I need to follow up on yesterday’s post about Democrats stalling on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Some reactions to the DADT issue are – let’s be generous here — flawed, especially the argument that Obama needs to be sure he has the military honchos on his side before repealing DADT. That’s pure nonsense. In America and other advanced nations, the military answers to civilian authority, not the other way around. It’s one of the reasons our system is better than some tinhorn oligarchy like Burma.
In 1948, when Pres. Truman integrated the armed forces, he faced opposition from famous World War 2 general Omar Bradley, who said Truman was wrong and that it wasn’t the business of the military to engage in “social experiments.” Truman, who, unlike Obama, was willing to use the power of the presidency, said he realized one day that “Since I’m the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, I could just deliver an executive order.” Which is what he did. Yep, that’s how the military was integrated: the President told them to do it. Period. No stroking of special interests, no kowtowing to bigots, just straight-ahead decisiveness.
Like we said yesterday, Dick Cheney — Dick Cheney! — is for repealing DADT. How far into la-la land do you have to be to place yourself to the right of *that guy? The fact of the matter today is that untold (literally) numbers of gays and lesbians are currently serving in the military, and, overall, the present generation of soldiers simply isn’t as biased against gays as the most vocal opponents of DADT repeal. In a very real sense, repealing DADT is basically a matter of the government catching up to the country’s changing views. In times like these, let those with archaic, bigoted views have their say, then let them know they need to get out of the way.
This article appears in Feb 23 – Mar 1, 2010.
I find your comments interesting but still highly flawed. You continue to drone on about Dick Cheney and how you can’t get to the right of ‘that guy’. But anyone who has followed politics over the past decade will dismiss that as silly. As you well know, Cheney has an openly lesbian daughter and Cheney shocked conservatives years ago with something far more controversial when he endorsed full-blown gay marriage at a time when even more Dems were solidly opposed to it than are now. So to say that his viewpoint on gay rights has any special conservative representation or punch is simply fatuous – at best. The man’s judgment on the issue of homosexuality is clearly jaded by his daughter.
And to say that Obama should just damn the rest of the world and go repeal DADT is also naive. Racial integration of the military is a poor comparison to that of the integration of homosexuals with heterosexuals. And I think a lot of black and Hispanic soldiers would take umbrage to the being compared to gays (African-Americans, in particular, are generally more opposed to gay rights than whites are which causes this whole comparison to ring rather hollow). Clearly, what Harry Truman did was completely different to what Obama is trying to do. Sharing the barracks with a black man is far different than sharing it with a gay man.
And that brings us back to the original point: Obama needs to work with the military (and Congress, obviously) on this one. If the military, caught up in 2 wars, is not comfortable with a change in policy before a review then I think they have good reasons.
Finally, I’ll just say that people are never going to win the war by assuming that everyone is going to accept homosexuals like people of color especially when you think that people of color tend to despise homosexuality the most. But more than that, homosexuality will always be condemned by a large segment of the population by virtue of the fact that they believe it to be immoral. And I don’t think that even the most ardent racist has ever come up with a good, Biblical reason why being black or non-white is immoral.
SC Guy, I don’t get it. Last night when I was boning you up the ass it sounded like you were FOR don’t ask don’t tell. Now this?
I get such mixed signals from you sometimes, darling.
Oh Frankie Frankie, you shouldn’t worry your head about that. You should worry about that bit of urine on your face you forgot to wipe off last night after your golden shower.
I’m not sure your dear wife would understand.
Ta ta, my flaming little bottom queen….
Oh Francis, you silly little twink.
Are you still having a hard time admitting your rampant homosexuality?
Still can’t face the fact that your dear, sweet wife is banging the postman every afternoon, while you daydream at your work desk about steamy nights with Brazilian trannys?
You poor, conflicted Nancy Boy. See you Thursday night at the baths!
Just for the record, I’ve never actually had sex with Frank. The though repulses me. I only married him to get my U.S. citizenship. I have a long list of lovers, none of whom is named Frank Griffin.
Frank is sexually conflicted. He really wants to be rammed by men, over and over again.
As for me: I could not imagine even rubbing elbows with Frank. He’s a disgusting dork with a hamster penis.
CREATIVE LOAFING: Please ban Frank Griffin’s IP address from this site. He’s nothing but a hatemonger and liar that brings no credibility or truth to any discussion here.