-
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
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, sadly, is now history. And its demise is being celebrated by the media as a milestone on the march to “civil rights” and “equality” for gay men and women.
But in fact, just as with same-sex marriage, DADT has never been about civil rights or equality. Lesbians and homosexuals have always enjoyed the same legal rights and protections as every other American — including the right to serve in the U.S. military, albeit not openly as gay men and women.
Indeed, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a very reasonable and legitimate compromise measure that protected the integrity of the U.S. military’s unique warrior culture, while still allowing gay men and women to serve.
Given that sexuality (unlike race or ethnicity) is a profound behavioral characteristic, and given that the U.S. military fights as a team or unit, and not as individuals, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell made eminent sense.
Unfortunately, the U.S. military took its cues from the politicians and was no match in any case for the raw political power of the gay lobby.
Conservatives, meanwhile, mostly sat out this fight and acquiesced in the left’s attack on this, one of the last remaining bastions of cultural conservatism.
Many of these conservatives will come to regret that they were AWOL in the DADT fight. And that’s because now that the left has weakened and subdued the U.S. military, its confidence level has skyrocketed. Thus it has set its sites set on bigger game. Its next big target: the institution of marriage.
“Now that DADT is behind us, it’s time to go get DOMA, don’t you think?” tweeted Delaware Democratic senator Chris Coons.
“There are still issues concerning benefits that have nothing to do with the legacy of DADT and everything to do with DOMA, the so-called Defense of Marriage Act,” warns the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. For example,
because of DOMA, the surviving same-sex spouse of a service member is out of luck in receiving the same considerations a surviving straight spouse. You better believe there are plans in the works to right this wrong…
As I’ve written here at the American Spectator, I am not optimistic that conservatives and traditionalists can prevail against the awesome political and cultural power of the gay lobby. Our political challenge lies in distinguishing between tolerance and acceptance on the one hand, and affirmation and approval on the other hand.
In our rights-based political culture, that’s not an easy distinction to make. And it’s especially difficult to make that distinction when you are afraid to explain why anyone has legitimate reason — rooted in morality, aesthetics, and public health — not to put homosexuality on a legal and social par with heterosexuality. Yet, that is something which conservatives seem unwilling or unable to do. Consequently, they (we) are losing big time politically.
View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/20/dadt-doma-and-the-failure-of-c
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- There’s Something About Cambridge
- Happy Fourth
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 9.20.11 @ 2:07PM
Once you allow behavior as the basis for civil rights, you allow utter anarchy and the rapid, irreparable decline of civilization, which, after all, is built upon the framework of behavioral restraint.
BobN| 9.21.11 @ 3:49PM
"Behavior" as in religion?
9thID| 9.20.11 @ 3:09PM
The tragedy that is the repeal of DADT is that it was not a return to the original Total Ban that served our military so well for over 200 years. The impeached moral relativist, Slick Willie Clinton, knew it was a bridge too far to go to where we are today in one fell swoop, and so he sowed the seeds of destruction as best he could with DADT. Clinton knew full well that if he promoted moral relativists like himself within the military it would eventually lead to gays serving openly (e.g. Mike Mullen).
Now, we will have to fight as best we can to derail this travesty until 2013 when we can return to the Full Ban. Until then, there will be a gradual decrease in unit cohesion, more gays involved in sexual assaults, and a brain drain of the most qualified. Sadly, we will also have to pay more in taxes to subsidize the sky-high STD rate among gays via the DoD and VA healthcare systems. The WikiLeaks traitor, Bradley Manning is the poster child for the gay military...
Milpundit | 9.21.11 @ 10:36AM
Military readiness and cohesion takes a back seat to a political fad. The left keeps inching their way down the field. Soon criticism of gays will be a hate crime and the only difference between the U.S. and Soviet Russia will be that of latitude and longitude.
Hopeful Christian| 9.20.11 @ 3:16PM
I hope the GOP establishment is proud of itself opposing Christine O'Donnell against Chris Coons. The Republicans caved on this social issue as usual and did nothing to stop this travesty. The GOP has abandoned social issues for manna not from heaven but from Wall Street. It all fits now, the GOP establishment gave us Roe v. Wade-5 parts out of 7. Jesus said the last days will be like the days of Noah...front and center Sodom & Gomorrah, enough said.
Chuck| 9.20.11 @ 3:33PM
You are quite right and if the GOP establishment (Romney) wins the election, economic Republicans will rejoice but not social conservatives. Romney will not change current government policy concerning abortion and non-heterosexual rights in fact it will get worse and traditional marriage and the military will disintegrate into the abyss. Also Obamacare will become a part of the American fabric or what's left of it.
O Tamandua| 9.20.11 @ 3:42PM
The gay lobby (aided by their accomplices in the media and Hollywood, many identifying as "GLBT") has also been successful, tragically, in perpetuating the myth that one is "born gay".
There is no shred of scientific evidence that same-sex attraction is either genetic or inborn (resulting from in utero factors) that has withstood the test of replication; if so, it would be all but shouted from the rooftops.
And this in turn: A) makes it difficult for uninformed conservatives to defend a lot of things, and B) keeps a lot of other people, particularly those with same-sex attractions who do not want them, in the dark about a lot of things as well.
d| 9.21.11 @ 11:23AM
So, please tell us at what age you CHOSE to be straight?
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:09PM
I don't people agree one is "born gay" but what is really easy to be sure of is that orientation cannot be changed, however you receive it.
Remember, actions are controllable, so I don't doubt that many conflicted gay people have chosen to either be celibate or enter straight relationships out of sheer willpower. But what is not open to change is one's innate attractions. Sorry, they just aren't.
Pat| 9.20.11 @ 4:31PM
Awesome cultural power is right. Gays on TV create culture. Gays coming out to their friends and families shift culture. Gays saying, "No, we will not be second-class citizens any more" transform the culture." And I agree, that's pretty awesome. Awesome in the way that you mean ... and awesome in the way that I—as a straight liberal military brat who has been strongly opposed to DADT since it was created—mean.
hmm_contrib| 9.20.11 @ 4:33PM
Sorry, O. T., but that's just not true. "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[2] " ^ Frankowski BL; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). 1) "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.
2) Royal College of Psychiatrists: Submission to the Church of England’s Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality.
There is zero evidence that sexuality is something as foolish and simple as a "choice". And we *have* been shouting it from the rooftops, but that doesn't mean the right is listening.
Mike 3/505| 9.20.11 @ 4:52PM
The cause, whether it's environmental or biological, is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. No matter which, gay tendencies and behavior are both aberrant. I have no issue with folks doing whatever they desire in the privacy of their own home.
But, that behavior is not normal. The machine is not designed that way. Therefore, there is no, repeat no reason for society to give such tendency or behavior official sanction.
Few if anybody, have the moral courage to call it out for what it is...aberrant behavior...Say it like it is...there is something wrong with folks who are gay.
Regards,
Mike
Regards,
Mike
9thID| 9.20.11 @ 5:09PM
From a Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective, homosexuality is sinful/deviant sexual behavior. All humans are created male or female, and thus heterosexual -- it is not a choice. According to Biblical-based science, homosexuality is therefore an unnatural behavioral choice. Even from a secular humanist point of view, vis-a-vis evolution, it is as you say aberrant behavior, and would result in the extinction of the species.
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:13PM
If the test is "extinction of the species," then there are a lot of other policy choices, from abolishing divorce to denying marriage to infertile couples, that are being ignored -- which is really interesting to me. A lot of Christians tend to pick and choose what they want to obey from the Bible, and this is one of them.
Bea Truce| 9.21.11 @ 1:16PM
Biblical-based science? What exactly is that?
As I understand the definition of science:
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]
I am very curious as to what Bible-based science means? Can it be tested? Is it replicable? If the answer is no, then it is not science, it is faith.
Kevin M| 9.23.11 @ 2:30AM
"Biblical-based science" means, in essence, "The Bible says so, and that's that." It is as far from actual science as algae is from prime rib.
Derek Leaberry| 9.20.11 @ 5:17PM
Essentially, social conservatives get nothing from the Republican Party which is a corrupt political organism that's sole purpose to fill the pockets of big business. Remember that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were all for this betrayal of conservative principles. Next time Lawrence Kudlow whines about taxes he should be asked where he is helpful on social issues or is making money the only thing of value in his life.
Clint| 9.20.11 @ 5:23PM
Forward Prance.
Jack| 9.20.11 @ 10:30PM
Epaminondas lay dying on the field of Mantinea in 362 B.C., an iron spear point in his chest, his lover dead beside him (the fifth such lover to die by his side in battle), the Spartans routed from the field by his Sacred Band (an elite force of 150 pairs of lovers), and the Spartan armies forever broken as a major power. As he saw his enemy routed, he grabbed the haft of the spear, and ripping it from his chest he shouted "I DIE UNCONQUERED."
For 20 years he had fought for a free Thebes, leading four campaigns against Sparta alone. He always fought in the front line, risking life and limb for his country and his cause. He was never defeated.
Somehow, I doubted he "pranced" into battle.
Flip through the annals of history and you will find in every generation courageous soldiers who fought honorably and fought well. Soldiers who loved other men. And yes, there have been gay American soldiers too.
No matter what your beliefs are regarding sexuality and morality, you cannot honestly say that gay men can't fight.
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:15PM
Which is why the right opposed DADT repeal. Now we will see gay soldiers fighting well and dying, not prancing, for our country.
PS Notice how the animus always creeps in? Gays are sissies etc. Another reason why gays and lesbians deserve equal protection of the laws.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.20.11 @ 5:53PM
Well, let's get our panties out of a wad. From what I understand, about 2 percent of folks are gay.
Out of that tiny minority, the "flaming prancers" generally don't volunteer anyway.
JDPMB
New acronym in the military:
"Just Don't Pinch My Butt"
Mike 3/505| 9.20.11 @ 8:46PM
Ken my good friend,
It's not just to do with prancers and all of that. Actually, when folks are on the front lines, we tend not to bother with that kind of thinking. It's once we move further back towards garrison that issues begin to crop up.
Issue 1: As a former commander I can say we have now given current commanders 3 more sexes to deal with as far as billeting and privacy issues go. The military separates genders in billeting and latrines based on privacy requirements related to normal sexual orientation. Normal folks, male and female have a natural attraction for each other, which is why to the maximum extent practical, the genders have separate billets and latrines/showers. This repeal has created a whole new level for commanders to manage.
Issue 2: This is a taxpayer issue. Already, the gay folks are now asking to be treated the same as far as allowances for married couples...quarters, insurance etc. So in essence, what we have done is buy into increased cost to sanctify aberrant behavior.
Regards,
Mike
Steve| 9.21.11 @ 11:59AM
Gay men have always used the mens' bathrooms and gay women have always used women's bathrooms. What this policy change has to do with this escapes me. As far as this being a taxpayer issue, gay men and women pay taxes just like everyone else. Why shouldn't they receive the same benefits?
PattyMor| 9.20.11 @ 6:14PM
I can't wait for the Flaming Prancers to walk past the Muslim soliders holding hands. Talk about a clash of values. I put my money on the Muslims and if I were the Flaming Prancers I'd keep my proclivities to myself.
Kevin M| 9.23.11 @ 2:32AM
Really? Because as I understand it, all the right-wing nutsos rave about how tough the Israeli military is, and how they can whup the ass off any of their neighbors, and the Israeli military has allowed openly gay soldiers to serve for decades.
CalMark| 9.20.11 @ 6:36PM
"As I've written here at the American Spectator, I am not optimistic that conservatives and traditionalists can prevail against the awesome political and cultural power of the gay lobby."
More gloom and doom. The American people have not truly been heard from. We've had things rammed down our throats, and "live and let live" (which is what they thought they were getting) will soon be replaced by "accept or be doomed." We will soon reach a tipping point, and I think the gay lobby will rue the day they took us on.
As for all you sanguine types, gays are aggressive and prey on the young and unsuspecting--I saw it in three Navy commands, two of them seagoing. Gays are moral and mental deviants, however talented or functional. Put another way: the kind of life considered "normal" and its "lifestyle choices" for gays get a straight person classified as seriously disturbed.
If a thing cannot continue, it won't. There is nothing scarier than a moral people finding they have been duped into force-fed degeneracy masquerading as "tolerance." There will be hell to pay, and Guardino's pessimism, rooted in the belief that Americans embrace deviancy, is unfounded.
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:19PM
A majority of Americans would disagree with you and your revolting restatement of every hatred and animus used against gay people. Please say these things out loud as often as possible -- you will do wonders for the gay rights cause!
jeff johnson| 9.21.11 @ 3:15PM
CalMark, your thinly veiled threats of violence strike me as a sign of moral and mental deviance. Try to calm down and be patient. After you have witnessed gay spouses somberly accepting a folded American flag from a Marine color guard in honor of their gay spouse who gave the "last full measure of devotion" to their country, and after you have witnessed gay families raising superbly admirable citizens of this great land, you will finally make peace with this change you find so shocking. It will be as natural as accepting inter-racial couples. Or haven't you recovered from that one yet?
dugbug| 9.20.11 @ 8:35PM
Poor John: What will he have to write about now? His America is going away. How sad.
Silvio Levy| 9.20.11 @ 9:28PM
I wonder how it is Israel, a country we conservatives admire and defend so much, still hasn't been destroyed from inside. They've allowed homos to serve openly in their military since 1993.
dougbug| 9.20.11 @ 9:38PM
Excellent point, Silvio. But it's lost on Neanderthals. All these folks think about is gay stuff. Makes me wonder....
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:21PM
Most straight guys I know could care less about gays or lesbians. It's the self-hating closet cases who are the loudest in their condemnation. See gayhomophobe.com for a pretty funny list of anti-gay types who ended up being gay themselves LOL.
bsdn| 9.20.11 @ 11:02PM
The whole repeal thing stunk.
As a heterosexual, you can't sh*t, shower, shave or sleep with a member of the opposite sex/gender in the military because- guess what? Sexual attraction and the whole male/female thing, call it what you will, the birds and the bees or whatever.
But homosexuals can.
IOW for those who can't connect the dots, heterosexuals are now discriminated against and if there was such a thing is this world as justice, there would no longer be any sexual segregation or separate barracks or bathrooms in the military.
Ain't gonna happen right?
The homosexuals are whiners and they need to suck it up, shut up and stop complaining about "discrimination".
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:22PM
But gays *are* discriminated against. DOMA is a vicious, hateful law that denies federal recognition to lawfully married gay couples.
Kevin M| 9.23.11 @ 2:34AM
Bsdn - it seems the basis of your concern is that you think any gay man is going to take one look at you and want to have sex with you, and scope out your junk, and all that. Let me give you a suggestion: don't worry about that. I know your type, and trust me, you're not the sort we want.
reb_con| 9.21.11 @ 11:35AM
80% of Americans favored the repeal of DADT. 80% of Americans understand that who you love has nothing to do with your ability to fight or otherwise serve your nation in the military.
The rest of you are clinging to outmoded prejudices, elevating your religion above American principles of liberty and equality in the public and governmetnal sphere, which is just wrong and inherently unAmerican. Reasonable people unfettered by prejudice or adherence to arbitrary religious doctrine have come to realize that homosexuality is a trait like left-handedness or blue eyes, even if it's genesis is not exactly simple or clear, that it is objectively morally neutral, and that gay people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
As for the rest of you: evolve already. Or become this generation's equivalent of the racist grandma.
heh| 9.21.11 @ 11:36AM
This magazine will go to the ends of the earth to proclaim public opinion is against such things as Obamacare and what have you, yet can't bring itself to admit that the majority of the country doesn't agree with its anti-gay stance. Public opinion: the clincher when it agrees with you; "the people are not being heard" when it doesn't.
But hey, at least we integrated the military: provided some good fodder for Vietnam while DOMA father Bush II got drunk in Texas. Maybe the prancers will take the brunt of Afghanistan from now on.
Paul| 9.21.11 @ 12:24PM
"aesthetics' ? How utterly insulting and demeaning. You are so hopefully predjudiced I won't even try to argue against you.
Five years from now, when barely a ripple has resulted from this new policy you will still be proclaiming the ruination of our military and world.
The younger generation, even younger evangelicals and conseratives get this. One the old, predjudiced older generations are gone (and I am 57), your attitude will be in the ludicrous dustbin of history.
Campbell| 9.21.11 @ 12:41PM
This is fun!
Aesthetics - yes indeed! In the UK edition of 'Queer As Folk' a mother of a long out gay son was advising the upset mother of a newly out young man. Cup of tea in one hand, cigarette in the other (I said this was the UK version) she offered this very wise advice to the aesthetically distressed "You know, it's fine,really it is, as long as you don't think about the bum thing"
Dan| 9.21.11 @ 1:24PM
I know, I was wondering that too ... if there's one thing gay men get right it's aesthetics LOL.
Campbell| 9.21.11 @ 12:37PM
Do any of the opponents of DADT ever look beyond the USA to see the effects of gays in the military?
I mean no one,but no one, has ever accused the Israelis of being a bunch of nancies and they've had gay serving soldiers for years.
Likewise, I believe the American forces in Afghanistan are grateful for the contribution being made by we British who, like the Israelis, have had an open policy on gay men and women in the forces for a considerable period of time.
And, let's face it, homosexuals have been serving, sometimes with great distinction, in the military since God was a boy. Wasn't there an instance during WW2 when Eisenhower was buckling under pressure to dismiss serving lesbians ? As I recall he only resiled when his own driver told him that if that was the case he would have to type his own letters and drive his own car from then on in.
Relax - your soldiers, sailors and airmen and women are in the main more mature about what they require in a comrade than all the armchair warriors frothing at the gills about this. At least they have been in every bother army that has admitted out gays; are Americans different?
HOMO YOU DINT| 9.21.11 @ 1:13PM
too bad Mr. Guardiano doesn't quite understand the pharse "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL"....truly pathetic.
Stephan m| 9.21.11 @ 2:32PM
This doesn't bother me.
The military has rules against sexual advances. If gays in the military overstep the rules, they'll get kicked out.
The military (and our public policy) isn't about whether or not people are righteous or "aesthetically appealing."
It's pragmatic. As a Lutheran, I believe that the purpose of civic morality and law is to prevent out-right chaos. I don't think gays are a source of that.
And I support their right to live as they choose. Their lifestyle choices are just as damning as believing in false faiths. But the point of law isn't to save the world, it's about maintaining order. A gay soldier can be a completely functional soldier. So the issue is irrelevant.
jeff johnson| 9.21.11 @ 3:07PM
From the perspective of Judeo-Christian morality, slavery is fine. You can be punished, however, if you beat your slave so severely that he cannot rise after two days. It's good to know that Judeo-Christian values actually draw the line somewhere.
Clearly, our modern moral sensibilities are augmented quite beyond those of the Bible, since today we so clearly and profoundly reject slavery as an immoral obscenity.
This consideration should give any thinking person good reason to doubt that Biblical objections to such abominations as lying with men or eating shellfish should be taken seriously.
I'm a fully grown heterosexual man, well into middle-age, but I can still recall the overpowering preoccupations of post-pubescent sexual desires, particularly intensely stimulated by contact with or visual exposure to the female form. What reasonable man can actually believe that a man feeling such profound biological compulsion could actually decide, contrary to these overpowering forces, that they wanted to have sex with men rather than women? Upon considering this question, I can only conclude that men who supposedly choose to be gay are actually compelled by biological urges that rival mine in every respect except that they are stimulated by a different object, that of the male physique. It seems elementary and hardly debatable when you truly consider how difficult it is to ignore and deny the power of natural sexual urges, or honestly take into account the wild diversity of reproductive behavior that is natural to God's own creation.
What this article completely misses, blinded as the author is by false conceptions of what morality is and from where it arises, is that the homosexual community lobbying for rights to enjoy the bonds of marriage and to honor themselves by risking their lives for our country, is a triumph of conservative values. I might pardon the author's reservations if the homosexual community were lobbying for the right to engage in wildly indulgent displays of ejaculatory and orgasmic exuberance in the public square. It is rather more conservative and polite to keep bodily functions of every sort confined to the private domain.
Stephen| 9.26.11 @ 1:32PM
"DADT has never been about civil rights or equality. [...] albeit not openly [...] legitimate reason -- rooted in morality, aesthetics, and public health -- not to put homosexuality on a legal and social par ..."
You don't even believe your rhetoric, John! Contradictions throughout your piece reveal your true agenda, and it ain't pretty!
And aesthetics?!? What are you smoking?
Boo| 9.26.11 @ 5:45PM
"Lesbians and homosexuals have always enjoyed the same legal rights and protections as every other American -- including the right to serve in the U.S. military, albeit not openly as gay men and women."
The fact that you felt compelled to put an "albeit" in there demonstrates that you know what you're describing is not, in fact, equal rights.
Brandon Robers | 10.1.11 @ 11:07AM
I have covered this and related issues on my blog and in the Baltimore Sun. Take a look at the site below for news and analysis related to this and other civil-military culture issues.
In a recent op-ed I argued that, regardless of your feelings about homosexuality and whether or not you supported DADT, that the end of this policy is likely to have positive effects on civil-military relations in the country.
Brandon
http://civilmilitarygap.wordpress.com/