A Fight Well Worth Fighting

Here's an article about some students in Greensboro trying to enlist in the Army while declaring themselves gay.  Good for them, and I hope that more demonstrations like this will force Congress to change the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  It has been a waste all around.  Gays have served honorably, and will continue to serve honorably, throughout our country's history.  They shouldn't be discriminated against, and I can't think of a single reason as to why it makes military sense to do so.  There will need to be some major re-thinking of the current set of rules covering things like living quarters on post, Dining Outs, etc.  But it is not insurmountable.  I am friends with several gay officers, and two of them are pretty much openly gay, although they don't live with a partner.  One is a surgeon, a damn fine surgeon, and I'm sure that the soldiers he has operated on didn't give a rat's ass about his sexual orientation. 

I'd say that in this day and age, the chance of a younger soldier coming into the Army not having been exposed to someone who claims to be homosexual is pretty low.  Gays are coming out in high school, so it's not like soldiers don't know about gays.  If these guys and gals are serious, I support them.  If they aren't, then they need to demonstrate against the folks who made these rules, Congress.  Or the President who signed it into law, Bill Clinton.  Not the Army.  The recruiters, no matter what their personal feelings are on the matter, are upholding a law they had nothing to do with when they deny openly gay people from enlisting. 

If Congress does change the law, I hope a reporter follows up with these protestors and sees if they were actually sincere in their desire to join, or if they were just trying to get headlines, knowing perfectly well they would never have to actually join.  I'd be interested in knowing. 

Comments

[WW]

Clinton signed it into law under threat. You might recall that he proposed ending the ban on gay soldiers, and the Republicans in Congress, with the active backing of the military, forced this policy. The alternative was a law that would have been harsher than the earlier policy.

It is the Republican Party that hates homosexuals. They have routinely made them into scapegoats in every election. They absolutely must have enemies to exist.

[RJ]

WW, glad to see you've slithered out from under your rock. I was starting to miss your "intellectual" banter. Would love to stay and have you educate me some more but myself and my goose stepping neocon friends have to go kill some unicorns. Brownshirt....out!!!

Thanks again Diggs, be well!

[WW]

Hey RJ, go torture someone. I understand the U.S. military has become good at that.

[A.M.]

GREAT POST SIR!

[MKL]

Well, if there's an expert in "needing enemies to exist" that would be WW.

[tblubrd]

Good post, diggs. You aren't the first soldier I've read on this - and pretty much all of you are saying the same thing. Maybe one day Congress will just get over it.

[WW]

It's not just Congress. The military is full of evangelical wingnuts who hate homos. They were the ones who shot down Clinton's attempt to change the policy, and they're the ones who are willing to shitcan essential personnel over it. This is a matter of wingnuts and christian whackos in the military and in Congress.

[tblubrd]

By the way, diggs, Neptunos Lex has a post on the same subject - though he outspokenly points out that the North Carolina sit in is just a stunt insulting the current armed forces. But the write-up is excellent and on point and the comment section is always worth a read.

You're in good company. Again

[Diggs]

WW, the military does not make UCMJ, Congress does. President Clinton didn't have to sign any law he didn't agree with. These are Constitutional provisions, commonly referred to as "separation of powers" and "civilian control of the military", something you must have missed in your US History class. (ps, it's not the christian whackos fault if President Clinton didn't have the balls to stand up to them and not sign a law he disagreed with)
There was never any alternative law proposed that was harsher than the original, which was a full ban. Are you suggesting that there was a law proposed by wingnuts that was more than a full ban? What would that be? A ban of 110%? The next guy in line next to a homosexual is also not allowed to join? What?
Can you give me the name of any evangelical wingnuts and whackos in the military, I'd love to ask them to a debate here on this site.

[tblubrd]

Diggs,

Try not to take WW too seriously. He isn't serious - deranged a little - but not serious. And neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this site can have a reasonable debate with him. His method is simply to throw out disconnected and remotely attached generalizations in the hope that someone will bite on it and change the point of the original post. The burr up his butt over Bush not only clouds his thinking, it reduces it to a screaming, shouting match. Notice that everyone but him is a "liar".

[Diggs]

No matter what, I try to treat all my commentors as though they are serious.

[WW]

Is there a single thing you people won't lie about? You do it so effortlessly that I wonder whether you have a special diet. The opposition to gays in the military comes from Republicans and wingnut christians and continues today.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1035

http://tinyurl.com/fozjb

In 1993, those groups AND the military itself led the charge against Clinton's proposal to end the ban. There were some Democrats who agreed with the Republicans, in particular Sen. Sam Nunn, a conservative from Georgia. But repealing the ban was in the Democratic Party platform in '92, and a large majority of Democrats wanted to end it.

http://tinyurl.com/qelus

http://tinyurl.com/hcvl6

http://tinyurl.com/jloxn

http://tinyurl.com/ob992

http://tinyurl.com/rr5k8

http://tinyurl.com/r5raz

At the time Clinton wanted to end the ban on openly gay service members, the ban was a Pentagon policy but not part of the law. The Republicans threatened to write it into law.

New York Times, Jan. 23, 1993

Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, the minority leader, said Republicans would offer an amendment to affirm the existing ban on homosexuals in the armed forces, which has always been a matter of Pentagon directive rather than statute. He said the amendment would be added to the first bill the Democrats brought up.

As for the military lobbying against the change:

New York Times, Jan. 23, 1993:

While not openly defying the civilian Commander in Chief, the Chiefs' strenuous opposition in private contrasts with the slightly more conciliatory tone in public statements that several of the officers made in December. The anger of the meeting with Mr. Aspin also differed from the muted, almost resigned response from the military to the news of Mr. Clinton's two-step compromise earlier this week. Thousands Now In Military

Gen. Colin L. Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is among the most forceful and articulate opponents of lifting the ban. General Powell discussed the issue with Mr. Clinton at Blair House in Washington last Sunday, before the inauguration, and several times with Mr. Aspin in the last week, emphasizing each time the threat that lifting the ban would pose to "good order and discipline" in the ranks.

Back then, not a single active duty military member testified in favor of Clinton's proposal to lift the ban on gays. Once the Joint Chiefs opposed the change, the entire military fell into lock step against lifting the ban.

I am struck by the many references to the Ten Commandments and religious values in the testimony at the time. I am also struck by the utter lack of courage among active duty military people who opposed the ban at the time. No wonder they can't win even a little war in Iraq.

[WW]

Writing the ban into law would have had the effect of strenghtening it, because it would have made it harder to change. And in fact, the current policy will be harder to change because any change must be approved by Congress. This was not the case prior to 1993, when the Republicans and the christian wingnuts forced Clinton into the current policy.

If you don't like the military's ban on homosexuals and want to know who's responsible for it, find the nearest mirror. You did it. Clinton was forced to go along.

[WW]

So, Diggs, will you know acknowledge that you're wrong? Of course not, because like your Liar-in-Chief you are a liar too.

[Publius]

WW,
How,, exactly, was Clinton "forced to go along?" Wouldn't you say that demonstrated an "utter lack of courage?"

Publius

[WW]

The politics of the time were such that Congress was going to legislate on the subject. It was a choice between the wingnut Republican desire to put the earlier policy into law, or agree to the compromise embodied in Don't Ask-Don't Tell.

You know, sort of like when your Liar-in-Chief had to drop his plan to steal Social Security. He read the tea leaves and backed off. It happens in Washington. In fact, the government was designed to force compromises.

[Diggs]

WW, let me get this straight. The President doesnt' have control over the military when he wants to change something as simple as a "policy" because Congress will oppose him, but he has enough control over the miltary to fight a multi-billion dollar, three year plus "illegal" war against the wishes of Congress and the American public? How does that work, some kind of inverse proportional Constitutional amendment?
You can make all the excuses you want about President Clinton's lack of a backbone, but the reality is that he can change policy in the armed forces anytime he wanted to, as Commander-in-Chief. He could not change the UCMJ, because that's Congress' to change, and the UCMJ contained statutes at that time (still does) against homosexuality in the services. That you and the NYTs don't quite understand how the military works, or even how the seperation of powers works under the Constitution is as evident now as it was back then. President's face "pressure" throughout their entire political life. Leaders lead, despite pressures. Great men move forward with what they know is right, no matter what the pressure. Other, less great men, bend like a candle in the wind.
If you think this was just a "policy", then President Clinton could have changed it with the stroke of a pen. He didn't. If you think he couldn't do anything because he was under pressure from the Congress, you are admitting that under President Clinton, the Executive Branch became nothing more than a rubber stamp for a Republican Congress. Not much of an endorsement for your hero. Every time you write something in here, I'm inclined to think that you gain four voters for the Republicans.

[WW]

Hey "Diggs," have you ever NOT lied about anything? It's just amazing tp watch you and the rest of the 'wingers tell whoppers about every single thing, every single time. Blaming Clinton for NOT allowing gays in the military is a big one, although I guess once you've raised the stiff arm and shouted Jawohl to Bush's Iraq lies, you'll say anything.

Enjoy your defeat in Iraq.

[Diggs]

I've never blamed Clinton for not letting gays in the military. Do you even know what you've written in previous comments? Your first comment blames Clinton for the current policy due to his inability to find a backbone. No one can force a President to sign anything, unless you are one of those who believes that there are space-based mind control machines operated by the Illuminati.
Do you know anything about the current policy that President Clinton signed? You really should read up on these things before you comment. Gays can serve in the military, so how could I blame Clinton for not allowing them to serve? I, on the other hand, know exactly what the policy is because I had to enforce it as a commander, know several gays serving on active duty, and support a full lift of any ban on homosexuals. Your comments reveal that you can't keep track of even a very minor debate; that for you (and Leftists like you) everything devolves into "us vs the lying Nazis". Not a very appealing choice for the voting public.
Enjoy your defeat in November

[RJ]

"the christian wingnuts forced Clinton into the current policy."
+
"Clinton was forced to go along."
=
no accountability. jeezuz farooking christmas

Diggs you need to stop making valid arguments as well as actually substantiating them. Your gonna make WW's head explode. I can see him running around the tree hugger cafe like the robot on Lost in Space: "Does not compute, Does not compute"

BTW: Unicorn hunting went well. Bagged our limit in an hour.
Now off to pull whiskers from puppy dogs.

[WW]

Your first comment blames Clinton for the current policy due to his inability to find a backbone.
Amazing that you'd try to lie about what I wrote. I never blamed Clinton for anything.

No one can force a President to sign anything
Presidents accept compromises all the time, including your own Liar-in-Chief. Check out the history of the Transportation Security Administration sometime.

Do you know anything about the current policy that President Clinton signed?
Yes, I do know about the policy.

everything devolves into "us vs the lying Nazis"
How about "the Lying Losers?"

[WW]

Speaking of attacting voters, this should help:

http://tinyurl.com/lpupz

I've argued to my fellow Democrats that Hillary is the best possible nominee in '08 because the wingnuts will go batshit crazy and the backlash will get her elected. Face it, you nutcases can't help yourselves. Not only that, but guess who'll have all those enhanced powers of surveillance and torture?

[Diggs]

Keep convincing those fellow Dems. You can rest assured that whatever Republican gets put up as the candidate will get on his knees and pray that his opponent is Hillary Clinton. The only candidates they'd pray harder to have as the Democratic nominee is John "Magic CIA Hat" Kerry or Al "Chicken Little" Gore.

[WW]

Diggs, then prepare for your wingnut dreams to come true.