Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, December 20, 2010 5:33:01 PM
You can see from
my previous postings on "Don’t Ask Don't Tell" that I don’t have strong feelings about the policy either way. It's a done deal now anyway. However, I think there was a level of dishonesty among most of those activist groups seeking to get rid of the policy in that most of them are no fans of the military and simply want to use homosexual members of the military to further their political agenda, primarily the neutering of marriage. Now that getting ting of DADT is assured, that truth is being talked about in the MSM. See
this Associated Press article by Verena Dobnik.
Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead.
The Senate voted Saturday to end the 17-year ban on openly gay troops, overturning the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Actually, the 17-year-policy was more friendly to homosexual people than before. The military's ban on private homosexual behavior goes back much further.
Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center - a think tank on the issue - said the vote "ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings."
Really now, because the policy was that they weren't going to ask about sexual orientation and they didn't want to hear about sexual orientation, they weren't treating homosexual people like human beings? Please. Who runs around shouting out their sexual orientation in the workplace anyway?
For thousands of years, he said, one of the key markers for first-class citizenship in any nation is the right to serve in the military, and Saturday's vote "is a historic step toward that."
There is no right to serve in the military. People are turned down for any number of reasons.
Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving.
Driving home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive said she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America.
"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.
I acknowledge homosexual people as full citizens, but I don't think that a brideless or groomless pairing is marriage. This is not a contradiction. Any person who volunteers for military service is doing so knowing full well the laws on marriage, so no whining about "I'm serving my country but I can't get a marriage license with someone of the same sex." Neither can anybody else. Don't like it? Don't enlist.
The article by
Robin Abcarian and Jessica Garrison in the Los Angeles Times is more direct, leading off with:
Today the military, tomorrow the marriage altar?
No surprise there.
Indeed, the most important victories for gays have been won this year in the courts and Congress, rather than through the electorate.
Yes, that silly electorate that believes in "we the people".
The article recounts the "progress" this year, again calling the California Marriage Amendment a "ban".
"The momentum in America," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national advocacy organization Freedom to Marry, is "toward the freedom to marry and ending unfair treatment of gay people."
Again, everyone, regardless of sexual orientation,
has the same freedom to marry.
Wolfson noted that 40% of Americans now live in states where some form of marriage or civil union for gay couples is recognized.
Funny how they include civil unions here, but then will turn around and insist that civil unions are an insult.
The article then goes over Obama's support of homosexuality advocacy.
But those who oppose gay marriage also scored important victories.
I don’t "oppose gay marriage". I defend marriage, and I support the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licenses.
Now that DADT is gone, you'll be seeing why groups that are normally hostile to the military were so concerned about making it easier for homosexual people to serve.
There's another paradox or two here. You have to believe that some people can't help but be sexually attracted to people of the same sex and must act on that attraction, and yet believe this won't be a problem when they are bunking and showering with people of the same sex. People on the Left were so concerned about sexual harassment (except by Democrat Presidents) that a man asking a female coworker for a date can be unforgivable, but it isn't a problem that a straight man will have to shower with an openly gay man as part of his job. That straight man can get in trouble for complimenting a woman on her skirt, but would a gay man be in trouble for staring at the straight man in the shower?
It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, will be made to policies and enforcement against adultery and other prohibitions on sexual activities. Will standards be applied equally?