Blogs and Stories
Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hypocrisy
Charles Dharapak / AP Photo
Another gay officer was dismissed last week because of a policy Obama says he opposes. So why is the president too timid to do anything about it?
Back in January, Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, a U.S. Army officer based out of St. Louis, came out to her superiors as gay resulting, under current policy, in a dishonorable discharge. At the same time, she wrote a letter to Barack Obama congratulating him on his election and explaining her decision and asking Obama to "help us to win the war against prejudice so that future generations will continue to work together and fight for our freedoms regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation."
“Gay soliders are being dismissed not because the president of the United States feels they should be discriminated against, which would be bad enough. Instead, they’re being dismissed because the president doesn’t feel like doing anything about it.”
On the campaign trail, Obama was clearly committed to ending discrimination in the military. "We’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military," he observed, "some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need." Ever since the New Year, however, Obama and his team have been slow-walking the implementation of their promise. On January 14, Robert Gibbs equivocated, saying "there are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy... so not everything will get done in the beginning, but he's committed to following through." In late March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed his desire to push the issue "down the road a little bit." And in late April, the White House altered language on its Web site in a way that appeared to soften the administration's commitment to changing the policy. On May 5, Tsao got a handrwritten note from Obama reiterating that he is "committed to changing our current policy." Then on May 7, Dan Choi, a National Guard officer who, ironically, is fluent in Arabic, got word that he would be dismissed from the military for being too gay.
The game being played here is easy enough to understand. Obama's decision on a variety of fronts has been guided by a clear desire to avoid some of the early missteps made by Bill Clinton. And conventional accounts of Clinton’s early presidency put the way he got into an early dispute with the military brass over treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers high on the list of missteps to be avoided.
But while the political logic behind the administration's thinking is understandable enough, the moral logic is contemptible. The dismissal of gay and lesbian soldiers was unjust when undertaken by administrations that believed in the policy. But disagreement about policy is inevitable in a democracy and sometimes injustice reigns. What we have today, however, is an absurdity—an administration that clearly does not believe in the policy, that is on record as opposing the policy, that campaigned explicitly on changing the policy, and that nevertheless declines to change the policy.
Tsao and Choi are being dismissed, in other words, not because the president of the United States feels they should be discriminated against, which would be bad enough. Instead, they're being dismissed because the president doesn't feel like doing anything about it.
Indeed, at this point sure laziness and indifference seems to be the best the defenders of "don't ask don't tell" can even come up with on their merits. "In all due respect," John McCain told George Stephanopoulos on Sunday's episode of This Week, "right now the military is functioning extremely well in very difficult conditions so we should leave well enough alone."
As a defense of discrimination, this is pretty weak tea. The military performed pretty damn well in World War II but that didn't stop Harry Truman from ordering the desegregation of the military in the late 1940s.
The problem with the arguments for inaction isn't that they're wrong, it's that they prove too much. The military is always doing important work under difficult conditions. And the president is always dealing with a variety of hugely important issues. No day is ever going to be a convenient day for the brass to stop doing what they're doing, and start dealing with the difficulties involved in getting soldiers accustomed to serving alongside openly gay and lesbian crew members. And no day is ever going to be a convenient day for the White House political team to pick a fight with the military. But that's a reason to avoid delay, not to embrace it. The current policy is as wrong as it was during the campaign, and firing skilled and patriotic linguists is as insane today as it was during the campaign.
In his letter to Lieutenant Tsao, Obama suggested that the need for congressional approval is the source of the delay. But there's some dispute as to whether or not congressional action is needed at all. And there's no doubting that the president has the power to influence the implementation. But more to the point, the White House has much ability to influence the pace of congressional action. Legislation to end discrimination in military service has been introduced, and the president could be strongly and vocally backing it rather than using the purported need for such a bill as an excuse for delay. And ultimately delay does no one any favors. The change will have to come sooner or later. In political terms, the White House may as well act decisively, take whatever hits they're going to take, and be done with it rather than letting this fester like a sore. And substantively, if the military is going to have to adjust they may as well do it sooner rather than later rather than lose more valuable personnel.
Instead of writing more letters to patriotic men and women in uniform who are tired of living a lie, it's time for Obama to start writing letters to members of Congress urging them to change the rules.
Matthew Yglesias is a fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Sarah Drops the Act
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Palin's Gold Mine
Duff McDonald is a contributing editor at New York magazine and a former contributing editor at Condé Nast Portfolio. His book, Last Man Standing, about Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was published by Simon & Schuster in October.
Step Up to the Plate, China
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Next Battle for Health Care
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
Defending a Bomb-Thrower
Matthew Yglesias is a Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the author of Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.
What did you really expect? For Obama to be elected and push through every policy based on the stance he campaigned upon? He's clearly doing the things he thinks most important first to use the political capital he has before it sours and there's little chance of getting those priorities done. Obviously, his position on policies regarding sexual orientation are not high priorities - and never were. Most everyone gives him a pass for being against same-sex marriage yet grills and crucifies Miss California - who's not even in a position to push policy forward. People stuck in their party agenda let their brains mush-out into hypocrisy and double standards instead of being consistent and principle driven.
Barack Obama is a winner. He won the election by out maneuvering the competition. He is not a leader. The world is leaderless. Bureaucrats are not leaders. Instead of cutting programs he should be 'sliminating' the bureaucracies. he cannot. Though likable, he is one of them. The bureaucracies adhere to the status quo. He is also against getting out the truth about the torture.
I think, Don't ask, Don't tell, works best in the military. Many straight soldiers dislike gays, if they don't know they are gay, it probably would work better.
Yarrow:
Your rationale for ignoring the equal protection clause in the Constitution is that "many straight soldiers dislike gays." Wasn't the "dislike" by others the principle that suspended application of the equal protection clause on behalf of African-Americans in the past?
Did racially integrating the military violate the "works best in the military" functioning over the last sixty years? Isn't a military that invites the service and patriotism of all Americans a stronger military? How is it strengthened by excluding Gays when doing so is undoing a central founding national value and an accommodation to haters.
Your argument is irrational, but worse it empowers haters to decide when other people deserve equal protection under American law. By your principle, people who hate Jews, Catholics, second generation Americans, women and, in fact every single one of us for some ignorant reason or another, could exclude all of us from enjoying equal treatment under the law.
All that is missing in you outlook is appreciation that equality, and especially equal treatment under the law, is one of very few central founding values in America.
What justifies legal discrimination Yarrow? Here you claim the "dislike" of others is sufficient. Do you really think that?
I don't know how many of you have had a gay roommate, but I have. It's a real challenge getting them to understand that you are not interested. I see it no differently than putting a straight guy in a barrack with all women. I can't think of one straight guy who would want to be paired with an outted gay in a pup tent on bivouac. I was relatively world wise when I went in the army in the early 60's, having spent some time in NYC theater circles, and as I said above had already had a gay roommate, however, the average soldier enlistee has not had much life experience. What happens when the guys with sex change operations become the next wave of victims. The problem has always been community showers, and the other potential elements of living together. Working together on the job, or fighting together has never been the issue.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Equal protection applies any time Americans are placed in classes and divergent rights assigned to the different classes. Behavior as a basis for classification is not exempted from constitutional scrutiny.
Voting is behavior: does not equal protection apply to it? Ownership of property is behavior; does not equal protection apply property laws? Religious expression is behavior; does not equal protection apply to it? Is not one-person, one-vote, the law of the land? Do not laws regulating property use have to apply equally to all similarly situated? Could government lawfully treat different churches with different rules?
I could go on for days with examplse, but I think you see the point: An equal protection issue arises whenever the law classifies citizens and treats them differently--no matter what the basis of the classification system. In this case, two classes of citizens have been created and one denied the rights of the other to serve our country in the military without a duty to conceal his or her sexual inclination: two classes of citizens, different rules governing the classes; hence, an equal protection issue.
"Nasty details of sexual conduct in close quarters" are already subject to proper regulation in the military--heterosexual or homosexual. Do you assert that homosexual servicemen are not just as manageable by the appropriate military regulation and discipline against sexual harassment and improper sexual behavior as heterosexual servicemen? If so, you are exercising a blind prejudice denied by the actual experience of the military. "Don't ask don't tell" requires not only that homosexuals comply with all the rules heterosexuals do, but also requires that they comply with more regulation--the rule that says they must conceal their sexual preference.
Eliminating the requirement that they conceal their sexuality does not affect any of the proper rules regulating all servicemen. The rules against improper sexual behavior already protect all the interest you claim to be concerned about without violating equal protection.
Do you deny that right now and for all times since there has been an American military that homosexual servicemen have served with distinction and honor--and indeed are lawfully doing so today? Indeed, the present law allows them to do so, so long as they accept the legally mandated second class citizen status.
The only change in the law necessary to accommodate equal protection does not effect the presence of homosexuals. It effects the bigotry and ignorance held by other servicemen who'd rather exclude homosexuals from service in the military, just as once people with similar perspectives demanded not to live with African-Americans. The military overcame racial bigotry with education of the ignorant, not by excluding blacks.
As to hate: You equate homosexuality with illegal drug use. There it is: proof from your lips: a hateful projection of immorality and criminality on all homosexuals--ignorance, prejudice and hatefulness all expressed in one little condemnatory equation of homosexuality to something none of use would argue should be condoned.
Yeah, I think hate, ignorance and bigotry are the operational attitudes causing suspension of equal protection to homosexuals. What other rationale have you got?
Finally, recognizing the right of Americans to equal protection under the law is not personally condoning what they do: there is lots of religious expression in this country that I, and likely you, find offensive in the extreme, but we don't doubt the right of the citizens to freely express their religious viewpoints. We don't personally condone their viewpoints by recognizing the constitutional right to express those viewpoints.
I'm being tough on people here, I know, but the habit of projecting our personal attitudes into the law without considering the mandates constitutional guarantees is a dangerous one. It is victimizing homosexuals today and might you tomorrow.
To you "not condoning" seems to require condemning to second class citizenship status.
This user is no longer registered.
Why should LGBT military personnel bow down to bigots just to accomodate them? Why is the comfort of Straight people more important than the dignity and safety of LGBT people?
I'm sick and tired of the Obama is a wimp meme from the press. He said he would do it and he will. Sometimes I think that the Left want to be Rethuglicans with the way they demand Obama steam roll over the other part of Congress - kind of the way Bush did.
If Obama is holding back on this, then there is something YOU don't know my friend. When something looks easy, it Aint.
What's so hard about him offering a bill to do it? Are his hands tied? Who is holding a gun to his head? If you excuse him because you believe it "ain't easy," and you can't say what is so hard then maybe "it Aint" hard and he is the "wimp meme" you excuse him of being.
Let's see if I can follow your logic. Obama cannot "steamroll" congress over don't ask/don't tell but he can if he wants to run up a trillion eight in debt. Obama is a muslim and muslims hate gays - wake up.
"Don't ask don't tell" is perhaps the most useful illustration that future historians will have to describe the Clinton Presidency and, likely, Obama's similar presidency.
"Don't ask don't tell" is a compromise between two outlooks: One that holds homosexuals in uniform are destructive to the military; the other that holds homosexuals no more harmful to the military than the difference in skin color that once justified a segregated military and that Americans should be treated alike unless there is a rational reason for discriminating between them.
"Don't ask, don't tell" serves neither perspective's policy purpose: Gays remain in the military. Yet, they are required to accept second-class citizenship by concealing their homosexuality and be subject to official, lawful discrimination at all times. Neither side's purposes are served, both are flouted by the policy.
It cannot be reasonably argued that Gay's hurt military discipline when we continue to allow them to serve and Alexander and Fredrick the Greats were Gay.
"Don't ask don't tell" itself verifies that Gays are no threat to military discipline by letting them serve so long as they conceal themselves. If there were a justifying purpose for the policy, it is based in the requirement for concealment, not for exclusion. The policy is an admission that Gays themselves impose on determent to military discipline. Any determent is based in the hate in the hearts of people who do not want them to serve.
The Pentagon's Generals are like the segregationists who once claimed there was a danger to allowing blacks to live in their part of town, as they daily allowed blacks into to their homes as servants and even nannies to their white children.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is irrational. It is also an illustration that the American military--the institution that led in overcoming racial discrimination over the last sixty-one years, is today suffused with homophobic hate and ignorance.
There are many things to be proud of in the American military, but "don't ask don't tell" demands of us a recognition that it is a cultural enclave dominated by homophobic hate in a society that believes in equal protection before the law for all citizens--including homosexuals.
The animating social equity behind discrimination against Gays in the military is the ignorance and hate of the military's leaders: From Colon Powell--when the absurd policy was formulated, to all the four stars generals today.
When those Pentagon four-stars attend Georgetown cocktail parties, are they ever confronted with the reality that they are standing in the shoes of Bull Connor: advocates for legal discrimination based on no rational purpose?
Probably not, Congress assiduously avoids the unpleasant fact; otherwise. the policy would have been long gone--as it should be.
America's founding values are equality and freedom. Unless there is a justifying rational public welfare purpose, the Constitution's equal protection clause requires that American be accorded equal treatment before the law. Homosexual Americans are undoubtedly Americans.
The only "purpose" served by discriminating against Gays is to accommodate the the hate and ignorance of others: in this case hateful, ignorant military officers wearing stars on their collars.
This is a shameful aspect of the American military today. It is a failure of duty as profound as acceptance of the duty to racially integrate was an honorable. The same argument being used against Gays today was once used against Blacks: the heckler's veto: "We can't allow it because the haters demand we not allow it."
Barack Obama, the first viable African-American presidential candidate, was arguing a year ago that African-American voters who'd once marched and sat-in for his civil rights should not have their votes counted in Democratic primaries because doing so would adversely affect his chances to get elected. Obama is a talented political trimmer who is likely, eventually, to have come and gone off the political scene, skillfully negotiating the day-to-day political winds without changing anything important: Obama is Bill Clinton II.
It is likely that historians will look back and conclude that there is something missing at the core of both presidents: likable, skillful and talented political leaders who lacked a core at the center of their character; aside from political self-promotion first and foremost.
Homophobic discrimination is irrational. Laws that institutionalize it are a violation of the equal protection value that should be dear to all Americans. Obama understands the issue, but ignores that central American value based on a political calculation that would change if he was a man of character. Sooner or later, the man should actually stand for something.
This is a thorny issue and it's NOT just a matter of people hating gays.
Connie47
So explain it? What keeps equal protection from being provided to homosexuals. Blacks were legally discriminated against under American laws from 1789 until will into my lifetime. People said giving blacks equal rights was a thorny issue too. If it is "NOT" just a matter of hate, can you express any rational reason for the discrimination.
Excusing is not explaining and certainly not justifying. When it comes to denying equality under American law you should be able to say more than its a "thorny issue" and NOT a thing that it most clearly is for some.
No, I'm not going to explain it because I'm not in the military. However, I know many people who were/are in the military and I understand why they feel the way they do about this issue. They do not hate guys. They are not anti gay. You can't make it simple by posting a bunch of accusations.
Oh...I see, you won't tell why the law should discriminate against people we used to burn at the stake, but you won't explain it and I should assume that it isn't anything hateful.
I used to be right with you and probably worse. All I ask is that you start looking at it from the perspective of an American who believes in equal protection under the law for all citizens. It was once clear for me in the opposite direction, but the compelling importance of equal protection to America flipped me. Consider it. Sorry to be a self-righteous windbag.
I also suspect you are not and never were in the military. Why don't you go find some people in uniform and interview them. Meanwhile, I'm not going to put words in their mouth. I have not that right.
I see Issywise is promoting the gay agenda as usual. Maybe I shouldn't give aid and comfort to the enemy, but here's a tip: Nobody is going to read a post that long except fellow fanatics. You might as well put it in ALL CAPS. Anybody who has worked around gays know they form gossiping, back-stabbing cliques. Nothing could be more destructive to military discipline. And as Obama leads us into terra incognita featuring such oddities as deep bows to Moslem kings, we need a strong military more than ever.
Oh really Banjo1? It sounds like you have personal experience in this matter. Are you a strong history buff? The strongest military ever put together had plenty of gays. Small minded people like you are the ones that should be kept out of the military.
Banjo1 provides us with a two rationales for discriminating against Gays: 1) "Anybody who has worked around gays know they form gossiping, back-stabbing cliques" and "...as Obama leads us into.. deep bows to Moslem kings.."
Both rationales are, of course, expressions of the hate and ignorance in Banjo's heart. Banjo has never "worked with" any Gays, just "around" them. However, he accuses them of forming "cliques." Banjo believes this president is an agent for undermining national autonomy in favor of subordination to "Moslem kings" even though the last homophobe in the White House actually kissed "Moslem kings" on their lips at his Crawford Ranch.
See what I mean? The policy of discrimination against homosexuals in America is based on hate, prejudice and ignorance and not on anything rational,
Thank you Banjo. You always can be relied on to demonstrate why America legally discriminates against its homosexuals.
Just because other people don't like the ideas of equal rights for some people doesn't mean the law should withhold it. Constitutional guarantees run directly to each individual American, not subject to veto by others.
banjo my boy, ya gotta learn to share the american freedoms you take for granted.
"Anybody who has worked around gays know they form gossiping, back-stabbing cliques. Nothing could be more destructive to military discipline."
DADT is the biggest example of this. If you think it's bad, then honesty is best for unit cohesion, then truth, not gossip, clears the air, and the forces can get the job done.
Banjo-
Get the hell
Out of the
Closet.
This user is no longer registered.
I think banjo1 is closeted....Seriously. You have made many homophbic statements in the past, I wonder where your true path lies....some of your statements are quite telling.....
What is it with self hating, closeted homphobic Conservatives?. Very bizzare.
The author's comment, "they're being dismissed because the president doesn't feel like doing anything about it," borders on idiocy. He notes how fighting this absurd policy sapped the Clinton Administration's ability to pass far-reaching health care, and then recommends President Obama make the exact same mistake.
Should the policy be changed? Of course. But the president should focus on reforms that benefit the majority of gay and lesbian people, such as health care and challenging discriminatory policies against marriage before taking on possibly the most intractable system in the US government.
"Borders on idiocy?????"
Three points of demurral to your post:
1) How does not establishing the principle that homosexual Americans are due equal protection under the law do less for "the majority of gay and lesbian people" than health care? If were going to throw around the word "idiocy"......?
2) The military is not the most intractable "system" in the US government. Its record on equal protection for racial minorities and for women is stellar relative to almost any other "system" in the land. The same arguments being made about unit cohesion against equal rights for Gays was used by the military against equal rights for African-Americans until the president ordered integration of the races.
3) In his constitutional role as Commander in Chief, as Truman demonstrated, the president enjoys the greatest autonomy of action over any part of the "system."
Allowing openly gay personnel to serve would undermine unit cohesion and impair missions.
drmarkklein - What a unique thought! How did you come up with that? How do is undermine unit cohesion and impair missions? Could it be that the problem lies with people like you who would be the actual ones who would undermine it due to your ignorance? Are you willing to follow orders and die for your country?
Dr. Mark Klein:
Do you have any support for that rather remarkable assertion?
Gays serve today. The policy permits it.
Gays are as talented and patriotic as any other Americans. Much evidence has been produced that Gays serve with great distinction without affecting unit cohesion, both in our military and in other nation's military.
There is much evidence that the military has deprived itself of important services by its hateful exclusionary policy--the Arab interpreters for instance who could have decode the pre-9/11 traffic in time if the policy hadn't run them out of the service.
Any adverse effect on unit cohesion arises from the hate in the hearts of others serving in the military, not from the Gays. Shouldn't we be excluding homophobes from the military and ridding ourselves of their hate rather than empowering their victimization of other Americans through laws that flout the equal protection guarantees in the Constitution.
You state a fact that ain't true and violates common sense. You got more?
you're going by evidence that doesn't exist.
Have you servered? Do you have proof that this is or would be the case?.
I'm currently serving, and the above statement just isn't true. I've had gay corpsmen treat me while I was aboard ship, gay computer technicians maintaining my ships' networks, and gay Sailors serving in nearly every division and department while I was aboard. Frankly, most of the crew knew about it and just didn't care. What any active servicemember needs to care about is whether or not the person next to them can get the job done in a crisis situation, not who that person chooses to take home when the job is done.
drmarkklein, what you are saying sounds like a little kid who thinks everyone left the room by covering his eyes. So if the gay person doesn't say he is gay somehow the unit cohesion is intact and the mission is safe?
Truly don't understand this way of thinking (if it is in effect what you are saying). If people are giving their lives for their country don't they have a right to present their genuine true self? It feels like our society is very immature and we can't handle the truth.
This user is no longer registered.
Why because straight military personnel cant grow up and get over themselves? Having intelligent diverse qualified people serving would work better than encouraging military personnel to endulge in bigotry
Don't Ask Don't Tell does NOT prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. Military personnel are simply asked to not reveal nor ask anyone else to reveal their sexual preference. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their service, and thus should not garner any undue attention. Nobody has been fired from the military by simply being gay.
The men and women in our military have proven themselves to be extremely professional time and time again. I doubt a person's sexual preference matters at all during a firefight, and the comment about it undermining unit cohesion is absurd and has no place in this argument. And it is precisely because sexual orientation doesn't matter that Don't Ask Don't Tell is the right policy.
I have had a few friends come out, and never was it a surprise to anyone that they were gay. So I'm pretty sure any private serving under a homosexual commander knows or suspects their superior's orientation, yet still obeys orders. So coming out in the military, as in civilian life, is often a moot event.
There is a certain level of anonymity that's healthy for any military to operate effectively. Coming out is inherently a process that draws attention to the individual, which is counterproductive to this anonymity.
Because nobody has been fired for simply BEING homosexual, this is not a civil rights issue. Individuals who are homosexual, heterosexual, monogamous, polygamous, and watch midget porn can all serve in the military as long as they don't find a soap box to stand on to tell everybody about their preferences. And that's the way it should be.
sweetmoses:
So it is NOT discrimination when Gays are discharged for saying they are Gay when heterosexuals aren't? It doesn't hurt discipline for heterosexuals to make verbal expression of their sexual preference, event though both women and men serve. Why do you suppose homosexuals doing the same should be prohibited.
Aren't you making them second class citizens by allowing the law to impose extra duties on them--the duty to hide their sexual preference, that you do not impose on others?
Nobody is asking them to hide their sexual preference at all. I'm sure the topic comes up, one guy says Pam Anderson is hot, and the other one says Brad Pitt is hotter. That's perfectly fine, it's just two guys sharing their opinions, and nobody is coming out. The people that have been fired want public acceptance of their sexual orientation, and that's just not necessary.
My point is that sexual preference is irrelevant and should remain so. Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would make it relevant which is unfair to the 95% of military personnel who are heterosexual. A soldier's or a marine's or a seaman's sexual preference just shouldn't be a topic of discussion.
No matter your stance on this issue, the people who came out broke a direct order from their Commander in Chief and were disciplined accordingly. The military is not the forum to debate directives from the Executive Branch, the Congress is.
Sweetmoses:
You are wrong on the law. 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States. Your Brad Pitt example gets them discharged. They must positively hide their sexual preference to remain a serving American.
If sexual preference was irrelevant, it wouldn't cause discharge from the service. The duty to not talk about sexuality only falls on homosexuals. There is no sanction for a heterosexual making a statements of the same quality. It is discrimination--legal discrimination.
However, here is, I think, a more important point: it is not a matter of requiring "acceptance" of their sexuality. Churches are free to decline to marry homosexuals (or heterosexuals for that matter) and will always be. You and I can hold a personal repugnance about what homosexuals do to express their love without invoking concerns that arise only when the law gets involved. .
The issue changes when it becomes one of government action rather than personal opinion or religion. Equal protection, as part of the Constitution, applies to all governmental actions. Once the action goes from the private or religious sphere to the governmental, we can't decide not to apply the Constitution.
I personally get the ecks when I see men kissing. I could not have sat through Brokeback Mountain. But, when it comes to the legal rights of Americans, I don't see how I can ignore the equal protection dimension of law and policy. Legal discrimination invokes our most basic founding values: freedom and equality.
Equal protection is a guarantee that runs from the Constitution to each and every citizen--including Gays. If the law is going to classify citizens into different groups and pass out differing rights, there has to be a justifying public purpose for doing so: some public determent or advantage.
Preventing Gays from gaining "public acceptance" is not a rational basis upon which any law can be based. It is no more than basing law on the principle of personal preferences, regardless of the constitutional impact.
If it were acceptable to base laws on personal desires to "prevent public acceptance," then we could also discriminate against any disfavored minority--the very thing the equal protection clause is meant to prevent.
In our private and religious life, we are absolutely free to accept or not accept anybody. However, such acceptance or non-acceptance should not affect the law or cancel constitutional provisions.
Acknowledging that as an American, you support vindication of the constitutional equal protection promise is not a sin or an acceptance of homosexuality any more than a Catholic supporting a Protestant's religious rights is enrollment in a religion one does not embrace.
Well said.
an honest gay virgin still gets the can.
And often, in the can.
I'm sorry to be an obnoxious windbag on this issue, but I think it is worthwhile to consider the proposition that "Because nobody has been fired for simply BEING homosexual, this is not a civil rights issue.
Let's see if that principle works for other people? If a woman could pretend to be a man and voted before 1920, then it was not discrimination that the law barred her from voting for BEING a woman. Right?
If an African-American was light-skinned enough to pose as a European-American then it was not discrimination that he was discriminated against for BEING black? Right?
If one partner in a mixed race couple could pretend he or she was not his or her own race but the other partner's race, then the anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory? Right?
Come on, sweetmoses, you can't deny the law classifies citizens into to two groups--heterosexuals and homosexuals. The former group is allowed to identify its sexual preference and remain in the military; the latter cannot. That is an equal protection violation--a civil rights issue.
You don't get to escape any guilt you might feel about the civil rights dimension of this issue by denying it is discrimination.
As an equal protection issue, the only defense is that there is a rational basis for the discriminatory classification system. Weasel words won't vitiate your duty as an American to vindicate the promises in the Constitution to all citizens--including homosexuals.
Your points about individuals being denied certain rights and circumventing their denial of rights by pretending to be other people is not analogous to this debate. The difference being homosexuals CAN serve in the military. And because they can, it is not an equal protection violation.
Announcing yourself to be gay, though probably cathartic, is an entirely voluntary admission. One that few people other than the one making the admission even care about. Within the military it is a distraction and it singles out individuals for personal reasons instead of for the purposes of valor, bravery, leadership, etc.
I feel no guilt at all about this being discrimination. When people mention it, they incorrectly assert that individuals are being fired for BEING gay, which is untrue.
However, giving in to your point that it is an equal protection issue to make my point, there is a rational basis for what you consider a discriminatory classification system. I've covered all of the ones I can think of, but the fact remains that nobody else cares. And the ones who do care probably already know the individual in question is gay and will either be accepting or not.
Making a voluntary public announcement to garner acceptance for your sexual orientation (probably because of self guilt from denying it to yourself for years) is unnecessary and has no place in the military. If you want recognition for being the way you were born, then be brave, have integrity, be a leader, save a life, inspire your peers.
We accept you being gay, all we ask is that you not shove it down our throats because you feel guilty about it. The rest of us really couldn't care less.
Issywise wants us to rely on his theory about what works in the military instead of what the people actually in it have observed over many generations of experience. I think I'll go with the people actually in uniform on this one. When I want to learn about bath house etiquette, if there is any, I'll listen to him.
"..instead of what the people actually..have observed over many generations of experience."
Sounds familiar????? Hmmm, let us see--where did we hear that before: Oh!
Racial and gender discrimination were once justified by exactly that argument too. In fact, so too what the assertion of superior rights by Britons over American colonists. Our founders fought a war to strike us free from that kind of thinking.
Banjo: the words are "equal protection." They are in the Constitution. What rationale do you have for ignoring them when it comes to homosexuals...or blacks if that winds you clock too?
Just because some people want to discriminate against others doesn't mean the law should allow it.
You're wrong about your history. Say the words, "Alexander the Great was Gay," and you'll be both stating a truth and denying your own "many generation of experience " argument. In fact, that "don't ask, don't tell" allows Gays to serve, so long as they accept second-class citizenship status, also denies your argument.
The only think preventing legal equality for Gays is prejudice--blind, ignorant and in some peoples case, ignorant.
if you're the example of superior heterosexual culture, i'm not impressed.
bathhouse etiquette.... Wow dude, you are trully in the closet...... Come out come out where ever you are....
I wear the uniform, and I just don't care if other people who do are gay or not. I especially don't care if they choose to tell me about it. Personally, I don't care if a gay man expresses interest, since I have no interest to return.
One another thing. Bush kissed King Saud's ass, but not his lips. Even he had some limits.
Apprently you hink kissing ones ass is LESS homoerotic than the lips?.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
For the same reason Obama is against equal rights for gays/lesbians regarding marriage......he would rather have the money and votes from the religious right than treat everyone equally.
The budget and resources dedicated to FT's* should be ideally zero.
The budget and resources dedicated to RBFT's** should be absolutely zero.
*False Threats
**Religiously Based False Threats
read the pros and cons by experts, but the cons aren't much beyond cliches.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/in-the-barracks-out-of -the-closet/?apage=1#comments
Is anyone else getting tired of the homosexual attempt to analogize themselves to slaves dragged to this country in chains and forced to work for nothing for generations? Did homosexuals die by the millions in transit or were denied decent living conditions on plantations and later in ghettos. Were they given second-rate educations in inner-city schools and preyed upon by drug dealers and criminals. If gays live in ghettos, it is by choice in upscale ones like Castro Street where discretionary income leaves them lots better off than the people they speak of contemptuously as "breeders." What homosexuals want are special privileges, including the subsidy of a lifestyle that promotes the incidence of AIDS with its stratospheric costs to society. They want additional penalties if they are victims of crime -- the so-called "hate" crimes --than would be the case with ordinary people like you and me. They have extended their control over Hollywood and the rest of the popular culture and now want to bring their unwholesomeness to the military. And, yes, I know I must be a closeted homosexual to think this way. It's funny that these gay cultural guerrillas can't think of any worse insult than to say I'm one of them.
Homosexuals were rounded up in Nazi Germany just like the Jews and Intelectuals. Read your history fool.
Banjo1, you seems utterly obsessed with GAY SEX.... Hmmm wonder why...
Banjo:
Centuries before racial slavery emerged in America, Christians were burning homosexuals at the stake for being homosexual. It is where the term "faggot" comes from.
Americans don't qualify for equal treatment under the law by suffering some sufficient quantum of suffering, but if that were the standard for application of equal protection then Gays certainly qualify. For centuries, they have been a discrete minority disfavored and abused by a majority (like yourself) who are animated by an irrational animus toward them.
As for your notion that they are demanding "special privileges," mainly what they want, and others want for them, is equal protection under the law: the elimination of laws that irrationally discriminate against them.
What subsidy do you think homosexuals are asking for? That's a new one on me.
You do know that most transmission of AIDES is heterosexual? Your perspective on AIDES is about two decades behind the times.
American law provides countless special advantages for discrete groups: veterans, the elderly, children, religious organizations, members of community groups. Why not Gays? If they asked for the same treatment as is given other, you'd see it as "special treatment?"
On hate-crimes, the motive of offenders is an essential element in all but a very few crimes. Laws routinely base penalties on the nature of the motive. For example, manslaughter, 2d degree murder and capital murder are all distinguished by motive of the perpetrator. The law routinely enhances punishment based on the victim's characteristics: various public officials, children and the elderly are all often benefited by enhancement of punishment.
We have hate crime laws enhancing penalties for crimes motivated by racial hate, hate of naturalized citizens and religious hate. All were adopted because of histories of criminal victimization of the protected classes of citizens. Gays certainly have that history too: victimization by people who hate them for whom they are--do you deny it?
It isn't the Gays who are asking for any special treatment, it is a majority of your fellow citizens who want to make it clear that people who express their hate for Gays through violence should be aware that we, through our laws, will not tolerate it.
What's your problem with that?
You are what's unwholesome--your hate: your irrational animus and that you think that animus should be fixed in our laws.
I don't think you are Gay. I think you hate Gays. You belittle them. You express ignorant prejudices toward them. You advocate that America keep them second class citizens.
Yet, you see
I have no problem with gays in the military having served with a few lesbians during my 22 years in uniform. As far as I knew at the time these women didn't have a problem with the current policy as saw it one improved solution to the situation.
I do have a problem with people like Mr Yglesias judging President Obama's morality. Mr Yglesias hasn't the first clue about military life. He never served and I can't find any research he's done on the subject. I doubt if he's ever even been on a military base or knows anyone in the military now. There ARE a myriad of problems facing Mr Obama. This is not one of the most pressing. Ms Tsao knew the rules when she joined, nobody put a gun to her head. Ms Tsao could still be a soldier if she kept her mouth shut and did her job. Obviously becoming a media star was more important to her than defending her country.
It could be argued that Clinton's actions is this regard helped kill health care and elected the republican class of 1994 and even GWB. Issues like this one, unfair as it may be, are tools the right wing uses to inflame passions against democrats. Yglesias has unwittingly become a right wing pawn. Usually democratic leaders will become ensnared in this trap but Obama is way too smart to let this happen. Gays will be able to serve openly one day but it won't be tomorrow.
Wanda Sykes had a perfect opportunity to confront the President at the White House Correspondants Dinner. Does she use her acerbic wit on Dont Ask Dont Tell or Obama's Anti Gay Marriage stance? NO! She chose that time to attack Rush Limbaugh instead. Hypocracy is NEVER funny.
TYPE A EGO MANIACS
POLITICIAN NOT MESSIAH
Type (A) Ego Maniacs, is a good term to describe all politicians, and the Imperial Media Messiah President, is no different from the rest of them in fact today most of them are appointed by the same group (AIPAC/AZC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee/American Zionist Council, they have built the Empire and placed it at the pinnacle of World Power, and they select and appoint the (4-8) four to eight year Emperor. Now, the Messiah wants another term in office, and going out on the limb to support Gay Rights, is like going out on that limb and sawing it off between yourself and the tree at a very high level, put the legacy issue, these Type (A) Ego Maniacs have a thing about their legacy, Bill Clinton is still smarting about Impeachment and Gray Davis about the Re-Call, and the General in Afghanistan will no doubt retire and hammer the Messiah.
Business As Usual
It is a tough life, this being President and trying to please everybody, well, not exactly everybody, but enough to be re-elected. (Source: Will Rodgers, September 22, 1929).
Now, old Hillary had (18M) Eighteen Million votes and Ego that is bigger than Mt. Everest, but the votes were not there, Bill cut the legs right out from under her campaign and she could not separate herself from the problem, and with the Gay Rights Issue it is a matter of what do you gain and what do you loose, the Messiah cut ties with Rev. Wright when he was costing votes and became Rev. Wrong, and that would apply to the Gay Rights Issue, wrong issue to be re-elected upon.
The Gay Right Way
The Gay Right Way, is the hard way, grassroots (bottom up), State by State, one by one it is a long road but There is an ancient Chinese fable called The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains, It tells of an old man who lived in northern China long, long ago and was known as the Foolish Old Man of North Mountain. His house faced south and beyond his doorway stood the two great peaks, Taihang and Wangwu, obstructing the way. With great determination, he led his sons in digging up these mountains hoe in hand. Another grey beard, known as the Wise Old Man, saw then and said derisively, How silly of you to do this! It is quite impossible for you few to dig u these two hug mountains. The Foolish Old Man replied, When I die, my sons will carry on; when they die, there sons will carry on; when they day, there will be my grandsons, and so on to infinity. High as they are, the mountains cannot grow any higher and with every bit we dig, they will bee that much lower. Why can not we clear them away? Having refuted the Wise Old Mans wrong view, he went on digging every day, unshaken in his conviction. God was moved by this, and he sent down two angels, who carried the mountains away on their backs. The Gay Rights movement has made up its mind to dig them up, and the correct way is to pick up the shove, stand up, and dig together, city by city, county by county, and state by state. The Messiah in Washington is looking for votes to stay in office and his legacy, not Gay Rights.
Bottoms up? All right!
Nice anti-semitism in there.
NOT ANTI-SEMITISM
To blame the Jew's, there are many types but the political types are Israeli Jew's, and Jewish name your nationality, Jewish German, Jewish Cubans, Jewish Americans, they are Jew's. Now, like any other group they are looking out for their own, it's natural.
But, that being said to say that (AIPAC/AZC) American Israel Public Affairs Committee/American Zionist Council, failed to do what they set out to do, would be more ANTI-SEMITISM, give credit were credit is due, they are running the show in this country, this is the least Anti-Semitic country in the world in any other country they would never have had achieved the position of power they exert.
My beef is with the those that let it happen, as the interests of the State of Israel take precidence over the interest of the former United States of American and now we are the American Israeli Empire, an excepted fact outside of the (AIE). The Mossad should not be working along side an in stations around the glove with the (CIA) Central Intelligence Agency. Its one thing to share intel. and another to be tied at the hip.
This Special Relationship thing is hurting more than helping in international affairs, Gaza didn't help and the Bomb, Bomb, Iran meeting scheduled for this month with the (PM) of Israel isn't going to make things any better.
If all you religious wing-nits want to get to the other side, have a Kool-Aide Party, and let the rest of us live to see the sunsets and sunrises of more days. And when you get to the other side as the diety if there is the other side or diety, What Were You Thinking?
This issue is so dominated by the militant gay left that no one seems willing or able to consider the real problem it causes. It can be illustrated by asking yourself a simple question:
Why are men and women in the military housed separately?
Think about it for a minute, and you should see what will be done to the military by changing this policy. Why do women in the military not share showers and bathrooms with men? Why are they not bunked together?
Soldiers live in circumstances that do not allow for privacy. Imagine if we told women, "You can serve in the military, but you have to bunk and shower with the men". That is the circumstance we will be placing every heterosexual service member in if this movement gets its way.
Almost no one would support forcing women to shower in front of men who are ogling her the whole time. Why is it somehow supposed to be OK to put heterosexual men and women in that situation?
And if we are to avoid that, how? How do you split up homosexuals in a way that would prevent fraternization or harassment (on either side)?
If the answer is to tell heterosexual males "Screw you, you have to shower in front of gay dudes and like it", I've got news for you - whatever gains in recruitment you think you'll get by throwing the door open for gays will be dwarfed by the number of heterosexual recruits you'll lose.
This is a case where the single-minded agenda of a radical social group is completely overriding any other considerations - and we're talking about the military, which is the last thing we can afford to play games with. This, along with "gay marriage" is the kind of thing a nation does when it is about to collapse. We are very close to that point, and anyone who tells you otherwise is fooling themselves.
All of the harms you speculate on have been proven to by specious. Homosexuals are allowed to serve now and no determent is occurring. Your whole argument boils down to KNOWINGLY having homosexuals around might be upsetting to some heterosexual servicemen and therefore the homosexual servicemen should be excluded.
You are arguing for the same heckler's veto that kept racial discrimination in place for decades. Because of the effect Dr. King reciting the words of the Declaration of Independence had on some bigots, it was argued that he should not have the right to recite those words. Because good Jim Crow raised white soldiers wouldn't want to live with n*******, they were made to live apart.
The Constitution rights run directly to every single individual American and should not be subject to cancellation because some other American would prefer that they not.
You've located the problem--the nonacceptance of homosexuals by some bigots. The answer isn't to ignore the equal protection language in the Constitution, but to educate the bigots: just like the military has been educating the anti-black bigots for sixty one years. By the way, other nation's don't have homophobic military policies and they suffer no determent either.
Funny that you think equal protection is a radical idea and that vindicating it will "collapse" the nation. Where did you learn your civics? Birmingham circa 1962?
Are you afraid God will punish you and the nation if you quit discriminating against other Americans?
Your analogy with race is false. Educate yourself about what science has found with regard to the idea that people are "born gay". The evidence is not there. This is the lie and manipulation that your radical agenda relies upon. You must always fall back on using (and trivializing) the struggle of African-Americans to justify your indefensible views. Furthermore, it is crystal clear which side of this issue is filled with rage, hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree - yours.
Everybody who's showered in a high school locker room, boot camp, fitness center/gym, country club, etc. has showered in front of a homosexual. Furthermore, there are other militaries which have completely co-ed facilities, and there isn't a problem there. Besides that, why is it you don't mention showering in front of gay chicks? Is that because it's the central topic for a more mainstream kind of pornography?
Are you saying that heterosexual men and women do not have the same right to be free of a sexually uncomfortable work environment when it comes to gays as they do with regard to each other? If women in our military were forced into housing with men under those circumstances, do you think they would agree? Would they be right to demand separate living quarters? If so, why does it not apply to everyone?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This user is no longer registered.
Duped is how to describe what the Democrats and Obama have done to the gay community. Gay men and women overwhelmingly supported Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Thanks to that support Obama and the Democrats are now in pretty much complete control of the government, and they've shown how fast they can pass a bill when they want to do so. Yet gay men and women risking their lives for freedom and their country continue to be discriminated against. Worse when they get kicked out they become ex-veterans and go on Obama's watch list as potential domestic terrorists. Of course, to be duped you have to have dupes. That is the right word for those in the gay community that believed in the Democrats and Obama. DUPES!!!!!!!
"Centuries before racial slavery emerged in America, Christians were burning homosexuals at the stake for being homosexual. It is where the term "faggot" comes from."
Issywise's logic is not only faulty, his facts are wrong. Maybe they're gay facts. From the American Heritage Dictionary:
fag·ot also fag·got (f%u0101g'%u0259t)
n.
1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.
2. A bundle of pieces of iron or steel to be welded or hammered into bars.
tr.v. fag·ot·ed also fag·got·ed, fag·ot·ing also fag·got·ing, fag·ots also fag·gots
1. To bind into a fagot; bundle.
2. To decorate with fagoting.
Its derivation:
Middle English, from Old French, from Old Provençal, possibly from Vulgar Latin *facus, from Greek phakelos, bundle.] Elsewhere: Perhaps from faggot, variant of fagot, bundle, lump, old woman.
So you'll have to find another angle to pursue if you are going to claim victimhood.
"Faggot" as a term of abuse for homosexuals is seen most often in the gay press, just as "queer" is a term applied to the study of homosexuality -- and, I fear, its promotion to the impressionable young as just another choice -- in the politically correct academy.
As to another of Isswise's "facts": 65% of HIV infections are among men who have sex with men. Heterosexual males only make up 16% of male HIV infections, Many of these claim to be "bisexual," and we all know what that means.
A last point. I don't hate gays, only what they have done to the culture and what they hope to do in the future. Thanks for dropping the canard about being gay, though.
Ohh banjo1....You say.
"A last point. I don't hate gays, only what they have done to the culture and what they hope to do in the future"
What have Gays "done" to our culture that is so bad?.
58% off ALL hetrosexual marriges end in divorce.
50% of ALL Hetrosexual relationships have had or will have @ least one occurance of infedelity, I.E. cheating on the other.
Incest cases occue more in HETROSEXUAL settings.
Date rape / rape is far more commonplace in Hetrosexual men.
Looks like the stright folks have enough to worry about.
It' easier for homphobes like BANJO to cut down gay citizens than it is to really discuss what is going on in society....
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
That was righteous, Spasticula!
Beautiful. Thanks!!
Where are you getting your information? Last I read it was college aged straight women who were most at risk for HIV because college aged STRAIGHT men sleep around and many assume inaccurately that they wont get a disease just because theyre straight.
LMAO - Obama is even a bigger liar than we who didn't vote for him said he was. Why don't gays ask about how Obama doesn't support gay marriage? No it's better to pick on a beauty contestant - that shows some balls.
I agree with Mr. Yglesias' argument, but he's unfortunately factually incorrect in his first paragraph, and it's pretty important: separation for Chapter 15 (Homosexuality) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is Honorable. It's been that way since DADT was passed into law.
To those of us in leadership positions, it's always hit or miss on the validity of a Soldier coming out to his/her leadership, because anybody with any knowledge of the UCMJ knows that the Soldier has just bought an early, Honorable separation. Believe it or not, it's actually fairly difficult to be separated from the service for being gay, and those who are separated are usually trying pretty hard to get out. Over the last ten years I've served with more than a few gay Soldiers who I'm proud to have called friends, and every one has expressed disgust at those who come out to their Commanders, mainly because they all know that people are born gay, but enlisting is a choice. The fact that most of those separated under Chapter 15 enlisted or commissioned in fields where the cost of training is enormous should, frankly, piss a lot of you folks off. Who else in the Army gets to sign a contract for at least four years, get an education worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, then walk away with an Honorable discharge whenever they feel like it? Pretty sweet deal, if you can forget all that stuff about Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. You know... the Army Values.
Israel and Great Britain's military have ended discrimination against gays. We work in coalition with Great Britain's forces every day in Iraq. Gay soldiers are not allowed to name their spouses as beneficiaries in the event that they die. Gay soldiers are forced to hide their relationships, deny their families. How many straight soldiers would serve under these conditions?
I recognize that change takes time. I also praise Mr. Yglesias for making a powerful and thoughtful argument. In a free and open society, it is important to have voices to challenge our thinking. Thank you.
No one is forcing homosexuals to join the military. If these benefits are important, then maybe Apple would be a better choice of employers.
Who the hell are you to tell someone where theyre allowed to work? How would you like it if I told you what to do and how to do it?
Israel and Great Britain's military have ended discrimination against gays. We work in coalition with Great Britain's forces every day in Iraq. Gay soldiers are not allowed to name their spouses as beneficiaries in the event that they die. Gay soldiers are forced to hide their relationships, deny their families. How many straight soldiers would serve under these conditions?
I recognize that change takes time. I also praise Mr. Yglesias for making a powerful and thoughtful argument. In a free and open society, it is important to have voices to challenge our thinking. Thank you.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.