RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Man misapplies personal trauma to sexual orientation science » WND's editor fundamentally misunderstands nondiscrimination law (part 3 of 3) » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

02/02/2007

Not gonna camouflage our desire: We'll ask, we'll tell, we'll scream, and we'll yell

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images Picture-6-35 1Elaine Donnelly, the anti-"queer soldier" advocate who has sort of made a career out of defending the military's gay-unfriendly policy, is today lashing out against those who plan to challenge the ban in court. However, if comments like the following that Ms. Donnelly gave to Cybercast News Service are the best her side can do, the gay ban is poised to fall quicker than a pineapple souffle that's being baked in an Easy Bake Oven on the back a roller coaster in the midst of a tornado:

"The policy before Clinton took office was that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," she said. "That's what the law says.

"Everybody can serve their country in some way, but homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military, that's what the law says," Donnelly added.

The relevant section of the U.S. Code states: "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

"There are a number of groups of people that are not eligible to serve - if you are too old, too young, if you have other impediments to deployability," Donnelly said. "Homosexuality was determined by Congress to render a person not eligible to be in the military. It's that simple."

"Your honor, if you're too young, too old, or too queer, you simply cannot defend and possibly die for the country of which you're a tax-paying citizen -- it's that simple!"

Geez, what sort of judge wouldn't see the logic in that?! Not to mention:

"It's just the way the law is and the way Congress has set it, so we must all just live with it not matter how unjust or bass-ackwards it may be!"

After all, isn't complacency about injustice the sort of principle our country is built upon?

Ugh.

Rarely do we feel like our opposition has a leg to stand on in any of their attempts to keep LGBT equality at bay. However, their attempts to keep the bases less of Les & Les, really couldn't be more baseless.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Challenge Renewed [CNS]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

"that's the way the law is." But if it's unconstitutional, it's the way the law was. Congress is not the final say (except when it's convenient for their cause).

Posted by: Daimeon | Feb 2, 2007 1:58:24 PM

There are a number of groups of people that are not eligible to serve - if you are too old, too young, if you have other impediments to deployability," Donnelly said

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe they have increased the age allowable for enlistment, due to military need. So it seems to me her argument which is already flawed in my eyes is more so.
I think everyone in the military should just say that they are all gay personally, than either everyone is discharged, or the pentagon better rethink their policy.

Posted by: Matthew | Feb 2, 2007 2:53:36 PM

"...homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of ... unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability..."

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but wouldn't some sweet lovin' between soldiers create more unit cohesion, rather than put it at "unacceptable risk"?

Oh, perhaps she means the homophobia that some of the straight soldiers would harbor... because obviously, the best way to deal with prejudice is to avoid the situation altogether. Mm. I understand now. :|

Interestingly, I was amused by the recent realization that I could serve in the Israeli army (even though I'm not a citizen), but not in my own country's (because I'm openly queer). Being Jewish is enough for Israel; but being a natural-born citizen isn't enough for the Americans.

Posted by: RaeAn | Feb 4, 2007 10:30:53 PM

Now being a soldier myself I don't not agree with the reasoning. No matter what your lifestyle is, it has no bearing on discipline or patriotism. The only major issue what have to be unit cohesion.
Like it or not. Allowing homosexuals would be very very difficult. There is alot of anit-gay sentiment in the military, which would cause alot of problems. Its just how things are. Unfair...yes. But its the truth. There is still issues with allowing females in certain jobs. Not to mention just having quarters next to male barricks.
Whether you are for or against. Having the ban dropped would result in alot of hatred needlessly directed at alot of homosexual soldiers just wanting to serve there country.

Posted by: Mark | Feb 5, 2007 3:27:08 AM

Mark, first off it's not a "lifestyle," it's a life.

If what you say is true, then the problem of homophobia desperately needs to be dealt with. But you can't justify a ban because of the discriminatory beliefs of others. The early days of racial integration were often hostile, and those who stood up to the idea of segregation had to be quite brave. But at the end of the day, they had to do what they knew in their heart was right. Gay soldiers who want to serve openly understand that if the ban is lifted, they would have to be a bit cautious in the beginning. As gay people, this is sadly not a concept that is altogether new for us in any aspect of life. But if we curb our efforts for righteous, principled progress out of fear, then those who hold hostile viewpoints win, while society loses.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Feb 5, 2007 9:49:06 AM

have you read the new article and "accidently" forwarded email to Jack Jett by Mizz Colleen Holmes the new executive director at the infamous Eagle Forum?

check out queerty.

she is a jerk and a phony and a two faced manipulator. she used her uncle who died of aids as defense for her power lust, capital hill bilge.

Posted by: mark | Sep 30, 2008 10:27:28 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails