See other Editorial Articles
Title: Smoke the Bigots Out of the Closet
Source:
NYTimes.com
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opinion/07rich.html
Published: Feb 7, 2010
Author: Frank Rich
Post Date: 2010-02-07 15:26:15 by Ferret Mike
Keywords: None
Views: 222
Comments: 21
A funny thing happened after Adm. Mike Mullen called for gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military: A curious silence befell much of the right. If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it would be the case of the attack dogs that did not bark. John McCain, commandeering the spotlight as usual, did fulminate against the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” But the press focus on McCain, the crazy man in Washington’s attic, was misleading. His yapping was an exception, not the rule. Many of his Republican colleagues said little or nothing. The right’s noise machine was on mute. The Fox News report on Mullen’s testimony was fair and balanced — and brief. The network dropped the subject entirely in the Hannity- O’Reilly hothouse of prime time that night. Only ratings-desperate CNN gave a fleeting platform to the old homophobic clichés. Michael O’Hanlon, an “expert” from the Brookings Institution, speculated that “18-year-old, old-fashioned, testosterone-laden” soldiers who are “tough guys” might object to those practicing “alternative forms of lifestyle,” which he apparently views as weak and testosterone-deficient. His only prominent ally was the Family Research Council, which issued an inevitable “action alert” demanding a stop to “the sexualization of our military.” The occasional outliers notwithstanding, why did such a hush greet Mullen on Capitol Hill? The answer begins with the simple fact that a large majority of voters — between 61 percent and 75 percent depending on the poll — now share his point of view. Most Americans recognize that being gay is not a “lifestyle” but an immutable identity, and that outlawing discrimination against gay people who want to serve their country is, as the admiral said, “the right thing to do.” Mullen’s heartfelt, plain-spoken testimony gave perfect expression to the nation’s own slow but inexorable progress on the issue. He said he had “served with homosexuals since 1968” and that his views had evolved “cumulatively” and “personally” ever since. So it has gone for many other Americans in all walks of life. As more gay people have come out — a process that accelerated once the modern gay rights movement emerged from the Stonewall riots of 1969 — so more heterosexuals have learned that they have gay relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers and co-workers. It is hard to deny our own fundamental rights to those we know, admire and love. But that’s not the whole explanation for the scant pushback in Washington to Mullen and his partner in change, Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There is also a potent political subtext. To a degree unimaginable as recently as 2004 — when Karl Rove and George W. Bush ran a national campaign exploiting fear of gay people — there is now little political advantage to spewing homophobia. Indeed, anti-gay animus is far more likely to repel voters than attract them. This equation was visibly eating at Orrin Hatch, the Republican senator from Utah, as he vamped nervously with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC last week, trying to duck any discernible stand on Mullen’s testimony. On only one point was he crystal clear: “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.” Now that explicit anti-gay animus is an albatross, those who oppose gay civil rights are driven to invent ever loopier rationales for denying those rights, whether in the military or in marriage. Hatch, for instance, limply suggested to Mitchell that a repeal of “don’t ask” would lead to gay demands for “special rights.” Such arguments, both preposterous and disingenuous, are mere fig leaves to disguise the phobia that can no longer dare speak its name. If gay Americans are to be granted full equality, the flimsy rhetorical camouflage must be stripped away to expose the prejudice that lies beneath. The arguments for preserving “don’t ask” have long been blatantly groundless. McCain — who said in 2006 that he would favor repealing the law if military leaders ever did — didn’t even bother to offer a logical explanation for his mortifying flip-flop last week. He instead huffed that the 1993 “don’t ask” law should remain unchanged as long as any war is going on (which would be in perpetuity, given Afghanistan). Colin Powell strafed him just hours later, when he announced that changed “attitudes and circumstances” over the past 17 years have led him to agree with Mullen. McCain is even out of step with his own family’s values. Both his wife, Cindy, and his daughter Meghan have posed for the current California ad campaign explicitly labeling opposition to same-sex marriage as hate. McCain aside, the most common last-ditch argument for preserving “don’t ask” heard last week, largely from Southern senators, is to protect “troop morale and cohesion.” Every known study says this argument is a canard, as do the real-life examples of the many armies with openly gay troops, including those of Canada, Britain and Israel. But the argument does carry a telling historical pedigree. When Harry Truman ordered the racial integration of the American military in 1948, Congressional opponents (then mainly Southern Democrats) embraced an antediluvian Army prediction from 1940 stating that such a change would threaten national defense by producing “situations destructive to morale.” History will sweep this bogus argument away now as it did then. Those opposing same-sex marriage are just as eager to mask their bigotry. The big arena on that issue is now in California, where the legal showdown over Proposition 8 is becoming a Scopes trial of sorts, with the unlikely bipartisan legal team of David Boies and Ted Olson in the Clarence Darrow role. The opposing lawyer, Charles Cooper, insisted to the court that he bore neither “ill will nor animosity for gays and lesbians.” Given the history of the anti-same- sex marriage camp, it’s hard to make that case with a straight face (so to speak). In trying to do so, Cooper moved that graphic evidence of his side’s ill will and animosity be disallowed — including that notorious, fear-mongering television ad, “The Gathering Storm.” The judge admitted such exhibits anyway. Boies also triumphed in dismantling an expert witness called to provide the supposedly empirical, non-homophobic evidence of how same-sex marriage threatens “procreative marriage.” In cross- examination, Boies forced the witness, David Blankenhorn of the so-called Institute for American Values, to concede he had no academic expertise in any field related to marriage or family. The only peer-reviewed paper he’s written, for a degree in Comparative Labor History, was “a study of two cabinetmakers’ unions in 19th-century Britain.” In another, milder cross-examination — on “Meet the Press” last weekend — John Boehner, the House G.O.P. leader, fended off a question about “don’t ask” with a rhetorical question of his own: “In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat, why would we want to get into this debate?” Besides Mullen’s answer — that it is the right thing to do — there’s another, less idealistic reason why President Obama might want to get into it. The debate could blow up in the Republicans’ faces. A protracted battle or filibuster in which they oppose civil rights will end up exposing the deep prejudice at the root of their arguments. That’s not where a party trying to expand beyond its white Dixie base and woo independents wants to be in 2010. Polls consistently show that independents, however fiscally conservative, are closer to Democrats than Republicans on social issues. (In May’s Gallup survey, 67 percent of independents favored repealing “don’t ask.”) This is why Scott Brown, enjoying what may be a short-lived honeymoon in his own party, calls himself a “Scott Brown Republican.” A Scott Brown Republican isn’t a Boehner or Hatch Republican. In his interview with Barbara Walters last weekend, he distanced himself from Sarah Palin, said he was undecided on “don’t ask” and declared same-sex marriage a “settled” issue in his state, Massachusetts, where it is legal. It’s in this political context that we can see that there may have been some method to Obama’s troublesome tardiness on gay issues after all. But as we learned about this White House and the Democratic Congress in the health care debacle, they are perfectly capable of dropping the ball at any moment. Let’s hope they don’t this time. Should they actually press forward on “don’t ask” in an election year with Mullen and Gates on board — and with even McCain’s buddy, Joe Lieberman, calling for action “as soon as possible” — they could further the goal and raise the political price for those who stand in the way. Recalcitrant Congressional Republicans will have to explain why their perennial knee-jerk deference to “whatever the commanders want” extends to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Stanley McChrystal on troop surges but not to Mullen, who outranks them, on civil rights. The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.
Poster Comment: End the bigotry and allow gays and lesbians the right to their country, their right tom serve. There is no reason at all to deny homosexuals the same status as any other normal human being.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
All this talking head chatter about bigotry is just that - chatter. The "Scott Brown Republicans" are in the ascendancy and will link hands with the 'crats to cancel DADT. All that hardware floating around in the Gulf is there for a reason. There's a war on, and you can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry waltzing into induction centers holding hands once it is decided that this war demands manpower.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Except that this change will end the official policy of hate and remove those who are homosexual who have always served with grace and distinction. There is no wiggle room or excuses anymore, it's time to admit the bigotry was an injustice and a blemish on the collective soul of this country and to leave people alone about who they have relationships with. Obama should immediately call a stop to the unjust removal of good men and women over a meaningless triviality regarding their private lives.
Well, I don't feel the need to run around pasting bumper stickers on my car to tell the world I'm staight. I can't think of a time that I needed to inform my employer either or my co-workers for that matter. Why do gays and lesbians need to tell everyone about their sexuality? Why do they think anybody gives a rats ass? It's tacky. What if not needing to tell the world about your sexuality actually saves your life and the lives of those on your team? What if not making your trigger man uncomfortable with your sexuality makes him do a better job of protecting you? Even on a subconscious level, people react. What if spewing your sexuality makes your team members question your ability in battle? Full disclosure will have consequences, Mike.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Say goodnight, Gracey.
If Diversity people were the first to be drafted as soldiers, then all of the wars to impose Diversity-Democracy schemes on foreign nations would likely cease. Force the whiny professional victim people of Diversity, the dominant political cult in both the US and Israel, to be the first to pay the piper. In other words, do the right thing.
to leave people alone about who they have relationships with. The entire issue is based upon keeping their private lives PRIVATE. Isn't the policy: Don't ask, don't tell? Most gays and lesbians are using the policy to get out of service, not the other way around, Mike. Although there are a few exceptions for those who actually do want to serve while telling the world about their sexuality. They wouldn't have had an issue had they abided by the policy, right? They signed up for service KNOWING the policy, so it's not like they were uniniformed. They signed on to shut up about their private lives.....that was the deal. What is with this all consuming need within the GLTB community to tell the world about their sexual preferences?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
Mad Max (John Boy and Billy) had a hilarious 'tube about perfume, gays, Calvin Klein, etc. Talked about Greg Louganus (sp?) being on Oprah and how a talk-show audience would "cheer a queer in a minute." Reckon it must be politically incorrect now, can't seem to find it. Sure was funny though.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Let's give an all gay military a shot. Why not?
Indeed, in a real war this would all sort itself out, one way or another. We can respond to any crisis by sending in our crack divisions.
Because there is no hiding yourself in that way. Try hiding heterosexuality from the world with fear of a lynching with regulations or law as the sword of Democles over your head. One would have to lie to others to avoid the truth of one's sexual orientation. And the lies cause tension and dysfunctionality. Far better to note where one is sexually and in terms of what sort of relationship one needs so one can get on with the job of building unit cohesion and getting on with the mission. This is something that effects everyone when you have hatred and injustice making people afraid to be themselves. This nasty hatred and intolerance was an element that made me want out, though at one time I had decided to stay in. I could not abide working under a command structure that needlessly and heartlessly hurt and destroyed good people on such a capricious and pointless game of bigotry. People who are heterosexual do not get in the way of homosexual people in how they comport themselves, and it works the other way around. People do not recruit, decide to be gay or straight, or screw with others because they are different. If people are left alone to their personal relationships, the whole issue disappears, and people wonder what all the fuss was about in the past.
There's a lot of "needlessly and heartlessly" in fighting a Stalingrad or whatever desperate engagement you're involved in no matter which side you're on, ain't there?
When you have people of the same ethnic, racial or other grouping together regardless of sexual preference, you do not have any more a diversity issue then if you have some people with blue eyes and others brown. Both sexual preferences have existed in humanity since there were humans. One does not fret because suddenly some people come in who are left handed and have to use weapons which expel brass on the side of the rifle most convenient to the larger grouping of righties. People adjust to normal variances in people and drive on and accomplish the mission. Studies show there is nothing different about homosexual people from heterosexual people except the imprinting of sexual preference. Gay people are just as accomplished and capable, are just as balanced and normal in every way as anyone else. It is long overdue to stop calling this tempest in a teapot a hurricane and to leave people alone to live and work to their full potential as human beings. Who someone pairs up with and bonds with sexually, gay or straight has nothing to do with anything regarding any aspect of life not dealing directly with that relationship.
Which is precisely why there is no sense to making things in life any more heartless and cruel then it already can be.
It may all be as you say, Mike, but none of these changes come without a cost.
Even if that is so, the one time payment rendered on the road to justice is much smaller then the cumulative cost of hating forever needlessly on the installment plan.
If people are left alone to their personal relationships, the whole issue disappears, and people wonder what all the fuss was about in the past. Sheesh, they know the terms of the contract before they sign Mike. It's no surprise. If this deprives them of who they are, then don't enlist. What I've found is that the GLTB community has to push their sexuality out into the public constantly. They have no awareness as to tact or respect for personal boundaries whatsoever. THeir sexuality must be the main discussion point at all times, in all places with no awareness that most people simply don't want to hear about it. Nobody is asking them to hide, but who people sleep with is NOT the most relevant or interesting point of discussion. Yet, they think it is. Because it SO all consuming to them, they think it consumes all others. It doesn't. It's tacky and most of us don't want to hear about it.....especially at work. They are left alone to their personal relationships.....so why bring it to work? If they sign contracts to shut up about it, then adhere to the terms. What's the problem with that?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
There's always a "problem with that." That's the nature of bolshevism.
lol......thanks for clearing that up randge. You're always so helpful. : )
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations
And thanks to you. This is the last bump I'll give to this thread with its bigoted title to say that I would have a lot more sympathy with these sort of activists if they CAME OUT FOUR-SQUARE AGAINST WAR AND MILITARISM.
Gays will destroy the military - it will take ten, twenty years to do so - but the US military will be gay run - the NCO and officer core will be gay. The military is the perfect home for a gay person - they will reenlist over and over. Gays will cluster in certain sections - supply, police, office staff --- and in this way they will control the military. Every recruit will be have a gay boss. In twenty years will this be OK with young men - will they voluntarily enlist --- I hope not.
#2. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
Lord Acton
#3. To: randge (#1)
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
(Edited)
There is no reason at all to deny homosexuals the same status as any other normal human being.
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
#6. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
(Edited)
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
regarding their private lives.
#8. To: abraxas (#7)
Most gays and lesbians are using the policy to get out of service, not the other way around, Mike. Although there are a few exceptions for those who actually do want to serve while telling the world about their sexuality. They wouldn't have had an issue had they abided by the policy, right? They signed up for service KNOWING the policy, so it's not like they were uniniformed. They signed on to shut up about their private lives.....that was the deal.
Lord Acton
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
#10. To: Lod (#9)
(Edited)
#11. To: abraxas (#7)
#12. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
I could not abide working under a command structure that needlessly and heartlessly hurt and destroyed good people
#13. To: Googolplex (#6)
#14. To: randge (#12)
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
#16. To: randge (#15)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
I could not abide working under a command structure that needlessly and heartlessly hurt and destroyed good people on such a capricious and pointless game of bigotry.
#18. To: abraxas (#17)
What's the problem with that?
#19. To: randge (#18)
That's the nature of bolshevism.
#20. To: abraxas (#19)
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#0)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest