The issue of Gays in the military has been a hot one since President Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in 1994. Recently the issue has resurfaced and been the topic of a few recent Presidential debates. I got bits and pieces of the Republican Debate (i know, don't laugh) and was completely outraged by the comments on this issue. Allow me to dissect a few...
The Question posed was "is it time to end DADT?"
Representative Ron Paul: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
I actually agree with most of this. We shouldn't derive our rights because we belong to certain groups. But the reality is, we do. If you are heterosexual you will not be discharged from the United States Armed Forces if you mention your girlfriend or wife. But you could be subject to discharge if you were a gay man who happened to mention his boyfriend. There are thousands of military personnel that have been discharged under the DADT policy. I firmly believe that Rep. Paul is correct in saying that it should be an issue of inappropriate behavior. However, the fact that the current policy discharges men and women because they are openly gay and do not engage in inappropriate behavior contradicts his first sentence. It is not a decent policy.
Governor Huckabee: Wolf, I think it’s already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. I think that’s what Congressman Paul was saying. It’s about conduct, it’s not about attitude. (sidebars about immigration begin and then Gov gets back to the issue). I just said I think it’s a matter — it’s not — you don’t punish people for their attitudes. You punish them if their behavior creates a problem. And it’s already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. That’s — (He then is asked if he would change the existing policy.) I don’t think that I would. I think it’s already covered by the existing policy that we do have, in fact.
I'm sorry, what exactly is covered by the existing policy? And if you don't punish people for their attitudes, then why is it happening. I mean was this guy born in a box? Has someone stopped payment on his reality check? Give it a rest. These Republican talking points are killing me. And it continues....
Wolf Blitzer: Mayor Giuliani, recently we’ve learned that several talented, trained linguists — Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism — were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians. Is that, in your mind, appropriate?
MR. GIULIANI: This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this. Back in 1994 we went through this and it created a tremendous amount of disruption. Colin Powell, I think, was still the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before he left at the beginning of the Clinton administration. He came to the view that this was a good policy. And I think in time of war, in a time where we’re trying to deal with this transition to a new kind of warfare that we have to be fighting — and we haven’t gotten all the way there yet, we need a hybrid army, we need to look at nation-building as part of what we have to teach our military — I don’t think this would be the right time to raise these issues. And I think we should rely on the judgment of our commanders in a situation like this. They know what’s disruptive and what’s not. And at a time of war, you don’t make fundamental changes like this.
Let me see if i understand correctly. So we should wait until times of peace to deal with disruptive issues like this. Issues of discrimination, human rights, and decency will wait until...a peaceful time. So using gay people in 2004 to divide this nation with the issue of marriage was what exactly? Was 2004 a time of peace, or was it a time of war. So why was it we dealt with these disruptive issues then. Is it perhaps because the Republican party decided to drum up their religious base by blowing up the issue of gay marriage? So Mayor Giuliani believes that human rights issues need to wait until we're done with this war. I can't think of better policy folks...let's not protect and preserve the rights of our people while we are in the middle of an unpopular war. With recruitment levels at an amazing low, you'd think they'd attempt to examine their current policies a bit more.
Wolf Blitzer: Governor Romney, the mayor referred to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which was implemented during the Clinton administration, after Bill Clinton became president.
In 1994 you were quoted as saying that you advocated gays being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. The question to you is, do you still feel that way?
MR. ROMNEY: No, actually, when I first heard of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. And I agree with what Mayor Giuliani said: that this is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point. We can look at down the road. But it does seem to me that we have much bigger issues as a nation we ought to be talking about than that policy right now.
Just because something has been policy for 10 or 15 years does not make it effective. I believe we had a policy once that African Americans were counted as a fraction of a person. And they also couldn't vote. And neither could women. But those has been policies for years. Again, the issue of their being bigger issues to talk about is complete crap. It's a republican talking point. This is not a social experiment, but an issue of dignity.
SEN. MCCAIN: We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country, and I’m proud of every one of them. There just aren’t enough of them. So I have to rely on our military leadership, who — in whom we place the responsibility to lead these brave young Americans in combat as we speak. So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. It is working, my friends. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that’s the way we can maintain this greatest military. As much as revere the “Greatest Generation,” as much as love my own generation, this is the very best. Let’s not tamper with them.
Again the policy isn't working if someone is discharged by saying "I'm gay" and some ignorant assholes decide that's offensive to them and claim it ruins their morale. And i love the troops too, I respect every one of them as well. But I'm sick and tired of Sen McCain's use of this every time he is asked a single question regarding the war or military.
In reality, the Democrats have flipped flopped on this for years. Maybe now they are understanding that President Clinton's policy did a disservice to gay and lesbians, most of which supported him. As gay people maybe it's time that we stand up and start demanding a little be more from the people that we support. Those people who we campaign for, donate too, and blog about. Maybe it's time that they give a little bit more back to us.
The Question posed was "is it time to end DADT?"
Representative Ron Paul: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
I actually agree with most of this. We shouldn't derive our rights because we belong to certain groups. But the reality is, we do. If you are heterosexual you will not be discharged from the United States Armed Forces if you mention your girlfriend or wife. But you could be subject to discharge if you were a gay man who happened to mention his boyfriend. There are thousands of military personnel that have been discharged under the DADT policy. I firmly believe that Rep. Paul is correct in saying that it should be an issue of inappropriate behavior. However, the fact that the current policy discharges men and women because they are openly gay and do not engage in inappropriate behavior contradicts his first sentence. It is not a decent policy.
Governor Huckabee: Wolf, I think it’s already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. I think that’s what Congressman Paul was saying. It’s about conduct, it’s not about attitude. (sidebars about immigration begin and then Gov gets back to the issue). I just said I think it’s a matter — it’s not — you don’t punish people for their attitudes. You punish them if their behavior creates a problem. And it’s already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. That’s — (He then is asked if he would change the existing policy.) I don’t think that I would. I think it’s already covered by the existing policy that we do have, in fact.
I'm sorry, what exactly is covered by the existing policy? And if you don't punish people for their attitudes, then why is it happening. I mean was this guy born in a box? Has someone stopped payment on his reality check? Give it a rest. These Republican talking points are killing me. And it continues....
Wolf Blitzer: Mayor Giuliani, recently we’ve learned that several talented, trained linguists — Arabic speakers, Farsi speakers, Urdu speakers trained by the U.S. government to learn those languages to help us in the war on terrorism — were dismissed from the military because they announced they were gays or lesbians. Is that, in your mind, appropriate?
MR. GIULIANI: This is not the time to deal with disruptive issues like this. Back in 1994 we went through this and it created a tremendous amount of disruption. Colin Powell, I think, was still the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before he left at the beginning of the Clinton administration. He came to the view that this was a good policy. And I think in time of war, in a time where we’re trying to deal with this transition to a new kind of warfare that we have to be fighting — and we haven’t gotten all the way there yet, we need a hybrid army, we need to look at nation-building as part of what we have to teach our military — I don’t think this would be the right time to raise these issues. And I think we should rely on the judgment of our commanders in a situation like this. They know what’s disruptive and what’s not. And at a time of war, you don’t make fundamental changes like this.
Let me see if i understand correctly. So we should wait until times of peace to deal with disruptive issues like this. Issues of discrimination, human rights, and decency will wait until...a peaceful time. So using gay people in 2004 to divide this nation with the issue of marriage was what exactly? Was 2004 a time of peace, or was it a time of war. So why was it we dealt with these disruptive issues then. Is it perhaps because the Republican party decided to drum up their religious base by blowing up the issue of gay marriage? So Mayor Giuliani believes that human rights issues need to wait until we're done with this war. I can't think of better policy folks...let's not protect and preserve the rights of our people while we are in the middle of an unpopular war. With recruitment levels at an amazing low, you'd think they'd attempt to examine their current policies a bit more.
Wolf Blitzer: Governor Romney, the mayor referred to the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which was implemented during the Clinton administration, after Bill Clinton became president.
In 1994 you were quoted as saying that you advocated gays being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. The question to you is, do you still feel that way?
MR. ROMNEY: No, actually, when I first heard of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly. I didn’t think that would be very effective. And I turned out to be wrong. It’s been the policy now in the military for what, 10, 15 years, and it seems to be working. And I agree with what Mayor Giuliani said: that this is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on. I wouldn’t change it at this point. We can look at down the road. But it does seem to me that we have much bigger issues as a nation we ought to be talking about than that policy right now.
Just because something has been policy for 10 or 15 years does not make it effective. I believe we had a policy once that African Americans were counted as a fraction of a person. And they also couldn't vote. And neither could women. But those has been policies for years. Again, the issue of their being bigger issues to talk about is complete crap. It's a republican talking point. This is not a social experiment, but an issue of dignity.
SEN. MCCAIN: We have the best-trained, most professional, best- equipped, most efficient, most wonderful military in the history of this country, and I’m proud of every one of them. There just aren’t enough of them. So I have to rely on our military leadership, who — in whom we place the responsibility to lead these brave young Americans in combat as we speak. So I think it would be a terrific mistake to even reopen the issue. It is working, my friends. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that’s the way we can maintain this greatest military. As much as revere the “Greatest Generation,” as much as love my own generation, this is the very best. Let’s not tamper with them.
Again the policy isn't working if someone is discharged by saying "I'm gay" and some ignorant assholes decide that's offensive to them and claim it ruins their morale. And i love the troops too, I respect every one of them as well. But I'm sick and tired of Sen McCain's use of this every time he is asked a single question regarding the war or military.
In reality, the Democrats have flipped flopped on this for years. Maybe now they are understanding that President Clinton's policy did a disservice to gay and lesbians, most of which supported him. As gay people maybe it's time that we stand up and start demanding a little be more from the people that we support. Those people who we campaign for, donate too, and blog about. Maybe it's time that they give a little bit more back to us.
1 comment:
I find it very telling that when asked about the loss of Arabic speaking military personnel because of their sexual preferences all of the Republican presidential candidates were more than eager to lose the possible intelligence these people could garner than even comtemplate having gays in the military. So if I understand their position they are more afraid of having gays serve in the armed forces than they are of terrorists. This isn't even veiled homophobia, this is placing gays at the bottom of the human food chain. I don't know why I am constantly surprised by this attitude. Maybe it is my sense of justice, fairness and equality that I just cannot fathom how educated individuals in a free society can actually believe such tripe.
Post a Comment