DADT: General Predicts, WWII Vets, and Mislearned Lessons
Below:
- General Ham expects muted response to DADT repeal on Tuesday
- Navy Vet discharged for homosexuality has records revised
- Palm Center director discusses lessons on “how we won”
- Military changes in place already, but questions remain
US Army General Carter Ham, one of two co-chairs responsible for the DADT survey/report last year, has said he expects the response to DADT repeal on Tuesday will be “pretty inconsequential.”
Gen. Carter Ham said he expects civilians who strongly oppose the move — and some gay-rights advocates — will voice their views when the repeal takes Tuesday. But inside the military, the prevailing attitude likely will be business as usual, with no call for further debate about the merits of repeal, he said.
“My hope, my expectation, my belief is that it will be pretty inconsequential,” he told the Associated Press in a brief interview. His comments echoed the prevailing view among senior U.S. military and civilian officials at the Pentagon, who think repeal largely will be taken in stride.
Also via the ADF.
US Navy and World War 2 Veteran Mel Dwork has had his discharge changed from “undesirable” to “honorable.” Dwork was dismissed from the Navy in 1944, even as the world war raged, for his homosexuality.
The “Battleland” blog of Time Magazine has an interview with Aaron Belkin, director of the homosexual advocacy Palm Center and author of How We Won, which purports to explain lessons from the repeal of DADT. The short transcript reveals some interesting, and incorrect, perspectives held even by those who claim to be leading this effort. For example, the article leads in with talking about the “Pentagon’s 17-year old policy banning openly gay men and women from serving in uniform,” when its actually the US military’s 200+ year policy banning homosexuals from serving in uniform that is changing. Within the interview itself, the author is asked
How much turbulence do you think the repeal of DADT will generate in the military?
Zero…70% of the troops, including combat troops and Marines, say that they already work with gays, and of those, 90% say that they don’t have problems.
This is a non sequitur. For one thing, the survey asked only if people thought they worked with someone who might be homosexual, which is slightly different than having someone be openly homosexual. (Who’s to say that they weren’t wrong, and the people they thought were homosexual, in fact weren’t?) For another, it trivializes the issue that actually matters. No mainstream personality claimed a homosexual was unable to drive a tank or shoot a gun. The question was always one of institutionalizing acceptance of homosexuality — in a society in which a specific code of behavior is not only prized, but required.
Thus, the “turbulence” to two people who show up to work on Tuesday, 20 September 2011, may very well be “zero.” The “turbulence” generated in the military institution, however…well, that’s another thing altogether.
Belkin also said
Unlike some other issues that require 60 Senate votes, President Obama had the option to suspend DADT via an executive order. Once the public learned this, a lot of heat was directed his way, and this pressure helped rededicate the White House to a legislative solution.
This is error by omission. Yes, President Obama could have ended the military policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by executive order. However, had he done so, the only guidance the military would have had would have been the US law that said homosexuality was incompatible with military service. Thus, if Obama had pulled the military policy, he would have effectively outright banned homosexuals from serving (and it would have allowed, or required, the military to reinstitute screening for homosexuality at enlistment).
This supposed expert on DADT fails to understand the basic concept that the law passed by Congress made homosexuality in the military illegal, and an “executive order” cannot simply vacate laws passed by Congress. The military policy known as DADT was the Executive Branch’s way of enforcing the law. The military adhered to the law insomuch as it discharged those whom it discovered to be homosexual; however, it banned ‘asking or telling,’ thus minimizing the possibility it would make such a discovery.
An article at the Air Force Times says changes have already occurred in the military environment with regard to homosexuality.
Air Force Capt. Diane Cox…said she got into heated debates with service members vowing not to take showers and share rooms with gays before Congress voted to repeal the law, but after the military held sensitivity trainings to explain the new rules “everybody just shut up.”
Jokes are still told about gay people but the harsh remarks have stopped, she said.
The article fails to note that “dissent” was largely squelched long before the military conducted any briefings on repeal. It also fails to note that jokes “about gay people” would likely be actionable, “harsh” or not.
Retired Army Chaplain (Col) Ron Crews also reiterates his concern that it is those opposed to homosexuality who will actually endure hardship, and that the “rules are unclear.”
Chaplains wonder whether they can deny gay service members wanting to sing in the chapel choir or teach in Sunday school as they are allowed to do in their civilian churches. Will they have to invite same-sex partners on retreats as part of the military’s strong bonds program that helps couples dealing with the hardship of deployments, or will they face punishment if they refuse?
Of course, Congress seems to be asking the military why it hasn’t already answered these questions before repeal.
I must say, it is adorable the way you keep referring to homosexuality as if it was an immoral behavior. It’s life you found an internet connection from the 1950s
The AMA, American Psychology Assn and American Psychiatric Assn have all determined, after exhaustive studies, that Homosexuality is a natural state. Gays and Lesbians are American citizens in good standing. Religous discrimination against Gays is prohibited. Therefore, institutionalized Discrimination against Gays, long a staple of the Christian Church, must be criminalized and eliminated. Christian churches and organizations which do not cease discrimination against Gays for doctrinal beliefs should be prosecuted and lose tax and Equal Employment Opportunity exemptions.
@Richard and Donalbain
I believe the church and its members are entitled to say/believe that Homosexuality is immoral and not want to be around persons or places that are of that persuasion. It doesn’t really matter what Psychology or Psychiatric Assn’s say in this matter, no more than non-theists care what the Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth (Bible) says of the matter either. And now it doesn’t matter to the Military; gay troops are free to serve openly, but still comply with the UCMJ and good order and discipline…and I think most will do just that.
The only way to control (you will never stop it) discrimination is to make a law against it. Even that doesn’t work sometimes because it will be hard (I believe) to show/prove discrimination based on sexual orientation. Religious discrimination against Gays will not be prohibited per se, some of the more hard-lined churches, like John Hagee’s, will be sure to stare right at a homosexual and preach until they are blue in the face that they [gays] are the scum of the earth…right up there with Atheists’. Really…what can you do/say, they are free to exercise their religion in the USA…right?
See Richard, I, for one, have been saying all along that what the gay rights movement really wants is to force everyone to approve of them…not just “put up with them.” I respect you because at least you are being honest. I find it ironic that in order to attack those who at one time said homosexuality is a crime, now you are calling us the criminals. Funny how intolerant you are isn’t it? I want you to know that Jesus doesn’t discriminate. We are all sinners and by his grace alone can be forgiven if we repent of our sins and receive him as Lord and Savior. Homosexuals need Jesus as much as anyone else. Do not be fooled though…the God of the bible does not approve nor has he made you a homosexual. In Christ there is hope for you to change! @Richard
@watchtower
Thank you for your response. No church body or its members are entitled to harrass persons for religious reasons. To discriminate against a person because your religious doctrine states that they are immoral when in fact they are a natural product of birth would be like saying the earth is flat despite scientific proof to the contrary.
Evangelical Christians must discard medievel religious doctrines, come into the 21st Century and join their fellow Americans in the knowledge that Gays and Lesbians are citizens in good standing and must be treated with the same courtesies and respect any other citizen receives. Persecution of Gays is a crime as it would be for any other object of discrimination and violence. Religious doctrines have no legal force and cannot be used as a reason to harrass any class of American.
It is not difficult to prove discrimination caused by sexual orientation. One has only to listen to today’s evangelical dominionists such as Hagee, Rod Parsley, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell JR,. Richard Roberts, and a host of other Christian Supremacists to hear their scathing remarks abot Gays. They have even taken to trashing other Christian Sects such as Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics and others as being Satans work. They have even identified the Pope as the “AntiChrist.”
This is the stuff of religion run amok. Unless todays Christians, especially the evangelicals, get a handle on the constitutional limitations of their acts, I’m afraid some serious conflicts will be in the offing.
@Erik
Hi,
Thank you for your response.
I don’t think Gays are seeking approval. I think that, as with Christianity’s former target, people of color, Gays are looking for equality and respect.
We now know that despite religious teachings, Homosexuality is not a sin or crime or “lifestyle.” It is a natural condition of birth just as race or skin color is. Gays are not “made” they are “born.”
I realize that Science and the Church are strange bedfellows but sooner or later the truth of science has to trump the suppositions of religion.
But, discrimination and violence foisted on innocent parties is still a crime. Religious doctrine has often made Christians, Muslims and others criminals under civil law.
There is no honor in discrimination especially when it is misdirected.
Christianity and its leaders must accept that Gays are a natural product of birth or forever bear the same shame generated by the Crusades, Conquistadors genocide of indigenous South American natives, Militant Missionaries, Inquisitions, witch hunts and pogroms against the Jews.
For Christians to persist in the false premise that Gays are somehow sinful denies truth and science.
I am not intollerant of Christians and their misguided campaign against Gays. One can not be intolerant of intolerance for one should not tolerate discrimination. One can be critical of it, which I am.
Since Gays are born Gay and you believe all humans are created by God, wouldn’t that mean that in the process of creating a Homosexual a perfect God made an imperfect being? And wouldn’t that sort of go against your beliefs?
It’s time to modernize Christian and all other religious beliefs and bring them into modern society. Christians and others need reconciliation with modern times. Archaic and outdated religious doctrine needs to be re-examined and interpreted through the prism of human advancement. In short Christianity is a medievel religion that desperately needs updating.
To sum this up let me remind you that at a point in history American Christians enslaved Africans and said of them that they were “Mud People” actually made by God to serve white Christians. A sect of Christianity grew up around that premise and were the progenitors of Jim Crow, Segregation and the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which remains an evangelical Christian organization to this day.
Christianity appears to have taken a wrong turn somewhere and I would hope that some recognition of its dark side be taken and efforts to correct it’s proclivity to Dominionism.
Otherwise I fear that world populations will not perish in the fires of heaven but rather in the nuclear fires of man.