SOUNDBITES — “Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell, who no doubt knows something about racial discrimination, made the proper distinction in a reply to former Rep. Pat Schroeder during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 1992 when she argued that point. ‘Skin color is a benign nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument,’ he said. The reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression. Indeed, there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The primary consideration must be military effectiveness. Congress should keep the ban in place. It certainly should not change the law when the United States is engaged in two wars.” —s, a Vietnam Marine vet and editor of the Foreign Policy Research Institute’s journal, arguing the case for keeping DADT (via)
Don't forget to share:
ChrisM
Why don’t these homophobic fuckers just come out and say what they think is so bad about gays serving in the military – because all ANY of them have been saying is “the ban should stay.” No reasons. It’s just “please support my discrimination blindly – the nation’s counting on it.”
rainfish2000
This moron wrote: “The reason for excluding open homosexuals from the military has nothing to do with equal rights or freedom of expression.”
Interesting, then put those shoes on your own feet and wear it. One nation, one people, same set of rules for everybody. Anything less than that is about as un-American as you can get. This fool’s sense of heterosexual entitlement is nauseating.
The cretin never bothered to mention that Colin Powell has said recently that the DADT policy should be revisited. Of course, Powell lacks the integrity to admit that he was wrong and ask for a full repeal. Powell doesn’t have the moral fortitude for that.
Personally, I think Powell was an ass for opposing the same freedom for the tens of thousands of Gays and Lesbians in the Military that he felt African Americans deserved. His only excuse for not extending those very same rights to Gays was because we were “different” in a way which he did not approve.
Powell, in 1993, was just a vile bigot hiding behind his race in order to give himself cover for his prejudices. Quite a number of students at many colleges across the US just turned their backs on him wherever he gave a commencement address.
He is no one to respect. Just look at him now. He lost all creditability when we pushed to uphold bigotry in the Armed Forces. He is nothing but a failed figure that history will not regard favorably.
rainfish2000
OOps! Meant to write: “He lost all creditability when “HE” pushed to uphold bigotry in the Armed Forces.”
ChicagoJimmy
Why would I take Colin Powell’s word comparing race and sexual orientation. I think my orientation is totally benign to everyone but my partner. Me being gay doesn’t make me better or worse at my job, a less or more loyal friend, nor a good or bad person in general. Nothing can be determined about me and my behavior from my homosexuality except what can be determined from Colin Powell’s heterosexuality.
Also, I agree with Rainfish2000 that Colin Powell has lost all credibility. He clearly was good at taking orders from his Commander-in-Chief, as all of his assertions (from WMD to DADT) were to provide political cover for W. and his administration’s policies.
jason
Get over it already. Nearly every other Western country allows gays to serve openly without discrimination. Are we to believe that the US is so full of heterosexual male wusses who tremble in fear at the sight of an openly gay man?
If that’s the case, we really don’t have a strong military after all.
sam
Do we understand that Colin Powell said this back in the early 90s and he has now since changed his position?
I’m not a fan of his, but he’s also, if I recall correctly expressed deep regret for his part in the lead up to the current Iraq war — even if that is enough for anyone really.
And old quote, so I think good for him for changing his mind.
rainfish2000
UPDATE: Today former General (and political toady of the Republican Party), Colin Powell, while not really using the actual word “repeal”, said that he agreed, in principle, with Gates and Adm. Mullens (who in my mind is a real hero).
So, Powell shows us once again how assertive he is as a military leader as he waits for all the other troops to go over the hill first before he commits himself. Very brave, indeed.
I suppose he just wanted to negate his shameful place in history as a disreputable homophobe who stood in the way of civil rights. No doubt, coming to the table late is better than not at all, in some people’s view, but, as an old Arab saying goes:”…once writ, never unwritten.” In other words, he has a ton of bad karma to undo before he can ever earn credibility again.
Perhaps, like Sen. Byrd of West Virginia, a former Klansman, he can claim someday: Oh, shucks, I didn’t REALLY mean it. I have evolved.
Yes, I might even believe it, just a little bit, if Powell were to issue a public apology to the 13,000+ Gay and Lesbian American citizens whose patriotism was rewarded with humiliation and being unceremoniously tossed out of the military for the crimes of simply existing and refusing to do the equivalent of a black man painting his face white and wearing a straight-hair wig in order to disguise himself so that bigots could feel comfortable with their bigotry.
Colin Powell is not a profile in courage. He is just trying to slither back towards the winning side of History. The only other thing positive about his “change of heart” is that it makes Senator John “Grumpy Oldman” McCain look like a fool for relying so much on Powell’s “former” anti-gay prejudices.
DADT will end, but it should be repealed this year. As Martin Luther King once said: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” So, we mustn’t allow the enemies of human rights to regroup. To delay closing the chapter on this shameful page of American History is just delaying the inevitable and, as Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated, it brings dishonor to the US Military, and it is an affront to the integrity of those who suffer under this disreputable policy and it offends the integrity of the institution itself.
End it now.
Lukas P.
@rainfish2000: I hope his
“conversion” is genuine. I’m skeptical. I know it’s not exactly the speech many of us would have liked to hear from him.
That said, I am chewing on a few points that I may change my mind on:
* Better late than never
* Better that he modified his opinion than keeping it how it was
* His statement may swing some “hearts and minds.” (a) He has nothing to gain politically from taking a public stance {or does he?} , as opposed to McCain who still has a seat to retain. (b) He outranks McCain in terms of military leadership experience (c) He isn’t tainted by association with Ms Palin (d) He admits to his errors, e.g. role in the run-up to the Iraq war
* He adds to the number of voices who aren’t toeing the party Republican line on DADT
Whether DOD will listen to him, or if he has any sway in the Exec. branch, I can’t speculate on.
I’d still like to have him speak out much more directly against DADT and for its end. I hope that happens but based on his past actions, I doubt he will.
J Rogers
In my personal opinion I have no objections to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military but the military will have to lay the groundwork to not only adjust the rules regarding sexual conduct to take into account homosexuals serving in the military..meaning the same rules that apply to heterosexual service people would have to apply to homosexuals/lesbians as well. You would also have to conduct training to minimize any potential negative impact to morale and unit solidarity. Now, having said that, one thing that should be clear is it is not a matter of a “right” to serve..because no one, gay or straight, has a right to serve in the military. It is a privilage and privilages can be withheld or revoked at the discretion of the military authority. It is a matter of logistics not rights..so if the military opts to maintain the prohibition then no one’s rights are being violated since serving isn’t a right but if they opt to remove the prohibition then that is at their discretion as well. So in the end, all our opinions mean nothing..the decision is in the hands of the military officers in charge. So I’m not against them serving but no one should think that anyone has a right to serve because no one does..gay or straight.
Tallskin
@j rogers
Er, and your “personal opinion” is important why exactly?
what utter crap thou dost talk, oh pompous twat.
Since when is joining a volunteer army a “privilege” ? You really are stupid!!
Ben
While I myself am not gay, I have no problem with homosexuals serving with me in the military. If you want to serve and defend this great nation of ours then by golly by all means come and serve. Its been a great honor for me personally to serve. If anyone wants to serve their nation then in my opinion that it should not have to be in writing but a basic human right to serve. If you are able to accomplish the mission and fulfill all of ones duties then it should not matter what your age, race, gender, or sexual orientation is.