Then allow us to introduce some new ones! Or at least some new spin on some old classics. Crossville Chronicle: “First, people who will not send their sons on overnight camping trips with openly homosexual male scoutmasters, and this is most people, will do everything they can to keep their sons from enlisting. That widespread social attitude was decisively demonstrated in the recent election in California where Proposition 8, which banned same sex marriage, passed by a comfortable majority. Next, discouraging heterosexual males from service will change the culture of the services. This fact is well established by the parallel example in my Catholic Church. Faithful Catholic writer Michael Rose’s study of Catholic seminaries, “Goodbye, Good Men,” presents overwhelming evidence that a lavender mafia emerged in the post Vatican II Catholic Church, gained control of admissions in many seminaries, and literally pushed away young, strongly faithful heterosexual men who gave their full assent to the church’s teachings on sexuality.”
DC Steve
Wow, I don’t have much to say in response to the linked piece other than that it’s an excellent case study of how people rationalize homophobia and bigotry.
Cam
Look, the fact is….if a company gets sued for firing a gay employee for no other reason than that they are gay. All the company has to say in it’s defense is “Look, the Federal Government has said that these people are not good employees, they are bad for company coheasion etc… If the federal government says that they are bad and should be discriminated against then this company should be allowed to do that to.”
that is the issue with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, it is institutionalized discrimination, should have never been passed, and needs to go immidiately.
As for the articles claims about the military and the church, I would point out that the British Military fighting in Afghanistan allow gays in and they don’t seem to be having problems, and as for their being a “Lavender Mafia” in the Catholic church…that makes no sense considering the church is rabidly homophobic and purging any signs of gay priests so just how are the gays supposed to be in control there?
Lee
Note, this is from Tennessee where virginity isn’t the prerequisite for a bride but “If she’s not good enuf fer her daddy then she’s not good enuf for me.”
The main points remains:
What’s Barack Obama’s excuse for not beginning the work to eliminate DADT?
MommaM
@Lee: Wow! So let me get this straight, if you’re from Tennessee, you are a slut and you fuck your Dad. That’s as hateful as those comments towards gays that say “if you take or give it up the ass, you’re not a man” and yet, you want society to not show prejudice to the gay community? Good luck with that!
TANK
@MommaM:
Or as hateful as those statements that if you dress a little outside of the gender binary, you’re not a man…like your bigoted comments.
No, asshole, it’s not the same. It’s also not the same when you call a white anglo saxon protestant a wasp as when you call a black person a nigger, or a jew a kike…getting it yet, dear?
Pragmatist
I have to admit, I feel of two minds about DADT. On one hand, yep, it’s institutionalized discrimination. On the other hand, the armed forces are notoriously difficult to get out of (especially with the recent “stop loss” orders). DADT represents one of the precious few ways of getting OUT of the armed forces which doesn’t require being seriously injured…
Bob
Wait your best example for keeping gays out of the military is that we run the Catholic Church?
Ummmm……… to use an old saying
That’s powerfully stupid.
Dennis
Ok, so first of all, I am against completely against DADT, and am glad pressure was put on Obama to re-revise the WH website and reiterate his campaign promises to repeal DADT, etc…
Now that my disclaimer is in place, and I have my Cross, and my clove-of-garlic necklace to ward off Queerty Obama haters, here goes…
Remember, one of the major reasons we have DADT in the first place because of the Clinton administration’s underestimating the deeply entrenched, irrational homophobia widespread in the power structure of the military…Clinton tried to “top” the military, and ‘force’ change, and got his ass handed to him…yes, times have changed, but the military is in NO WAY a leader of enlightened thought on many matters, least of all GLBT issues. No sane person can blame Obama for a military culture that precedes him by decades.
Played RIGHT, with strategic alliances for change in place, along with current and former Military brass doing PR and explaining why this change will IMPROVE the military, increase fairness, reminding the country that more than half the population supports this change, (basically, shaming the homophobes) etc. there is a good chance this dreadful policy can be done away with during this administration…
Rushing this job, trying to “force change” before we have a good plan together, etc. WILL NOT result in the repeal we all desire. Patience, good planning, and persistence will get this done.
TANK
Oh my goodness…is that what explains your ambivalence, pragmatist? …there are words to refute you mercilessly, but what would be the point?
Pragmatist
@TANK: I guess the point would be to look like a total tool, because my above comment was in jest. Thanks for playing. 🙂
TANK
@Pragmatist:
Oh…okay…ha ha…wow…what a card. Sorry.
Pragmatist
@Dennis: It’s true that the armed forces have traditionally been virulently bigoted against GLBT people. But, haven’t we been hearing lately that most of the rank-and-file couldn’t care less? At least, I keep reading that, and it makes some sense — those levels comprise young people, and young generations’ attitudes about sexuality have shifted dramatically from their predecessors.
So, perhaps the real problem is not that “the military” is pervasively afflicted with bigotry, but rather that military leaders (who are older) are the ones with the problems. If so, perhaps the issue can be forced. The undoing of DADT could be combined with an executive order providing stiff penalties for discrimination and harassment. Faced with the prospect of losing their careers, leaders might just have to suppress their hatred.
Dennis
@Pragmatist:
I’m largely in agreement, only thing is I’d not say is that “most” of the rank and file support the gays…many of the rank and file might be “OK” with the gays, or tolerate them (or agree not to beat the shit out of them, etc) but I’m not sure I’d say most…I think there is still PLENTY of homophobia and misogyny to go around, and remnants of racism remaining…
Still say this needs to be done right, with alliances, with good PR, with at least some support from the top…(as well as some strong action from the Pres.)
TANK
By all means, let’s allow values incompatible with u.s. military service dictate policy in refusing to repeal dadt because military culture’s homophobic and sexist.
Dennis
R@TANK:
right Tank, that’s just what I’m saying…what’s your magic plan to overcome the entrenched resistance from the military leadership and make the repeal happen tomorrow? Enlighten us…
TANK
Repeal of dadt and forcing them to. Worked wonders on entrenched racism and entrenched sexism (still a problem, but not nearly as bad as it once was). A good soldier takes orders, you see…and adapts.
Dennis
@TANK:
I really wish it were that simple, I think if it were, Obama would have done it already…but, respectfully, we’re not talking about a Gay military porn video (Drop and give me twenty, and then suck my d*ck, grunt!…SIR, Yes SIR!) Yeah, a good soldier takes orders, seams pretty easy, don’t know why that wouldn’t work…
Were talking about the the hundreds of billion dollars, million plus personnel military industrial complex…and a change this major needs to be done correctly, to minimize disruption, to minimize resistance, to maximize the effective integration, etc,. It can be done during this administration, with the right plan.
Military porn fantasies are hot, but I think the repeal of DADT is more complex.
Pragmatist
@TANK: No, I think he’s got a point: culture is important, especially in a closed system like the armed forces. If it’s true that the forces are still pervasively anti-GLBT, I don’t think radical change is the way to go. It could make the lives of existing GLBT soldiers much, much harder.
If it’s just the leadership that’ harboring these attitudes, I believe we could tie leaders’ hands with martial penalties/civilian remedies/whatever. But if the whole system is affected, down to the rank and file? I don’t think so. I don’t think there’s a way to effectively prevent harassment in all the little ways that can make life miserable.
TANK
@Dennis:
This has nothing to do with top military brass holding back the decision. This is 100% political. Obama couldn’t give a fuck what proven bigoted pentagon officials think (who based DADT off their gut feelings rather than statistical models and the glut of research circulating at the time of the decision which advised them against it, and endorsed full integration of gay and lesbian servicemembers)–he does care, however, how it looks to his bipartisan image. He’s still trying to curry the favor of the palinites.
TANK
@Pragmatist:
Here you go, this should clear up some of your confusion around the issue…
http://www.amazon.com/Unfriendly-Fire-Undermines-Military-Weakens/dp/0312373481/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241640457&sr=8-1
John Santos
@MommaM:
Wow! So let me get this straight, if you’re from Tennessee, you are a slut and you fuck your Dad.
Ms. Divorcée, the state of Tennessee had to specifically outlaw bestiality in 2007! What does that tell you about them?
http://tinyurl.com/czqbcg
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
[img]http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/images/346_Button_flat.jpg[/img]
@ Dennis: with all due respect, your are only parroting the excuses put forth by the Pentagon. While not professionaly published like Nathaniel Frank, whose expert book Tank has graciously linked to, I believe I can speak with a bit more knowledge than you both because I have studied the subject for several years, and was the [platonic] roommate for several years of Leonard Matlovich, the first person in the military to volunteer to challenge the ban, still most remembered for his “When I was in the military they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one” quote.
That was in 1975 when, incidentally, Barack Obama was only 13 years old. By that fact alone, one could simply ask, “If not after 34 years—when?” But that does not address your assertion that repeal would be “complex.”
As Frank, among others, has documented, ALL of the arguments put forth against allowing open gays to serve have been repeatedly proven invalid by multiple studies that the PENTAGON ITSELF paid for. They either have ignored them and formally hidden, such as the 1957 Crittenden Report [four years before Obama was born] and the PERSEREC studies of 1988-89 [uncovered in the discharge challenges of Copy Berg and Joe Steffan, respectively], or simply ignored them as they did the Rand Corporation Study released in April 1993 which immediately got submerged in the tsunami of opposition to Clinton’s attempts to lift the ban [no one’s hands are clean—gay groups should have at least paid for full-page, nationwide newspaper ads, quoting it], or simply pretended [as Gen. Rectum Powell and the reptilian Sam Nunn still do] that they don’t exist—in all cases simply because they didn’t like the results.
The more-than-half-century-old Crittenden Report is still relevant not just because of its gay soldier-positive conclusions, but because of its caveat then: regardless of our findings, Society isn’t ready to accept gay soldiers so change should be postponed until they are. With anywhere from 56 to 81% of the public now saying they support repeal, that time has indisputably come. Such studies, such polls should be the “Zero Tolerance for Bigotry” weapon swung at anyone in Congress who defends perpetuating the ban because of his or her own prejudice and/or that of their particular constituents. Obama, himself, said two years ago, “America is ready to get rid of the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.”
The 1993 Rand study was the most comprehensive, and its secondary conclusion to the efficacy of out gay service is the most critical: integration of out gays into the services would succeed in direct proportion to uncompromising leadership both military and civilian.
Whether he was familiar with the study or not, candidate Obama said the same thing in that 2007 statement: “All that is required is leadership.” Adding:
“I will task the Defense Department and the senior command structure in every branch of the armed forces with developing an action plan for the implementation of a full repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. …That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office.”
Note, he emphasized that those whom he does control as Commander-in-Chief would not wait for action by Congress but would begin the process in preparation for repeal whenever it happened. To the contrary, he’s done nothing.
Note, too, that he didn’t say, “unless circumstances arise in which we’re too busy.” And, regardless, DADT expert Nathaniel Frank recently described a one-stroke process by which Obama legally could halt discharges pending actual repeal at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-frank/one-hundred-days-of-silen_b_192782.html.
But nothing positive or proactive has even been said, and as I write, at least two gay servicemembers are being discharged, as they are, on average, every day.
Dennis
@Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com:
I don’t want my posts to be interpreted as some kind of support for DADT, or for being a mouthpiece for the Pentagon (yuck!) My point is that deeply entrenched military homophobia is a problem we must deal with wisely, as we push for the repeal of DADT. Fear mongering mental images of “queers in the foxholes and showers” still motivate a LARGE segment of the population (and the military) to resist change.
Just saw Rachel Maddow…Dan Choi, a West Point grad who came out on her show in March is being discharged under DADT, very upsetting…so, I still say repealing DADT is going to be work, but this is a fight we must continue to take public and make LOTS of noise about…like gay marriage, we need straight allies and connected politicians on our side. The best thing we can do is create as much good PR as we can for the cause, making it clear to ALL that the homophobes in the military are in fact “the problem”, causing us to lose our best and brightest soldiers at a time our military needs every qualified and willing person possible to serve the country.
KyleR
I don’t get what the problem is. I served in the US Navy for nearly 6 years. I only recently separated, and it wasn’t because I couldn’t be myself, I could; I had decided to move to Australia. But anyways, basically for the last 3 years, at my final command, my gayness was an open secret at the command. Everyone knew. And no one cared. The only people that care are the old fucks that are in the highest ranks. The Admirals and Generals. Like General Pace, former CJCS and former Marine Commandant until he used his position to rant about his homophobia and then forced into retirement.
And I remember reading in the military times of a poll of returning troops about serving with openly gay US service members. Over 70% of the respondents said that they would be fine with it. And a argument I used with a senior member of my command, the United States is the ONLY Western nation of NATO to continue a ban of some form on homosexuals serving openly. Like the UK, they ended their ban in 2003 and recruitment went up of course because the gays wanted in. And retention hasn’t been affected either.
And I also don’t understand how the US, which is described as the best place in the world; can continue this open discrimination of entire group of our country. The argument that people won’t serve because homosexuals serve openly is completely retarded. And I have listened to the arrangements that have been before the Armed Services Committee, or whatever it’s called; and the Right wing psychos use data that is so out of date to make their blathering retarded. How they continue to be called to speak in front of Congress on this issue is just beyond me.