Buxom gay-marriage opponent fires Army officer for being gay; Update: Video added

posted at 9:27 pm on May 7, 2009 by Allahpundit

No, not Miss California. The other buxom gay-marriage opponent. The one whose supposedly good intentions are starting to wear thin.

Say, isn’t he required by law to fire him? Well, even if he was, he’ll have a filibuster-proof majority in Congress soon to change that law if he likes. But, strictly speaking: No, he’s not required.

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn’t want to live a lie.

Choi’s being interviewed on Rachel Maddow’s show as I write this; I’ll update with video once it’s available. It’d be nice to see the president of the United States, for once, face 1/1000th of the heat Carrie Prejean’s taken for voicing her opinion at a beauty pageant.

Update: As promised, here’s the video from tonight’s show.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Happy Trails to you,
Til we meet again!
JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 11:30 PM

If I am still singing this on Saturday I will cry :)

Nighty-nite :)

Branch Rickey on May 7, 2009 at 11:48 PM

the primary job of the Armed Forces is the projection of US power and defense of US interests….the rest is just noise.

sven10077 on May 7, 2009 at 11:40 PM

^^This … because this is where the rubber hits the road.

Let me tell you something …

When I was in the Navy – I was on a team that reviewed the USS COLE tragedy.

The COLE crew did a great job in saving the ship – but they did have problems. One of those problems was with STRAIGHT relationships between men and women on that ship. Some of the crewmembers literally “broke down” … completely paralyzed to inaction due to concern for their “shipmate” with whom they had a romantic relationship. This provided an unnecessary distraction for the crew in a time of extremis when all hands really needed to have their wits about them.

Now some want to throw homosexual relationships into this mix.

Well – you can do that – but … you will have a not-so-effective armed force if you do.

And don’t tell me about the “Crack Forces of Kuala Lupur” … they may literally be “crack” forces – but they don’t approach the lethality of the U.S. Serviceman or Woman.

HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:49 PM

Do you people not understand that there are Americans who are actively discriminated against every day, and forced to lie about themselves? Does this not bother you?

JetBoy on May 7, 2009

Silence is not lying. Please don’t put forth dramatic arguments that are not grounded in reality. It insults our intelligence.

HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Try being an actor and coming out as a conservative. It’s caused people who previously thought I was a decent human being to decide that I’m a monster.

Kensington on May 7, 2009 at 11:45 PM

hahahahahaha….I had the same problem. I was a theatre major in college and worked for a little while in Milwaukee as an Assistant Stage Manager. After realizing I was a Republican, I actually had some theatre pal drop me as a friend on Facebook. The cut is deep but I think I’ll survive. ;)

XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:51 PM

So I guess this means then that they do away with separating sexes from now on? Is that gonna work?

Michael in MI on May 7, 2009 at 11:47 PM

Hell no it won’t. You put straight men with straight women and you will have chaos.

Not only that – you will have a SERIOUS problem recruiting women into that kind of situation.

And … you will have a serious problem recruiting MEN into a service that allows open homosexuality. Especially when their told that simply rebuking the advances of a homosexual whom they have to shower with might possibly result in a Hate Crimes prosecution.

HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:57 PM

It’d be nice to see the president of the United States, for once, face 1/1000th of the heat Carrie Prejean’s taken for voicing her opinion at a beauty pageant.

Not holding my breath. Activists: “If only Obama knew about this…!!!”

“Buxom gay-marriage opponent” though is great. ROFL

ddrintn on May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM

Try being gay, Catholic, and Republican. Talk about conflicted…

JetBoy on May 7, 2009 at 10:43 PM

And which one of these were you forced to do?

platypus on May 8, 2009 at 12:00 AM

I would like to feel sorry for Lt. Choi, but I can’t. Yes, he served honorably, but he knew going in what the rules were. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean everything has to change to suit your needs. That’s the trouble with American today. Everyone thinks the country is their oyster and that anything that offends them, must be fixed whether others feel that way or not. As the wife of a career Air Force Officer, there were many things that didn’t sit will with my husband, as to how he was treated, but he knew that if he wanted to serve, which he did in Vietnam, flying F4 Phantoms over Cambodia, and winning the Distinguished Flying Cross, you put up with it or got out and do something else. It’s not like the Lt., didn’t know what he was getting into. In reality, he lied on his application and to his superiors. End of story.

Amazing Grace on May 8, 2009 at 12:03 AM

I would like to feel sorry for Lt. Choi, but I can’t.

I am with you here. I may not personally agree with the policy and I belive that the military has lost an asset, but until the rules of the game change, you have to abide by them.

(I just wish Congress would learn that lesson too. If you don’t like the Constitution, attempt to change it. Until then, mind your manners.)

XWing5 on May 8, 2009 at 12:10 AM

Try being an actor and coming out as a conservative. It’s caused people who previously thought I was a decent human being to decide that I’m a monster.

Kensington on May 7, 2009 at 11:45 PM

If you have any supportive friends, family and associates with you, count your blessings and pray.

If you are completely on your own, count your blessing and pray harder.

Bless you.

Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 12:14 AM

As some of my fellow veterans have alluded to here, the UCMJ isn’t about morality, it’s about good order and discipline. It prohibits a number of things we don’t prosecute or even investigate people for, out in civilian life.

There’s nothing illegitimate about discussing whether the openly gay should serve in the military. But it IS illegitimate to blithely dismiss the fact that it’s a good order and discipline issue.

And that is unquestionably a fact. No officer or senior NCO who has served 20 years and been in positions of unit leadership would be honest if he or she said otherwise.

The overwhelming majority of people in the military are under 25. They’re frequently stupid about sex no matter how they’re oriented. Being gay doesn’t make them any smarter. We’re not talking about men and women of 40 who have settled down and chosen life partners and bought a house together, here. Sex doesn’t have to be a good order and discipline problem, but it often is, in just the forms the UCMJ prohibits: adultery, sodomy, between officer and enlisted, and between junior and senior in the chain of command.

Every demand we make for non-traditional social acceptance, in the tight quarters of military life, will affect good order and discipline. If this particular demand could be levied, and met, without politicization and lawsuits, that might be one thing. I haven’t know too many servicemembers who really cared if some of their fellows were going to be gay, as long as they could choose how much they had to know about it.

But my experience over 20 years was that whenever there was an incident in which a sailor or officer had to be discharged over sexual orientation, it was because the gay individual made unwanted overtures to others in uniform. The famous cases in which gay servicemembers are found out because they frequent gay websites, or make public announcements, are extremely rare.

If an individual is informally supposed by coworkers to be gay, but never brings it into the workplace, the typical officer or NCO will let it lie. There will be no interest in “investigating” it. It’s not a good order and discipline issue in that case, and there is no militarily-relevant basis for pursuing it.

Here is an extremely important bottom line: the tacit DADT regime has allowed gays to serve, without imposing a requirement on others to accept whatever forms of self-expression gays may see fit to claim a right to. The point of lifting DADT, and repealing Art 125, would be to impose precisely that requirement on others.

That’s not what we have a military for. It doesn’t exist to act as a Petri dish for social experimentation. It is actually, from the standpoint of keeping the military functioning, and focused on its primary job, a good thing that we have found a way to dodge a showdown on this so far.

The great majority of gays would have no interest in interfering with military culture or operations. That’s my take anyway. The gays I’ve known personally have all been ordinary, non-radicalized people, with no taste for pitched political confrontation.

But changes in law, as in Massachusetts and California, have immediately ushered in exactly such pitched confrontations. Gays suing department stores in Massachusetts for not marketing wedding registry services to gays as vigorously as to straight couples. A first-grade teacher in Sacramento taking her class on a field trip to observe a lesbian wedding, the same week the state supreme court struck down the voter-approved traditional marriage statute. Anyone who seriously thinks the military would not come in for such confrontation from gay activists, once the law was changed, hasn’t been paying attention.

This is a tough issue, one that is only marginally about what is usually argued before the public: morality and “acceptance.” It’s a lot more about good order and discipline, and keeping politics out of the barracks, the berthing spaces, and the promotion and retention criteria for individuals. God help us if it ever comes to pass that in order to be promoted, a servicemember must affirm his or her support of some political formula regarding gay sex or gay relationships. There is no reliable basis for assuming that that could not happen.

J.E. Dyer on May 8, 2009 at 12:23 AM

These threads always bring out the bigots. Good times, good times.

I am a straight man. Does that mean I am uncontrollably sexually attracted to every woman I see to the point where whenever I am forced into close confines with one, say on a work project or a softball team, I can’t control myself and behave inappropriately? Of course not. ESPECIALLY not if I have the self-control and discipline required to join the United States Armed Forces. I don’t see how this scenario could possibly be read so differently as to bar me from the armed forces if I happened to be attracted to men instead of women.

jimmy the notable on May 7, 2009 at 11:38 PM

OK, part of the problem here is perspective. Life in the military has no equivalent to civilian experiences. None. So, while you can certainly refrain from acting on any uncontrollable attraction to your preferred gender during your 9 to 5, the same may not be true in a world where you are deployed for months at a time, no time off, just the Big Green Machine Sunday to Sunday, 24 hrs a day. In that world, deprived of what you would consider normal social contact with the gender of your interest, that PFC who you’ve been working with in close confines and happens to be of your preferred gender starts to look pretty good. It’s human nature. And that creates the problem. And

XWing5 on May 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM

it isn’t a logistics issue. Since we’re outing our military experience, I’ll share mine. Former Army combat arms officer, commanded a couple of units, served on battalion and brigade staffs. I say this for context. The problem with this issue is that as a combat arms commander/leader I need you to focus on closing with and destroying the enemy. If you’re too busy thinking about getting into PFC Snuffy’s ACU’s and not paying attention to my orders, your role in the mission, your weapon/vehicle maintenance, observing your sector, your soldiers’ health and welfare, etc, etc, then you are no good to me or the unit. And, if you make a play for PFC Snuffy, that just lowered your value to me and the unit by orders of magnitude because now you’ve affected PFC Snuffy’s abilities as well and I now am down two on my order of battle, plus the unit morale may have taken a big hit. Folks without the perspective of a combat arms leader can not fathom the personal effort required of leaders, both commissioned and non-commissioned, to keep the members of their units focused on the mission. The mission is to close with and destroy the enemy, not to make you feel better about yourself, discuss your gender attraction or to provide you with a dating/social service. And that applies to heterosexuals, homosexuals, men and women.

And now, lurking shields back on.

kbfntc on May 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM

Hawkdriver! Be safe. Be smart. Be successful. Prayers for you and all in harms way devoting themselves to defending America.

Loxodonta on May 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM

J.E.Dyer thank you for your service and thank you for that amazing post!

daesleeper on May 8, 2009 at 1:02 AM

It’d be nice to see the president of the United States, for once, face 1/1000th of the heat Carrie Prejean’s taken for voicing her opinion at a beauty pageant.

Jeez, AP, are those violins I hear in the background?

okonkolo on May 8, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Abolishing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a great idea. But the army needs to act to limit the promiscuous behavior of soldiers, both heterosexual and homosexual.

JohnJ on May 7, 2009 at 10:16 PM

Damn, I’m in trouble. When I was stationed at Nellis AFB in Vegas in the 80′s, I got around quite a bit. Course the times were different and I was much younger. No one needs to act to limit anything. You keep your conquests to yourself. Both gay and straight.

FlyoverJ-HawkFan on May 8, 2009 at 1:06 AM

If we openly allow gays to serve in the military then shouldn’t single sex quarters be abandoned in basic and aboard ship. I simply can’t see how you get around it. Any help on this?

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM

“I simply can’t see how you get around it. Any help on this?”

MD, have you ever been in the military? Because “get[ting] around it” is not a problem. You simply state that “men shall not bunk with men,” and “women shall not bunk with women.”

Gay, straight, open, closeted, it makes no difference to the rule. The rule is thus; it is enforced thus. There’s nothing to “get around.”

notropis on May 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM

I am ex military and the ships berthing areas were tight quarters. My point is that you have a tough argument saying men and women can’t bunk in the same area. If you do then isn’t that discrimination heterosexuals.

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:32 AM

I never served so I defer to the military to set their own standards.

The US has won every war it fought without handcuffs.

Never lost a single battle in Vietnam either IIRC.

New drinking game: drink when Choi says “West Point”

omnipotent on May 8, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Notropis

I was enlisted so we were about 10-15 to an area. No privacy. You end up seeing nearly every person in at least their scivvys if not in their birthday suit.

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:35 AM

” My point is that you have a tough argument saying men and women can’t bunk in the same area”

My point is: with whom are you arguing? When policy is set, it is enforced. I never heard of a superior officer entertaining an argument. So, if rules say that men and women don’t bunk together, then they don’t. If rules say nothing about sexual orientation, then they don’t. It’s up to those living under the rules to make them work, as always.

notropis on May 8, 2009 at 1:40 AM

I would be interested to know if the men who served as enlisted filth on board ships have a different view of this from our brothers in the other branches. I don’t know how tight it gets in the other branches but the saying “nuts to butts” didn’t get created by someone trying to be funny. It is cramped and downright unpleasant sometimes. NOTE: I apologize for the language but most that have served in the military can attest to the amount of profanity that is used with regularity.

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Notropis

The rules also used to say no homosexuals and then the rules said don’t ask don’t tell. Last time I checked those rules aren’t being followed which is the point of this debate. If it was as simple as having rules forbidding homosexuals from serving alongside normal people then we wouldn’t be facing this quandry. I want to clarify that last statement. I believe that homosexuality is an illness or a birth defect. Perhaps there is an element of choice but I think we should be seeking a cure rather than trying to mainstream deviant behavior. I recognize that is not a popular view and because I have a gay brother it concerns me because I wish there was a way to help him.

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:50 AM

Do you people not understand that there are Americans who are actively discriminated against every day, and forced to lie about themselves? Does this not bother you?

JetBoy on May 7, 2009

Yes I too am concerned about the plight of Hollywood conservatives…I’m glad to see you are too.

Paco on May 8, 2009 at 1:55 AM

J.E. Dyer on May 8, 2009 at 12:23 AM

Great post, thank you. I’ve read your comments at other blogs and can say with confidence that it is always a pleasure to see J. E. Dyer show up in a thread!

Missy on May 8, 2009 at 3:11 AM

From the hffpo artical

Is this really the right time to fire military officers who are fluent in Arabic?

Yes didn’t ya see Obama’s budget cuts?

The biggest proposed cuts and reductions in the president’s budget are defense-related:
· Recruiting and retention adjustments: $6.24 billion
· Future combat systems of manned ground vehicles: $2.98 billion
· F-22 raptor fighter aircraft: $2.9 billion
· Transformational satellite: $768 million
Joint strike fighter alternate engine: $465 million

“Recruiting and retention adjustments: $6.24 billion”

If ya fire him that helps with the “retention” parts of his plan

DSchoen on May 8, 2009 at 5:26 AM

Silence is not lying. Please don’t put forth dramatic arguments that are not grounded in reality. It insults our intelligence.

HondaV65 on May 7, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Yep. The passive-aggressive tripe spewed by the militant gays is disgusting.

csdeven on May 8, 2009 at 6:29 AM

Lieutenant Day-yun! Lieutenant Day-yun! You a homo, Lieutenant Day-yun? Shazamm, Lieutenant Day-yun!

pabarge on May 8, 2009 at 7:31 AM

Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military

The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, has just released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.

As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll (linked on Drudge today) reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military…

http://tank.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDVlN2FiZjhhNTA3N2JkNjJiM2ExNDAxNjJmMDFhOGE

sinsing on May 8, 2009 at 7:51 AM

This story was from March 19th on that first video and it is just now getting coverage????

JeffinSac on May 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM

Does anyone else wonder when his former unit deploys again.
.
Also whenever homosexuals are openly tolerated, the horses are terrified.

darktood on May 8, 2009 at 8:30 AM

Former squid here, and to be clear I could give a rat’s rear end about a person’s sexual preference.

That being said, the primary concern on a ship is space – there’s just not that much of it. When women were brought aboard sleeping quarters and showers had to be re-assigned. In some cases work spaces were re-assigned to make room leading to reduced readiness. Making room for gay crewmembers is a nightmare. They would need their own showers – single occupancy of course, not group showers. They would need individual bunks. After all we separate men and women, and so we would separate gays.

On land where there is plenty of room, knock yourselves out, but don’t turn our fighting ships into cruise liners.

Onus on May 8, 2009 at 9:14 AM

I must take a minute to say, that after spending (way too much of) my morning reading the comments, I am very proud of my HotAir friends. This three page comment thread is civil, polite, and insightful. This is what civil discourse is and should be. There are good arguments made and good answers given, all (or 99%)with civility. Thank you all.

dish on May 8, 2009 at 9:35 AM

Former squid here, and to be clear I could give a rat’s rear end about a person’s sexual preference.

That being said, the primary concern on a ship is space – there’s just not that much of it. When women were brought aboard sleeping quarters and showers had to be re-assigned. In some cases work spaces were re-assigned to make room leading to reduced readiness. Making room for gay crewmembers is a nightmare. They would need their own showers – single occupancy of course, not group showers. They would need individual bunks. After all we separate men and women, and so we would separate gays.

On land where there is plenty of room, knock yourselves out, but don’t turn our fighting ships into cruise liners.

Onus on May 8, 2009 at 9:14 AM

I concur with this. Having spent time on both an FFG & a CVN, plus a two-week exchange tour on a 688, saying that there isn’t much space is an understatement. You get a rack (bunk) just big enough for you to lie out on, but not enough headroom to sit up. There is a space for your gear under the rack, about 6″ deep and the size of the mattress. You have to raise the mattress to access it. Your laundry bag with all your dirty clothes hangs off the pole beside your rack. There is a community shower and head (toilet) with no partitions between the toilets or showers.

The berthing compartment can be a difficult place, especially in a rolling sea and hot weather. It’s crowded, can get smelly and with 20-40 men all cramped together, requires a LOT of discipline.

There are serious issues already with women aboard ship. Someone ALWAYS gets pregnant, every deployment. Then there are the issues of a small group of women and a LARGE group of men.

The DADT policy works, as long as both sides respect the idea. However, it has been my experience that EVERY time a gay sailor was outed, it was because he or she CHOSE to out themselves to make some political point, or to keep from having to deploy or to just get out of the service.

We had a similar situation when women were first admitted to ships and squadrons, where some decided they didn’t want to play anymore, so got pregnant to get out of the military. At that time (the policy has since changed) women who became pregnant were considered unfit for duty and discharged.

I have served along gay men. I had no problems with them because neither was a “militant” gay. They served honorably, did their jobs, and that right well, and were squared away sailors. Under those circumstances the system works.

When someone brings a political axe to grind, or an agenda of “Look at ME! I’m GAY!” then the problems start.

I wish I had a good answer for this problem, but I suspect that the situation will have no good answer, regardless of the best intentions of all involved.

respects,

AW1 Tim on May 8, 2009 at 10:05 AM

I think I would prefer allowing each service, and perhaps each posting, define its own rules on this subject, with the qualifier that those rules be based on behavior.
However, I would understand if that turns out to be impractical. I want effectiveness out of the military, not fairness.

Count to 10 on May 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM

Mormon Doc on May 8, 2009 at 1:50 AM

Countdown til we see topless pics of Mormon Doc…

jdpaz on May 8, 2009 at 10:29 AM

The costs of changing this policy outweighs the benefits. If I had my way, we wouldn’t allow women in the military. Gay rights activists will say because mixed gender units work in the military, so will mixed sexual preference units, but in reality, they don’t. Every co-ed unit I’ve been in has been one soap opera moment after the next. These issues decrease unit effectiveness as hours of command time is spent dealing with these issues. However, in the end, I support women in the miltary because the benefits outweigh the costs. Opening the military to women has doubled the pool of recruits. Opening the military to homosexuals will create the same sorts of problems we see in co-ed units, but will only increase the pool of potential recruits for the military by a slim margin.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 8, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Pelosi outed as a waterboarder
Choi outed as a gay
Specter outed as a democrat
Obama outed as a tightwad and choking the planet with a .00005% budget cut.
The data on Algores 8,900 lbs per hour plane named Airforce CO2 #1

I see this as Progress.
Folks this is time to celebrate. Ther is no pain in these changes we can count on.

seven on May 8, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I am always curious as to how many gay/lesbian service members who just go about their lives without making a big freaking deal about their sexual orientation actually get drummed out of the service. You have to wonder what percentage of the ones who get removed are either disciplinary problems for other reasons or ones who make everything a confrontation- like go on TV and admit to violating the rules.

katiejane on May 8, 2009 at 12:25 PM

You have to wonder what percentage of the ones who get removed are either disciplinary problems for other reasons

No, we really don’t. The answer is zero. If these people had disciplinary problems that merited a removal, this is what the removal would be based on.

radiofreevillage on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Making room for gay crewmembers is a nightmare. They would need their own showers – single occupancy of course, not group showers.

No, they wouldn’t. They are already on those ships taking shower with everybody. Please get it through your head. We’re not talking about specifically inviting new gay crew members. We’re talking a situation where you’re told: you know that guy who you served with for years and he was nothing but a dependable friendly comrade with no problems whatsoever etc? Well, he’s gay.

radiofreevillage on May 8, 2009 at 12:56 PM

I served in 1977-81, and at that time there were 2 gay men in my platoon (that were willing to admit it in certain company) Both of them were good troops and went out of their way to avoid problems in regards to their sexuality. Yes we all saw each other naked and yet no one lost control of themselves. To this day I find it amusing when a person thinks that just because a gay person may look at them it means they want to have sex with them.

aceinstall on May 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM

radiofreevillage on May 8, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Unless you have access to all the documentation on all servicemembers dismissed you have nothing to back up your “zero”

It seems more likely that it may be easier to use the justification that they are gay than going thru the process of documenting that they are general malcontents and PIAs.

katiejane on May 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Please get it through your head. We’re not talking about specifically inviting new gay crew members. We’re talking a situation where you’re told: you know that guy who you served with for years and he was nothing but a dependable friendly comrade with no problems whatsoever etc? Well, he’s gay.

radiofreevillage on May 8, 2009 at 12:56 PM

No, radiofreevillage, that’s not what we’re talking about. First of all, the dependable friendly comrade’s buddies probably already “know” (or suppose) that he’s gay. Few if any of them care.

What we are talking about is gay radical activists forcing confrontations on the military. Discrimination and harassment cases, for example, covering both the workplace and recreation/family life.

Today disgruntled junior personnel cannot accuse their seniors of discriminating against them because they’re gay — because no one is supposed to know whether they are or not. Once they are “out,” if you will, they will be able to make such accusations about discrimination. If you think there are junior folks who wouldn’t misuse such allegations, to deflect attention from their own professional shortcomings, you obviously have never served in the military.

The kids wouldn’t be making their decisions in a vacuum. Gay activist groups would be all over them, as women’s groups in the ’80s and ’90s were all over female servicemembers, encouraging them to take it as discrimination when they were assessed to have failed at meeting professional standards.

Anyone from the Navy (my service) remembers Kara Hultgreen, the aviation lieutenant who, if I recall correctly, was allowed to remain in carrier aviation in spite of an astonishing seven “downs” (performance black marks) in training (five more than any male washout had ever been allowed) — and who eventually crashed her jet and killed herself. A key reason why she was moved along through the system was the atmosphere of presumed guilt in Naval aviation, regarding discrimination against females. Officers had seen their bosses and peers forced to retire, denied promotion, reduced in retirement rank, and raked over the coals in Congressional hearings because of professional discrimination cases that were brought and prosecuted with the material assistance of feminist activist groups.

I’m not defending the decision to let an unsafe aviator stay in the community. But to suggest that our military leaders ought to be faced with the choice of gundecking professional assessments, or having discrimination charges brought against them if they accurately evaluate someone from a politically protected group who isn’t hacking it, is vilely dismissive and cynical.

Of course gay activists will seek political scalps in the military via this method. It is stupid to say they wouldn’t, when they go after such scalps in every other walk of life. The principle gay activists operate from is a demand for positive affirmation from everyone. A mere absence of hostility is not enough: there has to be positive affirmation. In fact, they equate the absence of positive affirmation with hostility.

They will force showdowns, such as demanding that Navy chaplains affirm their support of homosexuality, as a measure of whether gay sailors have access to “tolerant religious worship” when they are deployed for months at a time. It will not be good enough for chaplains to simply not address that topic (and in 20 years I never once heard a chaplain say anything about it). Gay activists will find a way to force them to declare themselves — probably by quoting the Bible and demanding that a chaplain comment on the passages relating to homosexual behavior.

A challenge of this kind would get little to no hearing in the civilian world, where there is always a choice of religious venues. But of course, on a deployed ship, religious worship choices are much more limited. Keep in mind, however, we are not talking about gay sailors having to hear chaplains preach against homosexuality, or ever even talk about it. But anyone who thinks a gay activist lawyer can’t twist the restricted situation of a deployed ship into one putatively “hostile” to his client is, I am afraid, clueless.

Some chaplains would have no trouble making politically correct statements in this regard. But others would — and provoking the showdown with them, and members of the crew who hold the same beliefs, is (deep breath, people) prejudicial to good order and discipline. It’s also antithetical to the very freedom of religious thought our Navy is supposed to be fighting to preserve for us.

The same day the UCMJ was changed to allow gays to serve openly, gay activists would be ready with their demands for gay pride days sponsored by the military, gay affirmation events sponsored by Moral, Welfare, and Rec (MWR), gay-oriented marketing in the AAFES system that runs the post/base Exchanges, accommodation for gay couples in military housing, and a “positive environment for gays” in barracks and the workplace, which might include anything from dressing in drag for steel beach picnics to incorporating gay themes in the Fo’c’s’le Follies.

Again, the great majority of gays would have no such agenda. But this isn’t about them. Most of them are not even pushing for a change to the UCMJ or DADT.

Most servicewomen have been embarrassed and irritated by feminist activism, preferring to meet standards, do their jobs, and as we say in the military, cooperate and graduate. Similarly, my sense is that most gay servicemembers would rather just get the job done, serve to the best of their ability, and not be the peg that sticks out and begs to be pounded down.

(That’s how it works in the military, and if you don’t like it, don’t join. Keeping focused on the mission, and not on your precious adorable self, is how the military gets done all the hard stuff you couldn’t possibly do, in a civilian work environment. Notably, servicemembers also sacrifice more for each other, tolerate more from each other, put each other before themselves, and give their lives for each other more than in any civilian situation except, probably, firefighting.)

But there will always be the “litigation McGuffins” — the walking pretexts for charges and lawsuits, the disgruntled and resentful who creep into every corner of life; and it does neither the military nor our national security any good to open the door wide to their teans of activist lawyers. It’s a long nightmare of prejudice to good order, discipline, morale, and mission focus — just waiting to happen.

J.E. Dyer on May 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM

To this day I find it amusing when a person thinks that just because a gay person may look at them it means they want to have sex with them.

aceinstall on May 8, 2009 at 1:29 PM

To this day, I am still perplexed why everyone was so offended when I accidentally walked into the girls locker room when I was in high school.

I’m sorry, I’ve never been naked with an openly gay person before. You’re a better man than I am Gunga Din.

BohicaTwentyTwo on May 8, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Our POTUS may have man-boobs, but he’s still flabbier than W.
/nothing to cream about

bluelightbrigade on May 8, 2009 at 3:50 PM

This guy is an idiot.

He can and will be fired for violating DADT.

He can AND SHOULD be court-martialed, imprisoned, for using his military rank and service for a political cause.

He can say “I’m Dan Choi and I’m gay and I think DADT is wrong” No problem

He cannot say “I’m LT Dan Choi, platoon leader in Iraq, currently in the ARMY NG and I’m gay and I think DADT is wrong”

DSchoen on May 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3