News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:Police deliberately destroy lesbian’s military career out of spite
Timothy Kincaid
March 15th, 2010
Sometimes I get so angry that it is hard to type. Now is one of those times.
Sgt. Jene Newsome is a lesbian who played the Military’s don’t ask, don’t tell game. She kept her private life private and did not tell her employer that she’s gay. She did, however, enter a relationship with another woman and married her. And the woman she married had a problem with the law.
And when the police came knocking for her wife, Newsome wasn’t home. (AP)
Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.
Well, now, wait a minute. They are the police. And in Rapid City that means that all you non-officer scum jump when they yell “frog”. Ya know, to protect a serve and all that.
And since Newsome didn’t jump high enough, they decided that they would choose to destroy her life.
Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome’s home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP.
Newsome was discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t annoy the local police in any way.
Oh, but they have their reasons. Yesirreee.
As you read the following, remember that Newsome’s only crime was “not being cooperative”. That is her only connection to “the case”. She was not involved in the theft, and the Air Force was only tangential.
The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.
“It’s an emotional issue and it’s unfortunate that Newsome lost her job, but I disagree with the notion that our department might be expected to ignore the license, or not document the license, or withhold it from the Air Force once we did know about it,” Allender said Saturday. “It was a part of the case, part of the report and the Air Force was privileged to the information.”
Now ask yourself if that makes any sense whatsoever. Would a straight couple’s marriage license require “alerting the base” about the sexual orientation of a heterosexual? Or is police Chief Steve Allender just trying to justify an act that is based in the most vile of bigotries, callousness, and abuse of power?
You bet it’s an emotional issue, Mr. Allender. Because you decided to destroy someone’s life. And that makes me emotional.
But I guess you showed us, didn’t you, Mr. Allender. We all better jump next time you say “frog”.
“Elaine’s List” of 1,100 officers doesn’t represent today’s Military
Timothy Kincaid
March 9th, 2010
Elaine Donnelly, despite her best efforts, continuously illustrates that the case for keeping openly gay servicemembers from the US Military is based on bias, animus, fear, and irrationality.
Whether she’s being laughed out of Congress for her fears or marauding gangs of lesbians, babbling ineptly opposite Dan Choi on CNN, or claiming that retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili called for the repeal of the law because he’d suffered from a stroke, Elaine can always be counted on to make a fool of herself and her cause in ways we never could.
Yet in April 2009 when she came up with her declaration that “1,100 high-ranking retired Flag and General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement expressing support for the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military”, I bought it. I figured that Elaine had found a way to link into a network of conservative former military officers who were now free to state their opposition to equality. Considering that military personnel generally are more conservative politically, and considering that those now retiring might reflect somewhat older perspectives, how hard would it be to get a legitimate and relevant list?
And I’m not the only one to assume that her 1,100 officers were representative of some segment of recent members of the Military. John McCain has been waving around this list in the Senate claiming that it represents the views of those who know best. But both McCain and I should have known better. This is Elaine Donnelly, after all.
But Servicemembers United wasn’t fooled; they took a closer look. They’ve not yet gotten through the entire list, but they’ve looked at 200 officers and have issued a preliminary report telling us a bit more about “Elaine’s List.”
So who are these 1,100 Officers?
Well, to start with, some of them make John McCain look like a spring chicken. The average age of their sample was 74, with the oldest living signatory being about 99. “Living signatory” you ask? Well, yes. Because at least one of them “signed” the letter after he died and several more are no longer living.
Others have no recollection of being asked about the list, several indignantly stating that they didn’t authorize the use of their name, and some saying that they don’t support the ban on gay servicemembers.
And then there was the scoundrel problem. Some of her glorious officers left service under some not-so-glorious circumstances. While most signatories were honorable, Elaine had no problem including the fellow who gave false testimony to Congress about an anthrax vaccine, the guy who severely threatened relations with Japan, or various other men of poor judgment.
But whether or not her officers are alive, lucid, and of good character, few were qualified to offer an opinion. Most had left the military long before DADT was put in place.
These guys hail from the good ol’ days when ‘darkies’ knew their place, obedient wives met you at the door with a cocktail in hand, whores were discreet, and an open attack on a fellow soldier suspected of being gay was not only socially acceptable but a sign of your own manhood. Although Captain Jim Jefferis never made it high enough in rank to sign Elaine’s List, his postcard from the 1940’s published at Peter LaBarbera’s site gives us an idea of the mindset of a few of these good ol’ boys.
During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.
Yes, no doubt. But everything I’ve heard from service men and women today is that they are too busy fighting a complicated war to decide which of their fellow soldiers they were going to murder next. If today’s American soldiers share Jefferis’ appalling lack of character, then we have bigger worries than the Taliban.
So yes, Elaine has done it again. She’s proven again to be a valuable asset to our community. Now that opponents of open service are relying so strongly on Elaine’s List, the exposure of who’s on the list may well drive the nails into DADT’s coffin.
Air Force Secretary endorses repealing DADT
Timothy Kincaid
March 4th, 2010
From the Air Force Times
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Thursday he supports the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” putting him at odds with the service’s top uniformed leader.
Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has stated that he does not support repealing the ban on gays serving openly in the military, at least not until more research is conducted by the Defense Department. President Obama advocated for the abolition of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in his State of the Union address in January, and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also supports repeal.
Donley publicly laid out his views on the policy for the first time during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill.
“I support the president’s efforts to change the policy and change the law in this area,” Donley said in response to a question from committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. When Levin asked if Donley personally supported repeal, Donley said yes.
Lieberman introduces a bill to repeal DADT
Timothy Kincaid
March 3rd, 2010
Senator Joseph Lieberman, a formerly Democrat and currently Independent Senator from Connecticut, has introduced a senate bill which would “replace the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’, with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Specifically, it would repeal Section 654 of title 10 (”unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion”) and subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell).
Instead, this bill would:
- create Section 656 would be created which would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation
- authorize a Pentagon Working Group which would have nine months to recommend implementation of the new policy, after which the Secretary of Defense would have two months to revise regulations
- require the Secretary of Defense to report back in six months as to whether universities are allowing or welcoming ROTC onto their campus (some had banned or discouraged them due to discrimination policies)
Co-signing with Lieberman were:
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Mark Udall (D-CO)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Roland Burris (D-IL)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
COMMENTS (6) | LINK
Generals weigh in on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Timothy Kincaid
February 24th, 2010
Over the next few weeks we will continue to hear the opinions of various levels of officers about repealing the ban on service in the military by openly gay personnel.
In an interview on Monday, General Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commanding general in Iraq, expressed tentative support for gay soldiers (msnbc)
The top U.S. commanding general in Iraq says he thinks everyone — gay and straight — should be allowed to serve in the military “as long as we are still able to fight our wars.”
The comment by Gen. Raymond Odierno is among the first to come from a senior military leader currently leading troops in battle since the Pentagon announced earlier this month that it will study the issue.
Odierno said that he really hadn’t given the issue much thought because it’s always been a “non-issue” to him.
On Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Secretary of the Army John McHugh both testified before the Senate and expressed concerns about the proposed change but neither took a position of opposition. Both agreed with Mullen’s proposed study but stated their opposition to a moratorium on expulsions while the study is conducted. (CNN)
Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Tuesday that he has “serious concerns” over the impact of a repeal of the military’s controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding gay and lesbian service members.
“I do have serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on … a force that’s fully engaged in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years,” he told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He agreed, however, that it would be fair to characterize his opinion as not being “strongly” for or against a repeal.
…
Army Secretary John McHugh, also testifying before the committee Tuesday, declined to offer a personal opinion on a possible repeal of the controversial policy. He joined Casey in pointing out potential problems associated with a moratorium on discharges.
Later that day, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz carefully weighed his words but appeared to oppose the change while supporting the study. (Air Force Times)
“This not the time to perturb the force … without careful deliberations,” Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee.
…
Schwartz said the issue of allowing openly gay men and women to serve needs more study and survey of service members, and that he backs Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to conduct a year-long review of repealing the law.
Today brought the testimony of Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Chief, and Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations. Conway, who is considered the most resistant to the change in policy appears to have softened his objections and instead of stating his opposition to the change chose to seek to prioritize the way in which the issue is viewed during the study. (boston.com)
In testimony before a House committee, Gen. James Conway said he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military’s ability to protect the country.
“That’s what they have been built to do under the current construct and I would argue that we’ve done a pretty good job bringing that to pass,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.
“My concern would be that somehow that central purpose or focus were to become secondary to the discussion,” he said.
Conway also opposed the moratorium on current expulsions. (Stars and Stripes)
“Keep it simple,” Conway said. “I would encourage you to either change the law or not, but in the process half measures would only be confusing in the end.”
Roughead’s statements were similar to the others.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told House lawmakers on Wednesday that he, too, wants the study to be complete before any changes are made.
“That needs to be done because only with that information can we discuss the force that we have, (and) not someone else’s,” Roughead said.
A pattern appears to evident. No military leaders will oppose the study on the issue, perhaps each hoping that their own perspectives will prevail and in the meantime buying time until perhaps a more favorable Senate will appear. Further, it seems that the politicians in the Pentagon are opposed to the change, while those officers that are fighting wars really couldn’t care less.
Palm Center: No problems with ending gay bans in other militaries
Timothy Kincaid
February 23rd, 2010
Opponents of allowing gay men and women serving in our military to treated by the US Government exactly the same as the heterosexual counterparts are oh so very worried that Seriously Dire Consequences will occur if the policy is changed. But Dr. Frank at the Palm Center studied 25 militaries that allow gay service members and found none of these Seriously Dire Consequences.
Supporters of “don’t ask, don’t tell” insist that repealing the law will result in mass resignations among troops uncomfortable serving alongside homosexuals, and that new accommodations like separate bathrooms for gay and straight soldiers or new housing benefits for unmarried gay couples will be too complex and costly for the military to absorb.
But the report notes that in both Britain and Canada — two counties with militaries the U.S. frequently uses for comparison — the debate leading up to full acceptance of homosexuals in the ranks included predictions of major disruptions and resignations by officers who refused to serve alongside gay troops.
“But when inclusive policies were implemented, no more than three people in each country actually resigned,” the report states.
Researchers also said that none of the foreign militaries they studied installed new “gay only” or “straight only” facilities, but still managed to maintain order and discipline without any trouble.
Additionally, the report found that the best implementation is that which is swift and decisive.
And given the experience of the five countries studied, Frank said that “a quick, simple implementation process is instrumental in ensuring success.”
As such, Frank argues that the longer-term 11-month study — of service member attitudes, potential changes to Pentagon regulations and policies, and the potential impact of repeal on military effectiveness — announced Feb. 2 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is unnecessary.
“There is no operational justification for another year of study,” Frank said in a Monday telephone interview. “We’ve been studying this for 50 years.”
Lieberman To Introduce Bill Repealing DADT
Jim Burroway
February 22nd, 2010
Jamie Kirchick reports that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) will introduce a bill into the Senate that would repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on open LGBT people serving in the military. By all rights, this bill should have the wind at its back. A new CNN poll shows that 69 percent of the public favors repealing DADT, including 62 percent of registered Republicans. But in the current political climate in which the minority would fillibuster the sun’s rising in the morning and force the Democratics to consider exempting Nebraska from the earth-rotation mandate, I have a feeling it won’t see smooth sailing.
Petraeus supports ending DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 21st, 2010
When Admiral Mullen stated that it was his personal opinion that the anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy should be ended, Senator John McCain became furious.
This put McCain in a difficult position. Just three years earlier he had said, “the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.”
The Senator spoke sharply in opposition to changing the policy and immediately news reports noted the apparent change of position. His press agent released a “clarification”:
“One person, speaking individually, not on behalf of the Navy at all, is not going to change Senator McCain’s position,” she told the Post. “There has to be a determination from our military leaders that they think it is a good idea to change the policy. Then of course Senator McCain will listen to them.”
On the face of it, this looked like a flip-flop, but I think something else is going on here. I think that John McCain genuinely believes that the push to repeal the policy is entirely political in nature and that the real military leaders – those who are trying to win the war, not win political battles – oppose allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the Military.
It seems inconceivable to him that the military’s culture would not be homophobic. So this all seems to be political posturing which will harm the military. He’s holding out for the real military leaders.
Well, it doesn’t get much more real than General David Petraeus, commander of the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. And say what you may about Petraeus, he’s not the kind of man who will put “social engineering” and “political correctness” ahead of achieving his military goals.
Which makes it particularly effective that Gen. Patreaus supports Adm. Mullen’s intentions. Speaking today on Meet the Press:
MR. GREGORY: General, with the, the military engaged in two wars, with a country fighting terrorism in other forms as well, is this an appropriate time for the military to revisit the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, there’s a process at work here now, David, and I, and I think that it is a very sound and good process. The secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced, when they were testifying, the creation of a review be headed by General Carter Hamm, U.S. Army four-star, and DOD General Counsel Jay Johnson. I don’t think this has gotten enough prominence frankly. It is very important to this overall process. It will provide a rigorous analysis of the views of the force on the possible change. It will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it, if it does come to that, so that it could be as uneventful as it was, say, in the U.K. or the Israeli militaries or, indeed, in our own CIA and FBI. And then it will assess the effects, the possible effects on readiness, recruiting and retention.
MR. GREGORY: What do you say?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Very important for that process to move forward. We’ll hear from the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs on this I think, probably their personal assessments and personal views in the course of the next week or so…
MR. GREGORY: But…
GEN. PETRAEUS: …when they’re on Capitol Hill. And then the geographic combatant commanders, the other combatant commanders and I, will have our turn on Capitol Hill in a few weeks.
MR. GREGORY: But what, but what, what do you say, General? Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military?
GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I’ll provide that, again, on Capitol Hill if, if asked at that time. I, I know you’d like to make some news here this morning. I support what our secretary and, and chairman have embarked on here. I will–I’m fully participating in that process. And I think it’s very important, again, that these issues be handled and discussed and addressed by this review that will be so important in informing decisions as we move forward.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrades in arms are gay or lesbian?
GEN. PETRAEUS: I’m not sure that they do. We’ll see. Again, that’s why this review panel. You know, all we have are, are personal soundings to go on, and I’ve certainly done some of that myself. I mean, you’ve heard General Powell, who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that, yes indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months (sic: years) ago. And you’ve heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced, certainly, in the CIA and the FBI, I know. I served in fact in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations and, frankly, you know, over time you said, “Hey, how’s, how’s this guy’s shooting?” Or “How is her analysis,” or what have you. So–but we’ll see. Again, that’s the importance of this review that will be conducted by General Hamm and also by the DOD general counsel. I think it is hugely important that we have the answers from the questions that they’ll be asking in a very methodical way, something we’ve not done before because of the emotion and the sensitivity of this issue.
Yes, Petraeus danced and put it off on the review, but ultimately he knows that soldiers in wartime care a lot more about skills and abilities than they do about sexual orientation. That concern is a luxury of legislators who are in less danger and have more free time to imagine bunking arrangements and shower configurations.
Santorum: Don’t Trust The Generals
Jim Burroway
February 20th, 2010
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” supporters have often defended their support by saying they were only following the advice of top military leaders. Now that military leaders are coming out in favor of repealing the ban on gay servicemenbers serving openly, former Sen. Rick Santorum says we shouldn’t trust the generals:
Addressing how the military leadership, led by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, could now favor a repeal of the law, Santorum raised the specter of brainwashing.
“Political correctness is reigning in the military right now,” he said. “”Some people say: [Do] whatever the generals say [on DADT]. I’m not too sure that we haven’t so indoctrinated the officer corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decision.”
The line went over well with the CPAC crowd.
Really? Somehow I missed that on GayPatriot’s and GOProud’s Twitter stream. But Bruce Carroll does defend Rick “Man-On-Dog” Santorum as being “not homophobic.” Right. Because you’d have to be brainwashed to believe otherwise.
COMMENTS (5) | LINK
Air Force Chief speaks as though DADT’s repeal is a foregone conclusion
Timothy Kincaid
February 19th, 2010
Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley spoke yesterday to the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition. He addressed the issue of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and appears to have spoken as though its repeal is a foregone conclusion.
The Air Force website and the Air Force Times have a slightly different report and a transcript of the speech is not available so I am gleaning what I can.
“The president as commander in chief has answered the question of whether this legislative change will be pursued, and the answer is ‘yes,’” Donley told the several hundred airmen who came to hear him speak. “We know this will be an issue of interest to all airmen and is certain to generate much discussion.”
Donley warned the audience that the Air Force cannot be “pulled into the political debate” and that it should “add light and not heat to the discussion.”
Beyond legal issues, Donley said, the Air Force will advise the Pentagon on how repeal of the law could affect unit cohesion and military readiness.
“Congress will be listening to what the military has to say,” he said.
“A working group chaired by the DOD general counsel will examine all aspects of properly implementing a repeal to the current law with recommendations in areas such as housing, benefits and other policies to be completed by the end of this calendar year,” Secretary Donley said. “For the services and our Air Force, this is a test of whether we can have a professional and dispassionate conversation, develop the facts related to implementation, and appropriately advise the president and Congress without being involved in the political debate that surrounds this issue.”
The secretary noted the Air Force will endeavor to “add light, not heat, to this debate.”
It appears to me that Donley will not be giving any testimony that contradicts the intentions of the President and the Joint Chiefs Chairman to repeal the policy. The Air Force, it seems, will limit its involvement to discussions about implementation.
But in the meanwhile, expulsions will continue to be processed.
“We are continuing to process those cases,” Donley replied when asked whether the service would wait to act until the Defense Department finishes its assessment, which should be in 45 days.
ADF: perhaps the worst written letter ever
Timothy Kincaid
February 19th, 2010
The Alliance Defense Fund has released a copy of a letter which they claim was sent to President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and in which they oppose the proposed change to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Supporters of ADF should hope they are bluffing and never sent the letter. Not only is their argument irrational, but the letter itself would get a failing mark in a sixth grade English class.
Here at Box Turtle Bulletin we occasionally make mistakes. Sometimes we misspell a word, get a reference wrong, or flub grammar (and are subjected to the resulting scorn). But we aren’t writing to the White House, and we don’t have paid proof-readers. However, ADF is supposed to be comprised of lawyers, with staff to review, so there’s just no excuse for the ADF’s laughably amateur letter.
So as to help them avoid future mockery, let me share a few tips on letter writing to ADF:
1. When writing to try and influence a powerful person, try to get their name right.
- The Secretary of the Air Force is not “Michael B. Donnelly”; his last name is Donley. Perhaps you have him confused with anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly, but I doubt that he appreciates the comparison.
- The Secretary of the Navy is Raymond Edwin Mabus, Jr. If you are going to include his middle name, then for heaven’s sake include his suffix.
- Yes, Admiral Mike Mullen is an admiral in the Navy. But generally, “Navy” is not part of his name.
2. If you want mail to arrive, address it properly – even the “cc’s”
- The office of the House Republican Leader is at “H-204 The Capitol” not at “H0204 The Capitol”.
- The Secretary of the Navy is at “1000 Navy Pentagon”, not at “100 Nay Pentagon”.
- The office of the Secretary of the Army is not exactly at “1400 Defense Pentagon”. That is the address of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
I mean, really guys, it’s right there on the Department of Defense website. You can cut and paste it.
And while we’re at it, you only need to put “cc:” on the letter one time. Adding it in front of one name halfway down the list isn’t necessary.
3. Try and present your arguments in a consistent pattern
If you are numerating several points, use wording consistently. Don’t use “Whether chaplains could” three times but select “Whether chaplains can be allowed to” when there is no difference in meaning to be distinguished by different wording.
4. Try to avoid nonsensical and grammatically flawed language.
For example, the following sentence purports to introduce a “consequence”, but instead asks a question (which was not punctuated with a question mark):
That is a Constitutional offense that carries a very pragmatic consequence: just what will happen to recruiting efforts if Christians become second-class soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines.
And this sentence makes no sense whatsoever:
We urge you to reconsider your decision and avoid this collision with America’s most cherished and fundamental freedom of religious liberty.
What is “America’s most cherished and fundamental freedom of religious liberty?” It is the freedom to keep gays from the Military? Is it the freedom of chaplains to preach against “homosexual behavior?”
Or perhaps they were trying to say “American’s most cherished and fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.”
We’ll never know.
5. And finally, try not to introduce off-subject and irrelevant matters into your conclusion.
After four pages of discussion about chaplains and “homosexual behavior”, ADF provided this, their second to last paragraph:
In fact, it is more than plausible that forcing the military to affirm homosexual behavior will prove unwise. Recently, hundreds of religious leaders in civil life—including many from the faith communities that supply many military chaplains—declared their reasoned and conscientious opposition to the normalization of homosexual behavior through the artifice of same-sex “marriage.” This opposition is deeply rooted in the theology of the faith communities represented by the signatories, and such conscientious opposition will come to a sharp head within a military that compels affirmation of homosexual behavior.
Huh?
How, exactly, does (sect specific) religious opposition to civil marriage relate to gay personnel in the military? ADF never tells us, other than to suggest that it has something to do being “unwise”. Or perhaps ADF is assuming that anything gay relates to everything gay, though polls on marriage and military service certainly show otherwise.
Ugh.
Who wrote this thing? And why on earth would they actually consider sending it?
I guess that we can all just be glad that when it comes to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our opposition is addicted to appearing like blithering idiots.
ADF: not allowing anti-gay chaplains to dictate policy is unconstitutional
Timothy Kincaid
February 19th, 2010
One of the things I truly hate about political advocacy is the tendency of activists to veer towards hyperbole. The “what if” exceptions become the arguments of likelihood or commonality. The minor and slightly inconvenient are expressed in terms of extreme hardship or catastrophic abuse.
But sometimes claims and statements reach beyond rhetoric and oratorical posturing and jump straight to the irrational or the bizarre. And the claims made by the anti-gay legal advocacy group, Alliance Defense Fund, about the unconstitutionality of allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military are an example.
On Wednesday, ADF issued a letter to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates stating their position:
… if Chaplains with beliefs that contradict the proposed policy [allowing service of openly gay men and women] are kept from roles that are likely to generate conflict – like preaching or counseling – then they, the faith groups they represent, and the soldiers whose religious beliefs they serve will all be marginalized. The military would effectively establish preferred religions or religious beliefs. This is a Constitutional offense that carries a very pragmatic consequence: just what will happen to recruiting efforts if Christians become second-class soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines.
Setting aside the atrocious grammar, misspellings and errors that are abundant in this letter, let’s look at the logic which ADF displayed. Here is their argument:
- Obama and Mullen seek to overturn a policy which “that prohibits open homosexual behavior while serving in the military.”
- To “affirm homosexual behavior” is to “for the first time in history espouse a military policy that is completely at odds with the morality expressed by many of its chaplains.” (emphasis in original)
- Chaplains have to “abide by applicable laws, and all applicable regulations, directives, and instructions of the Department of Defense and of the Military Department” and also they must represent “specific religious denominations, and are accountable in their ministries to those groups.” But because “orthodox Christianity” does not “affirm homosexual behavior”, then “chaplains with contrary religious beliefs will be forced to choose ‘to obey God or men.’”
- Chaplains would lose the right to deny sacraments, counsel their beliefs, or to preach in opposition to homosexual behavior. They would be forced to “allow soldiers openly engaged in homosexual behavior to lead worship services or serve in other lay leadership roles.”
- This would lead to soldiers being denied the right to worship: “If chaplains are limited in teaching and counseling on their beliefs, then the soldiers who share their faith and rely on their instruction will
necessarily also suffer a diminished ability to freely exercise their faith.”
This is so nutty that I can’t help but wonder if they even really sent this; surely they know that it would be an embarrassment.
First, the policy has nothing to do with “homosexual behavior”. Anti-gay activists always term their opposition in language of “behavior”, seeking to link every gay issue to “wiggling a penis in excrement“. The way that they get around this military ban being on identity is to define the act of identifying oneself as gay as being “homosexual behavior”. And a change in policy to allow open service has nothing to do with “affirmation.” The military allows its personnel many freedoms that they never “affirm.”
And, as ADF well knows, chaplains are free to preach according to their faith, to counsel on whatever they believe is appropriate, and to encourage such standards of personal morality as they think are appropriate. Any chaplain would be free to tell a soldier, “I think you should give up homosexual sex” just as freely as he is able to tell him, “I think you should give up premarital sex”, or “I think you should give up drinking.” To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Our military is religiously diverse. And chaplains have found ways to minister to those who disagree on a whole host of issues without having to choose ‘to obey God or men.’
No Catholic chaplain is required to offer sacraments to Wiccans. No Baptist chaplain is required to say the prayers at Seder. Lutheran chaplains need not discuss the truths found in the Book of Mormon, and Pentecostals need not hear confession. But yet they all find a way to meet the spiritual needs – and often just the need for a sympathetic ear and comforting counsel – of folks whom their doctrines declare to be godless sinners dangling over the fires of hell.
It is an insult to chaplains to assume that they can work with Muslims and atheists and newly-converted pacifists, can counsel agnostics and Greek Orthodox and Reform Jews, can worship with Quakers and Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists all without losing their religious freedoms, but if a gay person is in the camp then it all goes out the window.
And finally, the ADF makes the outlandish assumption that the military must accommodate the anti-gay chaplains without any concern for pro-gay chaplains. They ignore the hundreds of chaplains from mainline Christianity or Judaism who believe in civil equality as a matter of the justice provisions of their faith.
Truly, they have it backwards. To establish military policy to accommodate the religious teachings of anti-gay chaplains while disdaining the religious teachings of others, would be an act of establishing religion. To say that we cannot allow gay people in the military because some chaplains are entitled to dictate the military’s official theology would be an unconscionable slur on the intents and purposes of the First Amendment.
CPAC Overboard on DADT
Jim Burroway
February 19th, 2010
Die-hard supporters of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the military’s ban on LGBT people serving openly, held a news conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference on February 18 in Washington, DC. It was a truly priceless exercise in surrealism that has to be seen to believe.
Here are my favorites. Tom Minnery of Focus On the Family thinks repealing DADT is a bad idea, but not because he dislikes gay people. In fact, he’s worried all to pieces over what repealing DADT would do to gay men:
There are going to be a number of young gay men who have been shoved in the middle of this social engineering debacle and told that it is their right to serve. In the confines of barracks life, the sexual tension that will result when you try to develop a warrior culture and put these two very different ideas of sexuality in the middle of that culture, it’s going to produce a lot of abuse, a lot of angry, a lot of severely disappointed young gay men.
Tony Perkins, of the Family “Research” Council has a hard time with polling data:
When you look at the polling data of the sixty percent of Americans or whatever saying they thing that homosexuals should be open, should be able to serve openly in the military, well do they really understand the conditions under which their sons and daughters and their neighbor’s kids would have to serve in.
People understand the conditions of war very well, and nobody understands it better than those who are in the military currently. The Military Times finds that there has been a sharp decline in the percentage of men and women currently in uniform supporting DADT. Fewer still who personally know a gay person serving are willing to report them to their command.
But the most surreal statement comes from Retired Admiral James “Ace” Lyons:
You know in the Navy in the late nineteen hundreds, homosexuality was rampant in the United States Navy. It was so bad that mothers would not let their sons enlist in the Navy until the Navy cleaned its act up, and fortunately they did. …On board ship the Navy found that there are three things unacceptable to good order and discipline and its impact on readiness. You cannot have a thief aboard, you cannot have a drug-user or a drug-pusher, and we found out you could not have a homosexual.
And as anyone who has ever been to Fleet Week in San Francisco, New York, San Diego and Ft. Lauderdale can tell you, they don’t have any homosexuals in the Navy anymore.
COMMENTS (7) | LINK
Troops to Mullen: what DADT controversy?
Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2010
Admiral Mullen went to Jordan expecting troops in the field to have concerns over his decision to move in the direction of repealing the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. He didn’t find any. (McClatchy)
Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was nearing the end of a 25-minute question and answer session with troops serving here when he raised a topic of his own: “No one’s asked me about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” he said.
As it turned out, none of the two dozen or so men or women who met with Mullen at Marine House in the Jordanian capital Tuesday had any questions on the 17-year-old policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military — or Mullen’s public advocacy of its repeal.
It seems that the soldiers had already moved on.
At Tuesday’s session, which included not only Marines, but members of the Army and the Air Force, both male and female service members explained why they were nonplussed by the issue: They’d already served with gays and lesbians, they accepted that some kind of change was imminent, and, they said, the nation was too engulfed in two wars for a prolonged debate about it.
Air Force Times adds detail to DADT Poll
Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2010
As we noted on the 7th, the Military Times (of which the Air Force Times is a part), has conducted their annual polling about the attitudes or its readership on the issue of open service by gay men and women. While the readership of this publication is conservative and not representative of military personnel at large, trends between years are interesting, as are demographic breakouts.
Our presentation was initial analysis of raw data and we did not delve deeply into the subgroups in the survey. The Air Force Times has released an article which adds additional texture to the limited picture that this non-representative poll presents.
Service members’ responses were similar when separated by age or rank. The Military Times survey showed opposition to open service was slightly lower among the junior enlisted paygrades of E-1 through E-4 — whose ranks account for nearly half of the armed forces — as well as among racial minorities.
But the difference in responses by gender were stark — more than twice as many women as men (55 percent to 27 percent) support allowing gays to serve openly.
The survey showed noticeable differences by service as well. Marines were the most likely to oppose open service by gays, according to the Military Times survey, with 64 percent holding that view, compared with 52 percent of soldiers, 48 percent of airmen and 45 percent of sailors.
The Times also spoke with personnel to see what concerns they had. Perhaps the most telling was that those who expressed support for repealing the policy has personal experiences in which they knew a gay soldier who served a function that was essential to their task.
Robinson’s support for repeal goes back to his days as a lieutenant, when he was part of a 12-member team manning an observation post in Macedonia in 1996. They were out on the edge, self-sustaining, with resupply every three weeks. So they cooked their own meals.
But only one troop, a sergeant, could cook — and he was part of the patrol rotation. “We wanted that guy to be the cooking guy, and I got with my sergeant and I said, ‘What do you say we make old Sgt. X kind of the permanent cook?’” Robinson said. “So he doesn’t have to go on patrol, and when we come back, we eat well. And everybody was like, yeah, why didn’t we think of this three months ago?”
The sergeant’s cooking skills, however, were not the only thing that made him stand out in the minds of his teammates.
“We thought this guy was homosexual” because of the way he carried himself, Robinson said.
“Everybody kind of thought it, but nobody ever really talked about it. But I asked myself, as a lieutenant, ‘What would I think if he told me he was gay?’ This was before people were talking about this openly in the military. This was a tank battalion.
“And I thought I’d probably be uncomfortable with it for a minute, and then I’d be like, oh, yeah, OK.”
He said it was a nonissue with everyone else in the unit as well because the bottom line was that “he was an effective soldier.”
What do past Military leaders say about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2010
Those who are desperately looking for an excuse to continue supporting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the anti-gay military policy, are trying to downplay the efforts of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense as being an anomaly. They remind the public that the call for the repeal of a ban on open gay service men and women is their “individual opinion” and act as though it is non-representative.
But Admiral Mullen is not the only person to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert Gates is not our first Secretary of Defense. Nor are they the first to weigh in on this issue.
Not all such military leaders have public statements. And some have positions that can only be deduced from indirect statements. But here is what I’ve found:
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
- Michael Mullen
10/1/07 – present
Called for repeal - Peter Pace
10/1/05 – 9/30/07
Opposes repeal - Richard B. Myers
10/1/01 – 9/30/05
Position unknown, perhaps opposed - Hugh Shelton
10/1/97 – 9/30/01
Likely supportive - John Shalikashvili
10/25/93 – 9/30/97
Called for repeal - David Jeremiah
10/1/93 – 10/24/93
Position unknown - Colin Powell
10/1/89 – 9/30/93
Supports repeal
Secretaries of Defense
- Robert Gates (R)
12/18/06 – present
Called for repeal - Donald Rumsfeld (R)
1/20/01 – 12/18/06
Unknown - William Cohen (R)
1/24/97 – 1/20/01
Called for repeal - William Perry (D)
2/3/94 – 1/24/97
Likely supportive - Leslie Aspin (D)
1/21/93 – 2/3/94
deceased - Dick Cheney (R)
3/21/89 – 1/20/93
Supports repeal
It would appear that Mullen and Gates are closer to the rule than to the exception.
COMMENT | LINK
Reserve Officers Association changes position on gay military service
Timothy Kincaid
February 15th, 2010
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) was founded in 1922 and granted a Congressional Charter in 1950 to “support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National Security.” They are an advocacy group representing military officers.
Shortly after the 1993 battle over open service in the military, ROA passed the following resolution:
Resolution No. 07-26
Federal Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Armed ForcesWHEREAS, Title 10, United States Code, Section 654, establishes a policy whereby homosexuals are currently permitted to serve in the Armed Forces under the misguided concept of “Don’t ask; Don’t tell; Don’t pursue”;
WHEREAS, the law further states that, “Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of Congress to establish qualifications of service in the armed forces.” and further that, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces”; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an Act of Congress, prohibits sodomy and other deviant behavior on the part of Armed Forces personnel, on duty, off duty, public or private, in uniform, and out of uniform, worldwide; and
WHEREAS, the special conditions and demands related to accomplishing military missions, especially in wartime, are uniquely distinct from the conditions which prevail in civilian society; and
WHEREAS, heterosexual Armed Forces personnel experience significant stress when forced to associate with known homosexuals in close quarters, lacking privacy, and during life and death situations; and
WHEREAS, the presence of homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces has been found to be detrimental to good order, morale, discipline, esprit de corps, recruiting, and retention, which are at the core of combat effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, service in the Armed Forces is a unique calling, entered into by those who meet and maintain stringent physical and mental requirements; and
WHEREAS, discrimination related to deviant behavior, sexual preference, and aberrant lifestyle must not be confused or equated with that based on gender, race, or religion; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urge the Congress to exclude homosexuals from induction, enlistment, commissioning, and continued service in the Armed Forces of the United States.
In other words, this group not only opposed service by gay personnel willing to serve in silence, they endorsed bold and blatant anti-gay discrimination in terms selected to indicate contempt and disdain. This position was renewed during National Conventions on June 12, 2004 and June 30, 2007.
However, as of last Wednesday, the ROA no longer sees same-sex attracted people as deviant homosexuals with aberrant lifestyles that cause stress and are detrimental to good order. Now they are gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military, and this endorsement of discrimination has been jettisoned.
From the ROA press release.
Members of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States voted Wednesday to rescind its previous call for complete exclusion of gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military.
The association also rejected by a two-thirds vote a proposal to endorse the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law, which allows gays and lesbians to serve, provided they keep silent about their sexual orientation.
Leaders were careful to note that they have not endorsed President Obama’s efforts to repeal the ban. They simply will take no position and cannot be used as a source by opponents of open gay service.
This decision is monumental. These include the “officers in the field” to whom Republicans claim to be deferring on this issue. This 63,000 member organization speaks not for the Pentagon, but for “all federally commissioned officers and warrant officers, and their spouses” with a special emphasis on the men and women in the Reserve Components, many of whom are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney supports Mullen’s DADT repeal efforts
Timothy Kincaid
February 15th, 2010
In an interview the ABC’s This Week, Dick Cheney said that it is time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
KARL: OK, “don’t ask/don’t tell” — you’re a former defense secretary — should this policy be repealed?
CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of “don’t ask/don’t tell,” when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen — or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think — my guess is the policy will be changed.
KARL: And do you think that’s a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it’s partly a generational question. I say, I’m reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they’re the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our — of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they’re still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?
When the chiefs come forward and say, “We think we can do it,” then it strikes me that it’s — it’s time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.
This is not the first time that Cheney has indicated skepticism for anti-gay attitudes in the military. As early as 1991, Cheney (then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush) called the military policy that considers gay servicepersons a security risk is “a bit of an old chestnut.”
Quinnipiac poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – ask a biased question, get a meaningless answer
Timothy Kincaid
February 10th, 2010
In the spring of 2002, Peter A. Brown assailed the mainstream media for being unfair. It was far too liberal and chuck full of bias.
So it is only fair, by Brown’s standards, to look and see if he has any bias in his writing and statements. For example, in 2007 when Brown warned that Democrats could be hurt by supporting gay rights or in 2009 when Brown claimed that reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could have enormous political risks for President Obama was there possible bias in his position?
Vincent Rossmeier certainly seemed to think so when he reviewed two polls on same-sex marriage, one of which was a Brown led Quinnipiac poll. As Rossmeier noted, how you ask a question will effect the answer that you get.
And this may be particularly true with Quinnipiac’s latest poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Here is how Peter Brown is selling the results:
Although on the surface the idea of ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a lot more popular with the American people than it was in 1993, it remains controversial despite the polling numbers.
Even though Mr. Obama now has the Pentagon brass on his side, a fight over allowing gays to serve openly will pit the president against conservatives and other former military leaders. They will argue that Mr. Obama, who never served in the armed forces, is trying to impose his views on the guys and gals in the trenches.
When Americans are asked about some of the details that might be involved with ending the current policy, they are somewhat less supportive of accommodating open homosexuals into the armed forces.
And Brown is right in that the results of his poll can be viewed in such a way as to find “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”. But to get that “controversy”, the Quinnipiac had to word questions in a way that are hard to view as anything other than advocacy and push polling.
The Pentagon, which backed the change in congressional hearings last week, is studying several matters dealing with how to accommodate gays should the change be made. And on those questions the numbers are different than on the basic question.
Opponents of changing the law have long said that support for allowing gays to serve openly would drop once the American public understood some of the changes that might accompany it.
For instance, there is solid public support, 54%-38%, for restrictions on gay service personnel from showing their sexual orientation while on the job. Among military families, that ratio is 59%-33%.
There is also plurality opposition, 50%-43% for the Pentagon providing for the domestic partners of gay soldiers and sailors as they do for the spouses of straight service people. And by a narrow 46%-45%, voters don’t think that heterosexual personnel should be required to share quarters with gays.
Really? I don’t think so.
First let’s look at how the poll is structured:
Questions 1 through 5 ask about demographics. OK so far.
Then questions 6 through 19 ask about opinions as to how President Obama is doing on foreign policy, in Afghanistan, whether we should be in Afghanistan, etc. The next four questions are about terrorism and whether foreign terrorists should be given civil rights, and the fears about the Christmas Day attacker.
Now that the respondent is warmed up on the fears and drama of our dangers and the uncertainties of military service, comes the questions about gays in the military. We are not provided with questions 24 through 31, but eventually along came
32. Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?
After that buildup, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that the answer was “No”. But even after reminding voters that they aren’t happy with Obama’s treatment of terrorists and bombers, 57% said the ban should be repealed (though 12% less than Gallup found eight months ago). Then 66% agreed that the currently policy is discrimination, 65% said that allowing gay troops would not not be divisive or hurt the ability of troops to fight effectively (despite the leading wording of the question), and virtually everyone agreed that the military should not aggressively pursue those revealed by a third party.
But then came Peter Brown’s “gotcha” questions:
36. Do you think gay military personnel should face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job or not?
I don’t even know what that means. Any restrictions?
Sure. Maybe. I guess whatever restrictions that apply to other personnel.
A better question might be: 36. Do you think gay military personnel should face the same restrictions on sexual expression as are currently applied to other service personnel or should they face additional restrictions?
37. Do you think the Pentagon should be responsible to provide for the domestic partners of gay personnel or not?
The Pentagon should be responsible?
The bias in that question is blatant. Obvious. Glaring.
Why didn’t Quinnipiac ask, “37. Should the domestic partners of gay personnel receive the same benefits as the spouses of heterosexual personnel or not?” Wouldn’t that have been a less biased question, especially since he falsely claims that this is what the results said? It might have received a mostly “not” response, but it would not have the built-in bias that Brown’s wording favored.
And finally
38. Do you think heterosexual military personnel should be required to share quarters with gay personnel or not?
Oooh, required to share!!
I guess this one could have been worse. Brown could have asked if wholesome God-fearing heterosexuals should be force to shower naked with avowed homosexual sex addicts. He could have used the phrase “bunk with” or talked about submarines.
But he did avoid the much more neutral “same housing” or “current quarters”. Ironically, while the military households surveyed were less likely to support the change, they did not oppose being “required to share quarters” any more than the population at large. Perhaps that’s because they know the housing realities and were not scared by Brown’s phrasing.
This poll adds little of real value to the conversation. We know that Americans support the change in policy across almost every demographic and Peter Brown’s efforts to try and downplay that support is of little consequence.
In fact, if there is one thing that Brown’s poll did tell us, it’s that the military families don’t buy the dog and pony show that anti-gays are using to scare Americans on this issue. Nor are they all “conservative young men who share the family values of Republicans”.
When asked about lifting the ban, Republicans in this poll were only 40% supportive as opposed to 48% in military households. And 44% of Republicans thought the change would be divisive while only 38% of military families agreed. This trend continued consistently.
And it also showed that if you want to manufacture “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”, you can always use the highly biased polling methods of Peter A. Brown and Quinnipiac University.
Fox News: DADT a failure and absurd
Timothy Kincaid
February 9th, 2010
On Fox and Friends Weekend, Col. David Hunt, a Fox military analyst, called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell an “abject failure”. Fox host Clayton Morris agreed, calling it a civil rights issue and absolutely absurd.
They said Sen. John McCain is “flat wrong.”
