It’s been almost two weeks since we’ve known the results of the Pentagon study about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The report indicates that a large majority of soldiers (70%) believe allowing gays to serve in the military will have a positive effect, mixed effect, or no effect at all. The authors of the study, the Defense Department general counsel Jeh Johnson and Army General Carter Ham, have full heartedly endorsed repeal of the policy. So have Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. This is great news! Finally, a serious effort can be made to bring equality to the military. Wait, what’s that? The Republican minority doesn’t want to? Damn it, we were so close.
In the past, Republicans like John McCain said that if military leaders come out in favor of repeal, then he would follow their advice. But now McCain and several other senators are backtracking. They say that because combat troops are slightly less likely to support the change than other troops, and that because the service chiefs have all given nuanced responses, it is still not the time to get rid of this bigoted, wrongheaded policy. Republicans have said that the report is biased, and that it is still not the right time to vote for repeal. But let’s be real, here. What more do the Republicans want? Are the Republicans waiting for every single member of the military to support the change? Maybe they are so used to having their way even though they are a minority that they’ve forgotten what majority rule means.
I’m not going to focus on the reasons repeal makes sense. I’ve already written about why gays should be allowed to serve in the military just like everyone else. What I’d instead like to talk about is the broader contempt the Republicans are showing to the democratic process. The controversy over DADT is just one example. Whatever else you may believe about politics, the American political system is fundamentally about making people’s lives better. That should be the government’s guiding principle: is what we are about to do going to make this country a better place? Obviously, intelligent, honest, good people will disagree about what actually makes our country better, and that’s an important part of the process. But what is fundamentally not part of the system is power for power’s sake. And when Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell says that his number one priority is to defeat Obama in 2012, he is showing himself to be the kind of power hungry politician that we thought we were getting rid of way back in 1776. The whole issue over gays in the military has nothing to do with gays in the military, and that’s what makes the whole situation a shame. Republicans are playing politics with American security to score a minor victory in the culture war. Now, excuse me if I’m mistaken, but I’m fairly certain that the most important war we’re fighting right now is against terrorists, not patriotic Americans looking to serve their country.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I don’t have a problem with the Republican Party as a part of the American political system. I don’t agree with most of their positions, but an honest opposition is what makes democracies work. Our two-party system has its flaws, but it’s what we have so we must make do. And in order to make it work, we need to have people who are genuinely interested in honest, intellectual debate. If the Republicans seemed at all willing to do that, then I’d be a much happier person. But as it stands now, the Republicans are confrontational, dismissive, arrogant, and closed minded. I fail to see how you can build a government around those principles. Say what you like about Obama, he has bent over backwards to accommodate the Republicans. He has taken a lot of criticism from his liberal base about this. While I think Obama has made the wrong political decisions many times, I admire his belief in compromise. It doesn’t always work, but the attempt should always be made to have an inclusive system. If the Republicans had their way, us pointy-headed East Coast liberals would be kicked out of the political process for being “out of touch”, “elitist”, and “intellectual.” Framing your opponents as Communist Nazi-lovers is really not the best way to encourage open debate.
Here’s the bottom line: Republicans need to get over themselves and work to make American’s lives better. If that means compromising and running the risk of pissing off the Heritage Foundation or Focus on the Family every once in a while, then so be it! Ideological purity means nothing if you can’t get things done. Republicans need to start treating all Americans as equals. That includes gays in the military, but it goes deeper than that. It means that you don’t call someone un-American just because they live in New York or Washington, D.C. It means respecting other people’s opinions even if you disagree with them. It means respecting intelligence on both sides of the aisle. It means treating people as human beings, not political tools. Perhaps all this is too much to ask for, but if that’s the case, we might as well pack it all in now. America deserves better, and if the Republicans can’t do it, I’m sure another group can.
Republican radicalism, really? In your copious life experience you know repeal is a good idea, how? It is a mistake to view DADT as a civil rights issue. Because of the imperatives of combat operations, the armed forces has always operated on a stricter moral plane than civilian can imagine. As for the Pentagon study, data is pliable. Sec Gates and Adm Mullen, who work directly for Obama, favor repeal of DADT, so what do you think their subordinate flag officers will do?
You’re wrong. I’ll deconstruct why, if you like, but if the article hasn’t presented any arguments you find viable then I doubt I’d do anything better. So, any response I could give would just amount to a discussion of how very wrong you are.
You’re really, really wrong.
Mullen and Gates were both nominated by Bush
Roger, personally, I think it’s insane that people have to even explain WHY repeal is needed….it’s discrimination, plain and simple. It IS a civil rights issue! By trying to make it into a security issue, opponents have merely been trying to pull the sheets over the public’s eyes while claiming not to be homophobic and discriminatory. Claiming that the armed forces operate with a “stricter moral plane” is 1) sad that you think a “stricter moral plane” = anti-gay positions and discrimination, and 2) I’d argue that the armed forces actually tend to be backwards and operate way behind the times. For example, women were not allowed into West Point for too long, and once they were, there were rapes, harassment, etc. Is that also part of the “stricter moral plane” you speak of?
You think it’s a security issue? Well, there was a study done of similar repeals in 5 of our allies (albeit some of them 20 yrs ago…we are so, embarrassingly, far behind) and they all found little or no impact to cohesion and security as a result of the repeals. In fact, they found it to be a benefit. By bringing things out into the open (it being ok to let others know you are gay) harassment actually decreased. See for yourself: (you have an article, interview, and a book to choose from) http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131857684/how-gay-soldiers-serve-openly-around-the-world
Lastly, I agree data can be pliable….but not when you have a 70%/30% split. If you have a 51%/49% split, ok, there is some fudge room. But with 70%?? Wake up.
Are overweight people being discriminated against because the military has weight standards? Are people with long hair discriminated against when they are forced to go high and tight? Discrimination is something that is perceived differently by every person. Therefore nothing can be just in the eyes of every person.
Kate- I agree with you generally. But it’s not entirely fair to say that the military tends to be behind in terms of social reform. The US military integrated the army racially in 1948, well before the end of segregated schools. Truman actually made racist remarks illegal under military law
Problems of “cohesion” were quickly overcome, and the US army has greatly benefited.
Tim J- Don’t be silly. Being gay doesn’t affect you’re ability to run and shoot a rifle. Being fat does. In terms of cohesion: I seriously doubt anyone under fire will be too concerned about the soldier next to him making a move in between mortar blasts.
Resistance to repeal is political pandering, through and through.
Kate,
I absolutely agree that DADT is homophobic and discriminatory. But, let me try to argue for the other side, however silly it may be. The foundation of your argument, if I understand it correctly, is homophobia and discrimination are wrong. If homophobia is as severe and debilitating as you would like us to believe, then we must treat is as such. Would you expect someone taking a test, who suffers from arachnaphobia, to perform better in a room filled with spiders or a room devoid of any? No matter how irrational the fear is perceived to be by third parties, it will still negatively affect the individual who suffers from it. This fact is well documented. Therefore, those who are homophobic will not be performing to their full potential in the presence of open homosexuals. (I am assuming that you are aware that DADT does not prohibit homosexuals from entering the military. It is only open homosexuals who are discharged). Where is your empathy for these people? It seems you are unwilling to acknowledge them because their homophobia directly interferes with your agenda. Now, lets move on to discrimination. You mocked my argument, and quickly backed up your opinion with another opinion. In doing so, you managed to admit to the world that you believe every fat person is incapable of running and shooting a gun. In science, it only takes one case to prove a hypothesis wrong. Im sorry to tell you that many people who don’t make the weight requirements are absolutely capable of both actions. You also imply that no form of discrimination can be just or necessary. Yet another statement that is quite illogical considering you attend Connecticut College (not everyone gets in that applies).
In closing, I would be interested to see how you or anyone, for that matter, refutes this argument. But, please save the sophist rhetoric. Also, nobody becomes more inclined to agree with someone because they used the word really twice, Dan.
Like I said, it was obvious that nothing I was going to say would change your mind, because you’ve already rejected rationality and reason in approaching this issue (and thoroughly ignored the factual basis for the content of this article and the responses). I wasn’t trying to convert you, I just think you’re kind of an ass.
Dan-
You’re better than that. Like I said, there is no need to resort to a sophistic argument style. I don’t think you’re upset because I’m wrong. I think you’re upset because you can’t prove that I am. Seth developed a clear, cogent argument that supports his position. Can you?
Sure! I’ll follow up on your claim that having weight and grooming standards are somehow a form of discrimination. See, those standards exist for a reason. There is a fitness requirement, because if someone is physically unfit, then they are in a significantly greater amount of danger in a warzone, and bring that danger to their unit. If someone does not groom themselves well enough, they also introduce risk to wherever they are stationed. Additionally, studies have shown that by forcing people to dress and groom themselves the same (requiring the high and tight haircut), they will be more cohesive and respond more efficiently and immediately to orders given by superiors with the same uniform-type and grooming standards.
Now, it has been said that homosexuality is banned in the military for these same reasons, that it would affect unit cohesion and introduce a significant amount of danger on the battlefield. Unlike the fitness and grooming requirements, however, it has been proven false. So while, yes, you can say that those are forms of discrimination, you can also demonstrate that to do otherwise would be dangerous. It has been clearly and adequately demonstrated that there is no similar danger inherent in DADT. As such, it is merely discriminatory, and demands repeal.
Hey guys, I’m glad that you’re having a substantive debate about this. I would appreciate it, however, if you could keep swears off this comment page. Thanks.
Thank you, Kate, for an intelligent and comprehensive answer to those who remain afraid of gay people. It is tragic that Israel abolished its ban on gays serving in its Defense Forces in 1993–the very same year DADT was adopted by the U.S. Congress.
Please call your Senator today (U.S. Capitol switchboard is 202.224.3121) and urge them to vote in favor of the stand-alone DADT repeal bill, especially those living in Massachusetts (Brown), Alaska (Murkowski), Illinois (Kirk), Maine (Snowe), Indiana (Lugar) as well as Arkansas (Lincoln) and West Virginia (Manchin).
Thank you for helping bend the arc of the moral universe towards justice for all.
The first major problem is the current long standing ban on homosexual men donating blood which was reaffirmed this past June. While the “lifetime ban” was not warmly received, all opposing discussion centered on the allowable time between homosexual sex (men having sex with men – MSM) and the act of blood donation. See http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docid=640056
In a 2006 transcript (see http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4206t1.pdf) of a similar hearing concerning MSM blood donation, it was noted on page 46-47 of the document that the European Blood Exchange also bans donations from MSM, and the ban was upheld in a court challenge. Of note, on page 48 of the report the MSM HIV infection rate in the US was cited as approximately 500,000. This number was essentially validated in the next document as posted on the CDC website:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf The document states the following four highlights:
– MSM account for nearly half of the more than one million people living with HIV in the U.S. (48%, or an estimated 532,000 total persons).
– MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year (53%, or an estimated 28,700 infections).
– While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522–989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).
– MSM are the only risk group in the U.S. in which new HIV infections are increasing. While new infections have declined among both heterosexuals and injection drug users, the annual number of new HIV infections among MSM has been steadily increasing since the early 1990s.
The last point is most disconcerting when combined with a recent study (see http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/127715/teen-sex-survey-reveals-risky-behavior ). A new study on city teens and sex has identified some risky sexual behaviors – particularly among teens that have partners of both genders. According to the study in the journal Pediatrics released in October, nearly 1 in 10 of the city’s sexually-active high school students say they have had at least one partner of the same sex. Those teens reported higher-than-average rates of dating violence, forced sex, and risky sexual behavior. Of the male teens who say they have had both male and female partners, just 44 percent said they used a condom the last time they had sex. That’s compared to 79 percent of male teens who have only slept with female partners and 62 percent who’d slept with only same-sex partners. The report is based on more than 17,000 public health surveys administered in New York City high schools in 2005 and 2007. This tells us that MSM sex in high school students is radically increasing. Not included in this study was a demographic of HIV transmission for these teenagers. Regardless, this statistics is important.
If 4% of US Population of males between the ages of 13 and older is MSM inclined, and 532,000 MSM are HIV positive, we can extrapolate the following: Of the US Census demographics of military service the closest US Census ages statistics are 13-44 – approximately 53 million men (see http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=PEP_2009_EST&-mt_name=PEP_2009_EST_G2009_T006_2009&-CONTEXT=dt&-tree_id=809&-all_geo_types=Y&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en ) This means that of this percentage, approximately 12% – more than 1 in 10 – of all MSM in the USA are HIV Positive. If the 4% statistic is applied only 53 million military aged demographic, we get a 25% infection rate – or 1 in 4 MSM in that age group are HIV positive. This tells us the infection rate for military aged personnel is between 12% to 25% – an neither statistic is acceptable. Add to that approximately half of all new annual HIV infections are MSM and the medical cost and readiness implications are significant. This clearly shows the MSM demographic is the most risky for HIV of any demographic in America. These statistics coupled to the NY City school statistic of 1 in 10 males has had sex with another male creates the potential for spiraling HIV transmission rate in the military service demographic.
These clearly documented facts show that (1) homosexual conduct is the highest risk conduct for HIV transmission; (2) that the MSM population group has the highest per capita infection rates of any demographic; (3) MSM blood donations are banned for life and that status was reaffirmed in June 2010 making battlefield medicine problematic at best.
Without considering any other aspects of the issue of open service of homosexuals such as privacy, religious and moral issues, these HIV infection rate facts should clearly demonstrate that open service of homosexuals is not in the best interest of the Nation’s security posture and will clearly harm the readiness of the armed forces and greatly increase medical bills for serving HIV positive soldiers and veterans (as the requirement to treat them transfers to the Veterans Administration).
So, MSM accounts for nearly half of the people with HIV. But what percent of men having sex with men are living with HIV? You just presented two-thirds of a venn diagram and phrased it as though it was somehow compelling data. It isn’t, and you’re wrong.
Also, some of your links are broken and reported statistics are clearly questionable.
Surprise, Dan thinks your wrong because you’re really, definitely, really wrong. That was actually an interesting argument, Ted, but next time can you just tell us you’re right immediately so we don’t have to actually read or think about anything.
I think the most delightful part of this post is when you skipped my criticism of the data and instead focused on the two words relevant to your ad hominem attack.
Rather than engage myself in an actual discussion here, I just want to say to Mr. Nigrosh: Bravo. Your entire piece, especially the part about Republicans needing to act like mature adults and actually get things done, resonates with me personally. The one thing that gets me riled up is the sheer *immaturity* of the Republican Party. (Oh, but I’m heading towards a discussion here…)
Here is the ignored issue in this whole episode that is potentially hilarious. Gays serve openly, those who are serving or would serve in the “hard” jobs such as infantry decide they do not want to anymore, or in the case of enlistment, never will…that will lead to a draft…and I think that all of those that were thinking they were just telling other people how to act, will find themselves in the Korengal valley…I am giggling at the thought
That statement makes the assumption that every person in America is opposed to the war. There are actually many people who are proud to serve their country. As for a draft, active college students are not often selected.
Tim J is exactly right (osnap). You make two assumptions: that the passing of DADT will lead many soldiers to leave their posts, and that this would cause a draft to be necessary.
The first assumption was disproved by the study conducted asking soldiers whether they would be able to serve prior to the issue being brought to the Senate alongside gay soldiers effectively. It found that the great majority would not struggle with this.
The second assumption is also wrong, as Tim J has pointed out. If anything, enlistment will most likely increase, now that openly gay men and women can enlist to serve the country they love without fear of being discharged for their sexuality.
So, you’re giggling at a fantasy that won’t ever see fruition. Hope it’s fun, though.