Over at
South Dakota Politics Blog, headed mostly by Dr. Ken Blanchard, there are some usually haughty discussions on mostly national issues. Having studied under Dr. Blanchard for four years and having him as my academics advisor for three years means that I know Dr. Blanchard quite well and we get along quite well for two individuals who couldn’t disagree more on politics and policy. I have commented on a few posts and enjoy the back and forth that happens. Their issues are usually well researched, and while having a clear conservative side, are usually absent the typical uber-partisan language - which is a nice change.
I thought this was going to be a similar situation when I co
mmented on Miranda Flint’s post on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I commented that DADT is a horrible policy and that there have been many abuses since it was put in place. Miranda had a pretty good response and mentioned that “
Before 1993, some homosexuals who did enlist personally enforced their own "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.” This is a valid point; however, here was my response:
I do realize that GBLT individuals who did enroll enforced their own "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - however, with the policy in place, people abused it to persecute those who they thought were gay, or like I pointed out, females who turned down the advances of their male superiors.
I do agree with Jhm47 that the military is not a gay-friendly environment, but does that mean we should just allow that hatred to continue? The south wasn't very friendly to African-Americans sharing water fountains or bus seats - should we just have said "well, there might be some negative consequences, so we better not do anything" - no. I do realize that having openly GLBT individuals serving in the military will probably anger some people and will have some backlash - but at the same token, that doesn't excuse it. To me it is about treating all people with respect and dignity - of course, I'm a liberal, and I think they should be allowed to marry as well, so I'm sort of in the minority here...
My point was simply that the policy is massively discriminatory and is wrong. The last comment was just an off-hand comment that didn’t really apply and was just an acknowledgement that I’m in the minority when it comes to gay rights issues. Miranda’s response surprised me and prompted me to write this post instead of responding on the original post because of space. Her response is in italics and my response follows:
I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that you’re tolerant and respectful because you’re a liberal or that others aren’t because they’re conservatives.
- I never said that I’m automatically tolerant and respectful because I’m a liberal and conservatives are not – towards gay marriage and gay rights I am and people opposed to them are not tolerant of their rights. I did not imply anything else of the sort.
Taking a stance on gay marriage necessarily demands intolerance. If you take a stance for it, you may show your tolerance of homosexuality, but in telling fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims and a whole host of others, that they are wrong and that they should change their ways, you show a lack of tolerance toward their beliefs. Similarly, if I support fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims and their right to stand up for their religious or moral values, I necessarily discriminate against homosexuals.
- This is what really angers me when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. I am not telling someone of the Christian faith that they have to accept gay marriage – the Federal Government and the States should accept it – Religion has NOTHING to do with it. We are not a theocracy – one’s religion does not dictate what the government can and can’t do. If the state started to allow homosexuals to marry do you honestly think the Catholic Church is going to open their arms and say “okay, let’s allow them to be married” no! And the state would have no right to tell a church they had to either.
- Additionally, and this is my beef with fundamentalists, if we followed everything that the bible told us to do, I would be offering my children up to slavery, we couldn’t wear clothing that had two-different types of fabric, my father would go to hell for planting two different crops next to each other and I would have to be burned for working on the Sabbath. I don’t want to get into a holy war here, but I’m sorry, playing the ‘I show a lack of tolerance towards their belief’ card doesn’t affect me at all – I have no problem being intolerant to views that are archaic and out of date. Does this mean I don’t get along with fundamentalists? No, I know a few and am good friends with them. Do we disagree on things? Absolutely. Do I try to force my opinions on them? NO I DON’T! Do I wish they would change? Yes, but so does everyone who disagrees with someone else – you wish they would just see your way of thinking.
It is not, as you try to make it seem, a matter of liberals being more tolerant than everyone else. Conservatives and liberals simply differ in what they are tolerant of.
Badlands Blue, for instance, isn’t tolerant or respectful of John Thune. Take this paragraph from a recent post:
-
Thune, who never bothered to serve in the military, likes to pander to Teabaggers, hype up patriotism (mainly his own) and pretend he gives a rip about national defense. But he doesn’t. Not when he takes campaign money from fat cats who do business with terrorist aiding nations.
-
Tolerant? Not really. Respectful? Not at all. Liberal? Yes.
- Again, I’ve never said that liberals are automatically more tolerant than everyone else – on gay issues, towards the GBLT community they are! Are some of the authors here not very tolerant of John Thune? No they are not. Of course, I don’t see what is intolerant of the quote you are using. It plainly states that Thune never served in the military, yet he pretended to stand up for the military and patriotism when he takes money from oil companies that are doing business with terrorist aiding nations – how is that intolerant? Isn’t that pointing out the hypocrisy of a politician? Now does that mean that some of the authors of Badlands Blue are tolerant of John Thune? No – I’m just saying a lot of times they are pointing out the facts – sometimes in not the most eloquent manner – but they are the facts.
Meanwhile, I tend to be more tolerant of Thune and less tolerant of the current administration. We just tend to tolerate people who appeal to our biases more than people who do not.
- I agree – we are all tolerant of people we agree with and less tolerant of people we don’t agree with – that was my original point. I never said conservatives were automatically intolerant, just on the GBLT issue, a lot of them are (not all!).
I don’t doubt that some abused the DODT policy. The fact that some abused the policy does not automatically make it a bad policy, however. Take aid to Africa. Many have abused aid projects, taking money for themselves when it ought to have gone to those in need. This does not mean we need to stop sending AID to Africa. It just means we should take more care in doing so and prosecute those who abuse their positions. Perhaps the same could be said of DODT policies. Perhaps not.
On average, a thousand lesbian and gay soldiers have been dismissed each year under the policy from 1993 to 2003. The policy is not one which can be morally acceptable to gay men and lesbians, or indeed to anyone who has respect for human beings.
The moral dynamics of "don't ask don't tell" treat lesbians and gay men differently and worse. In this policy, gay men and lesbians are not demonized as agents to be feared for what they might do, but rather are viewed as the horrible, the disgusting, the loathsome, the unspeakably gross-in short, as abject beings.
-His point is this: when we put something in place that says “don’t talk about it” we are treating it much worse than just coming out and saying – you can’t serve. However, he continues his point saying:
This daunting effort to repress knowing and acknowledgement requires a blanket of silence to be cast over the abject thing. In order to be systematic, the silence must be ritualized: to tell of the abject is to break a taboo; for names, like scents, bring abject matters back fully to consciousness. And, to ask of the abject is to be reminded of its constantly recurring, lurking, luring presence just beyond oneself. In essence, the Pentagon order "don't ask, don't then ritualizes into a national paradigm The Closet-with its open secret and commitment to the abject standing and worthlessness of lesbian and gay people. The order says that as long as you gays act as though we people don't know who you are, we will act as though you don't exist, and thus in our willing ignorance, recommit ourselves to viewing your status as loathsome and repulsive. The chief problem of the social institution of the closet is not that it promotes hypocrisy, requires lies, sets snares, blames the victim when snared, and causes unhappiness-though it does have all these results. No, the chief problem with the closet is that it treats gays as less than human, less than animal, less even than vegetable-it treats gays as reeking scum, the breath of death. No one can accept the "don’t ask, don't tell" policy and suppose that at the same time he or she is treating lesbians and gay men as persons.
All of us might not think of it this way at first, but he makes a great point. This policy is forcing people into a closet and telling ourselves that they don’t exist – this is less than human. If you don’t like their lifestyle, fine – be open about it. But trying to keep it under the rug and in the closet is less than human – which is why I put down that this is quite possibly the worst policy ever implemented – and I know it was a Democrat that did it – a bad policy is a bad policy.
Another negative effect #at the ban against homosexuals has on morale results from lesbian baiting. This is a technique male soldiers sometimes use to pressure women (heterosexual as well as lesbian) into providing sexual favors. "Write me an erotic letter," one commander tells a woman officer, "or we'll think you're a lesbian." "Have sex with me tonight and show me you're a real woman," says another. In the not-%-distant past, it was possible for a woman to say "no" without it implying that she was sexually inadequate. But in today's military culture, when women are afraid of being discharged lesbian, it is harder to say "no." Do it for me," a commander can say, "or we will have to assume you're a dyke." And even when a woman soldier does say "no," she can be raped. And in our military's current mixed-gender environment, the threat of being called lesbian can be used to intimidate her against reporting that rape. This intimidation carries a real punch, for women are much more likely to be discharged for homosexuality than are me.
To me, this is the worst part of this policy and all of us, regardless of your stance on homosexuality, should be appalled by it. For this reason alone it should be banned!
I think Springy makes a good point. The purpose of the military is not to promote any sort of equal rights agenda. It is to defend the country. And while equality is important, we allow discrimination on the job, in some cases when we fear that safety depends on it. We might not, for instance, find it appropriate to hire a woman as the only guard in an all-male prison for violent offenders. This sort of discrimination has nothing to do with ill-will toward women. It is simply sensible.
The military is central to the construction of the State in the United States. Providing a common defense, according to the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, is one of the reasons that a government is necessary and desirable. Defending one's country has always been considered a defining characteristic of citizenship. In fact, it has been suggested that the legal disabilities of women in classical Greece with respect to property, marriage, and inheritance rights were incurred because women were prohibited from bearing arms.' The prohibition against certain groups serving in the military adversely affects these groups in other areas where rights and privileges of citizenship are involved. The fact that the military is also the largest single employer in the United States is both substantively and symbolically important.
The military, when it ended segregation of African-Americans from White soldiers set the symbolism that it was time to change and that society needed to change as well. The military, while needed to defend our country, also can change society.
I know this post got quite long winded and a lot of people probably don’t care. My point is this: this is a horrible policy and the same arguments that are being used against GLBT from serving were used against African-Americans as well. You are not automatically intolerant of all things if you are opposed to it – you are just intolerant of GLBT and their rights. I do appreciate the discussion and it really got me to do some research and a lot more thinking then is usually applied to blog posts, so Miranda, I thank you for that!
There is a ton of evidence on this topic and how bad DADT is. While I got Miranda off topic a little bit with the gay marriage thing, the fact remains – this is a horrible policy and needs to be repealed – and I will call out President Obama if he doesn’t – you can count on that.
Posts
