when they reject a "compromise" to NOT allow flamboyant gay lifestyle or homo PDA.
Serving in the military is NOT about expressing your individuality... you are basically volunteering to be a borg and you will be assimilated into the collective and you will play by the rules.
What part of voluntary service don't some people understand?
May I presume you would have no problem with the military (a taxpayer-funded government program) having a policy that prohibited anyone from openly expressing their heterosexuality, then?
It's discrimination, plain and simple, and if it were any other type in any other appendage of the government, it would not be tolerated.
Go ahead and cry "discrimination" like a little sniveling baby! Call the whaaaaambulance!
The US Government discriminates all the time. Get used to it.
Brian, you can presume whatever you like; I take it you have a lot of experience at being wrong.
I don't condone harassment at the workplace. Expressing your sexuality can get you fired or worse.
It is up to each individual to maintain behavior as to not put thyself in a position to be discharged.
K-Rod: The policy isn't that one cannot express their sexuality in the workplace. It's that they can't express it in any public way at all, ever.
But you've made it clear you aren't interested in actually addressing the argument. Sorry to have wasted your time. And mine.
brian: the military already has codes addressing relationships among its members, and sex is forbidden when on deployment (unless you are deployed alongside your spouse).
sex is behavior, and is regulated all the time within the military amongst its members.
i think the ban on gays is legal. discriminatory, yes, as are bans on colorblindness, age and intelligence. but totally legit.
whether it is wise is another issue.
my bro tells me about troubles that occur pretty regularly when it comes to sex among opposite sex soldiers. throwing gays into the mix just adds another layer of supervision that can hinder military effectiveness. i understand that.
just as i understand why men and women are not bunked together.
that said, if i were going into battle, i'm close to two gay men whom i wouldnt hesitate to have by my side.
The problem I've run into when trying to make that last argument (adding a layer of supervision) is that you could make an almost identical argument for not allowing blacks in the service. Yes, there was a time when it was truly as dangerous for a black to serve with a white racist as for a gay to serve with a homophobe. But the integration was forced on the racists, they manned up to it (to use a horribly sexist phrase), and no extra layer of supervision was needed, because officers and court marshals are damn scary, and the expression of one's moral indignation is, next to the possibility of military discipline, just not that important.
I don't necessarily think all our soldiers are angels, but even the worst of them aren't THAT stupid. And by the way, these gay soldiers aren't delicate flowers- do we really need to paternalistically provide them with special protection? I know you have more respect for them than that...
Gino--I don't think anyone is arguing that the military's interest in regulating the behavior of its members generally is illegitimate. Or at least, I'm not. Nor am I arguing that the prohibitions against fraternization--especially on deployment--should be relaxed for homosexuals. In fact, I think they should be applied to everyone, exactly the same.
my bro tells me about troubles that occur pretty regularly when it comes to sex among opposite sex soldiers.
My friends in the military tell me the same thing. This makes a much more compelling argument for excluding women than it does for excluding homosexuals, who are comparatively a much smaller population.
The problem with DADT is that it places prohibitions on a particular group of people that would (rightly) be considered unacceptable if applied to any other group. That's why I call it "discrimination", not because "discrimination" is some sort of epithet I apply to anything that just seems unfair to my left-libertarian sensibilities. But I'm sure you know that.
And I agree that DADT is legal. It's a law that needs to be changed. And one (to be fair to Mr. Obama) that has to be changed by congress.
i agree that DADT is just stupid. we need to be upfront with recruits as to what is/not allowed, and stop plaing this silly game.
and i'm all for the POTUS changing the rules on this through his CIC powers.
although i would suggest, and hope he does, have serious dialogue with the brass on the issue,erroring on the side of caution (which is just being wise) and not be swayed by protest marchers.
tully: black and gay are so totally not even the same.
Gay is not being treated here as a behavior, but as an identity. That's why you shouldn't ban it. And I assumed you were maintaining that distinction as well, and so the issue you were dealing with was not supervising gays to make sure they weren't having sex, but rather supervising homophobes to keep them from acting violently toward gays. In that case, all that matters is that one group of identity is violent toward another group of identity- assuming the only behavior that matters is violence. In that sense, gays and blacks are comparable.
But if the supervision you have in mind is really about homosexual behavior, then there's a real difference between identity and behavior to be drawn between blacks and gays, and you're quite right. I can't even conceive of thinking that this concern warrants adding a layer of supervision. So the behavior/identity distinction I took to be trivial.
Race for the Dumb Think Award:
"...it places prohibitions on a particular group of people..."
or
"...is that one group of identity is violent toward another group of identity..."
Should we call it a tie?
What the hell do you two think you are saying? Group rights instead of individual rights? Seriously?
A typical tactic of Liberal Fascists is treating people as groups instead of as individuals.
Individuals join the military, not groups.
The fact of the matter remains that whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
K-Rod, you need to work on both your reading comprehension and your manners.
Brian, project much?
Thanks Brian. I appreciate the value you place on equality, K-Rod.
So, does anyone have any thoughts on what I actually wrote?
tully, since when do you make nothing but sense?
feminist speaking up: 'no sexual activity' is as I understand the requirement of all soldiers deployed. That would be the letter of the law.
A woman getting pregnant (and not getting an abortion), gets in deep doodoo (I would hope the fellow involved would also, and I believe I have heard that this is becoming more common).
However, where a gay person might realistically get discharged if they had homosexual sex and the matter were formally exposed for discipline, it is not my impression that a het person (particularly a het man) would face that punishment/consequence. And so, the argument about equal regulation, while in letter accurate, is not in practice accurate.
I agree with Brian, behavioral rules should be universal. No sex, or consensual sex, but everyone gets the same rules (which of course prohibit coerced or forced sexual behaviors at all times and in all circumstances).
And "unless married" plays right back into that gay marriage thing ... loophole to the "no," ought to be accessible to everyone with enough personal wherewithal to commit to a marriage-type relationship.
("Marriage-type relationship": For the record, I'm for dumping all government definitions of marriage and recognizing that all government-sanctioned unions are civil contracts. Marriage is something I have very strong feelings and firmly based thoughts about, but it is also, as far as I am concerned, something the government has no right to regulate, and individual definitions and expectations of marriage only muddy the organization of governed society.)
Wow, I come back again and there are 18 comments! Brian, you make a resounding point about the number of people who have been removed from service for this reason; it's discrimination, and you're correct, it's unacceptable.
I'd been thinking about it from the POV of gay people "acting straight" in order to be in the military, and the military seemingly being fine with that. Which isn't okay. And even with that, sometimes it's not in their hands.
The resounding point being that some individuals did NOT maintain proper behavior and therefore put themselves in a position to be discharged.
I am surprised that some people have such blind adoration for the government that they NEED the government to sanction their relationship in order for their relationship to have any meaning.
Gino, I agree that black and gay are so totally not even the same.
amanda: yeah, sometimes i actually knock one over the fence.
but usually my posts just strike out.
Being in the Military for 7 years I feel there is no place for "relationships" of any kind. You have you girlfriend or God forbid boyfriend back home on the block. Don't ask and don't tell is the perfect compromise.
Post a Comment