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.
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.
Stories like this are utterly disgusting. Imagine that you've made a discovery that literally changes the direction of a world war. Imagine the pride that you must feel in making such a huge difference to countless millions in war weary populations. Then imagine your country focusing on one aspect of your personality, and treating you like a monster to the point that your only way out is to kill yourself.
Yes, this is rather harsh but this article is but one extreme example of the harsh treatment that some gays have faced just for being who they are.
Did you know that at one time, one of the many "cures" for being gay was chemical castration?
Imagine if mathematician and computer scientist Alan Turing's homosexuality was "discovered and dealt with" prior to making his discovery during the war against Nazi Germany.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/11/alan.turing.petition.apology/index.html?section=cnn_latest
So there has been quite the chatter about Attorney General Van Hollen's decision to not defend the domestic partner registry legislation. Now, we're being informed that he has written a letter to Governor Doyle to explain his decision. Apparently he will not defend the legislation because he believes it is flawed and that a domestic partnership may be substantially similar to that of marriage.
Well.. I'm curious about the full contents of that letter. So far the news hasn't revealed much more which hasn't been revealed before. Except of course that the AG believes the law is flawed.
I, for one, am wondering if religious conservatives are capable of putting their beliefs aside and constructing a legal status which grants rights to same-sex couples.
Our governor believes that all couples deserve legal protection. Up until now, not all couples have had that the ability to receive protections through the government. No matter how you look at it, the solution now in place has the best of intentions: to provide basic protection to same-sex couples. Some such as the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran would have you believe that this is not about legal protection, but only about sanctioning love or the right to love. Believe what you want because we're all free-thinking individuals. Just don't remind me that all couples have the option of purchasing legal protection. That suggests that opposite-sex couples have had TWO options for legal protection -- one a fraction of the cost of the other -- while same-sex couples only have had ONE EXPENSIVE option. And this doesn't even include the cost of the commitment ceremony or wedding, for those couples that choose to have a celebration.
I will go out of my way, however to say this. I agree: the domestic partnership declaration and the marriage license are identical in many ways except in who each is for and which rights are granted.
A quick side-by-side comparison of marriage licenses and domestic partnership declarations (based on my understanding) shows:
I'm forced to ask: when it comes to any legal construct which would grant rights to same-sex couples in Wisconsin:
I seriously doubt a casual definition to determine who is eligible, as McIlheran suggests, would fly with Joe the Voter. Might as well include Julaine Appling's "two men in an ice shanty" statement as a qualification to register.
So to all these people who are basically complaining about this small taste of equality that Wisconsin gay couples now have, I dare you to answer the following questions:
So, now Republicans and the media have found a new sensational issue to focus on regarding Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor. It seems that her participation in an all women club, The Belizean Grove, is considered to be a violation of judicial ethics. Not knowing all the facts, I disagree.
And here is why, even though I do not know the mission of this organization. My disagreement is because of a pretty simple question, really. According to their written mission statement, what group of people does this organization serve?
If the written mission statement for Belizean Grove clearly states that it exists for all women, then the answer should be obvious.
If it states that it exists for everyone and in practice excludes men, then the group is discriminating.
In other words: the bottom line is about who the group states that it serves. It discriminates when it excludes within the population served. For me, the answer to this type of question is simple: look to a group's written mission statement. I do not know the mission of Belizean Group, but it helps to have learned that the group appears to serve women and may exist in response to the all-male Bohemian club.
From an article which appeared in the New York Times:
The Belizean Grove bills itself as women’s answer to the 130-year-old all-male Bohemian Club in California. The men’s club owns a 2,500-acre camping area in Northern California called the Grove.
I cannot help but notice the irony here. Wasn't it about ten years ago that conservatives rallied behind the Boy Scouts, an organization whose stated mission appears to serve an entire group and publicly excludes gays within that group? Let us not forget that the Supreme Court sanctioned their discrimination. Funny that their website is not clear about eligibility.
Ironic and definitely not surprising that conservatives are now crying discrimination.
At any rate: once again the media and conservatives are focusing on one side of the issue. Very few people are talking about the all male Bohemian Club. I wonder why..?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20grove.html?ref=politics
In a big "huh?" moment, supposedly a spokesperson for the Focus On The Family organization says its ok for a justice to be gay. He says it has no impact on the ability to judge (duh!). But - what would happen if we ever did get a gay justice nominated to the Supreme Court? If you think this group would speak out against the nomination, please raise your right hand..
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/focus_on_the_family_gay_justic.php
