Monday, February 1, 2010

Don't Ask Don't Tell...Cause You Really Don't Want To Know..

DADT has been in the news alot lately after the Presidents "State of The Union" address in which he promised to work to repeal the ban on gays in the military "this year". On the surface, it seems as if their is some actual movement on this....We have a senate hearing scheduled for Febuary 9th and "implementation plans" are rumored to be in the works. All this sounds encouraging...until you start to look a little deeper, thats when you get to the..."I didnt want to know" part of "Don't Ask Dont Tell".

The Presidents comments  have conservatives and religious groups going all kinds of crazy right now. They havent figured out that the gay community isn't holding its breath for this as we have been let down by the Obama administration too many times, so they shouldn't either. But that hasn't occured to these people:

URGENT NEW PETITION: SELECT HERE TO SIGN AND DEFEND OUR TROOPS AGAINST OPEN HOMOSEXUAL AGGRESSION, and we will fax your personalized petition to all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen, (saving you hours of labor!)


President Obama pledged in his State of the Union Address to promote open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military, by directly recruiting Congressmen and Senators in 2010 to overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that saves troops lives and already guarantees equality. Ignoring a letter signed by over 1,150 retired military flag and general officers, who asked Obama to enforce the 1993 Clinton-era law that currently prohibits open homosexual aggression in the military, Obama instead sacrificed military readiness, unit cohesion, and safety of all American troops, to prioritize his special relationship with less than 1% of the American population who claimed to be homosexual in the last census.

Um...excuse me?...special relationship? since when?!...the President has been completely ambivelent about anthing that has to do with gay rights and the ONLY time he acts is when there is a large public outcry. We in the LGBT community have learned the hard way that President Obama is not our "fierce advocate". He has not stood beside us on a single example of this being his lack of visibility in any of the marriage equality ballot initiatives...where positive statements by the President could have helped marriage equality in California or Maine.... but none came. So how exactly is this a "special relationship"? And is the use of this term meant to imply that the President is gay?....come don't have anything better than that?

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay men and women the right to serve the country they love," Obama boldly misled, repeating the vow he made during a speech Oct. 10th before a gay rights group. (The truth is homosexuals already now have the right to serve, so long as they keep their sexual aggression to themselves.)
Sexual aggression? Is this man of the cloth infering that we are rapists and sexual predators? I do think he is.....and "keeping their sexual aggression to themselves" is another way of saying "be a good gay and keep your mouth shut"...
"If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different than anyone else," Obama said oxymoronically, defining "equality" and "values" as a sudden endorsement of illegal acts of sod omy long banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Joint Chiefs sat stone-faced silent, aghast at Obama's plan, but powerless to publicly oppose their own Commander-In-Chief. We must be their voice...

"Most of the senior brass hold deep reservations about President Obama's pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues," the Times reported.

I have no doubt that most of this is true...I'm sure they are aghast. But I hardly think they lack a voice or that these men that we credit for their bravery in military service would EVER be afraid to use that voice if they felt the secuity of the country was at risk. The reality is...they don't like it. They will stonewall as much as possible, as evidenced by their complete bullshit excuse that they need to do studies on how to implement the repeal. Whats to study? All you have to do is stop kicking people out...its not brain surgery....

One very famous example of this was reported by Queerty, that the Pentagon was doing a study into the separate showering facilites for gay and lesbian excuss to spend money will do over at the Pentagon. This is a bald-face and heinous example of segregation if I ever saw it. Nothing is going to make a soldier feel more ashamed then going to the "gays only" shower. Considering this as an option to make the straight soldiers more "comfortable", completely ignores the fact that gay men and women have been serving...and showering...with their straight fellow soldiers since we first created a standing army. We're already their!....showering right beside you! afraid! very afraid!  I'm really sorry that we give you the oogies...but separate showers because you are "uncomfortable" with gays is not o.k. This whole notion of separate shower facilities had better turn out to be a stonewall technique and not an actual consideration because it is both sad and laughable.

In addition...its precisely because we are fighting two wars that we need to end this discriminatory and wastefull policy. You have Soldiers being called back into service again and again under "stop loss" who have gone above and beyond the call of duty and who want nothing more than to go home to their families...then men and women who want to serve but are forced to stand on the outside and look in because they are gay. Why don't you let us shoulder some of the burden for a while.


Four reasons:

1) Allowing open homosexuality especially hurts unit cohesion and would cost American lives in war, damaging the trust shared in close proximity, common sleeping quarters and showering facilities that are unavoidable in close combat.
News flash men and women are already in the military fighting and dying right alongside their heterosexual counterparts.... your not keeping anyone out only allowing those serving to do so openly. Their lives are of equal value and to intimate that more soldiers will be killed because of their presence is to completely devalue their contributions and is insulting to the extreme. Not only to gay soldiers but to all soldiers and to our nation.
2) Men and women do not share the same showers for obvious reasons, so why force men to share showers with openly homosexual men? This fact alone would hurt recruiting.

News flash #2! Gay men and women have been showering with their straight counterparts for years now and I don't see a huge rush of complaints about sexual harrassment. Plus to cast gay men and women as only being focused on sex is another way to cheapen and devalue them as human beings...shame on you sir.

3) The rampant spread of the HIV-AIDS virus contaminates the blood often shared by necessity on the battlefield. Soldiers requiring blood-transfusions and medics would be immediately endangered.
News flash #3!....The perception that all gay people have HIV is wrong! You might want to get up to date with current information, this is no longer 1980. HIV is just as present in the heterosexual population as it is in the gay population. NO ONE has sex without protection these one...unless you have been in a monogamous relationship and know your HIV status....that goes for straights too. To deny a wounded soldier blood because it came froma gay soldier is to ensure that soldiers death for no good reason.
4) "Gay promotion quotas" would soon be forced upon presently impartial promotion boards, causing a burdensome rise in sexually-charged "equal opportunity" complaints against commanders, especially those who offend gays by inadvertently speaking of their traditional Judeo-Christian faith.

Those who would offend gays by using their faith...Hmmm...I wonder...when churches preached against the mixing of the races, did a few people use the Bible against African Americans?...yes, I think they did. I'm sure a good portion of those comments were made in the military by white soldiers that didn't want to serve with Black ones. If those soldiers got into trouble for their rascist remarks, was it a slap in the face to their faith? Sometimes its not a matter of faith sir, its a matter of common sense and your comment above shows none.

Do we have female quotas? Black quotas? Hispanic quotas? I'm not hearing a huge outcry about these "injustices" either. In a day and age when we are fighting two wars we need all the help we can get and their not exactly lining up at the recruiting office these days.

This petition drive is nonsensical in the extreme. To call out the President as being a despot and faith destroyer is rediculous when he has done nothing for the gay community to date but offer lip service. If Obama wanted to end this policy right this minute...he could...all it would take is one stroke of the presidential pin on executive order and then your worst nightmare would come true....LGBT people, treated with dignity and equality.


  1. The question that I have been thinking about is this: If you are gay and legally married in let's say Massachusetts. And then, you wanted to join the service. On your application would you check married or single? If you checked married and they asked the name of your spouse and it was a same sex name would you not be allowed to join? Or if you marked single that would be a lie so when you signed the application stating that all the info was true..and it isn't..then what?? It should be called "Don't Ask..Do LIE!!"

    What a mess! I thought one of the core values of being in the military is honesty?? Obviously according to the government it is okay to be dishonest..if you are gay.

  2. The venom that these spew when making their hysterical arguments about gay people really makes me sad.

    I keep worrying I will meet people like these when I go to the USA for my holidays.

    How do you deal with them? I find christians scary :S

  3. Also I have said it before but they do realise that the USA is the only country left with a bar on gay service personnel? To refute all these arguments all they have to do is look at the armies of pretty much all their allies.

  4. No long as you stay away from the very tall buildings with the pointy tops you will be are flying into san francisco, hands down the gayest city on earth.

    In other news ..this really interesting article about about the benefits of a repeal to the gay community...check it out at pam's house blend:

    and has anyone seen Lexxi?

  5. I spoke to him about the mini drama. He seemed like he understood it was all a misunderstanding but he also seemed embarrassed. I tried to tell him not to worry about it, I hope he will be back.

  6. @Jim Stone well any same-sex marriage would not be recognized by the federal government. so you would check the "single" box and be quite withing the boundries of "truth justice and the American way"

  7. THIS kind of crap is why I get embarrassed to say I'm a Christian - nothing to do with my faith and all to do with the people I get lumped in with.

    As far as I can see, ignore everything else but DADT doesn't work because it means soldiers can die on the other side of the world and the person they're sharing their life with has no right to be treated as just that. No matter what, that's wrong.

  8. I know it's not funny, because this is serious stuff, but seeing the haters lose their shit over just the idea of DADT being repealed makes me chuckle

    Speaking of segregation, the other day I was kind of sorting out the different classes of people in the U.S. for my own amusement. The non-scientific results I came up with were:

    1. Ruling Class - Power Elite
    Political, Military, Financial Leadership
    2. Upper Class
    3. Middle Class
    4. Lower Class
    5. 2nd Class Citizens - Those who are subordinated, segregated, marginalized, and discriminated against legally, politically, and/or socially (i.e. homosexuals)
    6. Underclass - Criminals

    It's not that I haven't known homosexuals are being treated like 2nd class citizens. However, thinking about it, if we're being more specific, we're kind of like 5th class citizens and that pissed me off. Like, if we subdivide the "1st class citizens" (the upper, middle, and lower classes), we're really low at the bottom just a notch above the criminals

    The segregation and legal discrimination is most overt when it comes to the issues of gay marriage and DADT obviously. For whatever reason I just now sort of realized how low we were on the hierarchy of life and how much many of us just accept it. This is a modern day caste system but society hasn't even realized it yet

  9. Do these people have nothing better to get worked up over? I mean we would not want to be spending our time trying to figure out how to better help the poor, the disadvantaged down on their luck, nope instead we have to use it on how to protect the solders for their already gay comrades serving openly. I just don't get so many of these right wing religious organizations, if they would spend just a fraction of the time that they do on gays, trying to actually help the poor, and the hungry they could actually do this country some real good!

  10. Please take any of these comments that I have to make in regards to DADT as those provided by a foreigner. As a gay Canadian, I have had the right to serve openly in my military for more than a decade (I think more than 15 years, actually)... so, just as so often happens with American news, I am very unfamiliar with the frustrations that may be felt by those south of the border.

    But, I think the coverage regarding DADT this week has been exciting. Every time that homosexual issues are raised in America's mainstream media, more and more of the general populace seem to become convinced that unequal policy does not benefit everybody - even when it comes to the military.

    I appreciate the interest in fighting against some of the misinformation and hate-based information that is being shared with the general population. Proving that these ideas and perceptions of homosexuals are wrong is a priority that is very, very important.

    But... it is also limited.

    Think of it this way. In Canada, most Canadians haven't any idea what it means to be Canadian. But certainly the most popular response (especially since the rise of Bush Jr.) has been that we aren't American. In Canadian politics, the Conservative Party of Canada separates itself from the Liberal Party of Canada more by saying that they aren't Liberal than by the vast majority of their ideals.

    But the parties that are fighting against something rather than for something have been losing general support amongst the Canadian populace. The rise of the Green Party in the past 5 years (from a popular support of approximately 3% to 14%) has shown that a party that identifies itself with a specific goal or ideal rather than as merely not being something is the party that can gain the most support.

    I think there is a valuable lesson to be learned here.

    I agree that all of this misinformation has to be fought, and torn to pieces so that only the vultures of history can judge the morsels for what they are. But, more importantly, the GLBT community should be interested in fighting FOR something.

    In the world of rhetoric, this is an easy distinction. In the real world, this is more difficult to recognize and communicate. But it is simply this (I think); make sure that a message of negativity and desperation is not the message that is conveyed. Communicate a message that Americans are familiar with but understood in a new way. Keep on pushing for equality rather than forcing people to recognize (and not necessarily accept) that homosexual lives in the military are difficult; and make sure that equality is the focus.

    Be excited by Obama. Hold him to his word. Kick him in the ass on a regular basis. Focus on his promise rather than those who are interested in preventing it from ever coming to fruition.

  11. @canadianhumility

    I read your comment late last night and I knew that I could not respond to it thoughtfully....I have to admit now, in the clear light of morning, that I still don't have an adequate response....I know that you meant it constructivly and I take it as such....but what I don't quite understand is how I was promoting rhetoric.

    I whole heartedly agree with you that we need to keep this conversation on a positive and non-blaming level as much as possible but that does have limits as well. Sometimes you have to stand up and tell it like it is or you will not recieve any respect....sometimes nice it too nice. Even in our own lives what helps us see our mistakes is not being the recipient of "an eye for an eye" one ever learns from that...but holding up the mirror so that people can see themselves...that works. When we see ourselves and our actions through others eyes it can be a frightening and/or sobering thing to face. Thats how I attempt to write my blog. I attempt to:

    1) pull together the random threads of stories that by themselves don't amount to much but when put together make a statement.

    2) That attacking never earns more than a counter attack but using peoples own words and actions has a way of painting a picture I could never convey by demonizing those who don't agree with me.

    Anyway...thats my two cents.


  12. @Bryan

    Admittedly, I wrote that post last night when I was quite tired. And, if I read it now, it shows - some ideological contradictions are pretty firmly laid in there. Like how I recommend not using rhetoric, but then suggest fighting for the complex realization of equality by merely suggesting the term. Sounds like rhetoric for me.

    So, what the point of that comment was I will probably not recall until I find myself in a similarly sleepy and disoriented state. It is possible that there is some philosophy of activism there... what it is I don't know right now. And whether or not that philosophy can actually be used a critique of activism is doubtful in the context of this blog...

    So, I suppose an oops is in order.


  13. @u3q2v When you think of it..criminals are a notch above us in a certain way. Even they can get legally married..even in prison!! So, Charles Manson..convicted murderer can get married if he would like but I cannot.

  14. As far as the whole crap about needing a year-long study, I completely agree that it is pointless and DADT needs to be stopped and repealed immediately.

    I do see the need for a committee to decide how they will make it up to those discharged, the people who want back in and those that want to be permanently retired from the military.

    @Jim Stone
    I hadn't even considered what you said about criminals getting married before and we can't. This is complete bullsh*t!

  15. The fact that the debate regarding DADT has been going on for so long is absolutely ridiculous. I too, like Canadianhumility, am Canadian, so my knowledge on DADT is limited. But as Canadianhumility mentioned, Canada has allowed gays to serve openly in the military since the early 90s (actually 1992 to be exact since I checked). And they're not the only country. Many countries throughout Europe and around the world allow gay and lesbians to serve openly.

    Not once when I've heard reports on the news about the unfortunate death of the latest Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan has anyone ever said that it was caused by the lack of unit cohesion. It's not said, of course, because it's simply not true.

    In the past I've watched some videos on youtube about soldiers discharged under DADT. These young men and women have said that while serving in the US military, they were out and that nobody cared. So what the problem?

    I guess my point after all of this rambling, is that if Canada's (and other countries) gay and lesbian soldiers can serve openly without any apparent problems, then why can't US soldiers. And not to sound anti-American, but I just don't understand how a country that strives to be a global leader of human rights can fall so short on this particular issue.


  16. well said marcus...I wish I had an answer to your question but I dont. You have just pointed out the elephant in the room.