Yes

Gates Of Hell

I've always admired Sec Def Bob Gates, even when he was CIA chief under George the First. He seems pretty much above partisanship, a straight shooter, unafraid to stand hard. So his comments after a Federal judge tossed DADT sort of surprised me a little. He said, in part,

"I feel strongly this is an action that needs to be taken by the Congress and that it is an action that requires careful preparation, and a lot of training," said Gates. "It has enormous consequences for our troops."

Well, in fact I have no disagreement with anything he said; it's the context, right after the decision. Because whereas he may understand the situation (I'd give him the benefit of the doubt), such people as Christine O'Donnell most certainly do not. In addition to other insanity, as predictable as rain in Puget Sound, talking points as original as they are thoughtful, she refers to the decision as "legislating from the bench." (Wonder what she called the "Citizens United" ruling.) People like her will never, ever, figure it out. Which means every last teabagger, and pretty much everyone in the Republican party. It requires stopping to think; it requires a modicum of (though not much, maybe eighth-grade) understanding of how our government works.

Pissing in the wind-up, beating a deaf horse, jerking the off-button, I'll say it anyway, in two words:

Judicial review.

Checks and balances.

The Constitution.

Out of ignorance, hatred, misguided good will -- for any of many reasons, states, voters, the Congress have shown themselves quite capable over the years of passing laws which are unconstitutional. Among the great wisdoms of the Constitution is the way it protects minority rights and unpopular views: nothing could be more fundamental to our system of government. Yet not everyone -- especially not those right wingers who'd have us believe they love constitutional democracy -- likes how it works. It's not "legislating from the bench" when a court rules a law unconstitutional. It's saying to the lawmakers, sorry, try again. You want to do something not allowed by the Constitution, amend it. (Which, of course, is exactly what America-and-its-constitution loving right-wingers want to do: they have a whole bucketful of changes in mind. Outlawing gay marriage is the least of them.) Until then, ordering adherence to the Constitution is the opposite of legislating from the bench. It's holding the line.

Now, I happen to think it's as obvious as my liver spots that discriminating against an entire class of people based on their sexual orientation is unconstitutional. (It seems pretty undeniable as well that multi-billion-dollar corporations differ from individuals in terms of speech, and that that decision was blatantly political, whereas the DADT one is as strict-constructionist as it gets.) So whereas Gates is right that it'd be ideal for Congress to be dealing with the issue, that doesn't change the fact that a judge has a duty to strike down discriminatory and unconstitutional laws. It's what they have done since Marbury v. Madison, and must continue to do. (I acknowledge that some legal scholars are questioning the breadth of the judge's authority. To this biology major, that doesn't affect the basic principle.)

Because as long as our nation is capable of producing an entire party dedicated to ignoring fact, to mocking science, to substituting the Bible for the Constitution, and to fomenting hate as a way to gain or retain power, if we don't have judges willing to do what's right, we'll cease to be what we've always been: a nation of laws.

The Christines and Sarahs of the world, and the RWS™, however, simply will never get it.

DADT

There's no rational (ie non-religious) case to be made against same-sex marriage. On that, I'm sure we all agree. The central arguments -- definitional, hysterical (eg, it threatens "opposite" marriage), apocryphal -- or is it projectional? -- (next we'll be marrying dogs and cats) are so easily dismissible as to be laugh-provoking. (Except, of course, as they do actual harm to actual human beings, they aren't funny at all.)

On the other hand, the arguments against allowing gays openly to serve in the military at least deserve a look. Because whereas gay marriage doesn't impose anything on anyone who doesn't like it, military service does. There are, without doubt, soldiers who don't like the idea of serving with gays. Based on primal prejudice and misinformation to be sure (not to mention repressed concerns of their own sexuality!); but the feelings exist and need to be addressed in some way. Being against gay marriage is misguided at best; in fact, in the hearts of most opponents it's simply hateful. But being concerned about gays in the military is, on some level, rooted in real -- if destructive -- concerns.

As the subject of repealing DADT goes forward, there are some givens: right-wingers will dig in their heels, and reasonableness will be as absent from most of the political debate as hypocrisy will be ubiquitous. Soldiers will be heard from on both sides of the issue. And we will learn of many examples of gays serving honorably, bravely, with no problems until they were outed and discharged. Thousands of them. But we'll hear worries about "unit cohesion," implications (I'll be interested to see with what proof) that having gays and straights fighting side by side will somehow change the meaning of...(wait for it...) "got your back."

So, what are we to make of it all? What, for example, are we to make of the fact that in armies around the world, gays serve openly without problems? Some say, well, we're tougher we have a harder mission. Yet in Israel, whose military toughness isn't doubted even by its enemies, and whose mission is, perhaps, more literally to allow the survival of the state than anywhere in the world, gays have served openly for years? Answer: it's a big deal only if you make it one.

The soldiers who, in this era, object to serving with gays are not unlike those who, a generation ago, objected to serving with blacks. Now, it's as if there never was a problem. It's more common to see African-Americans in high rank in the military than in corporate America. Another thing: you can't serve with an African-American and not know s/he's black. But in the workplace, there's no reason why sexual orientation would even be visible. Inappropriate sexual behavior toward a co-worker is, should be, and always will be a prohibited and punishable act. To date, the transgressions that take up most space in the news are abuse of women soldiers by men.

Who represents more of a threat to the mission of the US military: gay people who are competent, skillful, good at what they do; or people who have reflexive hatred or fear of gays? Which can one imagine attacking or otherwise endangering a fellow soldier? The absence of which group would be less of a detriment? To me, it seems obvious.

Irony abounds. The military leaders whose judgment was once considered unassailable by our America-loving, tough-on-terror, militarily "strong" (except for the fact that most of them never served) neocons, are suddenly to be ignored, according to Republican leaders.

Did I already mention hypocrisy?

The issue of unit morale needs addressing. Hard to know how recruitment and retention would be affected, although there are precedents. From an above-linked article:

Polls of soldiers in the United Kingdom similarly found that as many as two-thirds of soldiers said they would consider leaving the service if gays were allowed in, but the British military reported that very few soldiers actually chose to depart when the ban was lifted in 2000. There was significant resistance among senior officers, while younger personnel tended to be more open to allowing gays to serve. (Emphasis mine: especially relevant since many point to the opinions of old admirals over here!)

It'd be funny -- in a good way -- wouldn't it, if after the ban on gays in the military is finally and inevitably lifted, it turns out to have been a non-issue. There's no doubt, though, that the process will bring out the worst in the worst of us. It already has.

.

Good Riddance

Just look at the guy. Disgusting, isn't it? The squeaky chirpy voice, the dainty clothes, the fey way he wears the American flag. I'll bet when he was in Iraq, all Arabic-speaking and "helping" our cause, people were recoiling in horror. West Point? North point, more like. Just looking at him makes my skin crawl. Or something:

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr
University of Georgia

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

(Thanks to Spiny Norman for linking me to the study.)

We sure are lucky to have moralists out there, keeping our military safe from... from... uh... competent people???
.