-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I appreciate John Tabin’s response to my latest post on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; however, his logic is spurious. He asserts (but does not show or demonstrate) that keeping your sex life private and out of the workplace is an impossible task.
No, it’s not. It’s actually pretty easy.
But the upshot of John’s post is that if any military service member or leader suspects that you’re gay — because, say, you inadvertently make an innocent stray comment — why forget about it! You’re out of there — out of the military I mean. You’ll be drummed out of the service for good.
I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t true. Most military leaders, in fact, would prefer to look the other way and to ignore a soldier’s sexuality. Indeed, military leaders are, as I’ve indicated here at The American Spectator, loath to initiate separation procedures against a military member unless and until that service member makes an issue of his sexuality.
Certainly, if I were in an officer in charge of a military unit and I suspected that one of my soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines were gay I would do… absolutely nothing. And most of my contemporaries would do the same, I think.
So the idea that gay men and women serving in the military now necessarily live in constant fear of being “outed” is false. Army Private Bradley Manning certainly didn’t seem to have any such fear.
Why, then, have the ban on openly gay service in the first place?
Because sexual dynamics are inherently disruptive and you want to keep these dynamics in check. Because sexuality is a behavioral characteristic which can and does shape human behavior, and in profound and often unsettling ways. And because in the Marines, infantry and other combat arms especially, esprit de corps requires a strong sense of brotherly love, not same-sex attraction and allure.
Homosexuality, in fact, is incompatible with a shared sense of manhood and masculinity that binds infantry units together into a brotherhood. Hence the reasonable compromise measure, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which allows gay men and women to serve, albeit discreetly.
And there’s one more reason: because the entire Judeo-Christian ethic that underlies Western civilization and the United States of America doesn’t recognize homosexuality as being on a par with heterosexuality. Yet giving gays explicit legal recognition for military service would, in effect, help to legitimize homosexuality.
Of course, lesbians and homosexuals have and now enjoy the same civil and constitutional rights that every other American now enjoys. What they lack, and what they seek, is special legal recognition of their sexual status and orientation. That is, they have rights as Americans; but they lack rights as lesbians and homosexuals.
That’s why it’s disconcerting to hear John rehash the tired old propagandistic liberal cliché about “the days when it was acceptable in America to fire someone because you learned he was gay.”
Those supposedly dark and dreary days are largely a figment of the liberal-left imagination. Indeed, if such days ever existed, they certainly don’t seem to have held back the social and economic progress of gay men and women in America. Lesbians and homosexuals, after all, rank among the most talented, well educated and financially well off socioeconomic groups in the United States.
But what’s most objectionable about John’s post is his assertion that Congress better act to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” now because otherwise the federal courts will force them to; and that would be disastrous.
Of course, this is the same argument that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) have used to try and force Congress to act: “Preemptively capitulate to liberal judges lest they make a hash of things by unilaterally imposing their will,” as National Review explained.
But “that’s obviously not how legislators in a self-governing society should go about their business,” NR helpfully added. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell must stay or go on its merits as determined by our elected representatives. Shame on Robert Gates [and John Tabin] for suggesting otherwise.”
John may be right; we’ll see: The Senate may vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”; but if it does, that would be wrong and a historic mistake.
After all, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Jamos Amos, has basically pleaded with Congress not to force open homosexuality on the Corps — not while Marines are fighting and dying in close combat in Afghanistan.
What kind of message does it send to our Marines if Congress now simply ignores the Commandant’s plea and forces upon them anyhow open homosexuality within the ranks?
At the very least Congress should wait a few weeks until January when it can do its due diligence and devote more time to seriously studying this important issue. Surely, that’s not asking too much. And surely, that is the right thing to, even if, ultimately, you want to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/18/re-why-dadt-has-to-go
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Cartman| 12.18.10 @ 3:27AM
Ya know, neither of you gentleman have served in the military. You know people who have, and have asked them stuff like "So, how is it?", "Ya ever kill anyone?" , "Why did you go in?" "I have to get a chip. Want one?" But YOU have never served. Let me clue you in.
There are gay people in the service. GASP! We probably know who they are. If they are good troops and do their job, we most likely don't care. I have never asked, wanted to know, nor cared about Sgt. Xs sex-life with his wife. As a matter of fact, if you have ever seen Mrs. Sgt. X, you would probably NEVER want to hear about it either.
So let's cut to the chase. You idiots in Washington D. C. (writers, Congressional aides, pals, butt-friends) are in some kind of mutual masturbation race to see who can design a military you know nothing about. Does that about sum it up?
There is no reason to allow open homosexuality (gerbil sex) into the military. None. Explain to us without some weepy "gee, wouldn't it be swell" explanation.
Here is the question: Would allowing open homosexuality (kissing, hand-holding, hugging) in the military be beneficial to the mission?
Now, let me say one thing here (and gays can stomp their little feet all they want): kissing, hand-holding and hugging is NORMAL between a man and a woman. So, suck it! If you join the military, abide by its rules.
John Guardiano | 12.18.10 @ 7:38AM
Mr. Cartman,
Thanks for your note and for sharing your thoughts, but you're wrong: My military service record is modest and pales in comparison to the sacrifices made by many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. However, I am a proud military veteran and current reservist who has served in Iraq.
Regards,
John
pspdemian| 12.18.10 @ 9:17PM
The comments here against repeal of DADT are exactly the same as those opposing de-segregation of the military (troops don't want it, African Americans have uncontrollable sexual urges, violates laws of God and nature, etc.). The only difference is that the arguments back then were much fiercer.
Eric Cartman| 12.18.10 @ 3:49AM
I really mean that, Tabin. Explain to me mission enhancement without using the words :fairness, acceptance, false stop-loss arguments (like gays would flood in to fight in Afghanistan - bullshit!). Both you and Guardiano sit around in some comfy DC office while my friends eat reconstituted spaghetti in some sand pit in Iraq. Screw the both of you, aholes. Stop telling us how wonderful we should be. YOU have no idea - Asswipe!
Craig| 12.18.10 @ 4:47AM
Current service members enlisted under one set of rules, of conduct, of 'morals'. Will they be given the chance to 'de-enlist', to resign honorably when that code changes? And, please, skip the 'obey orders' routine: orders are 'go fight in Iraq', not 'go bunk with openly gay Randy'.
Pelligrino| 12.18.10 @ 8:11AM
I read about 85% pure malarkey on this issue; Mr. Guardiano's piece starts out weak. One must get to paragraph 5 to finally get to something resembling clear written communication.
Let’s talk clearly and succinctly: Folks we could -- today – further cripple our military, our defense, and nation's war fighting capabilities for the present AND perhaps forever today.
Today in the U.S. Senate.
Why?
I have to conclude that evil -- disguised as worldly logic -- will triumph. Yes, it would be evil for DADT to be altered.
If you cannot understand this, then you have many problems. But you also do not have real life experience trying to build teamwork/cohesion in young people from very diverse backgrounds (it is nothing today to have 5 different languages spoken in your platoon of 27-30 troops AND no they are NOT literate. Try writing a few paragraphs to communicate to your unit simple objectives and goals. You’ll quickly realize that language and reading skills are wanting.) with very diverse interest and goals.
But the bigger issues are that they are very juvenile in their outlooks and behaviors. (Yes, that would be obvious in that they are ‘young’ people) They are overly interested in alcohol and engage at every opportunity. They are overly interested in sex and engage at every opportunity (or try to or brag openly that they do). They also, at times, steal from one another. Some will also do drugs, some will sell them.
As I have written here before: Today's junior leader (where a military will sink or swim) must contend with Goliath-like issues daily. The above are just a few. Many of these Goliath-like issues have nothing to do with sufficient ammunition, drinking water, time for troops to sleep/rest, quality training facilities, quality weapons, or horrendous weather conditions. The bigger, much more arduous issues are human-to-human issues.
And they are often not good.
The last thing you need as a junior leader is more DRAMA in the unit. You already have it in heaps and bounds.
A real example any leader could share with you. Yes, deploy your unit for just 3-4 weeks, leave back a few (as is custom and the norm) and have 1) guys petrified that those staying back will carouse with their wives and girl friends (some of the girlfriends or wives are also active-duty military personnel), and 2) yes, have your stay-back guys indeed sleep with the wives and girlfriends of those deployed – on an almost nightly basis.
Then watch how that plays out for unit cohesion, trust, and your combat capabilities. (And this is just one tiny example of all the ills that plague modern day small unit leadership.)
And some want to add openly (likely aggressive) gay activity to this already over-combustible situation?
How does unit disarray help us fight and win America’s present and YES future conflicts/wars?
The present-day chaos nearly cripples us. It really does.
We will never again have a thoughtful, truly bright, truly dedicated, military-focused young man eagerly agree to undergo 2-4 years of cadet training to become a junior officer and try to manage chaos.
We already have a lot of chaos in the routine day-to-day in our units. A lot of this has to do with our fallen human condition.
Let's not add to it. DADT repeal MUST NOT be considered.
This is for the sake of our nation; it is for the sake of today's and future junior military leaders who protect you and me, your family and mine.
Curly Smith| 12.18.10 @ 8:19AM
"Certainly, if I were in an officer in charge of a military unit and I suspected that one of my soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines were gay I would do… absolutely nothing. And most of my contemporaries would do the same, I think."
If your contemporaries did as you suggest then they'd be following DADT. If you merely "suspected" that one of yours was gay then they wouldn't be "openly gay".
You could probably get a good idea of the impact of allowing gays to serve "openly" by looking at what happened to the Episcopal Church when they allowed Priests to be "openly gay" - the Church lost so many members that it's now a shell of its former self. The reason is along the lines of what Eric Cartman said above, the congregants didn't care if a Priest was gay as long as they did their jobs. But, those that were "openly gay" tended to believe that the Church existed solely to expand "gay rights", which seems to be lacking a basis is Scripture. The congregants didn't care about the Priest's sex life, they didn't want to know about it, they didn't want to think about it -- and the same holds true if the Priest is "openly heterosexual".
Maybe somebody should tell the Bill Clintons of the world that your life should be about more than sex.
Ken Miller| 12.18.10 @ 9:48AM
In the movie Restrepo, there is a scene where a couple of young tough infantryman dance around inside one of the units they are living in. That scene alone is why we should not repeal DADT. Young men being goofy in a non sexual way as a ways to let off steam in a tough and dangerous combat outpost is essential to unit cohesion and stress relief. THe introduction of an openly gay soldier would turn a goofy moment into one of confusion as to whether or not the dance was sexual in nature.
DADT works, to change the law would open a pandoras box of other sexual preferences the military does not need to contend with.
m| 12.18.10 @ 11:03AM
If they do passed the law to let gays served in the military, some of them are going to retired from the military. The voters don't like Obama's policies. Since Obama's job performance approval rating is going very low, he will be a one term President until 2012.
earl trowbridge| 12.18.10 @ 12:23PM
Your homophobia is showing. Just search for "homosexual" and replace it with "Negro" and you are back to pre-Truman armed forces. There are gays and lesbians around us in our dormitories, in our police forces and, yes, in the armed forces. You may not like it but that is the way it is. So get used to it. Stop whining. Stop whipping out choice passages of the bible and ignoring the parts about love (and slavery, and weird dietary prohibitions). Worry about your own love life. Get on with you job. Jeez.
earl trowbridge| 12.18.10 @ 12:23PM
Your homophobia is showing. Just search for "homosexual" and replace it with "Negro" and you are back to pre-Truman armed forces. There are gays and lesbians around us in our dormitories, in our police forces and, yes, in the armed forces. You may not like it but that is the way it is. So get used to it. Stop whining. Stop whipping out choice passages of the bible and ignoring the parts about love (and slavery, and weird dietary prohibitions). Worry about your own love life. Get on with you job. Jeez.
Oldefarte| 12.18.10 @ 2:03PM
Andrew is correct and John is incorrect! Andrew is slightly incorrect in that J-C ethics/religions demand/state in no uncertain terms that HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN AND AN IMMORALITY [and does not simply subjugate it to hetersexuality]. As stated, homosexuals' desire is not simply equal status but their believed superior status instead. This repeal will destroy our military!!!!!!!!!
earl trowbridge| 12.18.10 @ 6:11PM
Old Fart indeed. Twenty-five countries allow military service by openly gay people as of June 2009: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay. They have not been destroyed. Get over it. Also, Jesus never once said anything about homosexuality period. You need to check your facts before you write let your homophobic rants. And ask yourself: why am I so threatened by this?
TheTruthCanBeDifficult| 12.18.10 @ 6:18PM
DADT is history. Now, thank god, the endless bigoted based comments against gays based on this law will stop. And the military will do just fine.
Pelligrino| 12.18.10 @ 7:43PM
Never heard one word about how this 'policy' will help us on the battlefield or the high seas versus Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, the Taliban, and maybe, yes, quite probably Pakistan.
Think this doesn’t matter? Think again.
See, every now and again we do indeed get a case and full prosecution of a male servicemember committing a rape on a female member of the military.
Rare, but you see it occur.
In the last decade; however, our US military has worked very hard to hush, hush the gay sodomizing the unwilling male. It was silenced because, well, the brass did not want to admit that they knew gay male X was indeed gay and more than just a bit out of the closet.
After all, this would look really bad. The leadership knew that male X is gay but was too distracted/busy /lazy/incompetent? to begin the process to exit male X from the service.
Think what would result: UCMJ for the leadership (failure to abide by DADT) and massive lawsuit AND huge image damage to the unit, branch of service.
No, no. That would just not do. So the male-on-male sex is hushed up. See, it wasn’t sodmizing, it was a barracks fight. Or an assault. Simple battery. Maybe even two guys duking it out over a girl. Lots of ways to camouflage what occurred.
But now? What will our ‘NEW’ new military service landscape look like?
Just get ready for lots of not just "he said, she said" but also "he said and he said."
Except some of it will be real. Maybe a lot of it. Yes, you will hear of ole sarge just gettin' a little too tight and friendly with the new recruit.
If the new recruit squeals (verbally expresses his dismay/objection via an official complaint), well, ole sarge will just say the twerp is acting the fool because he didn't want to obey a lawful order. Or the new troop is making this up as a smokescreen to cover weak duty performance.
The brass will give ole sarge the benefit of the doubt and no adverse action will be taken.
Next thing you know, ole sarge (see, he still has the 'hots' for the guy) has assigned the new recruit to be his personal driver....Thus, a lot of potential one-on-one time out in the field.
(Or this 'episode' could feature a male major with a male lieutenant. Heck, it’ll be the supply sergeant and the parts clerk or the dining facility manager and the line cook. The scenarios are truly endless.)
The closed and close environment of the military due to remote training sites, remote bases or remote deployment sites means 'lookout;' this will be rampant.
As mentioned, it already is. You just don’t hear much of it. Just like you don’t hear all those campus date rapes reported because, well, the university is NOT going to tolerate bad publicity. If you think this just too fictitious, then you’ve not read the very telling accounts of attractive, chaste women who have been in the military.
In the military, whether it is guard duty, a perimeter patrol, security checks, one is often performing a duty on a "shift" from midnight until 8 a.m. Just the two of you. Quiet. 90% of the unit fast asleep. Not much happening. Opportunity for some hanky panky. How romantic indeed....
Remember the two lieutenants in the nuke missle silo in North Dakota? (Except he was NOT interested. But let's say he is, or they both are.)
Any real inspection of military workspaces/living spaces shows lots of porno flicks on DVDs, magazines, etc. This stuff is everywhere. (Just push the eject button on the DVD near you when inspecting and see what pops out.) The guys are overly sexually interested now (and have been for years).
Now we're adding "this" to the mix.
OPENLY adding it.
This new dynamic is to our national detriment.
In all this brief discussion in just these short weeks since November 2d, I heard very little about the military mission, our military readiness, and FIGHTING and WINING America's wars.
(Did you hear any discussion of how this will alter cadet study/training/development at our service academies? No, you didn't. But it will.)
This legislation was rammed through by those who seek the destruction of every foundation that has made this country exceptional.
We will now have endless harassment and lawsuits which chase out of the military's true believing chaplains, chaplains who would otherwise have been counseling what Hebrew and Christian faith clearly say on this subject.
Yes, this was a big part of the liberal/aggressive gay agenda: Eliminate chaplains with solid faith; remove solid spiritual assistance, counseling, and leadership within our military's units.
After all, why should our military have chaplains in the first place?
The unstated goal: Cripple our U.S. Armed Forces.
I am ashamed of my county's national leadership. Get rid of all of them.
Every last one.
(There is no way that the American peoples' business needed to be done in the U.S. Senate on December 18th. A recess for this Congress would have been the norm.)
I know that this first must be signed by the president, but that’s a given, right?
Are they going to 'celebrate' this at the White House on Monday?
How sick.
We've just handicapped every aspect of our nation's future.
darcy| 12.19.10 @ 1:20AM
You are right, Pelligrino. Everyone here who disagrees with you has a compromised conscience.
Now watch the fur fly.