This comment was posted by anonymous and I feel it deserves a wider read:
I’m not sure whether I’m gladdened or saddened by the lack of coverage that this has gotten in the daily papers up this way. The media focus is on Gonzales this morning, and that’s great. It’s refreshing to see an administration so unaccustomed to being held accountable by the legislative branch scramble to adjust to what a Democratic Congress really means as far as enforcing fair and ethical government. (Consider the difference between the way seasoned Washingtonian Gates handled his department’s scandal at Walter Reed–firing everyone responsible in the Army from the top down–with Gonzales, who has never served with an opposition Congress and still thinks that if he repeats the words “I’m accountable” often enough during a press conference, no one will think there’s any further reason to try and hold him accountable). But the lack of coverage on Pace’s gaffe presents a diminished opportunity to address an important civil rights and national security issue. While Andy Rooney’s latest commentary piece is on why we should bring back the draft to supply capable, credible force numbers in a war that the vast majority of Americans oppose, now feels like a good time to me to begin a discussion about why our armed forces are rejecting intelligent, physically-capable volunteers who are eager to serve our nation in uniform.
I agree: let’s talk about why our all-volunteer military, stretched thin by our involvement in Iraq, should reduce its ranks further by rejecting gays. I can’t think of any reason to do so. Can you?
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
“OLD School” thoughts were they were a security risk. If an advesary, (this is cold war era now…) were to find out, they could use that information to exploit them.
Even now, with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, if it comes out, they can be discharged. So it still does not remove the potential for exploitation by a foreign government.
In my opinion, if our military said, “it’s no big deal, be gay”… it would remove the potential for exploitation and would be LESS of a tool. For those gay/lesbian members who desire to keep their orientation secret, it could still be used against them.
Personally? I couldn’t care any less if the man/woman next to me taking out the opposition is gay/lesbian or not. Shoot straight, cover my backside and we all go home.
For what it’s worth…
Ok… Vivian gave me the go ahead. So two comments and a trackback… here are my additional thoughts…
I agree with General Pace. I think homosexuality is immoral and wrong. That being said, it is not up to me to judge a person because of it. I don’t like it, I don’t participate in it and won’t. BUT… if you choose to, that’s up to you. I will not treat you any differently than I do anyone else because of your sexual orientation.
Is that fair enough? I mean, its YOUR call not mine for you.
There’s a big discussion of this going on over at RK and I’ve already spent a lot of time on it (as Catzmaw), but agreed that this issue needs to be front and center. We’re losing so many good service people and potential service people to this ridiculous and bigoted policy. There’s no good reason to discharge gays from the military and virtually all of Europe and Israel have successfully integrated gay and lesbian military members. And Grumpy’s right. The best way to deal with potential blackmail against military gays is to remove the threat of discharge.
The whole blackmail thing was always ridiculous to me. If you’re out of the closet, there’s no opportunity for blackmail, right?
Exactly the point. But you can’t be “out of the closet” in the military. If you are then you are out. So they “don’t tell” and it can still be exploited.
So the military needs to get rid of “don’t ask don’t tell” and allow everyone to serve….then there is no blackmail issue.
We “lost” lots of folks due to “don’t ask don’t tell” who were fluent in the Arabic languages…this is one area where the military has a severe shortage.
This stupid “don’t ask don’t tell” policy makes us less safe….we need all the talented folks we have who are willing to serve be able to serve.
buzz…buzz…
Grumpy,
I’m not going to argue about your right to agree with General Pace. Nor do I think that General Pace himself is not entitled to his opinions. But I do want to seize upon the use of the word “immoral” to throw a monkey wrench into DADT called the “moral waiver.”
Currently, the US Military is granting “moral waivers” to enlistees who would otherwise be disqualified from military service because they were convicted in criminal courts of felonies. The moral waiver is what gave rise to the Rooney commentary I cited in which he suggests that it’s better to bring back the draft and supply some less-than-willing non-felons to the military rather than to arm violent criminal offenders and turn them lose upon Baghdad at a time when we Gen. Petraeus is telling us that we still need to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis.
We can grant a moral waiver for someone who committed an armed robbery but we can’t grant one to a volunteer who is only guilty of behavior which you consider “immoral”–but non-criminal? If a convicted rapist wants to go to Iraq, should we make him promise not to do it again and put a rifle into his hands–provided he only forced himself upon a woman instead of having consensual relations with another man?
Rather than go on, I’ll reference you to an opinion piece published in Yesterday’s WaPO by an Army Veteran and former US Senator, Alan Simpson (R-WY). “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301507.html
I have no problem with the “moral waiver” for homosexuality. As I said in my second comment where my opinion was stated, I believe it is immoral. But no where did I say they should not be allowed in the military; Come to think of it, I don’t even think there should be a “moral waiver” for homosexuality.
It should not even be a factor in the military. While I believe it is wrong, and immoral, I do not believe it should be used as any sort of a litmus test on whether a person is admitted to the ranks or not. It shouldn’t be a question. Who cares? I don’t. If you prefer to have sex with someone of the same gender… go for it. YOU have to deal with whatever judgement you believe may or may not come because of it. Not me.
If I however, judge you because of it, when my belief systems tells me that I am NOT to judge, who is wrong? Me. And I am not going to let someone elses decisions force me into a situation where, by my standards and belief systems, I am wrong. That is giving someone else more control over me than I want them to have.
The bottom line is, homosexuality in the military shouldn’t even be a point of discussion!!! If you are gay, good, go over and grab your rifle and lets go to work. If you are straight, good, go over and grab your rifle and lets to go work. I fail to see where someone’s sexual orientation is a factor. Except that we, or the government, has MADE it a factor. And by keeping it hidden, or turning a blind eye to it, have actually given our advesaries a “tool” to use to exploit our young men and women.
I haven’t read the article yet. I will. I think maybe you misunderstood my post however.
From the Virginian-Pilot, October 22, 2000: Ed Schrock favors ending the Clinton administration’s ”don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military. He supports asking enlistees whether they have had homosexual experiences in an effort to to try to keep gays from serving. ”You’re in the showers with them, you’re in the bunk room with them, you’re in staterooms with them,” Schrock said.
This was the best argument against gays in the military, and we know how it came out.
Grumpy, I get what you’re saying. And I appreciate the fact that you are unwilling to impose your morality on others. Now if we could just get some of the others to do likewise 😉
VAB – I’m not sure I understand your point. Schrock ended his career in Congress because he was outed.
My point is that some of the most vocal people against gays in the military, ironically, provide the best reason why it’s not such a bad idea to have gays in the military. Ed Schrock served for decades without incident. The problem is not that he was gay, or even that he was outed, but that he espoused homophobic views.
I know VJP, I know. The “imposition of one’s morality on others” is something that evangelicals have been doing for centuries. While I have my views (which by the way, align closely with your father’s if the “Pulpit Series” is any indication), I may state them. Make sure you are aware of them. Even try to get you to change yours to match mine. But for me to demand, under some guise of law, that your views MUST align with mine is wrong.
Thanks for opening up this discussion.
Sorry for mistaking your point, Grumpy. I think you slightly misunderstood mine, as well, I’m aiming more at Pace–who does help set and implement military policy which reflects his personal morality–rather than people who hold particular views on homosexuality. I’m a heterosexual male, and while I believe that institutionalized homophobia damages our society, it’s not really my axe to grind, so I’m not out to attack anyone’s personal beliefs. I disagree with you, mind–but as you said, I can’t superimpose my point of view on you any more than you can on anyone else.
I do hope that as time passes, discussions like this will lead towards people who share your point of view becoming gradually more-accepting of homosexuality. Sen. Simpson wrote a few days ago that working with openly gay Americans over the past several years has helped change his perspective on homosexuality, and that gives me some hope for the future.
You are right. I did misunderstand your’s and I apologize as well. Thus the problems with the type written word vice verbal discussion. Sometime we need that “inflection” to make sure our points are properly taken.
Thanks for the great discussion!