I never want this blog to become primarily about politics or even advocacy around particular issues… but sometimes the topics are unavoidable.
Yesterday, Republican Senators — led by John McCain — filibustered a military funding bill that also included the reversal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. What was most striking about the filibuster is that (a) the military brass generally supports the change, and (b) the change is pretty much inevitable (as shown by the recent Federal appeals court ruling). So the only upside to the filibuster, apparently, is political. That is, Republicans seem to think that being anti-gay is good politics. Bizarre!
But here is the part I don’t get and wish someone could explain to me: how is forcing young men and women in our military to lie to their peers and superiors possibly good for unit cohesion, troop morale or national security?
We know that gay people serve in the military now. But in theory, you don’t know who might be gay or lesbian? (so it could be anyone). How is this a better scenario for homophobic troops who are terrified of being around gay people? I don’t quite get the argument?
Anyone want to help me out with this one?
Ben D.
September 22, 2010 at 4:00 pm
<p>Mike</p><p>You are correct about the Israeli military; I am unsure about the British system.</p><p>As I have said before (and you and I are agreement on this issue) I am open to hearing a legitimate argument in favor of the current law…. I just haven’t heard one.</p><p>On a personal note, it is weird for me that simply because I am gay I would not be allowed to serve my country in the military. Physical fitness aside, I think I would actually make a pretty good military chaplain or cook — and could imagine wanting to serve in those capacities as a way of serving those on the front line… but my government would say <b>NOPE — you can’t do that because of how and who you love.</b></p><p>Weird… sad… and unnecessary.</p>
LikeLike