Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: No Golden Silence Here
Feb 7th, 2010 | 54 responses
New York Times columnist Frank Rich must not read The Moderate Voice.
In a column today in the Times, discussing the reaction to Adm. Mullen’s testimony on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” Rich says:
A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark.
Rich contends that, perhaps with the exception of John McCain—“the crazy man in Washington’s attic”— “[fulminating] against the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”:
Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity-O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés.
Others mentioned by Rich as having problems with the repeal of DADT are Michael O’Hanlon, an “expert” from the Brookings Institution, and the Family Research Council, “which issued an inevitable ‘action alert’ demanding a stop to ‘the sexualization of our military.’”
Rich then asks the question, “The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill?”
Rich goes on to provide some possible answers, some put forward in my recent post on this issue:
• “[T]he simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share [Mullen’s] point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a ‘lifestyle’ but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, ‘the right thing to do.’”
• The fact that many Americans in all walks of life share the views and feelings expressed in Mullen’s “heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony,” on accepting the reality, humanity and equal rights of gays: “As more gay people have come out…so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love.”
• The “potent political subtext” that, in contrast to when Karl Rove and George W. Bush “ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people, there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them.” And, now that such an explicit anti-gay animus is “an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage.”
Rich concludes with comments similar to those made by most TMV contributors and readers in their posts and comments, respectively:
The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.
And this brings me back to my initial comment that Rich must not be reading The Moderate Voice. For, at TMV, there has been a very lively discussion on this issue and some very frank reactions. Some so “frank” that they had to be “moderated” in order to remain within the common sense, civil “Comments Standards” at TMV.
Witness the fact that even a couple of Cagle cartoons posted at TMV on this issue have generated a significant number of comments. This cartoon (Gays in the Military) has drawn 33 comments thus far, and this one (Boot Camp for Homophobes), 27 comments.
No “golden silence” at TMV.
54 Responses to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: No Golden Silence Here”
No, some people haven't been cheering or have even complained.
Of course, since the repealing of DADT is self-evident, any discussion is irrelevant. In fact, the less leaders listen to the people on self-evident issues, the better. You can't gradually remove bigotry for the sake of the fearful, hateful or self-absorbed for whom the bigotry was made systematic.
The troops are wearing pounds of ordinance in crazy temperatures while in a country that covers the entire gamut of unrest and fluctuates across the spectrum.
My own experience as a part of a simulated military operation was a fraction as stressful, and not once did the personal business of anyone around me get me distracted, whether there was intense movement and “combat” or any restful periods.
Seriously, I would be *more* worried and ineffective as a soldier if I were in an army that caved to anti-secular political correctness and winnowed soldiers around me based on irrational parameters rather than on merit.
But I guess I wasn't raised in a self-centered, self-glorifying and religious community that told me I was a precious, society-strengthening snowflake whose sexuality and culture was some sort of norm. In short, I am a better person than anyone of the people in those anti-gay councils or whatever. But we all knew that.
… a precious, society-strengthening snowflake …
Jesus wants me for a snowflake, to shine for him each day
dood! your rants are too funny!
Perhaps no silence but at the same time many of us who might be lumped by some as conservative are in support of repeal while some who are on the liberal side have been most vocal in opposition.
So it does show labels don't always apply,
A little tough, but applicable where necessary. I liked it.
Dorian, with respect to your observations about this subject as relates to TMV, I also thought it was interesting how the pros and cons weren't particularly divided down (what might be considered) ideological lines. I attribute that to the people here, who sometimes aren't very cooperative when it comes to categorization.
Its not going to happen folks. Call it bigotry, call it what ever you want, it just ain't happening. Pressing this will cost the Democrats big losses in the midterms. Mullens simply set himself up for politics in the future and President Obama is making another political mistake. That is all that happened. The overwhelming majority of the country’s popular vote is against open gays in the military. It’s a lose-lose issue for Democrats.
Even if Rich is right that the right has been mostly silent on DADT, I'm a little confused by his criticism. The silence either reflects that Republicans see that they have lost the public debate, or else they no longer feel their side of the debate has merit. Either way, that's a good thing, right? I see his piece as just as way to rub the defeat in the face of the opposition, which is neither good politics nor a respectable use of his privileged position as a member of the free press.
“[T]he simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share [Mullen’s] point of view.”
whoops!
It's a very good use of his power to rub defeat in the face of the enemies of DADT. It's called meritocracy, and it's a good thing in society to remind people who are wrong of their place.
BS
Nobody believes this crapola except the people supporting the issue. You obviously FORGOT about the Republican voters or Conservatives if you like.
Any thinking or utterances in defiance of the self-evident are non-existent.
It is imperative to society that statements disputing the self-evident equality of gay people are treated as if they weren't uttered in the first place.
Your thoughts on DADT? Never existed.
Republican or Christianist thinking on DADT? Never existed.
It's as if you never opened your mouths or recorded your opinions in the first place. There is no dissent on DADT. There is only justice and the self-evident, and dissent on this issue must be overlooked reflexively. We won't censor your speech, but we will censor your useless input from our minds instead. That is noble.
Not if those “enemies” have already ceded the point. Maybe the reason many on the right aren't speaking out against repealing DADT is because they're not really that much in support if it in the first place, whether that be for political or principled reasons.
Father_Time and Axel in a battle of 'wits' about DADT on this thread.
Who says political discourse has hit rock bottom, and cannot sink any lower?
And now we can have coed showering and living quarters. Finally the military can save money on combining housing. Anything less would be descriminatory against heteros. Gays have no inherant ability to control their sexual urges than heteros do.
Think about it : )
In the end this will not be a decision of the public arena. It will be a decision of the collective military brass, JAG people and Congress. They will not view the advertising of one's sexality through a PC filter, but rather through a strategic filter.
If gays truly are all about their jobs and not about sexuality determining who they are in the military, then their desire to advertise what they do in their bedrooms flies against that stance. The only reason I can see to “come out” for gays in the military is to signal other enlisted as to their orientation. And this amounts to fishing for dates. How about to be fair, DADT for BOTH heteros and gays? That is fair.
This may also be not just about fishing for dates but also about setting a federal precident to recognize the incomplete fetish group of GLBT as a minority group. From there, a SCOTUS ruling would be mandated to allow them to marry. Any lawyers ready to jump when the precident is set? I'll bet there are..lol..
Stop with the high school BS.
These comments of mine are here and always will be.
FACT: There are 31 states in which an employer can fire a person for being gay. The larger majority of this country are NOT ready for any “gay” synthetic normalization.
The military should follow the country not lead it regarding national social change. Forcing this upon the people within the military is simply wrong and unjust.
Removing DADT is doomed to fail because Americans simply DO NOT WANT the gay subculture crammed down their throats or forced upon their offspring. Furthermore it will divide the Democrat party even further and might I point out that the Republicans are anything but divided and thus as an minority, they are kicking our butts!
All this “justice” crapola is just that Crapola. As far as religion, that is irrelevant in forming my opinion. Religion is an excuse that don’t need to be used. There will never be a “Rosa Parks” of the gay activist community because same sex coupling will never rise to the nobility of race equality.
“FACT: There are 31 states in which an employer can fire a person for being gay. The larger majority of this country are NOT ready for any “gay” synthetic normalization. “
Then these states and everyone in them could be nuked tomorrow and I would not care.
This is America's greatest problem – that democracy has too much influence. Every pathetic excuse for a thought in the mind of the plebeians can fester and spread, like cancer.
Your country is weak and inhuman, fascistoid in its extolling of the mediocre common man.
“Removing DADT is doomed to fail because Americans simply DO NOT WANT the gay subculture crammed down their throats or forced upon their offspring.”
They will submit. At gunpoint, if that is what it takes. The humanity and dignity of the minority will always be more important than the subhuman impulses of the majority.
” There will never be a “Rosa Parks” of the gay activist community because same sex coupling will never rise to the nobility of race equality.”
Then you have just vindicated and excused the klan. You are no human fellow of mine.
Some have said “Why don't you ask the military about DADT”
Monday Feb 8, 2010 6:48:10 EST
Wouldn't matter if it was 99% who opposed it, or 1 %. Humanity must cave to reason without hesitation when it has the chance.
We should happily force ourselves to muddle through on tough, complicated, probabilistic issues.
But when it comes to the self-evident, defiance, pride or fear are bestial things that must be spat on.
The terms “Republicans” “Conservatives” “Teabaggers” “Right wingers” are not interchangeable, at least historically. It is a matter of convenience for some and a strategy of deception for others. Republicans haven't sought to make homosexual service an issue in the past. The Log Cabin Republicans have contributed philosophically for some time. I wrote in another blog the reports of 2 of my friends, one a retired physician and another a 22 year old grunt Marine deployed in the mideast previously and currently awaiting redeployment to Afghanistan. The physician had very strong positive observations about the homosexual men working in his medical company as well as in combat. The 22 year old Marine is an Eagle Scout from a southern town. He has absolutely no difficulty in working with homosexual persons in his combat unit and trusts them completely. Obama is correct in having the military brass carry the water on removing the restrictions of service. I give him high marks for that and by the way I am not a Democrat.
Good comments, Wagglebutl.
I also agree with your
, as I believe is the case with those who “interchange” “Libs,” Liberals,” “Lefties,” Democrats, “Lib-Dems,” “Dem-Libs,” and worse.
That's a really good point, Patrick.
We are talking about open homosexuality allowed in the military. Not chaining gays to bumpers and dragging them down the street.
Grow up.
Unconvincing and the examples you present are weak and few.
Anybody can whip up a survey, but the facts remain. Gays are NOT popular, even downright hated over the vast majority of the population. At best they are a novelty to “some”, but nothing more. Mullens maybe latent gay, who knows, but he don’t speak for the nation. Neither do you.
The facts are on my side Dorian, not yours.
The vast majority of the population does not hate gays, but we know for a fact that you do
The hate and prejudice are certainly on your side,
“Mullens maybe latent gay, who knows, but he don’t speak for the nation.”
Your mental illness makes your speech as ugly as leprosy mutilates a man's face.
We must never rob people of their basic dignity in order to protect less important claims from others. I might as well ask that you be banned from the site because the aeroplane in your avatar has an ugly color scheme.
That is a perfect analogy – me demanding that you be stripped of the right of being here because of my personal, aesthetic sensibilities.
FT, nothing of what you have said has been based on the kind of thinking I expect from a human. It's as if you have language capabilities, but other parts of your brain have been removed. I have not yet met one homophobe I've been willing to concede as equal to me, and you are no exception. Your vote would not have the same weight as mine in a developed society, and in court we would be treated differently as well. I don't believe there is such a thing as a soul, but if there was one, yours would have a small but ugly tumor on it.
The majority of Americans live between the 40 yard lines and we are a patient and forbearing lot. Sometimes too much so considering the fast pace of social, technical and economic developments. About the human rights issue we must be clear and steadfast. If we believe the democratic espoused principle of inalienable rights we must be as Martin Luther declared, ” Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” There just isn't a little in or a little out. On this I agree with Kaspar.
I find FT's arguments misguided, and a I would simply ask:
“FT, are you afraid of gay people?”
That aside, Wagglebutl, do you know why Martin Luther said “Here I stand?” He was defending the authority of the Bible against a Vatican teaching that overturned (or at very least, ignored) the teaching of Scripture. We should be clear on that, since many who oppose homosexual “marriage” likewise do so because of what the Bible says. I have no doubt that if Luther were here he'd be surprised to see his most famous quote – “Here I stand” – trotted out as a backhanded way to ignore the very Scriptures he was trying to defend.
We are talking about open homosexuality allowed in the military. … Gays are NOT popular, even downright hated over the vast majority of the population.
You could say the same about Jews or blacks or Asians or a number of other groups. That's not an adequate reason to discriminate against them. People in the military do not need to win popularity contests: we give them guns.
As for what “open homosexuality” entails, I don't know how much gay military porn you take in in the average week, but your vision seems to be more salacious than most people's. Gay real life is more mundane, just as real hospitals are duller than naughty nurse videos might tempt one to imagine.
Redbus, you might want to research Martin Luther and reformation theology. If you think Dr. Luther would be surprised at my use of his comment, he would be positively devastated if he sat in some of the congregations and assemblies that bear his name. In any event, when I hear someone formulating positions against homosexuals based on scriptural interpretation I'm reminded of Ted Haggard and his ilk. The point is that proscription of the rights of any person based upon sexual identity is incompatible with democracy and it is passed time to eliminate the govenment's discriminatory practices. Citizens who appreciate democracy know that if the government can restrict one group's rights based upon sexual identity, then it can do so based upon racial identity or any other factor. There is no ground to yield here, we either practice equality or we don't. ” Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Quote it if you want, Wagglebutll. It's quoted out of context. Whether some Lutherans do that today – as you suggest – is irrelevant. And the bottom line, for Christians anyways, is whether personal behavior is subject to the Word of God. I've known ministerial colleagues who were thrown out on their ear for infidelity with the opposite sex. Haggard lost his church over infidelity with the same sex. Sounds pretty consistent to me. The larger issue, though, and I think it's an important question, is whether in a “democracy” that same standard should apply? Should what Christians (at least most) think on an issue like homosexuality have any sway in the laws of the land in which they live? Is our faith and its moral teachings to be “cordoned off” and marginalized so that it has no bearing at all on the society in which we live? Secularists seem to want that outcome. I wonder if Bernie Madoff would have stolen 50 billion if he'd internalized the 8th Commandment, “You shall not steal”? So it seems like American culture wants the convenient parts of the Christian code, but want to “cherry pick” like we're eating at a buffet. That's just not how it works. But I'll stop rambling…
You cannot and should not discriminate because of what people are, because they cannot change what they are, but rather the content of their character. In other words what they act like. People are not born gay, they choose to be gay. If they are discriminated against it is because of the way they choose to act, not because of what they are, and, what they are, is male or female, of which they do not want to act like. Therefore race discrimination does not apply because “gay” does not rise to the nobility of race.
What I have been waiting for is specifics. Everybody wants to give the LGBT activists whatever they want, but the activists do not say specifically what it is that they want.
Equality is a big word.
With regard to the military, what does open homosexuality mean? Two men kissing on an Air Force base park bench…in the cockpit of an aircraft….in the barracks…in uniform or out of uniform? Sexual innuendo and horseplay in living quarters? Should you allow the gays to live in the same room or mix it up and force others to endure? If a commander enforces the UCMJ regarding same sex sexual activity does he/she get his/her career squashed because of politics?
…AND IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS TO COMMAND OF INAPROPRIATE GAY SEXUAL ACTIVITY DOES THAT SOLDIER GET LABLED BIGOT AND HOMOPHOBE…DORIAN?
With regard to the military, what does open homosexuality mean? Two men kissing…
You're describing scenes from your videos again. Think more along the lines of talking about who you saw a movie with last night. Or talking about the family waiting for you back home.
Calm down. Have you ever heard of the UCMJ?
From the Washington Post:: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
I agree with Staff Sgt. Loverde's statement ” [Repealing DADT is] more than just the right thing to do. It's needed to keep our country safe. . . ” I am aware of individuals fluent in Farsi being discharged because of their sexual identity being discovered from non-military related events. So we do know there are broad and specific critical needs for service. Also there is a need other than fighting to repeal restrictions on individual identity. It is a need the American experience has to perfect its ideal of democracy. From the writing of ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” by a slave owner America has been searching for that perfection. It is no wonder that some folks have trouble defining and understanding equality.
Yeah, don't you ever read the entire post anymore old man? Or do ya need a nap?
lol
…but answer the question please.
Stop the goofy act.
My question is legitimate: What are the parameters of “gay equality”.
Since I know you don’t know because they have never been stated, what do you envision they should be?
Have you ever heard of the UCMJ?
- – -What are the parameters of “gay equality?”
That is pure non-sense and you can't make sense out of non-sense.
The same “equality” that you enjoy.
The last few days has taught me a lot.
I must now vote Republican and carry the Republican banner. Donate Republican and assist every conservative Republican candidate I can, as much as I can, in order to defeat the screwball ideology you silly people represent. It is clear you do not represent the down beaten unfortunate, but rather the loopy, sex in the streets, dry humping freak shows above everyone else.
Nature provides us with naturally selected sex organs. Being anything other than what nature has normally provided you is a CHOICE, and, choosing to be anything other than naturally human is an sub-culture undeserving of special legal protections. In particular, this “gay” sub-culture is especially immoral, in, and, by, it’s sexual pervasiveness as well as undefined political ambitions.
What are the parameters of “gay equality”?
Depends whom you ask. There are millions of gay people spanning the political gamut. Even if there weren't, it's hard to define “equality” in the abstract, it comes down to balancing specific interests in specific situations.
IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS TO COMMAND OF INAPROPRIATE GAY SEXUAL ACTIVITY DOES THAT SOLDIER GET LABLED BIGOT AND HOMOPHOBE?
I guess it depends whether he's a bigot and a homophobe. But so what? You passed over that border some miles back and lived to tell the tale.
Ok, so the law should read: “Depends on whom you ask”.
Good answer DJ, I'll pas it on to congress.
There's little need, since that's how all our other laws already work. Congress passes some vague statements about equality or freedom of speech or whatever, and the courts figure out what that means in specific situations.
Good for you, F.T. That is what a democracy is all about.
Republicans can use all the help they can get.
Republicans can use all the help they can get.
And he'll find himself in good company.
Quite.
One of the last purges.
Yes and with more conservative judges, the world shall become clear.
Good One, Dr. J.
I am sure, as a good Republican, FT will immediately join that good Republican organization, the Log Cabin Republicans, who are calling “For Full Repeal of Failed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy.”