From here:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Marine Corps says he doesn’t think Congress should lift the ban on gay troops who want to serve openly.
Gen. James Amos’ comment came hours before a Senate test vote on a defense policy bill that would repeal the 17-year-old law, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
It’s probably only a matter of time before the law is repealed, though:
The law is already under siege. A federal judge in California recently ruled the ban on gays was unconstitutional, polls suggest a majority of Americans oppose it and Lady Gaga has challenged it in a YouTube video.
What chance does it have if Lady Gaga – a well known advisor to the US military – is against it? She has a simple solution to opposition:
She suggested a new policy should target straight soldiers who are “uncomfortable” with gay soldiers in their midst.
“Our new law is called ‘If you don’t like it, go home!'” she said.
This would probably result in the most Marines heaving a sigh of relief and returning home to their families, leaving the US military looking something like this:
We’ll probably wait a long time before General Petraeus complains that an openly gay military would be like a red flag to a bull for the Taliban and will endanger lives.
If you have a point, it completely eluded me.
To flush out readers with an underdeveloped sense of humour.
touché
David and Dave, I’ll continue with my lack of humour and hope that you can help me see where there is any humour to be missed. I suspect I’m not too far off base by suggesting that you don’t support repeal of DADT. If I’m correct, can you provide any rationale for holding such a position?
Well, the fact that you missed it is somewhat funny in itself.
I’m ambivalent about it.
Once one operates under the assumption that homosexuality is not a sexually disordered state and that homosexuals have the right to have others view it in that light, DADT makes little sense. That seems to be the point we have reached. Those against DADT repeal are probably just in the last stages of denial.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, say you don’t operate “under the assumption that homosexuality is not a sexually disordered state and that homosexuals have the right to have others view it in that light” (I don’t). Can you make a rational argument for restricting rights in one area of society when they are freely granted in all others?
There are many instances of “rights” that are unrestricted in one context but not in another. I am free to take my clothes off in my bedroom but could be arrested if I did it in downtown Oakville – although probably not on Yonge St. I can shoot a gun on a firing range, not in the street.
Does a homosexual have a “right” to be openly so in the military? I can’t see that it’s a given. What if it did jeopardise lives or operational efficiency?
Yes “there are many instances of “rights” that are unrestricted in one context but not in another.” But there must be a defendable rationale or the restriction will be struck down by the courts. What if lives are not jeopardized or operational efficiency compromised? Do you have another rationale? Do you have any familiarity with the Canadian military experience? I think the American arguments that military effectiveness will be severely compromised following a repeal of DADT are bogus and history will show that they were groundless.
I have no military experience and, as I said in an earlier comment, I am ambivalent on the issue: I am not making an argument for or against it – I suspect the repeal is inevitable.
If a convincing argument could be made that efficiency would be compromised, though, do really think it would make any difference to the eventual outcome? Are you seriously suggesting that such decisions are purely rational? Do you think this is not actually about homosexuals pursuing the agenda of having their condition acknowledge as normal in every area of life?
Was Petraeus’s statement that burning a Koran endangers troops an example of what you regard as a defendable rationale for – in that case- restricting a person’s right to burn a Koran?
I think Gen Petraeus had reasonable cause (as recent events have shown). I also think you’re comparing apples and oranges.
I don’t believe that a convincing argument can be made for compromising military efficiency. Such arguments were made prior to the 1992 change in Canadian Forces (CF) regulations concerning homosexuality and I’m quite sure that, 18 years later, virtually all members of the CF would laugh at a suggestion that military efficiency (I think effectiveness is the word you really mean) has been compromised.
I do believe that repeal of DADT in the US is inevitable and that, in a few years, no one will be able to remember what all the fuss was about. In the meantime, there’s lots of spluttering and posturing going on.
You might be right but, funnily enough, that is almost word for word what Ralph Spence, ex-bishop of Niagara said about same-sex blessings around 12 years ago.
btw, completely off topic, I note that Rev. Keith Nethery (see latest post) has lumped us into the same category. I’m not sure if he was trying to insult you or me more; you, probably. I’d be happy to clear your name by telling him how much we disagree about so much.
I think a better comparison would be the policy change that allowed women to attend Canadian military colleges. I was there and remember the many nay sayers who were absolutely convinced the sky was falling. It’s long forgotten now and most people my age and younger wouldn’t understand why there ever was any concern.
He may not always follow his own advice, but I generally agree with Keith Nethery’s comment.
If I’m on the far right, where does that put you? Scary. :-O
Scary, perhaps, but not as scary as agreeing with Keith.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn said:
How could I disagree with that.
Because of the truth it contains or who said it?
Because it’s a restatement of Jer 17:9.
Also, since I have the greatest respect for Solzhenitsyn, I tend to listen to what he says.
Which books of his have you read?
I have great respect for him too and have read several of his books. I’ll list them later but I have to run off now and lead my Grade 5/6 boy’s Pioneer Club group. Hopefully, with God’s help, I can impart a love for God’s Word – the lesson tonight is on how to read and study the Bible.
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich;
The First Circle;
Cancer Ward;
August 1914; and
The Gulag Archipelago.
It’s been a while since I’ve read any of them (except for August 1914 which is my favourite) and I should pick them up again.
Same here.
Although we won’t live to know, it would be interesting to see if his work has the endurance of Tolstoy’s and Dostoevsky’s in the long run. Although brilliant, I don’t think he had the philosophical depth of Dostoevsky or the narrative power of Tolstoy.
As a person who has had several friends join the Canadian Military I would say that in the interest of “safety” for the personel there are some things that should not be “asked” or recorded. Think back to WWII. If you were a Jew and captured by the Nazis would you have been treated the same as a Gentile? Certainly not.
In today’s world, if you are a homosexual and are captured by the Taliban, how would you be treated? And let’s not kid ourselves. Even the databases at the Pentagon are not 100% secure.
Personally I have nothing against homosexuals serving our country. Anyone who volunteers for military service has my respect. And may God keep all our soldiers, sailors and airmen safe.
AMPisAnglican, I’m still in uniform and have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with gay/lesbian colleagues. They would bring their significant others to social functions, so there were no secrets. They also conducted themselves in a totally professional manner and there were no “issues” in the work place.
I haven’t personally been deployed to Afghanistan, but I know (and work with) many people who have. I have little doubt that they would view your Taliban concerns as invalid. If you’re captured, your sexual orientation probably makes little or no difference to how you’re treated.
Come on, Warren. I think if it were known, you’d be treated worse. AMP, don’t ask don’t tell means that a homosexual can serve in the military as long as they aren’t “outed”. As soon as it becomes known, you get a discharge. FWIW, I think it ought to be repealed, and there is no way that your sexual orientation should appear anywhere in official records.
Kate, I think you know this, but just to be clear, DADT is entirely an American thing. Canada has never had anything like it. The Canadian Forces, like many European militaries, has no restrictions on homosexuals serving in the military (since 1992). And I’ve never observed a problem in the workplace. Sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviour in the workplace is dealt with through normal means – whether it is heterosexual or homosexual in nature. And no, I truly don’t believe that sexual orientation makes any difference to our soldiers in Afghanistan. Capture (which fortunately hasn’t happened to our troops) would likely result in uniformly bad treatment for all.