The camel’s nose
Since I get in trouble every time I write about this, I’ll do it again. It seems that there’s a new executive director of OutServe-SLDN, the lead lobbying group for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and he/she says the battle isn’t over yet. From Stars & Stripes;
“There is a tremendous amount of inequality still,” said [Allyson] Robinson, a 1994 West Point graduate and longtime rights advocate. “We have (the Defense of Marriage Act). We have families of military gays and lesbians not able to access basic support and benefits. The reason we’re still fighting on these issues, even after repeal, is because we have not yet achieved our mission.”
[…]
Robinson, who commanded Patriot missile units in Germany and Saudi Arabia during the 1990s, served five years in the Army and lived for 30 years as a man before transitioning to a transgender woman. She also worked as a Christian minister, and admits that her personal life has confused and alienated some colleagues.
While gay and lesbian troops can now serve openly in the military without fear of dismissal, transgender individuals — troops with “gender identity disorder,” under Defense Department regulations — are still banned.
So, we were told before the repeal that Don’t Ask, Don’t tell was standing in the way of gays serving their country, because that was all they wanted to do, but they couldn’t honestly because they had to hide their gayness. OK, so now that particular barrier to service has been removed,, the bar for the rest of us has been moved. It’s not about selfless service at all but, it’s about benefits. So instead of being honest in the first place, the Gay movement is just changing the definition of selfless service to mean selfish service. Not, what can I do for my country, but rather what can the government give me.
Like most Americans, I wasn’t opposed to gays serving openly in the military, but I suspected that there was a wider agenda at work here. It’s not about service at all but rather about encoding acceptance of a deviant lifestyle in our system of laws. But, it’s like the Iraq Veterans Against the War turning suddenly on the war in Afghanistan after the war in Iraq was ended – no the gay organizations have to shift their fire to another goal so they can continue to survive even though their initial goal has been reached.
Maybe accepting gays in the military hasn’t disrupted the good order and discipline like many expected, but who can deny with a straight face that accepting trans-gendered people into the military wouldn’t have an adverse effect? The myriad adjustments to the physical presence of transgendered people would be just the tip of the iceberg. And who wants to sit through the resulting power point presentation?
Category: Military issues
@48 – I think you are correct, though I’m unsure of who is advocating unrestricted and wanton freedom irrespective of law. I don’t think the ability to enter a legally recognized, committed relationship breaches the tenets of law and order, nor is anything but in line with Conservative ideological values.
CI: many states already allow that – if I recall correctly it’s called domestic partnership. And the inheritance questions can be handled via making a will.
@Hondo – Absolutely, but there again, many civil union contracts do not carry the same protections as marriage.
States should have the latitude to dabble in laws of this nature, vice the federal government…..but excluding the defense of ‘redefining marriage’ [which I don’t really understand, because it doesn’t redefine my marriage], I’m not seeing a rational basis for opposition.
CI. I agree that no one is advocating absolute freedom. My syllogistic approach was merely a Peck’s Bad Boy exercise. On the other hand, the approach I used in comment 48 was not. Hondo hit it #5 of his list. I don’t want to pay short shrift to this so I will revisit it later today.
Wonton freedom? Freedom for wontons? I think that’s only fair, as right now, wontons are generally either served fried or in soup. I think that wontons should be presented in many other ways. Maybe in a McDonald’s Happy Meal. Or as balloons in Macy’s parade.
What? Not wontons? Oh, sorry.
Never mind.
@47: Some states do not recognize “common law marriage”. It all depends on what area you live in, as Hondo said.
@47 in common wealth states like Massachusetts those common law marriages can often dissolve with a complete division of all assets if the term of the common law marriage was long enough, meaning selling off real estate and dividing the proceeds, working out shared division of pension assets, etc….welcome to the socialism capital of new england!
@47 Actually I am wrong, the case I thought represented the Mass law is based on a common law marriage created elsewhere but dissolved here, our little socialist mecca doesn’t recognize common law marriages created here…I thought the case was based only on Mass law and was not…
Here is the follow-up I threatened earlier! Homosexuality is antithetical to a nation’s existence which—in some instances—isn’t a bad thing at all. But I think it’s quite safe to say that such is not an immediate threat to OUR nation’s existence and that heterosexual Americans will continue to reproduce. But more to the point of our focus, our Federal government is reliant on the approval or acquiescence of the citizenry for its legitimacy. When the government acts or fails to act in a way that is inimical to the wishes of the majority, the government actors are changed or, as Hondo alluded to, the seeds of violent rebellion may be sown. These aren’t the only options, of course, but you get the picture. In the USA, our Founding Fathers explicitly recognized that there are certain unalienable rights bestowed by our Creator and they expressly identified three of them in the Declaration of Independence. A decade plus later, the Constitution was established. Now, this history of the United states in one paragraph must assume that no Bill of Rights discussion be included, other than to say that the protection of the states and their people from the newly formed Federal government was essential for acceptance and ratification of the Constitution. Fast forward to Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863. He speaks of this nation, under God, and describes its government as one that is of, by, and for the people. Today, I am wondering just what the hell happened such that no one of the Founding Fathers nor Lincoln would recognize this place? How, for instance, did we come to the point that homosexuality is to be celebrated, and a Congress finds it necessary to pass an act to actually defend marriage, the legal union of a man and a woman? And how did a Federal court come to conclude that this Act was unconstitutional, that homosexuals are a class of people to be accorded constitutional protection when their classification is a preference? How did a small minority come to rule the roost and when did the Constitution bestow upon the president… Read more »
This is a well thought out position. I disagree with a majority of it for the reasons below, but I for one appreciate the effort and reason of your presentation.
Regarding homosexuality being antithetical to a nations existence, at least as an abstract theory…..given that homosexuals exist…and have always existed, if they constitute some dire threat to a polity, then it would somehow seem rational that they be eliminated. As it stands, as sexual orientation is not communicable, I can’t see how they could be a threat to any larger polity than possibly a self contained bronze age tribe.
Continuing that point to government acting inimical to the desires of the majority; when the majority subscribes to an ideal that runs counter to the principles illustrated within our founding documents, then it is incumbent upon the minority to agitate for change using the processes available to them under the same documents. This has happened in our history previously, and is happening again.
In your final paragraph, you allude to DOMA and the ‘need’ to enact such legislation. Please tell me where within our founding documents does the Federal government have the power to legislate so?
Now your argument apparently rests upon the premise that sexual orientation is a preference, yet if you are like myself, you might argue that your heterosexuality is no choice whatsoever.
I would turn your concluding argument around in this regard and ask, how did we come [in this modern, enlightened era] to actually argue to keep a minority demographic from enjoying the same rights and liberties that the majority enjoys? How did Conservatism specifically evolve from a protector of individual liberty to one where selective and preferential treatment is endorsed? How does the majority come to embrace a narrative where they are victims?
Finally, I’m forever pressed to conjure a right that would be lost, an offense against me, or a restriction of my liberties if homosexuals are allowed to enjoy the same legal recognition that I do.
CI: I will respond to your questions after I calm down a bit from other readings I did here and elswhere. It may be much later but I will respond.
No worries, I’ll bookmark for when this post gets pushed off the front page.
CI: one can argue that the authority for the DOMA is granted by the 2nd sentence of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution (italicized below):
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
The part in bold italic appears to give Congress the authority to specify the effect of “Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” across state boundaries. “Prescribing . . . the Effect thereof” would also include the power to prescribe that the effect of a particular act/record/proceeding will be nothing.
The latter appears to be exactly what the DOMA does. Specifically, it specifies that no state need recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state (8 USC § 1738C). It does not prohibit states from doing so – but it leaves it up to the individual states to make that call.
It is absolutely ridiculous to equate one’s sexual orientation/behavior with one’s skin color. To equate the two is so majorly offensive to huge segments of society that that argument may all by itself bring down this entire “movement” to extend special rights to folks based upon their choices of sexual reflief.
Many decades ago I was taught that physiologically this collection of cells we call the human body cares not a whit what either stimulates or satifies it sexually. In the decades insuing, I have seen nothing which contridicts that lesson. If one accepts that premise, then we each make choices about our behavior, and base them on all sorts of things – could be peer pressure, religious upbringing, or whatever criteria any individual wants to use. Or chooses not to use.
Even if one does not accept the premise in the opening of the above paragraph, sexual behavior is – TA DA – a behavior. It just does not matter who or what the object of our lust might be, acting upon it is a behavior. It cannot be equated with the color of one’s skin – a condition that, in spite of Michael Jackson’s apparent attempt to change his, is something we are born with, live with, and remains the same when we die.
So, would all of y’all out there making the specious argument that homosexuality is a “civil rights” issue just like race stop doing it? Or keep on, knowing that you look absurd doing it and are likely to be hurting your chances of convincing anyone to join your side of the argument.
Again, a wedge issue designed to distract people from the very real problems within this society which are adversely impacting all of us.
but excluding the defense of ‘redefining marriage’ [which I don’t really understand, because it doesn’t redefine my marriage], I’m not seeing a rational basis for opposition.
I don’t understand what you don’t understand about ‘redefining marriage’?
Marriage has a definition, both culturally for centuries and legally for decades. It is the bond of a man and a woman.
Saying “gay ‘marriage'” or “same sex ‘marriage'” is actually an oxymoron. A “gay bond of a man and a woman” or a “same sex bond of a man and a woman” makes absolutely no sense.
Thus, marriage itself must be redefined to fit homosexual/same-sex unions.
So, there are two natural responses to that…
(1) there is no need to redefine marriage when ‘civil unions’ exist
(2) if we’re going to redefine marriage to be “inclusive” of all lifestyles (as the LGBT rationale goes), then it makes sense to redefine it for polyamorous lifestyles and polygamy.
The rebuttal to the first response by the LGBT movement is that civil unions do not include the same “rights” as marriage. Well, fine, then change civil union “rights”.
The rebuttal to the second response by the LGBT movement is simply they do not want to redefine marriage for polygamy, only for themselves (same-sex unions), because… well they don’t give a reason.
That latter rebuttal makes absolutely no sense, because the same rationale the LGBT community makes for same-sex marriage can be made for polygamy. So, if we’re going to redefine marriage, why not redefine it the whole way? Why are we keeping “discrimination” within this new definition of marriage against polyamorous relationships and polygamy?
I would turn your concluding argument around in this regard and ask, how did we come [in this modern, enlightened era] to actually argue to keep a minority demographic from enjoying the same rights and liberties that the majority enjoys? How did Conservatism specifically evolve from a protector of individual liberty to one where selective and preferential treatment is endorsed? How does the majority come to embrace a narrative where they are victims? Finally, I’m forever pressed to conjure a right that would be lost, an offense against me, or a restriction of my liberties if homosexuals are allowed to enjoy the same legal recognition that I do. I still don’t understand why you think that anyone is working to deny “rights” to homosexuals. I don’t know anyone who is doing that. The vast majority of conservatives have supported making civil unions equal in “rights” and benefits to the “rights” and benefits granted under marriage. What conservatives have fought against is this random redefinition of marriage. I think what most conservatives do not understand about the LGBT movement is why, if this is all about legal “rights” and benefits, the LGBT community is not satisfied with those “rights” and benefits granted to them through civil unions, why are they working to redefine marriage. And I think most know the answer to that… this is not about “rights” or benefits at all, it is about forcing societal endorsement of their lifestyle through the label of “marriage”. They basically claim that if their unions are called civil unions, then the perception is that their unions are not equal to marriage. But marriage is what it is. It has a definition. It has always been a union of a man and a woman. So if someone is not part of a union of a man and a woman, they cannot call what they have a marriage. It would be like a man and two women in a relationship with each other. They can’t just say they want to be considered “married” and then complain when people say “um, no, your relationship is not… Read more »
Wall Street Journal February 3, 2010 Pg. 17 The Case Against Gays In The Military By Mackubin Thomas Owens As expected, President Obama pledged during his State of the Union address to “work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” This law—often mistakenly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell”—was passed in 1993 by a veto-proof margin in a Democratic controlled Congress. The law codified regulations in effect before President Bill Clinton’s inauguration, making the historical prohibition against military service for homosexuals a matter of statute. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates observed in June of last year, “What we have is a law, not a policy or regulation. And as I discovered when I got into it, it is a very prescriptive law. It doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination or a lot of flexibility.” The congressional findings supporting the 1993 law (section 654 of title 10, United States Code) reflect the common-sense observation that military organizations exist to win wars. To maximize the chances of battlefield success, military organizations must overcome the paralyzing effects of fear on the individual soldier and what the famous Prussian war theorist Carl von Clausewitz called “friction” and the “fog of uncertainty.” This they do by means of an ethos that stresses discipline, morale, good order and unit cohesion. Anything that threatens the nonsexual bonding that lies at the heart of unit cohesion adversely affects morale, disciple and good order, generating friction and undermining this ethos. Congress at the time and many today, including members of the military and members of Congress from both parties, believe that service by open homosexuals poses such a threat. There are many foolish reasons to exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed services. One is simple antihomosexual bigotry. But as the late Charles Moskos, the noted military sociologist, observed during the Clinton years, this does not mean that we should ignore the good ones. And the most important is expressed in the 1993 law: that open… Read more »
@66 – “But marriage is what it is. It has a definition.”
But marriage is not air, water or other inviolable matter…it is a man made construct. To be clear, it makes no difference to me what the label is. If civil unions carried the same benefits and protections as marriage did, it would certainly be fine with me. But across the board, they do not.
I understand your argument against what you see as a redefinition of the label of marriage, and I acknowledge your position against it….but while you cannot fathom why your fellow Americans, who happen to be gay, would push for such a redefinition…..it is equally difficult to fathom why otherwise rational people would make such a stand against it……..as it has absolutely no impact on my marriage or yours.
That’s all I really have time for now, I’ve got a bit of hurricane prep to accomplish today.
@68: “If civil unions carried the same benefits and protections as marriage did, it would certainly be fine with me.”
I’m in total agreement with this statement. If, as you say, it doesn’t, then that is a state issue. Right now, in my state, if you’re gay, you don’t have to be married to be carried on your partner’s benefits. If we want to make it an issue of reciprocity across the nation, then I think there are far more important things that deserve that consideration ahead of gay civil unions. One of those being conceal carry. It should be just like driver licenses, where yours is good in every state, so should conceal carry permits. Why do I think that? Because there are more conceal carry permit holders than there are gays waiting to get married.
CI: The question What is Marriage is precisely the title of a paper that I know you will find interesting, at least. It’s a tough read, in part, but I know you’re equipped for it. Hit the Download This Paper button when you get to the site. I’m off and running again this morning but will check-in later.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
I’m going throw a bone into this argument, so that you can fight over it.
Women have been squelched through history by men. The Persians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans — all those governments/sovereignties squashed women because that was a way to keep a powerful population group at bay.
None of those sovereignties has a history of squelching homosexuality. So which group was more threatening to them and why? Women, because without women, the men could not reproduce.
You can argue that point all you want to, but there was a long-held tradition in Samoan society that a young woman who wanted to marry could not do so unless or until she could prove her fertility by getting pregnant.
Homosexuality was illegal in the UK until a few decades ago. It was, in fact, punishable by death. 🙂 It is sitll illegal in France, although I don’t know what the penalty is for being caught inflagrante delicto.
So chew on that while you’re debating all the marriage-this and gays-that. I personally don’t give a crap about it as long as those idiots stop objecting to being stereotyped when they do it to everyone else incessantly.
@2-17 Air Cav – I’ve been able to read through the first bit of the paper, and it is well written. I’ll have to put off reading more until I play Sparky with backup power this weekend, in advance of the dreaded FRANKENSTORM!
Fricken media sensationalism……
Anyway, what I found from the paper initially is that the entire premise is based on the fact that a man-made construct – marriage – is inviolable, and cannot be altered or evolved. This is in contract to other examples of such constructs throughout human history that have been treated with the same sanctity, but eventually evolved when society came to a particular realization.
This issue, along with most others, raises the salient lens I apply to discussing solutions: what course of action is likely to increase the liberty of the citizen, and which is likely to decrease it?
All too often, we become encumbered with the latter.