The Daily Show’s John Stewart puts it best: “We’ve pushed the limits of our own
principles — from warrantless wiretapping, to building a prison out our own legal jurisdiction, to not releasing photos depicting our treatment of detainees, to the treatment of detainees itself — every asset we have must be used all in the service of keeping America safe. Is there any line we still will not cross?”
“Oh yeah, the gay line.”
After Lieutenant Dan Choi, an Arabic translator for the National Guard, publicly admitted he was gay on the Rachael Maddow show on March 19 this year, he received a letter informing him he was being discharged from his job in consistency with the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.
The letter stated, “you admitted publicly that you are a homosexual which constitutes homosexual conduct.” Arabic translators are reportedly in high demand in the U.S. armed forces, but that need is not compelling enough to allow an openly gay man to serve.
As more in the general public recognize that sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a sickness, the “moral purity” test is failing to hold water as a reason to ban gays from military service. Nor are claims we once heard that gay men make incompetent soldiers. It is replaced by a new argument, the most pragmatic that the irrational anti-gay political movement can muster, but still failing to pass the laugh test. Behold, the new era of intellectual thought on why gays shouldn’t serve openly in the military: All the straight guys would quit.
In April of this year, over 1,000 retired military officers released a statement urging President Obama and the U.S. Congress to oppose a bill that would end the military’s ban on gays. The statement said that passage of that bill “would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”
That’s right, letting a gay guy come out to his military buddies would have them fleeing with their tails between their legs. Recruits would plummet, the United States defense capabilities would be crippled, they’d have to re-instate the draft … soon Hitler’s army would wash across the American continent aboard a flock of giant genetically-engineered seagulls high on amphetamines.
The sentiment behind that rhetoric is just about as old as World War II — it was the basis for the last push against
racially-integrated armed services during before military segregation ended for good in 1948.
The Free Republic, a wingnut right-wing Online forum, sums up the breadth of conservative intelligence in one revealing comment: “The marxists will do anything they can to let gays in.”
That’s it, gays are Marxists. And apparently the straight folks in the military are — forgive me now — pansies. Because they are so terrified of shaking hands with the likes of Perez Hilton or Chris Crocker that they’d forsake their aspirations of serving their country just to get away. Who knew the folks marching through Afghani minefields to hunt Al Quaida were such wimps?
What’s interesting is that nowhere else in society do homophobes have such a privilege. Stock brokers, hotel workers, college professors, restaurant servers, screenplay writers and members of congress alike run the risk of meeting a homosexual on the job. Few of these career choices are known for being particularly courageous, yet they still pursue their field despite the risk — something that America’s retired generals don’t think young people signing up to fight our wars are capable of.
I know enlisted people and veterans who are anything but homophones; they have gay brothers, gay sons or gay grandchildren. I also know openly gay people who have fought in Iraq, who have served honorably and were out to several of their peers and commanders without a problem. The need for soldiers increases the military’s need to discriminate will decrease. But in high-profile cases it remains the same old story; letting an openly gay man serve would incite chaos in the ranks — they just couldn’t handle it.
The best and the brightest indeed.
It floors me that our military would rather let someone in high demand go because they are gay, and in the same breath state that the number of active-duty personnel is dangerously low. *Sigh* Maybe George Carlin was right: Military Intelligence is an oxymoron. But to those who serve in silence you will forever have my respect and admiration. Stay safe, guys ‘n gals! /0
It’s absolutely mind blowing that this is still an issue.
I think with more gay men in the military, the amount of straight guys that would be truthfully homophobic (as in afraid of spiders, but then with gays) and leave or be otherwise stupid of deranged enough to leave; would by far outnumber the gay now willing to serve.
Besides, I think the gay men who are already in service would do a much better job when they’re not preoccupied trying to hide their boner.
Notice how lowering the bar to allow felons and the borderline retarded in was never an issue of morality or pragmatism.
Thanx Trip…so true. So sad. So real. So fucked up.
“I think with more gay men in the military, the amount of straight guys that would be truthfully homophobic (as in afraid of spiders, but then with gays) and leave or be otherwise stupid of deranged enough to leave; would by far outnumber the gay now willing to serve.”
Did you mean to say outnumbered BY gays?
Awesome article! Very well written!
I know that in Australia gay people are allowed to be in the military and be open about it…
Have any of these unforeseen, doomsday circumstances that the wing-nuts are pushing happened down under yet? Isn’t that convincing evidence enough?
Great article. Second to last paragraph should be “homophobes” not “homophones,” unless, of course, you meant that their names are all Chris, Kris, Krys, Chrys, or…oh, never mind. We should be so lucky to have homophones in the military.
Nathaniel Frank on the outcry over Choi’s firing:
I love the fact that Gays can not serve openly in the services but when we turn 18 we are legally required to sign up for selective services. I can be drafted to serve this country if they need people but I can’t serve openly on my own. Fine, leave the DADT policy in place but change the law to require that women who turn 18 be required to register and can be drafted since they can freely serve without any problem.
Why haven’t those in charge read some history books? The same arguements that they give for gays serving are dang near the samethings they said about women and blacks serving.
Just my two cents.
Preaching to the choir here. I was hoping this was going to end in something constructive, like an online petition to sign, objecting to the ridiculousness of “firing” Lt Choi from an acknowledged national shortage area in our defenses.
Well, then produce your own site Logan69 and end your constructive posts however you want to end them.
For those wanting a petition, please go here: (link)
My last boyfriend when I lived in Seattle was a Navy officer who served on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the infamous ship on which that piece of shit GWB declared ‘Mission Accomplished.’ The kinds of e-mail messages we exchanged when he was out at sea would melt the rubber on my tennis shoes. He said everybody knew who was gay on the ship and it was never a big deal and even the source of some gentle banter. I have always quoted that great line from ‘A Few Good Men,’ — ‘People can handle the truth.’ It’s when people aren’t honest that we get into trouble, as most blackmailed people in the CIA and FBI can tell you.
It’s the same mad mixture over there, guys. You have a nation divided between the very sensible and large, powerful extremist christian/conservative groups, who have big guns they can use. Here in the UK even the Conservative Party realised that they were guilty of being the “nasty” party and finally removed their opposition to reforms. Politicians are out, policemen (even high ranked ones) are out, soldiers are out. The tired old arguments intended to provoke moral panic were shown to have absolutely no basis in fact. But sadly for you, since when did the facts get in the way of good old fashioned prejudice?
And another superlative gay military man gets fired by the “Change We Can Believe In” President.
How is Obama any better than Bush?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I VOTED FOR THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT AND ALL I GOT WAS ANOTHER HOMOPHOBE!
Well, I didn’t vote for him. All these years you’ve been snickering at the Log Cabin Republicans. Have the gay Democratic organizations been one jot more effective?
You’ve been fooled again and screwed again. We all have.
The fear that all straights in the military would run because of gays openly serving is rooted in the myth that every gay person on the planet is attracted to every straight person.Hello straight men-hate to burst your ego,but you aint that hot! Some of you may be my idea of handsome but why would i approach you.It would be as much of a waste of my time as asking a woman out.To go back to the origianal argument,not all straights in sevice are homophobes as our goverment claims.
As a gay man currently serving in the Armed Forces, I can tell you that this is not an issue among the troops. I am open to just about every single person that I work with, and have any of them gone running for the hills? No! To use that as an excuse is a complete cop-out! It doesn’t have a negative impact when it comes to morale, we all get our work done just the same (if not better), and last time I checked, we gays work just as hard as the next person and usually end up with a better product. Britain has allowed gays to serve openly for a few years now, and they still haven’t collapsed. I’m getting out of the Military in less than a year, and one of the main reasons is that I can’t be who I am 100% of the time. I’m constantly nervous of those that know opening their mouth to the wrong person. This “policy” is absolutely absurd; it’s just a way to get away with discrimination.