You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Everyone really knows that the failed military policy of Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Think/Don't Win the War on Terror, is as big a disaster as the actual war in Iraq. This policy hurts military readiness, leaves our nation vulnerable to terrorist attacks by getting rid of desperately needed translators and makes us look foolish to the rest of the world.
An op-ed in today's New York Times reports that 58 Arabic linguists have been booted because of Don't Ask/Don't Tell. Meanwhile, the Army had filled only half its authorized positions for Arabic translators in 2001.
KABOOM - you get the picture - dead soldiers because of bigotry.
Furthermore, it hurts Bush's "surge" in Iraq, because it limits the number of soldiers available, as well as makes those who are in Iraq stay for longer tours of duty because there are no adequate replacements. Unfortunately, prejudice comes before patriotism for social conservatives who disingenuously say they support the troops - while forcing them to stay indefinitely in Iraq, while perfectly healthy gay replacements are forced to stay at home. (11,000 service members have been kicked out since Don't Ask/Don't Win the War on Terror was passed in 1993)
If conservatives want us to stay here and sip Mimosas at beach Tea Dances, instead of sitting in the deadly sands of Iraq - we can have all the fun while their children die. But, please, don't pretend to care about America and the military while supporting such a brain-dead, counterproductive policy.
This issue is shaping up to to be a big one in the presidential election. All of the Democrats support repealing this ridiculous policy, while all of the Republicans are in favor of keeping it. (Don't ever suggest that there is no difference between the parties, unless you want to be perceived as a unlettered dolt)
The Republican candidates are strangely hiding behind the war to justify their discrimination, as if our surge couldn't use more troops. (actually, they should all go home)
"This is not the time to put in place a major change, a social experiment, in the middle of a war going on," bleated presidential candidate and Flipper television extra, Mitt "I'll say anything to get elected" Romney.
Rudy Giuliani, who wants to scare Americans all the way to the White House, vacuously belched, "At a time of war, you don't make fundamental changes like this."
During a time of war, you don't change a policy to help the military? This line of reasoning is as irrational and incoherent as the conflict itself. Finally, the war on terror is not going away anytime in the near future. The Republicans are using this to pass the buck at the expense of our ability to protect America's shores.
The Human Rights Campaign is kicking off its Legacy of Service tour to highlight how asinine this policy is. Let us hope they continue to educate America on this issue. Stephen Benjaman, an Arabic translator who was ousted from the military because he was gay says it best:
"Don't ask, don't tell" does nothing but deprive the military of talent it needs and invade the privacy of gay service members just trying to do their jobs and live their lives. Political and military leaders who support the current law may believe that homosexual soldiers threaten unit cohesion and military readiness, but the real damage is caused by denying enlistment to patriotic Americans and wrenching qualified individuals out of effective military units. This does not serve the military or the nation well."
28 Comments:
The republicans proved that they are willing to put their ideology (bigotry) over national security. Isn't it just amazing? Really, my head spins when I consider, in light of the dismissal of Arab linguists, that anyone can defend this policy in any way, shape or form. Convicts and drug users are allowed in, but not gay people who know Arabic? Shame on you, America, shame on you.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/08/2007 1:04 PM
It's clear as a bell that the next obvious step after allowing gay people to serve openly in the military is allowing gay people to marry legally. And that's what the opponents of abolishing the DADT are really scared of! And it makes sense: if the gay person is man/woman enough to fight and risk his life for his country, why then can't he have the right to marry whom he/she chooses? So as you can see, it's worth it to lose lives on the front upholding this silly policy, than lose the sanctity of straight marriage. After all, what is better: keeping gays and lesbians from marrying or losing our men and women in Iraq? Let's face it, the fundies and the right aren't very smart.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/08/2007 1:51 PM
It's clear as a bell that the next step after allowing gay people to serve openly in the military is allowing gay people to marry legally. That's what the opponents of abolishing the DADT are really scared of but they are not saying so! It’s easier to say: “let’s not change policy midstream.” And it makes sense because one could argue: if the gay/lesbian is good enough to fight and risk his/her life for his country, why then can't he/she be good enough to have the right to marry whom he/she chooses? That’s really what it was about when the compromise of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy came about. But nobody would admit it then or now! As long as gay people are invisible nothing is lost to the opponents of gay/lesbian people serving openly. It’s worth it to the Repugnicans to lose lives on the front upholding this silly DADT policy. In their deluded minds, keeping gays and lesbians from marrying is worth losing lives of our men and women in Iraq as long as it’s not their own children under fire. richard schillen
posted by Anonymous, at
6/08/2007 2:12 PM
I agree with thel ast two posts. As always, all of the arguments for and against the full inclusion of gay people in the life of th4 country-- whether military service, marriage, or anything else-- is not about that particular subject, but about ending the prejudice and normalizing us. As long as we don't address that issue--prejudice-- and call it what it is by its actual name, we will never get anywhere. The enemy is not the right wingers, the enemy is the closet.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/08/2007 2:36 PM
Wayne, just because Democrats support ending DADT doesn't make them so very different from the Republicans. The Dems do not believe in full equality for the LGBT community, never have, never will. Further, the Dems are only supporting it because they believe they're in reach of a 2008 victory, so they'll say or do anything to get elected. What is so different about that, both parties do it for different reasons. Where were the Dems 10 years ago when Clinton enacted the law in the first place, pretty silent if you ask me. Its only this past year that some of them have jumped on the bandwagon and are using DADT to get our votes, votes they've always taken for granted.
Richard, I've been of your opinion for a long time, ergo getting rid of DADT might signal marriage equality further down the road as far as republicans go. But you know what, even if DADT is abolished, no Democratic White House is going to back marriage equality, Civil Unions or crumbs will be what they'll be prepared to offer us. In Massachusetts Gay couples have half-assed marriage equality, i.e. none of the more than 1100 federal rights and privileges that heteros are automatically entitled to once they marry. I'm not giving anyone my vote if they don't want my equality, they've not yet earned it.
Might be stepping into a hornets nest, but I am getting tired of the 'white, heterosexual, male bashing' that is going on in the US. I believe you have the right to believe what you want, but just because I don't agree with you, you call me a bigot. Sounds like your guilty of the same thing you make me out to be guilty of. My catholic faith, which I try to live by (and not be hypocritical), not always successfully, and the bible states that homosexual relations are a sin. That said, I am not forcing my beliefs down your throats, like the homosexual groups are doing to me. I don't believe in polls, so I don't believe 2/3rd's of service 'people' are ok with openly gay foxhole mates. Certainly in my military experience nobody was ok with that scenario. Everyone that Mr. Besen quoted where all senior level people, far removed from the 17/18 yr old with a GED from rural Kentucky/Texas/etc. You go about your business, and I'll go about mine. Don't Ask, Don't tell should stay. And saying we are losing in Iraq because of it is just BS.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 10:56 AM
I'm wondering about how many people who advocate open homosexuality in the military have actually served in the military. I have, and the issue is not about gay discrimination, it is about combat units being able to do their jobs. As a former member of Army Special Forces, I and my fellow team members would have found it extremely difficult to have an openly gay person with us. Not because of predjudice but because of how extremely closely we have to work together. As a civilian, I have many gay friends and relatives who I care about deeply but I would not want to be put into a situation where I would have to work, eat, sleep so tightly together that at times we move as one body, it just wouldn't work. The military wisely segregates living arrangements according to sex, how do you segregate people who are sexually attracted to their own. Relationship of a potentially sexual nature has no place in a potential combat situation, it would detract from mission effectiveness and would cost lives, American lives. This isn't an issue of political correctness, it is an issue of life and death. I would rather our military be politicly incorrect and ALIVE. Bud Schmauss frmr member 3rd BN 10th Secial Forces Group USArmy BadTolz, Germany
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 12:59 PM
Couldn't agree with you more Bud. For folks that don't know, here's a scenario to think about (Bud, you'll probably recognize the barracks). We had about 60 men on two floors of an open bay barracks (no rooms, walls, etc). 6 shower heads in an open shower room, 6 sinks, and 4 open toilets. After PT, you basically have 60 swinging ... running around getting showers, shaving, etc. And summers at Ft. Bragg are a bit hot, and with no air, most of us slept nude. Introducing an openly homosexual into that equation and you have problems, the same as if women were in that equation. Leave the military out of social experiments, it has a tough enough mission to accomplish.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 2:05 PM
Kevin, Ah yes, I remember Brag. Did SF Qual course at Camp McCall outside of Brag and then the JFK Special Warfare Center. I remember the barracks just like that at Ft. Benning jump school (I understand they are all gone now) and I don't know how they handled women in jump school and an openly gay person would not of survived. Bud
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 3:16 PM
Two weeks of McCall are burned in my memory (my feet also remember it well). Airborne school separated the males and females in different barracks. Isn't that separating those with the same sexual orientation? Therefore a 3rd barracks would be needed, or maybe even a 4th (gays & lesbians)? The law of unintended consequences has no place in the military.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 3:45 PM
So, bud and kevin, your assumption that gay people cannot behave as well (or as badly) as straight people is telling. You are really just admitting what DADT has always been about-- your prejudice, as opposed to reality. The same arguments that you propose were the same ones against black people and women. Gay people are ALREADY serving with you, which is what DADT is all about. But as long as you don't know it, you're ok with it? Please. Gay people are already serving openly in the military in a number of our allies, including Israel. there doesn't seem to be a problem.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 6:14 PM
And I forgot. This is to Mr. Catholic Anonymous. I'm getting very tired of bigots like you accusing gay people of being bigots because we call you on your bigotry. This seems to be the latest right-wing tactic to avoid the issue. I don't call you a bigot because you disagree with me. I call you a bigot because YOU ARE. You take your dislike/disapproval of gay people and conclude that we are not deserving of equal treatment under the law, and that special rules (that is, unjust treatment) can apply to us for no other reason than YOU DISAPPROVE OR YOU THINK YOUR GOD DISAPPROVES. As a Jew, I reject the Christian story, and as a thinking human being, I reject Biblical morality. This bothers the religious beliefs of no one but the most rabid fundamentalist, nor would any but the most clueless dare say so in public for fear of rightly being called a religious bigot. But let me say that I'm gay and reject just this tiniest part of conservative Christian belief, and suddenly, religious beliefs are offended, the people who hold them offended that I would call them bigots.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/13/2007 6:28 PM
Ben, Both sides use tactics that support their position. Stating that yours is the only 'correct' one is just a tactic, it does not give credence to your argument. Just because somebody disapproves of another's behavior does not make them a bigot. And if I was avoiding the subject, I wouldn't be writing these posts. Your right, I do not believe 'special rules' belong. We have too many special rules already. A study I read tabulated all the 'special' groups and it came up to over 300% of the population. Crazy. Our current laws cover any mistreatment of a person, regardless of orientation. What you are probably talking about are 'rights' to things like insurance, retirement accounts, etc. I would actually agree that the rules (not laws) governing who can be listed as the beneficiary should probably be open to anyone you want to list. But when you attack the sanctity of marriage to get those, that is where I will stand my ground.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 1:06 PM
Ben, No I expect them to behave just as bad, which is why the US military separates the sexes. Blacks & women, that is a race & sex issue, not a sexual orientation issue. Using the Israeli Army is an convenient yet untenable comparison. Almost 100% of their population has either been trained, is active or in the reserves. Their existence depends on it. And just because other people are doing it, doesn't mean we have to or its right. If that is true, then the democrats would be trying to cut taxes instead of raising them, because almost all advanced countries are cutting them.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 2:03 PM
to Anonymous: What "sanctity of marriage". Any two straight people can get married, even if they met 5 minutes ago, as long as they have $50 for a marriage license and are not closer than cousins. And to the best of my knowledge, no state defines a marriage as "holy" or sanctified. It is a contractual arrangement certified by the state. And no, I'm not talking about your approval. I'm talking about an end to a prejudice that gives you the right to think that you can disapprove of a whole group of people, that denies me the same rights you have, that until 2003 in this country made me a criminal in 13 states.I am sick to death your "disapproval", and that of eople who think just like you do, means that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, fired, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn't approve, or believes their God does not approve.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 2:45 PM
I'll have to disagree with you, Kevin. What is clear is that your concerns about YOUR fears, not reality. as i said, you have served with gay people to no ill effect. When you say that "knowing" will affect you, then it is about you, not gay people. And the issue is also not "other people are doing it so we should too". the issue is other countries are doing it, and their soldiers are serving next to ours, and all of the problems predicted HAVE NOT COME TRUE.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 2:49 PM
Quite frankly, there is very little that I fear, and gays don't make the list. No, nobody I served directly with was gay, not even rumors. Now, maybe that is because my experience is with small, combat arms units where any distraction gets people killed. That's why women are not allowed in these units. Again, just because other countries do it, doesn't mean it is right or we should. Euthanization (sp?), drugs & prostitution is legal in the Netherlands. But I don't believe they should be legal here.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 3:34 PM
When anyone doesn't agree with you they are automatically labeled far right fanatics. That hurts your cause more than helps. I'm not as far right as you may think. I actually agree that those laws you mentioned don't below. Consensual sex between two adults, whatever sex they are, should be legal. But once you allow marriage, Ok, legal contract sanctioned by the government, where does it stop? You will probably say it stops with you, but next up are the Pologamist, than a whole host of other 'non-traditional' arrangements. Then all hell breaks loose. Push a simple law that says, 'A person of legal age is allowed to assign any legal rights/benefits to any other person of legal age'. That covers most things. Murder, executed, political fodder and the rest of adjectives you used are covered under current law. And those guilty should be prosecuted to the fullest.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 4:04 PM
I never called you far-right fanatic. I also don't claim that you don't have the right to disapprove. I don't care about eother your approval or disapproval. It is free country, and you are entitled to your beliefs and your feelings, however uncomfortable it may be for me to hear them. What I care about is that I am treated differently than you for one reason only-- you are allegedly straight, I am gay. You have a different set of rules that apply to you. Don't ask don't tell, which started this discussion, is just ONE example of that. It is not about gay people at all, but about how much gay people bother some straight people-- not anything that I have done or am even likely to do, or anything else, but only about how YOU feel about me. And you are wrong: Our lives and rights as american citizens are used for political fodder all of the time. It has been said freequently that George bush won the 2004 election by using the "threat" of gay marriage. It is not illegal. We are slandered all the time-- child molesters, mass murderers, threats to family, the military, the country, to wetsern civilization itself-- these words are bandied about all of the time, here included. it is not illegal to do so, and in fact, is encouraged. Gay people can be fired at any time in 33 states for no other reason than that they are gay. It happens all of the time. Theoretically,in those 33 states, you could be fired for beinhg straight, but i sincerely don't think that is likely to happen.
Your contract proposal is actually not a bad idea, except for the part that "that should cover most of it". I want exactly what you have, nothing more, nothing less. It really doesn't, of course. My husband and i spent $2000 on a lawyer who told us that the law oculd change and invalidate our agreement. And if a gay couple has to make that legal statement, then so should straight couples. It should not be automatically governed by the magic word marriage. As I said, nothing more, nothing less. If you keep saying they I and my husband should be treated differently than you, that I should have less rights than you have, that I should have to spend $2000 for a lawyer to secure the same rights you have for a $50 marriage license-- in other words, for no other reason than that I am gay then-- I am going to keep thinking that you are a bigot.
posted by Anonymous, at
6/14/2007 6:44 PM
I am gay and was in the military. As a serious person, I didn't join the service to search for personal relationships.
While there, I made some friends, mostly they sought me out. I did notice something, a phenomenon that I understand is common. Men, sans women, DO develop "crushes" on other men. I saw, first hand, jealous HETERO soldiers getting angry and agitated when a buddy of their's was hanging out with other soldiers and not him. They acted like jealous lovers!
My main point about gay marriage. What are heteros afraid of? They are not doing such a great job at the marriage thing themselves: over 50% divorce-rate in the USA? And the main reason for that is ADULTERY!!!
What message is America sending to its gay American-born, tax-paying, Iraq-serving, college professors, doctors, lawyers, business-owners, etc.? THAT THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN SERIAL KILLERS?
That John Wayne Gacy, who raped and murdered over 25 young men and buried them under his house...that Ted Bundy, who raped and mutilated over 40 young women...that Richard Ramirez, who murdered 15 people...that Eric and Lyle Melendez, the cold-blooded killers of their parents are better candidates for marriage than GAY PEOPLE? ALL of those low-life murderers were enthusiastically given permission to marry behind bars. Most of them on DEATH ROW!
If that's the message that this country is sending to gay men and women, then AMERICA IS STILL AS SICK AS IT WAS WHEN IT TREATED BLACKS LIKE ANIMALS.
posted by Anonymous, at
8/31/2007 3:30 PM
The United States should stop sending out false propaganda to the rest of the world that our natural-born citizens are "equal under the law." That's one of the biggest lies we spread and Americans know it. Just ask our black citizens, women and others who are not white males.
No, all "white males" are not rich with a lot of money, but the society was set up, long ago, for them to succeed. The ones that don't are just lazy and living under the belief that because they are so-called "white," the world owes them something. To be fair, it's not their fault -- this country has created in their white children, a false belief of superiority.
If you look back at what happened in American history, especially when Africans were captured and forced to come here, you'll see that shackles on the African's brains and body prevented them, for hundreds of years, from doing anything but menial work. At the same time, whites were building wealth off the backs of black free labor. They were educating their children, setting up the government (in their own favor), passing wealth down to their offspring (but not their half-black kids), and denying their "slaves" education, freedom of thought, ANYTHING.
Lincoln's Emmancipation Proclaimation only brought on another evil: Jim Crow. This was as cruel and sick as slavery had been.
Today, the Republicans seem to be holding on to those primative ideas manifested by their deep desire to HATE somebody, just anybody. Since blacks seem to be locked into second-class citizenship and it's no longer profitable to keep them down, gay people are the target. Who will be next?
posted by Unknown, at
8/31/2007 3:59 PM
There is a cool range of nike air force 1 available including the latest Classic Cardy Style in Black, mens prada shoes, Oatmeal or Cream. These ugg store are almost impossible to get anywhere in the UK and sold out on the cheap Tiffany website within weeks. They are incredibly popular ugg store and its easy to see why. ugg discount is a really versatile boot UGG Bailey Button boots. The three chunky wooden ugg boots Boots Salep the side mean that you can wear them either buttoned up or down and they look great with buy ugg boots.he ultimate in luxury designer clothing has to still be the online shopping Australia boots. These timeless classics are available in nike shoes, Black and Sand these converse shoes really are the last word in comfort footwear. These ugg discount are made entirely from sheepskin with a light Eva sole there is nothing quite Tiffany earring like the feeling of slipping your feet into a brand new pair of ugg boots! But not only do they feel great cheap ugg they look great ugg discount too and can be worn tall or ugg down to expose the sheepskin fur.If you're looking for wholesale supplier for a special lady,discount af1 shoes sale recommend UGG Suburb Crochet from the prada shoesCollection-they have the qualities of great fashion ugg boots online and practicality combined-along with exquisite comfort. If you want to purchase the Tiffany jewelry, please visit ugg classic our online buy ugg boots shop. Welcome to select and buy ugg store!was shocked. But here was a statement ugg shoes that could be checked against future events retail supplies.
posted by Unknown, at
12/28/2009 1:31 PM
