Putting "Hamlet" on hold for a moment (coz I got sleepy last night), I've decided to post this. I wrote it up for a group on facebook, but thought it might make a nice blog topic as well.
**Links annotated with numbers
So the title is a little misleading; DADT hasn't been repealed yet...but I have no doubt it will be within the week. For those of you who don't know, DADT stands for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", a policy put in place by the Clinton administration in 1993 which was set in place as a compromise to lift the ban on all non-heterosexual members of the military. To his credit, he had at first promised to allow all citizens to serve openly regardless of sexual orientation.(1) "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" allows gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve in the military only so long as they don't reveal their sexual preferences or talk about any sort of homosexual relationships, partners, marriages, etc.
Article 126 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) lists sodomy as an offense punishable by court marshal. Sodomy is defined as "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."(2) This, by the way, includes consensual sex and is sandwiched between the definitions of rape; forgery; and maiming and arson; extortion; and assault. I've already been sworn in, and they gave us a piece of paper informing us that the UCMJ banned any sort of homosexual act, including sex, kissing, hand-holding, and any other sort of intimate act one might do with their partner, straight or gay. That's right, no hand-holding. All of this, by the way, you can't do in the privacy of your own home. No cuddling, no kissing, no hand-holding in public or your quarters.
Last Friday, September 10, 2010, a California judge ruled DADT unconstitutional, having a "'direct and deleterious effect' on the military by hurting recruitment efforts during wartime and requiring the discharge of service members who have critical skills and training."(3) She ruled that it restricts the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and right to due process. A court marshal, you see, is less a trial and more a sentancing. That sentance for being gay, by the way, is two years in Ft. Levenworth, KS (prison) without pay, a $5,000 fine, and dishonorable discharge. Once said accused is finally out of the Hell that is Kansas, they'll be lucky to get a job waiting tables never mind a decent one.
The House already voted in May to repeal the ban, but the Senate has been dragging their feet. With this ruling, however, the pressure was on and the vote is now set for Tuesday, September 21. Good ol' Senator John McCain, however, "has said he may filibuster the bill in opposition to the repeal."(4) There's been a Pentagon study to assess how a repeal would effect the military's readiness, which includes interviewing military members and their families.
I'd really like to know why social conservatives in general and the military are so afraid of gays. Are they afraid they're going to be un-business like with their red, white, and *FABULOUS!*? I mean, yes DADT stopped the witch hunt for men in body glitter (sort-of; in one article I read, a man was discharged because his buddies were snooping, unauthorized, through his personal email), but I mean really. It's the 21st century; we're aware that gay people exist and that they don't have cooties. Never mind we're behind a whole bunch of other countries who allow their gays to serve openly. Yeah, we expect places like Canada and UK to allow it since they're all Communist hippies, and Germany doesn't count coz they like David Hasselhoff and ABBA (jokes)...but what about Israel? What about South Africa? (5)
Apartheid in South Africa ended as recently as 1992 and their first deomcratic elections where all races were allowed to vote was 1994.(6) I'm sure all of you know, but for those of you who may not, Apartheid in South Africa was much like the United States before the Civil Rights Act of 1964...only worse. So...We'll split the difference and say it's 1993 that Apartheid really and truly ended. That's within my lifetime and I'm perfectly aware that nineteen years is a very short time to have lived. We consider ourselves a pretty forward-thinking, forward-moving country, right? I mean, we got over our severe racial issues and we've got affirmative action in place and all that. We're not racist! We've even got a black president! Oh wait...South Africa's beat us to that too...in 1994...by 14 years...after being under white rule longer than we've been a country.(7)
Any way, racial equality isn't the issue here. If we're a superpower and we're so progressive...why is it South Africa is more progressive than us when it comes to gays in the military? I mean, the same country who instituted such a horrible thing as Apartheid actually understand that gay isn't contagious, so why can't the people running the greatest country on Earth get it? When will they not understand that not all gay people are these guys. That one in the plaid flannel by the way? Woman. Yeah, stereotypical butch lesbian.
Also, the UCMJ calls for the dismissal of ANY homosexual member of the military, no matter what their occupation. I'm going to be a linguist in the Air Force, which are in high demand right now, so let's create a hypothetical situation shall we? I don't know what language I'll be assigned to until halfway through BMT, but let's say for the sake of argument I get Pashtu, one of the most commonly-spoken dialects in the Middle East. I'm good at languages; I used to go to Mosque with my friend when I was little and at her Sunday school took to Urdu like a fish to water. Though I’ve since forgotten because I’m out of practice, I could read and write passably in another language by the age of eight. The point is I'm good with languages. Now let's say I'm a lesbian--I'm not, but that's why this is a hypothetical situation--and I've got a girlfriend. One day I'm on AIM with her on my laptop on a weekend flight out to see her (my "best friend") while stationed somewhere. My buddy decided to hop a flight with me coz he's got family back stateside, and unbeknownst to me he's decided to read my conversation over my shoulder. It soon becomes unmistakable that this girl isn't "just a friend." He decides to report me, which leads to a court marshal. Now I've lost everything because I love a girl.
Is that fair? I ask the politicians in Washington, the commanders at West Point and Annapolis, every commanding officer I'll ever have...What if it were them? Let's turn the tables for a moment and say that DADT applies only to straight people. Now suddenly, they can't hold their wife's hand in public, can't even be married to her and have someone know. Do they want that sort of life for themselves and their family? To have to live in secret, lying to everyone they know (also against the UCMJ) just because they love someone? Think about that.
So, let’s bring it back away from the “everyone else is doing it” and “it just isn’t fair” arguments, because clearly those haven’t worked in any sort of official capacity. Regardless of which countries are doing it or whether or not those opposed would be too pleased that they couldn’t have a spouse of the opposite gender, it’s a civil rights issue. The United States Military is a multibillion dollar business just like any other: they have standards, expectations, dress codes, a chain of command, a certain way they operate. On most applications, you’ll see somewhere that the company you’re applying to does not discriminate based on sex, age, religion, disability, color, or national origin. This is thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has presidentially appointed commissioners. They don’t protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but many other federal agencies, states, and municipalities do. For example, according to Executive Order 13087, “It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or sexual orientation”.(8) It is also illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation in twenty states and the District of Columbia. If there aren’t state laws, there are also laws which vary by city or county.(9) Granted, the military holds itself to very high standards. I wonder why, then, it cannot seem to hold itself to the same standards as nearly half the states and Washington D.C. itself.
Some may argue, and perhaps rightfully so, that it’s because the gay rights activists are too in-your-face about their sexuality. They hold parades because they love someone of the same sex when you don’t see straight people holding parades for their own sexuality. The face of the gay rights movement most often looks like this or this . So what’s to keep them from doing the same in the military, right? The last thing we want is the United States Military to turn into a production of The Birdcage. Well, would you like to see a picture of military gay rights supporters? Link look familiar? It’s from the Washington Post, link 4. The same protesters, but with CBS news. The less flamboyant breed of gay rights protestors isn’t quite as popular, so I couldn’t find many more suitable images.
The fact is that military personnel are trained to be professional and business-like in their conduct. They represent not only themselves and not only their country, but also their employer. A business in the private sector won’t hire someone to put in the public eye who they think is going to bring some sort of disgrace upon the company. The employee would be fired or disciplined, and so would sequined and leather-clad protestors more than likely be court marshaled under UCMJ article 133; Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman or article 134; General Article, which states “Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital… according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”(10) See? No need to even make a provision in the UCMJ for them.
The military disapproves of deviancy of any sort and I understand that. They’ve got provisions in the UCMJ for everything right down to faking sick to get out of work.(11) The unfortunate thing is that the only side of the gay rights movement you see is the flamboyant side, the side who throws their sexuality in your face. You don’t introduce yourself as “hi I’m John and I’m heterosexual,” but they might as well say, “hi I’m John and I’m flamboyantly homosexual.” A person is so much more than their sexuality. They’re a personality, a system of beliefs, an entire life and way of living. While some would argue that homosexuality is a conscious choice, I’d argue that heterosexuality is too. Others say that homosexuality isn’t something you choose, and so I would say that neither is heterosexuality. Honestly, I don’t know what causes you to be gay and what causes you to be straight and science can’t be 100% certain at this point, either. Though sexuality isn’t everything you are, it -is- a lifestyle.
My parents have been married for more than twenty years; they were married right out of high school. I feel blessed that unlike so many of my friends and so many of the other children around the country, I live with my two original parents and those parents still love each other after being together for more than twenty years. Their love is a beautiful thing. But it’s a lifestyle they chose for themselves. If my father were in the military, they could walk down the aisles of the commissary holding hands because they’re husband and wife. Taking the same hypothetical situation I set up earlier, I couldn’t do the same thing with my girlfriend. It would be illegal. Even if we had been together since high school, dating for five years, regardless of whether or not gay marriage within the military was permitted I would not be allowed to hold her hand in public, to show that small display of affection. Just as I don’t want to know what goes on behind closed doors with anybody’s parents, especially my own, and they’re certainly not going to share, so I wouldn’t share what went on with my girlfriend. I would just want to be able to hold her hand, to show that yes, we’re together and we love each other very much. To show that I want with her the sort of life my parents have lived together; a happy and loving one.
My point with that example is that I’m aware that gay rights activists often ask for not just equal rights, but more rights than straight couples. That isn’t what I think that should happen. That anyone should get any more rights than anyone else is wrong, it subscribes to “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” (Animal Farm, Orwell, 1945) Which is why I simply think it’s silly not only to not allow homosexuals and bisexuals to love whomever they wish, but to punish them for it. There are provisions in the UCMJ for disorderly conduct such as these crazies you see running around in San Francisco in bondage gear and fuzzy purple cowboy hats, even if military personnel -did- do something so foolish, which I don’t believe they would. The sorts of people who would do that more than likely wouldn’t join the military in the first place. I don’t believe in people parading their fetishes and what they do in bed out in public, but I believe in those people having a right to hold hands, to kiss (restrainedly). Holding hands, a peck on the cheek, they’re small signs of affection but to the couple they matter immensely. They’re not disruptive, they’re not rude, but they’re special to those couples. Why should a person be punished for holding hands?
Some may also argue that if we allowed gays to serve openly in the military, it might lead to more gays getting beaten up. They’ll get beaten up anyway for one reason or another. If it’s legal to be openly gay and they’re beaten up for being gay, that’s a hate crime. Why is a hate crime more severe than a regular crime? I don’t know. Not the point. Also, if a man or woman is beaten up for being gay then they wouldn’t be afraid to report it because they wouldn’t have to fear their livelihoods. They report the crime to the proper authorities, then the perpetrator can be dealt with properly; either punished or discharged according to the severity of the crime.
The repeal of DADT would also more than likely decrease the occurrence of lesbian baiting because sexuality would be a non-issue. Lesbian bating is the act of accusing a woman of being a lesbian if: she refuses to grant sexual favors, she reports sexual harassment, she rebuffs come-ons, and other such occurrences. It’s a form of sexual blackmail, and it -is- a problem in the military.(12) It’s a danger not just to lesbians but to straight women as well. Even if they’re found innocent, their reputation is marred and it opens up the doors to further harassment by her peers and coworkers.
The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, while better than the witch hunts which used to be conducted in the military, has outlived its usefulness. It now restricts the personal freedoms and rights of not just gay couples but heterosexual men and women who can be blackmailed for that sort of thing. There won’t be a burst of fabulosity once gays are finally allowed to serve openly and if there is the military has the habit of quashing those sorts of things before they really gather up much steam and can do so legally. It’s time we bring America into the twenty-first century and allow gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve just as openly as heterosexuals do.
No comments:
Post a Comment