MyDD :: Why is the Onus On Gay Soldiers to Hide?

Why is the Onus On Gay Soldiers to Hide?

by boadicea, Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:26:28 AM EST

By this time, most of you probably know about the exchange between Pres. Obama and Lt Col Fehrenbach. I want to focus on this part of the AP Story:

Fehrenbach said after talking with Obama, he felt confident "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," would eventually be repealed. But he said he was not sure it would happen before he is discharged. His case is before the Personnel Review Board, which is considering whether to recommend discharging him. After that, it will go to the Air Force secretary for review.

He said Obama told him that while 75 percent of the public supports repealing the policy, senior leaders in the military still need to be convinced.

"I said to him, `The people I serve with don't care,' " Fehrenbach said. "This is a nonissue."

I understand that rank has its privileges, especially in the military. However, those privileges should never extend to the point of endangering national security to indulge their own homophobic prejudices.

And that is just what they are being allowed to do. Endanger national security.

More than 13,000 homosexuals have been discharged from the military because of their sexual preferences.

13,000 patriotic Americans, trained at great expense by American taxpayers discharged to give aid and comfort to bigots with rank.

Let me put this as plainly as I can. Why is the onus on patriotic gay Americans to hide in order to continue their service? It is not gay soldiers, sailors, and air force who are endangering troop morale and cohesion. It is those senior generals.

If they cannot get past their obsession with sex in the ranks, then THEY are the ones who should face Personnel Review and forcible discharge.

Period.

Tags: dadt, victor fehrenbach (all tags)

Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment

FTR, I am not kidding (none / 0)

Not even a little bit.

If 13,000 personnel can be replaced, surely the ossified bigots in the senior rank can be.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:27:31 AM EST

It doesn't make sense. (none / 0)

Bigotry is irrational.

I'm a Rick-o-phobe.

by psychodrew on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:52:44 AM EST

Exactly why (none / 0)

we should stop treating it as a legitimate motivator for policy.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:54:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly why (none / 0)

More people vote on homophobia than equality. Sad, but true.

I'm a Rick-o-phobe.

by psychodrew on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:54:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is not subject to a vote (none / 0)

it's military discipline.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:59:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is not subject to a vote (none / 0)

According the administration, it is. It's all on Congress to change the policy.

I'm a Rick-o-phobe.

by psychodrew on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:02:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've taken Congress to task (none / 0)

as well, but this is not about Congress, but the senior military leadership cited as roadblock to removing DADT.

BTW, it appears that the Obama Admin excuse is not strictly true, either.

Congress, in its infinite wisdom/stupidity, expressly and explicitly has given the President of the United States the authority to suspend any and all separations/discharges from the military while reserve units are on active duty if those separations are not in the national interest.

The Dkos commenter I linked to has the text of the law.

So, there really isn't a reason the DADT can't be suspended as a stop loss measure.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. There is no good reason. (none / 0)

Just lack of political will. Stringing along the "radical homosexual activists" makes POTUS look centrist. I think Obama admin thinks having lefty groups pissed off endears him to independents.

I'm a Rick-o-phobe.

by psychodrew on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think they're motivated by that (none / 0)

as much as past Dem leaders (and current Congressional ones).

I think it's that cautious community organizer psychology of not wanting to upset stakeholders-which include sr military leadership.

I'm just saying that this is not an organizing issue-it's a military discipline and national security issue.

Time for a bold move from the Commander-in-Chief, I think.

Though moving to where a majority of the public is isn't all THAT bold, when you think about it.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:23:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed. There is no good reason. (none / 0)

Seriously? You believe the reason Obama won't issue an executive order on DADT is because he wants to piss off the gay community? And I thought I was cynical sometimes.

You may not agree with his rationale on needing a legislative solution. You may not agree that if he issued the executive order, it would take away the political capital he needs for the rest of his agenda this year. You may agree with both of those points and still be pissed that he hasn't done an executive order.

But concluding that he's doing this to piss off gay people? That's a pretty far stretch.

by fsm on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's not at all what I said. (none / 0)

What I said is that I don't think he minds having us griping at him in the media because it makes him looks centrist. I don't know why he is not doing anything. Maybe he doesn't want to piss off the military leadership?

I'm a Rick-o-phobe.

by psychodrew on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 12:58:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why is the Onus On Gay Soldiers to Hide? (2.00 / 1)

Obama isn't doing anything because he does not want to piss off that segment of his base that will scream bloody murder. Period! There is no good reason for keeping DADT, and all reasons being given are spurious. Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth on gay issues, and he pandeered to homophobes. I never understood why gays thought he would be their friend. He isn't. But if enough pressure and bad publicity is brought to bear he may be forced to act like he is. I think this diary is right on the money.

by linfar on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:33:40 PM EST

We have to make him do it. (2.00 / 1)

Changing the focus from why gays should be allowed to serve to why bigots should be allowed to prevent them from doing so seems a fruitful angle to me.

I'd appreciate any help to that end y'all can supply.

Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at TexasKaos.

by boadicea on Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 01:37:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.