Celebrities See All

Close

Quick Links

or
Published January 22, 2012 More Info »
0 Funny Votes
0 Die Votes
121 Views
Published January 22, 2012

 

Dont' Ask Don't Tell Don't Lie

 
"I see a gay guy at ten o'cock - uh, I mean clock" I've been thinking about writing this post since September 21, 2011 - but frankly I was too friggin angry to put words to screen and we all know the travesty that occurs when I spit out diatribe when angry (please see My FUCO Score or The Check Republic for evidence of me losing my mind a bit).

So - let's start with September 21st. It was the FOX News sponsored GOP presidential debate. A  soldier, serving in Iraq, sent in a video question for the panel on what they would do as it relates to gays in the military ala - Don't Ask Don't Tell. The question was directed towards candidate pRick Sanatorum.

The clip follows - just click on through to the YouTube link and that come on back. 


Okay - you're back? Good.

Now, aside from the audacity of a few dopes in the crowd  booing a soldier serving in Iraq (ah - the audacity of dopes), what got my goat the most was just the out and out lies in pRick Santorum's response. My only hope for justice is that this is in fact the airport toilet that Senator Larry Craig used. Who knows, maybe Santorum was working as an undercover agent.

But first - a little background on Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Up until late 1993, gays could not serve in the military. Of course, I very much appreciated that prohibition during the Vietnam war as we had a mandatory draft. Much like Santorum, I was way too much of a coward to serve the country and  - I needed a ready made excuse just in case they tested me to see if my feet were really flat. That's right - I admit it. I was willing to play the gay card to avoid service (I was so jealous of those guys back then).

Then in 1993, over very heated Congressional opposition, President Bill Clinton implemented Don't Ask - Don't Tell - or as it was commonly referred to - DADT. This was quite the deal in it's day. This is what it basically did:
  • Openly gay, lesbian or bisexuals remained barred from military service
  • Military personnel were prohibited from discriminating against closetedhomosexual or bisexual service members or applicants (note: I was never quite sure how one discriminated against a closeted homosexual anyway - i.e., how would you know to discriminate if they were in the  .... fuck it - never mind- moving on).
  • Folks who demonstrated a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts were barred from military service because their presence would - alledgedly -create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and disclipline and unit cohesion.
  • The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual service member from disclosing their sexual orientation  - otherwise - they would be discharged. Heterosexuals were allowed to continue to disclose their orientation.
  • If any service member disclosed that they were a homosexual or if they had ever been observed participating in homosexual behavior , they should be discharged - UNLESS - it is believed that they are pretending to be gay for the purpose of avoiding military service (I think this is commonly referred to is theWTF Provision?). 
In other words - if you are gay pretending to be straight you can serve. If you are straight pretending to be gay - you must serve. If you are gay and not pretending otherwise - you're out.  It makes my head spin.

You're telling me you're Gay!
Do I got that straight? Given the absolute horror of serving multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were quite a few folks trying the I'm gay route to get out of service. It didn't work as the military was far too busy discharging 14,000 service members who were actually gay. It's confusing I know - I hope I got it straight.

After 18 years, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell officially took affect. Basically, if you were gay, you are now allowed to serve in the military. That's pretty much it. 

Now if you are against gays serving in the military, I don't agree with you - but - I do appreciate your right to make your argument (which we'll discuss later). What really gets my panties bunched is when folks like pRick Santorum just out and out lie about what the repeal is rather then just saying - I don't want gay folks serving in the army because (insert your reason here).

Here is a transcript of Rick's remarks at the debate when he was directed the question regarding DADT.

SANTORUM: I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing: to defend our country...
KELLY: What would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill?
SANTORUM: What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That’s tragic.  I would just say that going forward we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. That policy would be re-instituted as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was- sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

Here are the lies in his response:      Per pRick:

 
 
 

I would say that any type of sexual activity has no place in the military...


Really pRick?? You misdirecting, lying piece of shit (too angry? - yeah, let me tone down). Richard - I think you are not telling the truth here.

I of course will retract this statement as soon as see your proposed legislation banning all sexual activity (straight and gay) in the military. What's that? - It won't be forthcoming anytime soon?

See here, we have to believe that either you think that no one risking their lives for our country ought to have any sexual activity (p.s., if you do, not sure you can count on the military vote) - or - you think gay soldiers are bad. I think you think the latter. Now me - I would say that any type of sexual activity has no place in political campaigning. So, please refrain until your run is over - and that includes straight and gay sex as I do not know what your preference is since I prefer my politicians to operate under a Don't Ask Don;t Tell policy. 

More importantly pRick,  you know full well that the removal of DADT had nothing to do with sexual activity - it dealt with sexual orientation. I'm sorry - you are simply lying.


Per pRick:


"The fact that they are making it a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of special people and give them a privilege...."

Really? You lying bag of feces (that is a little more elegant). The repeal of DADT has nothing to do with giving a group of people a special privilege. Ironically, that is what DADT specifically did before it's appeal. It allowed heterosexuals to serve openly in the military while denying homosexuals that same privilege. By  using pRicky's logic, the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote was merely recognizing a group of people and giving them a special privilege based on their sex. pRick - you lied again.

"What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That's tragic."


Really??. You hypocritical piece of bowel movement. Because as it turns out, there was no specific ban prohibiting gays from serving in the military until 1916 and those weren't even enforced until World War II. So, if you were running for President back in 1916 and their was a proposal to ban gays from serving - would you oppose the ban because playing "social experimentation" with the military is a tragic thing? Naw - I don't think so. See you do not object to social experimentation per se - you only object to social experimentation when it involves increasing gay rights. Pretty sure that you would support any and all social experimentation that eliminates gay rights.
"So we should move forward, in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was sex was not an issue. Leave it alone - keep it to yourself  whether you are a heterosexual or a homosexual."


Really?? You thick as a brick lying piece of brick. Sex was not an issue? Why don't you ask the nearly 14,000 homosexuals that have been involuntarily discharged sine the implementation of DADT. See, sex was not an issue for straight folks. But I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here - I assume that you are in favor of discharging all folks who reveal their sexual orientation - regardless of whether they are gay or straight. Now, that would be consistent with your premise - but you would need to realize that we would have an active force of about 7 soldiers or so.- Oh - and you're a lying piece of shit.

Okay - okay - I know despite prior promises I am over the top angry here - but it is the utterly and complete package of bullshit and lies that comes out of pRicky's mouth that sets me off (that - and the rousing applause from the audience in attendance that either thought DADT meant that you could molest other men while in service or - are merely just as hypocritical is pRicky). DADT is not or never was about sexual activity - in fact, even with the repeal of DADT, sodomy is still a prohibited by the military (note to straight guys who like BJs - this may be the new discharge route). What the repeal of DADT did was simply allow all folks to serve in the military regardless of their sexual orientation.

Now I know that pRicky knows that. So why the lies? I would speculate it is simply because he does not want to publicly state the truth. He does not want gays to serve in the military because they are gay.

I guess folks could have a debate (which we will of course) on whether gay folks ought to be allowed to serve in the military.  But the arguments Rick makes are either too weak minded as not to know if the basic tenants of DADT or so conniving as to contort the issue to be something that it is not - I can only conclude that Rick is either stupid or evil (hmmm - I should not leave out the option of both).

Just admit it Ricky - you thing gay people are committing immoral acts and that the number of gay people that are allowed to serve in the military should be:

NUN

                                                                                                                                                                      
Santorum on The Floorem Okay - I'm done with Rick and think I have exhausted my anger at him - but no promises, it may rear it's ugly head later.

So - let's talk about some of the issues.

Military Readiness


Some folks have argued that they are opposed to allowing gays to serve in the military because it decreases the overall effectiveness of the military. Not to get indelicate - but the argument's roots are in the thesis that you can not have heterosexual and homosexual men sharing showers and barracks and not damage troop cohesion any more then you could if you allowed men and women too. Folks on both sides of the issue can line up experts to opine on whether or not they believe this to be true.

For me, it doesn't make intuitive sense that it would be a problem. First - gays have been serving in armies since the times of the Greek and Roman empires. They certainly served during the 18 years that DADT was in effect and I am not aware of our forces falling apart during that time. In fact, although there are plenty of opinions, there never has been any empirical evidence presented that the existence of gay service members have had any noteworthy negative impact on military readiness. What I see is that gays have been serving forever - albeit in the closet - and are armed forces have done pretty damn good.

There is also this - there are 43 countries that allow gays to serve openly. They include Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Spain. They don't seem to have a problem - in fact - many of these armies were our partners in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is there something unique about American gay men that would make them so devastating to our armies? I don't think so.

Sure, there are many countries that don't allow gays to openly serve including: Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, and Venezuela. For my tastes anyway - I'll stick with the countries in the first list.

It also has been three months now since the repeal of DADT and our armed forces are still standing.

Even if there was some degree of negative military impact from granting this group of folks (gays) basic civil rights - I'm still not sure that is enough to change my view. By way of comparison, there were sure a whole hell of a lot of folks that did not want to serve with their fellow Americans who happened to be black and we had segregated units as recent as WW II.  - was that right? In other words, it is not enough to say that granting this civil right to gay folks would cause a hiccup, discomfort or a temporary set-back for our military. If you want to deny a right, you have the obligation to prove that it would have catastrophic consequences. No one has and in fact, the empirical evidence to date is to the contrary.

It's a Sin


Many religions teach that homosexual activity is a sin and some folks believe that as such, gay folks ought not be able to serve. Personally, I believe that whether one is gay or not is a function of nature not choice, Is it uncommon? I guess if you define common is more then 50%. There are about the same percentage of men that are gay is there are men with red hair - so, in my view anyway, red headed men ought to be able to serve in the military.

But back to the religion issue - why this particular sin? Adultery is a sin and there is no cry to ban all folks who have had an extramarital affair from serving. I'm an atheist (therefore violating many commandments) and I'm pretty sure that no one who keep me from serving. Lying is a sin - and yet pRick Santorum could still serve. So even if you believe being gay is a sin - what is it about this particular sin that sets the mark for military fitness? Is being a gay Christian gay than being a heterosexual atheist in terms of violating one's religious paradigms?

I guess is that there is an argument for those straight men who believe that it is unfair to share showers and barracks with those who might have a sexual interest in them ala - no one would ever require women to share showers and barracks with men. All I can say is that, is whether you know it or not, you've been doing it all your life. If you went to high school, a gym, any kind of academy, a college dorm room, etc. etc. - you have been around gay men and are none the worse for wear. So is kindly as I can put it - get over it.

But to me. most importantly, if you are one of our leaders or one who aspires to be, tell me the truth about how you feel on this issue. Your discussion of DADT should always start with - I don't want gays to serve in the military because......... That can be debated. Don't practice the art of misdirection. When it comes to Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Don't Lie.

Addendum:

Mi Esposa just told me that this post was too long. The irony of that is that I believe she married me in the first place because of my long post (get you mind out of the gutter - it's this one):

 

Advertisement
Advertisement

From Around the Web

More