Virginian-Pilot columnist Kerry Dougherty took on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in her column in Sunday’s paper. Although I don’t always agree with her, she usually is at least rational in her analysis. This time, in her effort to support the opinion of Senator Jim Webb on the issue, she relies instead on an emotion:
No one seems to like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But at the risk of sounding hopelessly old-fashioned, let me suggest that keeping your mouth shut about your sex life is a very civilized idea.
That’s not old-fashioned, Kerry. That’s just plain ignorance. Or worse.
Seriously – do you think the only thing that gay people talk about is their sex lives? If that’s the case, then I must have missed the memo.
It is an insult to all of the gays and lesbians who serve in our military to reduce their lives to their sexuality. It’s akin to saying women shouldn’t serve in the military because they are too weak, or blacks in the military can only be cooks. Repeating a worn out – and blatantly untrue – statement does nothing but offend.
Perhaps, Kerry, you should familiarize yourself with some of the folks who have been discharged under the policy:
Kopfstein found it difficult to answer casual questions about her personal life without lying or concealing the whole truth.
[…]
A decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist, I was discharged from the U.S. Army under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” though my accuser was never identified. I was “outed” by a stream of anonymous e-mails to my superiors in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C.
By far, the story I recall most recently was the one of the woman who was outed by a civilian police officer and discharged under DADT.
Just where are these gay people who talk about their sex lives?
As for Sen. Webb – well, yes, I’m disappointed in his response. But it should come as no surprise: after all, he has been pretty consistent on this since the hearings earlier this year. I know Webb doesn’t think I like him but that’s not completely true, mainly because of an incident I witnessed during his run in 2006. I recall Webb schooling a certain local candidate about why that candidate should oppose the Marshall-Newman Amendment. In those few moments, he showed me that he could be a fair, level-headed man. His stance on DADT, though, is wrong. The military doesn’t need protection from “teh gays” any more today than it did from blacks and women.
It’s time to let everyone who is willing to serve do so openly and honestly.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Amen.
Um, also? Kerry Dougherty clearly hasn’t spent enough time with enlisted heterosexual Marines if she thinks that you’re not occasionally going to hear about someone’s sex life in granular detail.
Thanks, Silence. Those were my thought reading Dougherty’s column. All folks who serve should abide by the same “don’t ask, don’t tell” rule and anyone, straight or gay, who breaks it, should be discharged. That would be impossible to do, but make a reasonable rule and there will be reasonable enforcement.
There should be no double standard.
You are spot on Vivian!! Thank you for speaking the truth. Senator Webb is often quite good but he’s failed miserably on this one.
I must respectfully disagree with your view that Ms. Dougherty is most times”at least rational in her analysis”. By my recollection, she has opposed just about every progressive initiative in this region, providing the public with incorrect and biased information, non-factual opinion, and often mean spirited personal invective. That is probably her job, to rabble rouse and stir up controversy. But her extremely negative and unfair twist on important issues has been an anchor around the necks of those trying to move this region forward, and a far,far cry from being anywhere near rational or analytical. For sensationalized negativism she gets an A, but for reasoned, factual analysis I grade her an F. I am hopeful Mr. Chesley can provide a counterbalance, so the readers of the Pilot can at least have the glass if half full point of view.
What would happen if a straight sailor makes a sexual comment regarding females in the presence of a female officer? Or about a female enlisted in the presence of a male officer?
I think you know as well as I do that there would be at least some form of punishment resulting from any combination of those actions. Now think about if the men and women in the equation were off varying sexualities.
A gay officer makes a sexual comment about males in the presence of other female service members…
What happens here? Does the fact that the offender is gay mean that he cannot be punished or verbally reprimanded? There are tons of other complications that will arise from situations like these, ship birthing, etc..
Imagine going into see a recruiter and asking what DADT meant? The answer you should get, “We don’t ask you if you’re gay, you don’t tell us if your gay. Be a good soldier, work hard and you won’t have any problems.”
Without DADT; “Why is there a sexual preference question on this application?” “Because we have to know where you will be sleeping, gender isn’t specific enough anymore”
Which one is more contrary to gay rights? Would gay rights activists argue that gays should be treated the same as men and birthed in the same quarters?
This is a complicated issue, I don’t think we should be rushing headfirst into it.