Today's Ludicrously Super Tuesday results will undoubtedly be among the most important primary results for years to come, which is not news to anyone reading this blog, I'm sure. In a few hours, we will know - not officially, of course, but bullshit aside, we will know - the two candidates that will dominate our attention for the next ten months. Duh, I know.
Let's, then, look to the implications of that knowledge. On the base level, as in any series of primaries, no longer will individuals who pretty much agree argue over pedantic points that more or less are irrelevant, but instead the candidates whose culmination of opposite interest groups and support will clash, finding any excuse to divide the country so as to gather the most obtuse popularity. Duh again. But keep reading.
So, the true battle for the presidency developing, the search for excuses will make issues out of things that for the most part should not be partisan, as the partisan issues are for the most part decided. To get straight to the point, DADT will be a very tantalizing target to make a wedge issue.
We cannot let this happen.
In any sort of risky situation, there are times to be zealous, and there are times to keep your mouth shut.
I learned this lesson March-ish of 2002, staying at then-boyfriend Chad's house in Gilroy California on pass. This was not my first weekend away, and in fact my command was well aware of the reasons why I took so many passes, though not from my own lips.
Six in the morning on a Saturday, and I find myself on the phone with my good friend Sarah who reveals that a routine contraband inspection exposed the secret lives of four of my close friends. I rushed back to Monterey, and immediately dispelled any sort of evidence that might overtly place me in the camp of those caught - which incidentally amounted to a photo of Chad sitting a little too close to me in a restraunt.
I was careful. I was smart.
I knew better than to bring the unspoken on post, and I was well aware of the number of unwelcome surprises that turned up in health and welfares. The wave of DADT discharges that were a result of this particular health and welfare were new, which is part of the reason why those discharges found their way into the news and helped bring attention to the number of linguist discharges.
Were these linguists stupid for placing themselves at risk like they did? Absolutely.
But remember that my command was still well aware of my own leanings, and did not proceed with discharge proceedings. The policy coupled with undeniable and unignorable evidence was responsible for the discharges, not the command, as obviously there was no issue before with the presense of gays in the unit. Nevertheless the command recieved a lot of flack for conducting a 'witch hunt,' when in fact no such actions were conducted.
A few months later, a week from graduation, and amidst a weekly Class A uniform inspection, my first sergeant asked me directly about my 'friend' in Gilroy. I responded in just as vague and generic terms, clearly understanding the message my first sergeant was trying to convey: he had no problem with my sexuality, and he appreciated that I never placed him in a position in which he had to respond in the negative.
Back to the elections.
Here's the current status of DADT relative to the primaries:
- After a strong appearance in the initial debates, DADT has pretty much gone unmentioned, or at least been relegated to irrelevant.
- Though somewhat quiet, the initial push to include DADT in the debates has lain a very partisan line on an issue that wasn't necessarily partisan prior to the debates.
A cursory look at the reasoning for such a split would lead to the obvious conclusion that, while trying to gather votes, Republicans must be associated with family while Democrats necessitate a focus on human rights. These are lines that can easily split the voting populous around either candidate, Iraq and Afganistan war be damned.
However, at the moment there is no reason to bring DADT back up, as the economy, healthcare and the wars still are very interesting to all the candidates. Let's not push it.
Otherwise we place the Republican candidate - whoever he may be - in a position in which he would have to respond in the negative.
Which would be stupid.
6 comments:
Amen, brother. It is about time someone put some perspective on those who were discharged at DLI for being less than discreet. If they could not be discreet about their sexuality, how could they operate in duty assignments that require a level of discreetness due to the sensitive nature of their work?
A natural corollary to that is the fact that discreetness is required of any linguist regardless of sexuality. A woman at DLI who was an exotic dancer in San Francisco would also be discharged. It seems that sexuality was only part of the larger issue of being indiscreet.
Of course, you are considered a bit of a heretic if you say something like that.
Word.
The key thing to remember here is that those linguists were still discharged because of DADT in an environment that found their sexuality irrelevant. I think we're afraid to mention the other side of the coin because it's hard to put everything that needs to be mentioned into a quick soundbite, even though the eventual conclusion from this aspect is still DADT = BAD.
My argument is that if we debate this honestly and revealing the full truths behind every situation, we still arive at the same conclusion that DADT should be repealed, gaining respectability points for being honest as a bonus.
I hesitate to say that I'm not very familiar with these cases, other than hearing about the lack of Arab linguists due to DADT. Is there something more in-depth on them that takes a critical and objective look into them? Since my knowledge is 14 years out of date, I've been reluctant to get into the minutiae of DADT but instead have focused on it in general terms. I haven't been kidding when I've said that Shilts' book has left me stunned by how much detail I missed from earlier periods of gays serving in the military. I was too preoccupied with keeping my own head down at the time I guess when I was in. The anti-military bias among some gay activist groups back then, that unfortunately still exists today, hasn't been encouraging to read though the personal stories of gay vets are fascinating. Sheesh, this is like the first time I saw the movie "The Trip" a couple of years ago and was amazed to learn about historical events from the 1970s I was ignorant about. Of course I was just a boy in the South back then...
That's a very interesting take on the DADT issue. I hadn't thought about it that way before. I look forward to reading more of your ideas. Thank you for your post.
May I ask a question that I think relates to your story about being discreet? Without even trying, I have come across a couple of sites with active servicemembers who are openly gay. They discuss their orientation and the DADT policy. These sites contain pictures or other things that could identify the person. Aren't these people putting themselves and their careers at great risk by putting themselves out in the public like this? Or has some of the military become so open to gays that it just isn't an issue anymore? On the one hand, I applaud their bravery in putting themselves on the line for a cause in which they believe. On the other hand, I worry that if too many follow suit, it could create a backlash that would result in another witch-hunt. Am I missing something here?
You are a great leader. Thanks for your heroism.
Post a Comment