Flaming Idiots

This week both houses of Congress passed separate legislation that would repeal a 60 year old defense department policy that expressly forbids homosexuals from openly serving in the military. The policy was upheld by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 with Defense Directive 1332.14 on the grounds that "homosexuality was incompatible with military service." Congress upheld the ban in 1993 with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 which forced then President Bill Clinton to issue a compromise directive, Defense Directive 1304.26, which created the current policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Now that the Democrat controlled Congress has passed legislation in the House and the Senate that would overturn the ban, it seems likely that a reconciled bill will pass this month and be signed into law by President Obama. This inevitability will is a win for our U.S. military and an affirmation of our core values as a nation that all individuals are created equal. But don't expect social conservatives to see it that way.

One blog I saw floating around the interwebs was particularly provoking, but especially enlightening in that the author did such an excellent job of enumerating some of the most commonly used and unfounded arguments for supporting the ban on gays in the military. Below you'll find a jump to the blog for anyone who wishes to read for themselves, but I have the dirty work of reading it for you and highlighting the main points while sparing you some of the more eye-bleedingly bad commentary.

The author of the article begins by quoting Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has spoken out in favor of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy."

He then continues by asserting that there is some fallacy in the notion that the "DADT" policy asks people to lie about who they are. His argument is that homosexuality is an undesirable behavior that undermines unit cohesion and morale and that the military frequently exercises its right to bar and prosecute people who exhibhit other undesirable behaviors such as "adultery, fraternization and gambling with a subordinate" even if those acts are not considered "criminal acts" in civilian life.

Emotion aside, his logic is woefully twisted. Homosexuality is no more a behavior than heterosexuality is. At puberty this author was not presented with a choice of being gay or straight, and I'm sure if you asked him he would be exceptionally proud to tell you that he's been straight since the day he was born and has lived his life without a hint of sexual ambiguity. He no doubt enjoys kissing, touching, and caressing women as an expression of his affection for them and we could say his behaviors are typical of his heterosexuality. I wonder if he might consider all expressions of sexual behavior to be bad for morale and unit cohesion. Should we segregate our military forces by gender and prohibit service members from engaging in any sort of romantic activity whatsoever for the duration of their service lest it lead to "undesirable behaviors" like adultery and fraternization? Hopefully I won't have to explain to anyone that there is nothing even remotely comparable about one adult's conscious decision to love or engage in consensual romantic activities with another adult to acts of infidelity or a superior abusing their position of authority over their subordinates. Furthermore as a 9 year member of the Armed Forces myself I can assure you that the single largest detriment to unit cohesion and morale is lack of leadership, not what a single unit member chooses to do in their free time.

Again, false. Service members sacrifice their time and their lives in order to fulfill the duty they feel called to. It is a willing and noble sacrifice, but the only qualifications that I recognize as being fully valid for military service are the physical and mental qualifications necessary to perform that duty. So far I am aware of only one group whose sexual behaviors are given any consideration in determining their fitness for military service. To the best of my knowledge who you sleep with has no impact on your ability to run, jump, or fire a weapon. And considering that some of the people I've served with struggle to achieve even minimum competency in completing those basic military tasks, perhaps we should be more focused on weeding them out. Also our all volunteer force is made up of citizen soldiers whose rights remain fully enshrined in the Constitution including the right to free speech even though the where and the when may be limited. I'd like to see someone tell this JAG-hole that as a member of the military he has no right to free speech and therefore cannot attend a Tea Party if he so desired.

Perhaps the author does not understand what the Right to Pursue Happiness is. If a law prohibits someone from doing something as noble and honorable as military service when they would otherwise be more than capable of performing the service required of them because it offends another's more delicate moral sensibilities, it is discriminatory. Pizza Hut can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, but the U.S. Military can? Give me a break.

Maybe if I type really slowly and explain this as I would to a child it might make more sense to him. Everyone does not have equal right to marriage when you tell someone who they can and cannot marry. I say if you're opposed to gay marriage, don't marry someone who's gay. But I'll refrain from digressing any further. Holding up one hypocrasy is hardly grounds to justify another.

"But what about homosexuals?” you ask. The question would better be stated “what about people with homosexual desires?” Put that way, you can see the flaw. If sexual desires alone are the criteria by which we change our marriage (or military) laws to give people “equal rights,” then why not change them to include polygamy? After all, most men seem born with a desire for many women. How about those who desire their relatives? By the gay rights logic, such people don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals don’t have “equal rights” because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman"

Here you get to the heart of the author's true beliefs. He finds any sexual behavior outside of a monogamous heterosexual relationship to be deviant and abhorrent. And I would be inclined to agree that any sexual act that is not consensual by all parties involved is indeed abhorrent. However I don't remember signing anything from my recruiter that asked me if I was a polygamist or a serial cheater or a chronic masturbater before I joined the service. So clearly how one chooses to express themselves sexually really isn't such a high hurdle when it comes to national defense. One only needs to witness the endless parade of barracks hookups at any military installation to see that.

"If desires alone guarantee someone special rights, why are there no special rights for pedophiles and gay bashers? The answer is obvious—because desires, even if you were “born” with them, do not justify behavior, do not make anyone a special class, and should have no impact on our laws. "

If I'm not mistaken I believe Mr. Potato-Head is comparing a consensual act between two rational adults with full mental capacities to a depraved act of predation. But if I need to write it out in crayon using small words, I will. What two adults agree to do with each other is O.K. Victimizing a child who cannot defend themselves is not O.K. See the difference?

Laws do not exist to promote good behavior or prevent bad behavior. In fact, laws are pretty bad at doing both. Please see our current drug laws and the war on drugs. Despite nearly a century of narcotics prohibition and increasingly stringent bans on what the government deems to be illicit substances, desire and use of those substances is at an all time high and climbing. Laws exist to define which acts unjustly deprive another of their rights and their property. You have a right to a bike provided you have the means to pay for it. You do not have the right to someone else's bike. Hence we have a laws against stealing. James Madison wrote that government was necessary, but it was Thomas Paine who said "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." A government that unlawfully and unjustly limits an individual's right to pursue happiness is an intolerable one.

About the only argument the author makes that I can even come close to defending is that your sexual behavior is not your identity any more than any other behavior is your identity. Your propensity for smoking, drinking, gambling, fornicating, lying, swearing, running, gardening, charity, fidelity, or honesty do not define who you are, but they do help others to define you. And that is ultimately what is at issue here. Homosexuality is not a problem for homosexuals or for those who accept that what consensual adults do as being none of their business. Homosexuality appears to only be a problem for those with a rigid and narrow moral ideology that cannot tolerate anything but the behaviors they deems to be worthy. Thankfully and blessedly our Constitution and our national principles allow us to choose which of these type of people we would like to be and associate with or not associate with but affirms the right of each to be who they will be. In closing, I'd just like to add that if you have a problem with homosexual in the military you just shouldn't join. People who can't adapt to different people and environments may not be the strongest or most fit for military service and would probably lead to breakdown in unit cohesion and morale.