-
Johan Santana Shines on Rusty Staub Bobblehead Day
May 26, 2012 | 8 comments
-
WaPost Criticizes Romney's Lack of Rhythm
May 25, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New Poll
May 24, 2012 | 22 comments
-
Quigley's Quixotic Defense of Liz Warren
May 23, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Robin Gibb, R.I.P.
May 20, 2012 | 15 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I respectfully disagree with David N. Bass' assertion that American soldier Stephen Hill's question concerning the status of gay and lesbian soldiers under a Republican administration was "loaded."
On the contrary, Hill's question was quite reasonable and, as I wrote last night in my post-mortem on the debate, Santorum's answer was also reasonable. Santorum made it clear that if he were elected President that he would restore DADT. He also appeared to leave the door open to allow military personnel who have already declared they are gay or lesbian under the new policy adopted under the Obama Administration. Hill wanted to know what would happen to him and other military personnel in his situation with a Republican in the White House and Santorum gave his answer.
Santorum's reasonable and measured tones notwithstanding, I do disagree with the overall substance of his answer.
First, Santorum began by stating, "I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military." However, Hill never said he was engaging in sexual activity while on duty in Iraq. He merely declared his sexual orientation. Nothing more and nothing less. The issue of Hill engaging in sexual activity while on duty in Iraq is an unsubstantiated assumption on the part of Santorum.
Second, Santorum made the case that allowing gay and lesbian military personnel to serve only was to "inject social policy into the military" and "social experimentation with our military." Santorum is, of course, entitled to this opinion. But he ought to keep in mind that who opposed the integration of our armed forces in the 1940s used very similar language. Consider the remarks of Colonel Eugene Householder who was speaking on behalf of General George C. Marshall before the Conference of Negro Editors & Publishers on December 8, 1941 - the day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor:
The Army is not a sociological laboratory; to be effective it must be organized and trained according to the principles which will insure success. Experiments to meet the wishes and demands of the champions of every race and creed for the solution of their problems are a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.
It was a weak argument then. It is even a weaker argument now.
Finally, Santorum states, "Sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual." Yet when we watch the local television news during Thanksgiving and Christmas we see images of soldiers returning from overseas to spend the holidays with their families. For those soldiers who must remain away from home, we see video taped messages to their loved ones especially wives or girlfriends. And lest we forget about our soldiers who live with their families on military bases. So, unless a soldier has no family at all it is impossible for a soldier to keep it to himself or herself and it is disingenuous for Santorum to pretend otherwise.
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/23/thoughts-on-santorum-dadt
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Heavens to Betsy!
- Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
- In Midst of Poverty, an Educational Oasis
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dai Alanye| 9.23.11 @ 12:46PM
I would imagine the large majority of servicemen and women would strongly prefer to avoid being presented with any expressions of open homosexuality. This was certainly the attitude of the troops when I was on active duty, and I favor it now.
Santorum's position is culturally sound without being openly harsh or insulting to homosexuals. In the long run it will help maintain an effective military.
hmm_contrib| 9.23.11 @ 1:14PM
"expressions of open homosexuality" means, what, exactly? Men having sex with men on the parade ground? Or a man discussing a date he had last night with another man, having a picture of his partner with his personal effects, making a phone call home to a same-gender boyfriend, the same way straight solders are and have been doing about their girlfriends or wives.
It's also no longer the atitude of all troops, if even a majority. Millennials, in particular, find this bigotry not just intrinsically wrong but baffling. They have served with gay servicemen and women as long as they have been in, and they... don't care. What matter is that you can do the job, and gays are no more or less likely to be good at their jobs than straights. Gay or straight is rapidly becoming about as exciting as someone being left or right handed.
The only thing that reinstating DADT will make more effective is the protection for the feelings of those with religious motives for not being exposed to something they don't like. It's not the job of the US military to shield you from stuff you don't want to see. If a given man can do the job, worrying about where he dates the "wrong" gender isn't the business of or of interest to the US government.
Tiddly| 9.23.11 @ 3:26PM
It's same-sex, not same-gender. Gender is a grammar term.
And open acknowledgment of sexual perversion in the ranks is a disgusting and immoral distraction to troops who have a job to do.
Teflon93| 9.23.11 @ 1:25PM
It not only is possible but was quite the case in the centuries before DADT for homosexuals serving in the military to be discreet.
There is no place for gay pride in the U.S. military---only pride in the service and pride in America.
This goes for every other bit of identity politics as well. Service before self.
hmm_contrib| 9.23.11 @ 1:38PM
Nice dodge, but you're not answering the question. Should gays be able to, for example, have a picture of their boyfriend just like straights do of their girlfriend? Should a gay guy be able to mention his husband the way straight soliders do their wives? You're trying to make this about "gay pride", but how is wanting to see a pic of your spouse back home "gay pride"?
CalMark| 9.23.11 @ 2:14PM
No.
Let's stop pretending that "gayness" is OK. It's not. It's deranged. Just because the shrinks were browbeaten into saying it ain't so doesn't make it less so. Saying that it "occurs in nature" is irrelevant--so do cancer and insanity.
Giving moral equivalence to gays is the mark of a degenerate society. Our elites may think it's wonderful, but average Americans, with traditional morals, don't.
hope| 9.23.11 @ 1:27PM
Steven Hill could snap Santorum's scrawny neck. Hill deserves respect for fighting for this country. BYW, Alexander the Great...guess what....gay and his military strategies are still being used today. Sexuality does not matter when the bullets start flying.
CalMark| 9.23.11 @ 2:17PM
"Steven Hill could snap Santorum's scrawny neck."
Oh, nice. You go, Mr. Civilized! You don't like someone's argument, and can't find a way to counter it...so you advocate violence.
"Sexuality does not matter when the bullets start flying."
The hell it doesn't. If you're stuck in a foxhole or a ship with an openly gay guy, especially if he's known to be aggressive in his conquests, you better believe it's gonna matter. Whether you like it or not, the straight is going to have trouble shutting his eyes at night.
Join the real world. And stop threatening violence against people you disagree with.
Derek Leaberry| 9.23.11 @ 1:46PM
Mr. Goldstein is fine and dandy with dishonorable conduct. That is why Mr. Goldstein is not a conservative.
9thID| 9.23.11 @ 4:01PM
Goldstein is the token Liberal on this site...
Derek Leaberry| 9.23.11 @ 4:49PM
Doesn't he have Frum Forum on which to post his anti-conservative conservatism?
NotALibertarian| 9.23.11 @ 2:26PM
Mr. Goldstein is in complete denial about the sexual dynamics that occur whenever members of attracting genders are thrown together in close quarters. The repeal of DADT was an absurd attempt to pander to wealthy, powerful political interests.
And I'd really like to know if Mr. Goldstein, who matter-of-factly equates sexual behavior with race, cringes when people liken pederasty to pedophilia
Respect for those serving| 9.23.11 @ 2:42PM
Santorum says there is no place for sex in the military so he will reinstate don't ask, don't tell. He tried to make it sound like an even handed policy. But which soldiers get fired when they say something that discloses their sexual indentity? Not the heterosexuals. Just the gays. That is not even handed. Santorum really means that there is a place for heterosexuals in the military but not for gays. Why can't he state his position honestly? He can't state it honestly because he knows it is discriminatory
9thID| 9.23.11 @ 4:20PM
As a biblical Christian and a combat arms Veteran I believe the only long-term, moral, and realistic solution to this dilemma is a return to the original TOTAL BAN that served our nation so well for over 200 years. Slick Willy Clinton's DADT was a moral relativist Trojan Horse from its inception.
If we get a true conservative nominated this time around, and not McSame, Barry will be gone along with his social-depravity experiments. Same goes for increasing gains in the House and taking the Senate. If we get an establishment RINO/Obama Lite (e.g. Mitt Romney), then it will be McCain redux. I merely point to the rise of the Tea Party and the November "shellacking" as proof.
Equating gay behavior with the Civil Rights Movement is not only ludicrous, it is nearly criminal. Jesus said; "go and sin no more". The WikiLeaks traitor Bradley Manning is the poster child for the gaying of the military...
Ted| 9.23.11 @ 4:51PM
What Mr. Goldstein and many others fail to realize as they compare homosexuality in the military to integration in the 1940s and 1950s is that skin color is benign. Human Sexuality is not. People of a particular race/color are not defined by their skin color. Homosexuals are defined by their sexual conduct.
yisong| 10.26.11 @ 10:11PM
There are many types of bearings, each used for different purposes. These include slewing bearings, precision bearings,track roller bearings and roller, thrust bearings. http://www.1stbearing.com