Wednesday, September 22, 2010

In the Age of Dinosaur Policies (and Persecuting Gays in the Military)

I turned 46 last week. It's not a momentous birthday for most people, for me it was a little wistful, I'm closer to 50 than 40 now. Closer to old than young.

I thought back this morning on the things I've seen, which honestly have been extraordinary in this age of change. I watched (as a four year old) Niel Armstrong step onto the surface of the moon. I watched race riots in Detroit, the Age of Aquarius, flower-power, an Arab Oil Embargo, our Embassy in Iran violated, the toppling of the Soviet empire symbolized by the tearing down of the Berlin wall, the advent of computers, cell phones, and microwaves, the opening up of China, and the age of the Internet (which may ultimately surpass all the others as being our "Gutenberg Printing Press" accomplishment). Frankly, it's a remarkable set of events and changes in such a comparatively short time. I sit here writing out my thoughts which someone on the other side of the world may read later this morning. When I was 25 years old, that concept was, well.. inconceivable.

When I was 25 years old I had been in the military just short of 5 years. At that time (1989), gays weren't allowed in the military, no matter what. You were asked as you enlisted if you were gay, if you answered "yes", that was it, you were done - no enlistment. We were still in the Cold War, but our military apparently felt it would be better off by preventing participation of gays. At that time (at least) the pretext for such a policy wasn't about perversion or mental illness, but rather that it might well be dangerous and disruptive to have gays in the military because the "red neck" nature of many in the military might cause them to be upset about, and maybe even violent toward, gays. The term of the day was that it was not "conducive to good order and discipline of the service."

This attitude was a stark change from when I was 5 (or when I was born). The attitude then was that gays were deviants, perverts, sick in the head, and any found in the military were normally summarily discharged as mentally unfit, but even worse there was a chance they'd be prosecuted for criminal conduct for violating sodomy laws the military still had when I joined it in the middle 80's. That attitude of revulsion and fear (and through fear, hatred) which created such laws and such views about gays still exists today in some parts of America. In America, in this age of remarkable change, some things haven't moved very far at all. Ask a social conservative privately about his or her view of gays, and many still comment that they are perverts and deviants, after all, "doesn't the bible say so?"

Since then, thankfully, our social conscience has moved forward. Somewhere between "Philadelphia" and "Brokeback Mountain" we began to see gays as human beings, rather than portraying them as "cowards" or deviants (well most of us anyway - see below). Somewhere between Rock Hudson, Gore Vidal (a WWII veteran) and Matthew Shepard, we began to see both that gays were admirable, even heroic, and that our "red neck" ways were not just something we needed to "quit" to quote the song, but were morally repugnant and ethically repellent.


This reality stands in stark irony to the fact that we so often (at least the far right) quote the Bible as a source of ethical behavior, pointing time and again to Leviticus to do so. Yet when we consider what we mean by compassion and progress, such as moving forward on acknowledging gays deserve equal rights, it unfortunately doesn't jibe with the vengeance/punishment based theology of the Old Testament centric "Christians." What's more, whether we're talking about when I was 5, 25, or 46, the people who take this stance are the same. They may today complain about wanting to protect our armed forces or about small government, but they are no different people, and privately espouse little different words and views than those who call and called gays perverts, sinners, and deviants. The discrimination is still the same, the attitudes are the same and the people are the same. They find gays unfathomable and are fearful their son (or daughter) might somehow "become" one, so the point to men in drag, or they point to movie screen caricatures and cry "pervert", "coward" or the modern "that's gay" no differently today than they did 40 years ago.

Yet time has moved forward. We have an Internet, we have become aware of the extraordinary sacrifices gay men and lesbian women have made to remain in our Armed Services out of devotion to duty and dedication to country. We have seen and heard about homosexual men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of their compatriots in arms and in defense of our liberties. We have also moved ahead on employment and social issues outside the military.
Where it was considered "no big deal" and certainly not illegal to discriminate against gays in employment in 1970 (or 1980), it is considered not just illegal, but improper, ethically wrong to do so today. Most of us would openly object to a gay being mocked in the work place today, to a gay being fired for his orientation today, and we should. We have recognized that such denial of basic rights is an outright violation of what is just and good and more, best about America, namely that we grant liberties to the greatest number of our citizens possible. In fact, we grant them to all our citizens, only removing such rights if they (the citizen) violates some law which we feel is just and which has foundation in purpose to protect our nation in a way that stands above the need to preserve the individual right in question. In fact, most supposed conservatives claim to be libertarians, claiming that common good almost never exceeds in purpose or need the need to preserve individual liberty. And yet...

They are the ones who promoted Proposition 8 in California. A proposition intended to both usurp the rights of Churches to decide for themselves which people they would perform the sacrament of marriage for and to prevent the state from recognizing such marriages. A proposition intended to prevent individuals from being granted equal liberty under the law. Most importantly, a proposition which, in the words of the judge who rightly struck it down, represented a law which "denied rights to some citizens while providing no common good." When asked to substantiate the purpose, the "good" it reflected, proponents could only say it "undermined traditional marriage." When asked to provide proof that male/female marriage suffered, they had no such proof. Yet, these same people persist in calling the ruling a travesty, persist in claiming that it is "the government" which is intruding upon their religion. Of course that's poppycock, their church can marry (or refuse to marry) anyone they desire. Instead this is granting liberty to citizens who deserve it simply because they are citizens and denying them such liberty not only doesn't provide sufficient common good, it provides no common good whatsoever.

And so it is the same here. Denying gays the right to remain in the military or join the military is a dinosaur idea who's time for burial is long past. The country, the vast majority of the country at least, has accepted that equal liberty and protection from discrimination for gays is not only overdue, it is quite simply the right thing. The military is not better served by this policy of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" it is in fact harmed by it. Its reputation is stained, its ranks weakened by not having access to all able bodied citizens at a time when recruiting standards are being lowered to meet recruiting needs. We apparently are willing to lower such standards for education, physical fitness and acumen but "god forbid" allowing gay and lesbian citizens to serve if they desire to do so. This policy serves no useful or meaningful purpose other that to allow the military to continue to have an atmosphere which is derogatory toward gays as it was when I was part and still is today. Those who defend constitutional liberties and a strong defense of our nation should be first in line to see such archaic, overreaching policies of our government set aside rather than seeking to perpetuate them, yet they do not seek to set them aside

Those who claim to be in favor of limited government should be the first to seek to get the government out of the affairs of marriage and the church, yet instead they are the first to seek to use government to rule the actions of churches they don't like. The "new" reform movement, the Tea Party and the "promise for America", is in fact nothing different than those who predated them, with the Republican "Revolution" of the mid-90's and their "Contract with America" or the Reaganites before them. Our nation and social conscience have moved forward these past 21 years (since I was 25), and certainly have moved ahead in 41 years. We have become aware that there are differences traceable in the conduct, birth patterns and preferences of those who are gay and lesbian. We have decided discrimination against them is wrong, not just unfair to do to the "downtrodden" as we might have once felt, but viscerally wrong to do to those whom we see as fully functional, fully deserving peers.

Well, most of us have.. for this week, the Republicans in the Senate showed once again that they are the same stodgy, puritanical, vindictive people who used to call gays perverts openly, who used to condemn promiscuity while having affairs on the side (like Newt Gingrich has done time and again). They showed they are fully out of step with the social fabric of America. Or maybe, just maybe, they showed that they are willing to put politics ahead of decency to appeal to the reactionary, extreme and intolerant section of the population which calls itself the "Tea Party" today, and which was the party of racism yesterday, the party of McCarthyism in the days of the 50's, the red-scare in the 20's, in short, the same out-of-step, hate-driven, and bigoted group that has always feared immigrants, blacks, Hispanics, gays, catholics, hews, and anything else which was different than "us." The Senate Republicans this week blocked the end of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" for no other reason than spite and to appeal the the worst of us in this election year.

In so doing, they show once again they back archaic, unnecessary and often totally useless, do-nothing policies (or worse policies which do great harm). We have seen the "smaller government" lie time and again, yet Republicans explode the debt faster than Democrats. We have seen the "cut taxes and 'job creators' will grow jobs" yet the Bush Tax Cuts did no such thing, in fact companies today are hoarding cash and making vast profits, they need no further capital to grow, to expand, they have it now..yet they are not expanding, and why not? Because it is easier to work workers harder in this time where employers hold all the cards, than to hire, and there is no need and no reason to expand if the workers aren't expected to have the cash to buy. Instead the Republicans seek to further give more money to the rich, rather than worry about the middle class, this won't expand anything at all except the bank accounts of those rich.

When you ask yourself whom to vote for, ask yourself this, "Do I want to vote for the "change" the Republicans offer?" think first about whether a party which would wantonly and openly seek to extend discriminatory practices is one which you think will side with you when the chips are down. I, for one, think it is high time these "Dinosaurs" and their tired-out, tried and failed policies, were buried along with Jim Crow and reverse Robin Hood. If you think that the one-trick pony (of tax cuts for the rich) will work, then you have failed to note what happened in the US in the late 80's and repeated as a failure in the 2000's, namely, such windfalls as the rich achieved weren't invested in expansion, instead they were wasted in real-estate speculation, and when that market crashed, it was "us" and our jobs which suffered. If you think that giving money to the rich (who already have a lot) will cause them to create "high paying" jobs here, then you think that they will do something different than they did in the 80's or 2000's when instead they off-shored jobs. Lastly, if you think treating everyone with fairness is right, then you cannot possibly reconcile that sentiment with extending a perverse policy "Dont' Ask, Don't Tell" when such a policy only serves to demean gays and lesbians and terminate their careers. When you make up your mind, decide whether you stand with those who support bigoted policies and you will likely figure out whether the other policies they support are good or bad in your eyes also.

8 comments:

  1. We have come in that era to better understand human sexuality as a legitimate frontier for study, and in the course of learning about what makes us human there is a better understanding of the scope of not only our own human sexuality, but how same sex relationships exist in nature in all species as a perfectly natural feature of life.

    The prejudice against same sexuality was predicated on misinformation and false assumptions that seemed to the believers in it to be as obvious as the assumption the world is flat -- or had an edge that people could fall off of. The repudiation of it seemed as clear to them as the notion that if the world is round people would fall off of it.

    When I try to engage in discussion with those who have this antiquated attitude and belief, it seems like trying to persuade a flat-earther the earth is really round. Sadly those who have the flat-earther mentality are often the ones most prone to support their notions by trying to falsely wrap themselves in the flag - a false patriotism - and that old stand-by justification for so much hatred and cruelty - an abuse and misuse of religion and faith.

    I sometimes wonder which excuse has accomplished more actual harm in the world - the devil made me do it or God made me do it. Homophobia seems the same kind of problem as racist anti-miscegenation beliefs held by people who don't really understand human origins very well. The kind of thinking that fits in well with assumptions about ethnicity.

    No surprise, there is some of that now turning up apparently in some of the newest crop of the backwards facing tea partiers on the right this time around.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That whole bill is a good example of something both sides of Congress do that should be stopped. The original bill was a defense appropriations bill that among other things gave a much needed pay raise to the soldiers. Tacked on as amendments were the repeal of DADT and the Dream Act, which a lot of people saw as an amnesty. Now remember that a large portion of the southwest and California is against an amnesty for illegals and that there is an election coming up in six weeks and you have almost guaranteed failure before you even add in DADT. Neither DADT or the Dream Act have anything to do with money for the military and should not have been tacked on. The whole reason it was done is because someone figured they could accuse their opponent of denying a pay raise to the military. Both parties do this when they are in charge of the House or Senate and there really needs to be some sort of rule that amendments to a bill have to have something to do with the bill, I mean how can you honestly call something to do with immigration an amendment to a bill about military appropriations, it should be a seperate bill. So do you know that all the Republicans that voted against this were voting against the repeal of DADT? I know the Senators from Texas were flooded with emails to vote against it because of the immigration package attached, I imagine the same was true for New Mexico and Arizona. If you want an honest up or down vote on DADT then bring it to the floor in a bill of its own, no amendments attached and then see how people vote.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tucker, you appear to be unaware that the United States has actively been recruiting people in other countries to serve in the U.S. armed forces--- and then we grant them citizenship if they want it. I dated someone from Germany for awhile who had earned his citizenship that way. As he put it to me - the United States is perfectly willing to let anyone die for them, in exchange for citizenship.

    So, in an era where we have - as Pen so eloquently pointed out - had to offer more money, and lowered the standards, to induce entry into the U.S. armed forces, it is just plain stupid not to allow those illegal immigrants who came here as children and who have grown up in this country, who are loyal to this country and who wish to protect it -- it is stupid NOT to allow them to serve. I would rather see a qualified, better educated but illegal immigrant be in our military than some of the poorly educated, not so very bright FELONS we admit now. So this does apply to an appropriations bill and military compensation. Ditto DADT.

    As to this being AMNESTY? Good God, if someone is willing to die or risk serious injury forthis country, the least we can do for them is to allow them to live here legally afterwards, and not act like damn fools over naming it amnesty. It is what we do for people from other countries, for people with less reason for us to believe in their loyalty and allegiance and who are less a part of this country. Who do you think would be more motivated to defend this country? Someone who was raised here and who has family here--- or someone from another country with no personal ties here? So,which do you think then deserves citizenship? Someone who came here as a child was not able to control those choices, it is notfairtothemtopenalize them by denying them citizenship for military service.

    The objections to removing DADT are wrong, they violate the civil liberties of loyal Americans. They make it more costly to enlist replacement troops and to train them to replace those brave -- even decorated --combat vets thrown out of the military by stupidly conservative opposition to their gender and sexual orientation. There is no more justification for tolerating homophobia in the military than for tolerating sexism or racism or anti-semitism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Addendum Tuck - how naive are you to believe that the Republicans in the Senate would not obstruct a straight up or down vote on DADT? Not even maybe.

    The right is too set on fighting this as a cultural issue; and while they know they will lose - they are willing to delay as long as possible what they cannot stop. Just like their opposition to other culture war issues.

    There is nothing, despite their attempts to drape themselves in faux patriotism, that they will not oppose and obstruct, without genuine regard for the well being and security of this country or its citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Guest, I think you missed my point. My point was that this bill was trying to do 3 things not related to each other, 2 of them unpopular with certain groups of people. I have nothing against gays in the military but it should have a vote on its own not tacked on the end of a funding bill with something about immigration tacked on to it also. The immigration problems we have also need to be dealt with on their own not stuck in with two other unrelated issues.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here again my point is that you are taking a bill that cobbles together a bunch of funding issues, some immigration issues, and repeal of DADT and assuming that the votes against it were due to DADT. All I am saying is there is no way to know that until you vote for it on its own. This was nothing more than a cheap attempt by Harry Reid to run 2 unpopular amendments through by tacking them on the end of a military pay increase. And both parties have done this before and will do it again until we make them stop. You can't tell where someone stands on issues when they tape several different things together that are unrelated. If someone votes for it are they in favor of all the bills and amendments or just 4 out of 5? who knows. But if the bills they voted on were single issues ( the one this article is about would become 3 bills ) then you would know exactly where your senator stood on all 3. There would be no wiggle room for them to say well I was in favor of the pay raise and repealing DADT but I didn't like the immigration part. I personally think the main reason they tack bills together this way is so no matter how they voted they can still claim they are for or against certain issues and we all stay in the dark about how they will vote next time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tuck, have you ever in your life objected to the combining of bills when the right did it? I'm betting not.

    Nor has anyone on the right. It is an empty, and meaningless objection.

    It is a common means of business being done in Congress, and in view of the CONSISTENT and excessive obstruction being waged by the right - far more than has been usual in the past - it is something of a procedural necessity. This is a specious and invalid argument, which effectively says it is wrong when one side does it but not objectionable when the other does; and it argues that politics should not be practiced in a realistic and effective manner.

    BAD argument, unless you can show that Congress would be more efficient doing it differently. Nobody in Congress wants to change this way of doing business. NOBODY. And btw - if you go back and look at the earliest days of Congress, it has always been this way -- and in Parliament before that. So --WHY change it? Items can still be debated, even if unrelated -- and these are NOT unrelated.

    It is the Republicans who are prohibiting voting and debates.

    Both amendments that you characterize as 'controversial to groups of people' are in fact overwhelmingly popularwith the exception of very few people -- in the case of the repeal of DADT, maybe 20% object. More to the point, the objections are for the most part founded on gross ignorance. As a judge recently pointed out -- if being gay were such an impediment to good order and cohesion, WHY then does the military wait until these soldiers return from combat to kick them out of the military - including suspending the investigations into their being gay while they serve in combat?

    Gee, where are the groups of people who are objecting to these people who are gay serving while their lives are in danger? NOT McCain, not Boehner. It is rampant blatant hypocrisy.

    Get a clue Tuck. These are smoke screen objections, not substantive ones.

    The minority doesn't have any good objections to these measures, so they are whining that they don't like it procedurally. That is crap.

    This IS a far more appropriate place for these issues than many things which the right has attached to bills before.

    IF you don't have a problem with gays in the military - support this legislation.

    IF you don't have a good argument that we let foreign born people earn citizenship by putting their life on the line for this country, who would not likely otherwise gain it, so we should let people who were children when they came to this country, not willing law breakers,do the same -- then support this legislation.

    The opposition to this is stupid, and entirely partisan for no better reason than obstruction and it panders to the worst ignorant, regressive culture war issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually DG I have objected to it for quite some time. Even in my post I said both sides do it and both should stop. The dream act does not just give citizenship to people who serve in the military. The requirement is obtained a high school diploma or GED in the US and served two yrs in the military OR has been accepted to an institution of higher learning. So how many of the diploma mills on the internet would be willing to accept illegals and give them a diploma for a fee? The other thing is I never said Congress would be more efficient making amendments that had nothing to do with the original bill into a bill of their own, I said the people who elect Congress would have a better idea of what was going on in DC and who was voting for what.

    ReplyDelete