Monday, October 5, 2009

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue and, apparently, Don't Think

The Obama administration has announced that it will review and attempt to overturn the 1993 'don't ask, don't tell' law that keeps openly gay people out of the military. They claim that they will do it at 'the right time'. I hope the 'right time' is soon.

To me, there are two primary reasons to take another look at this law. The first is that it doesn't work the way it was promised. There were supposed to be no witch hunts and that gay soldiers who kept their mouths shut about their sexuality were free to serve and die for their country. (The law was initially explained as "dont ask, don't tell, don't pursue" - meaning that the military was not supposed to conduct investigations into soldiers' lives who were thought to be gay but never said anything or did anything to violate the law.) Many of those who lived up to their end of the bargain were discharged because they were unlawfully pursued because they were perceived to be gay.

The second reason is that it has been reported many times that many of the military's best language interpreters happened to be gay and many were discharged during what is perhaps the most critical time given the terrorist threats against our country.

If your argument against changing the law is that President Obama is not keeping his eye on the ball, you have it wrong. Keeping his eye on the ball absolutely includes paying attention to the effect of this law. If your argument is that gay men and lesbians are more sexually predatory than straight men and straight women, at least take the time to show us some numbers. If your 20 year old son is in the same barracks as a gay soldier and can't handle someone who expresses an unwanted interest in him, how in the world do you expect him to come out of the Middle East alive or uninjured?

The soldiers discharged under this unworkable policy have not been charged with any crime. They have been discharged for being who they are.

Would it change your mind if an interpreter who happened to be a gay soldier was able to warn us in time of another 9/11 plot that was ultimately thwarted because of his or her hard work, skills and intellect? How do you know it hasn't already happened? Do you have a direct line to the Pentagon?

If you have a religious belief that homosexuality is sinful or that sexual acts that gays and lesbians engage in are sinful, please take an inventory of your own sins. Confess and seek absolution for your own transgressions, pray for us if you want to, but please don't pretend that you are living a more biblically-correct life than the rest of us. As far as I know, there is no point system in the Bible or whatever religious text you read that makes one person better than another in the eyes of God. To me true believers are humble and rarely speak about their beliefs outside of their churches, synagogues or temples unless it is to actually help another person. I don't trust people who wave bibles at me. All it shows me is vanity and a possible superiority complex that should keep some psychologist busy speaking with them for years to come.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I personally agree that we should not discriminate against anyone for any reason! I also would not personally have any problems fighting side by side with gays. However, as a vet who served with distinction, I feel that those who serve, the ones actually willing to make the sacrifice of their lives should make the choice. People who are not in the service or never were could NEVER understand what it means to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. And as such, this issue is a special case that should be treated as such. I think the issue should be put to a vote of military members and treat this one issue as a democratic choice (which goes against all other military decisions) and let those serving make the choice.
larry v.

David H. said...

I don't think that this particular policy was ever treated as a garden variety civil rights issue. I agree that I will never know how it feels to risk your life for your country, and deeply respect the sacrifice soldiers and their families make (including you), but there is nothing democratic about limiting participation in voting to those who serve or who have served. As I am sure you know, Harry Truman was the first president to desgregrate the military at a time when a popular vote of soldiers might well have resulted in black guys being separated from white guys for another 20 years. I see no difference here. If I'm wrong, what's the difference?