The Marine Corps commandant believes that "changing this policy this way would cause distraction among the Marine Corps to the point that he is worried about increased casualties." Which policy? Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Yes, I can see it now: "LOOK! A missile is heading RIGHT FOR US! We're under ATTACK! More importantly, is Adam trying to get into Steve's pants?!? Into MINE?"
Get real, folks.
It is hard to believe that the president of a charitable organization about families knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed. I would call Judge Phillips a fair minded judge who believes differently that the likes of Tony Perkins, president of the notoriously anti-gay and conservative Family Research Council.
I was really curious how a statement by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, would sound if you tweaked some of the wording. The original statement appeared in this article on the recent ruling on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. In this article, Mr. Perkins questions how an activist judge knows best with regards to military readiness.
I wonder the same about Perkins.
I've read with interest the diverse opinions people have about the inevitable repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I find it intriguing how so much focus is placed on who and what this is about. For example, some might say:
During a combat situation, "the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct." (emphasis added)
Now substitute the emphasized phrase in that statement as follows:
During a combat situation, the last thing that one would want then and there is a romantic attachment between any of those men and women, even if it is unexpressed in overt sexual conduct.
The only difference in the two statements is who is involved. Excuse me, but during a combat situation lives are at stake. Sex and romance should be furthest from anybody's mind. I would agree that the last thing people should be thinking about is the romantic interest or sexual attraction between any two people.
In the wake of an increase of sexual assault reporting -- presumably among heterosexual people -- should heterosexual women be allowed to serve if men fear that they will be sexually attracted to the men, and vice versa? Is unit cohesion only an issue when politically unpopular groups are involved? Does it make sense to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation within military ranks?
Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed since this discriminatory policy was enacted; destroyed for no apparent reason. To focus on the "what" and "who" is to miss the point of the need to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Of course, I just had to listen to President Obama's State of The Union address. I found it to be a great speech. Yes, it had its share of rhetoric. That is to be expected: this is, after all, politics. We are each entitled to our own individual vision and his speech and vision are always subject to individual interpretation.
His speech included indisputable facts, such as the budget surplus from 2000 which took a nosedive at warp speed in the years that followed. Of course I'm paraphrasing. By the way.. did Senator McCain say "blaming Bush?" after President Obama stated that fact?
Anyway, I enjoyed listening to President Obama's vision of unity and I found his wrap-up quite inspiring. Here's hoping that both democrats and republicans in the House, Senate, and Supreme Court listen closely to what Obama had to say.
But that's not what I'm writing about tonight. As with any political speech, there were also rather unremarkable moments.
Take this one:
"[...] we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else."
An interesting post and commentary is over at zackfordblogs.com regarding the very brief mention of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
The comments in that post refer to the above statement from the State of The Union, which reminds readers about a certain Proposition 8 thing going on California which Obama seems to be a little quiet about.
Then there was the following:
"As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."
Hmm. I took note that there was no mention of the plight of gays in Uganda. He discussed working with communities around the world. It is really too bad that President Obama appears to have chosen to be quiet about a certain death penalty for gays that is under consideration in Uganda.
Don't get me wrong: great speech, great vision. I do believe he is doing the best he can. I'd rather have this vision to look up to than the one we had to live through before Obama assumed office. This great vision would be even better if he'd take a visible stand on more for gays.
Someone help me out here. We're in the middle of a war right? So, it makes perfect sense to me that we need qualified:
Right?
Apparently not if you're gay.
