RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would  

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

09/11/2009

Audio: 'I'm too old and they're too gay -- what's the big dealie-o?'

by Jeremy Hooper

Don't Ask Don't Tell is an awful, nasty policy. Obviously. But even so, we're still somewhat grateful that the "Don't ask" part has allowed gay servicemembers to serve, even if under false, closeted pretense. And we'd imagine that our opposition is also grateful for homosexuality remaining a forcibly banned topic of military discussion. After all, it was intended to be a "compromise," even if it's proven to have failed.

Elaine-2But leave it to professional backer of military discrimination Elaine Donnelly to highlight just how fully some (most?) of the far-right would really like the "Don't ask" portion to be changed to "ask early and often!" In a recent appearance on Janet Parshall's radio show, Donnelly had this to say about the Department of Defense's failure to conduct gay witch hunts at the recruiting station door:





*Source: Janet Parshall's America

So don't kid yourself: Not even offensive compromises will ever be good enough for those who want to keep us shamed. Elaine is the face of retaining military bias, and she fully admits that her version of DADT would make a sexuality conversation a recruiting requirement (which obviously flies in the face of the policy). She would not only keep us stigmatized -- she would be outright hostile towards us. But not in a way that constitute any sort of a "personal affront," of course. Ugh.

It absolutely blows our mind that in the year 2009, we are even having to discuss the right of tax-paying gays to fight and possibly die for their nation. But when the number on representative for the other side doesn't even want to respect current policy, it is far more than just the gay community that should be concerned.

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


Your thoughts

OK, the logic in her argument is so full of holes, it's pathetic. Her age (and the age of others who are not permitted to serve in the military) has to do with her ABILITY to serve! a 65 year old woman can not do what a 25 year old man/woman can do. a 55 year old woman is not as ablely fit as a 30 year old woman. The age restriction is similar to other HEALTH RELATED RESTRICTIONS! It's about being ABLE to perform the duties required of the military branch! Not about just not liking old people because they're old!

DADT restricts ABLE people from serving in their country, to the detriment of not only them, but the military itself! When you turn away a 65 year old man who wants to join the military, chances are, you are not turning away a person who would be able to perform the duties. However, turning away a 25 year old man because his significant other's name is Steve, could be potentially turning away a very able bodied person!

I love how this lady speaks with such authority, like she just has this argument in the bag, when in reality, her comparison makes zero sense.

Posted by: Stef | Sep 11, 2009 12:13:45 PM

If sexuality must be disclosed, then I wonder how they'd feel about "ex-gay's" serving in the military. Would it be acceptable to them for gay person to re-identify as "ex-gay" (meaning they've decided to be celibate)for the time period they serve?

Of course, I'm not suggesting this as a solution by any means. I'm just speculating about how the far right would see things.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 11, 2009 12:14:04 PM

Considering that this is an ALL VOLUNTEER military, such a policy is counterproductive and redundant.
The message to recruits should be 'we don't tolerate prejudice and bigotry, nor intimidation or threat as a result of it'.
Those who don't want to serve with gay people don't have to sign up.
Indulging a prejudice such as this, makes even LESS sense, when...we are at war with Muslim countries and Islamic terrorism in particular.
Yet, the military feels no inclination to ban Muslim service members, nor considers them serving with Jews and Christians something that would disrupt unit cohesion.

Even though, there have been TWO deadly attacks by American Muslim soldiers against their comrades in arms.
And STILL, the military sees no reason to restrict Muslims serving.

As they say, 'military intelligence' in this instance is indeed an oxymoron.

Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Sep 11, 2009 12:35:02 PM

yes, what's the big deal being gay? they are humans too that needs care...

Posted by: filipino women | Sep 11, 2009 1:25:35 PM

While I think she's totally wrong, morally corrupt, and blindly bigoted, she does have a point. Fact is, servicemembers are not allowed to be gay (openly gay vs. closeted gay is a semantic game IMO), and DADT was, like you said, Jeremy, a compromise. It was a half-measure intended to soften the military into an eventual acceptance of gays.

But she's right insofar as there is a metaphorical sign on the recruitment office saying "no gays." Don't get me wrong, I believe with 100% certainty that excluding gays from the armed forces is wrong and measurably weakens our defenses (Stef couldn't be more right). And I believe that bigots like this lady are on the wrong side of history - but until gays are allowed to serve openly, this lady has a point.

Posted by: DN | Sep 11, 2009 1:42:25 PM

The problem is that time and time again, gays have PROVED they're eligible for the armed services. They risk they're lives overseas, care for the wounded, and save the lives of civilians and fellow soldiers alike only to be discharged over a rumor, note, or whatever. DADT is a joke. Elaine Donnelly's mission is a joke.

Posted by: KZ | Sep 11, 2009 2:43:21 PM

Elaine Donnelly's a joke.

Posted by: Bill S | Sep 11, 2009 4:51:24 PM

ELAINE DONNELLY, YOU ARE A F*** UP! I THINK YOU ARE AN ASS CLOWN. IT'S PEOPLE LIKE YOU & THE SARAH PALIN'S IN THE WORLD THAT MAKE AMERICA WORSE. AMERICA WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE LIKE YOU IF YOU SO GO F*** YOURSELF. GO SOME WHERE! YOUR A DISGRACE! IF YOU FEEL GAY'S SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY, I GUESS U THINK THEY SHOULDN'T BEABLE TO VOTE EITHER HUH??? WHAT MAKES YOU ANY BETTER THEN GAY'S??? THEY FIGHT & SERVE FOR AMERICA, WHILE YOU & YOUR IGNORANT COMMENTS RUIN THIS COUNTRY. JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY, DOESN'T MAKE THEM ANY LESS CAPABLE TO SERVE ARE COUNTRY. I WAS OFFENDED BY WHAT YOU SAID ON AC360. GAY'S DESERVE EQUAL RIGHTS JUST LIKE ANYONE NO MATTER OF COLOR, RACE & OR SEXUAL ORIENATION. IT'S 2009 GET USE TO IT!

Posted by: ANDREW | Oct 7, 2009 2:03:45 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails