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


Donnelly continues making soon-to-be-moot arguments

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 1-60Elaine Donnelly, the Center For Military Readiness president whose primary job seems to be justifying anti-gay sentiment, is lashing out against NY congressman Gary Ackerman (pic.) for jokingly suggesting that the Bush administration may fear a "platoon of lesbians" more than terrorists in Baghdad. In response to Ackerman's pointed comments (made to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice), Ms. Donnelly is quoted by OneNewsNow as saying:

...the congressman's "flippant attitude" toward Rice was "somewhat insulting" and very inappropriate. "Perhaps he is unaware [that] the law actually says homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military," she explains of the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "I don't think anybody should look on this as an incident that is impressive -- it's just the opposite."

Uhm, yea, Ms. Donnelly, we GET IT that gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. That's sort of the sticking point for us! Ya see, we want that backwards concept rectified! But see, the way debate works is -- we pro-gay folks tell you that we want the ban lifted because it's unjust, unconstitutional, un-American, dangerous, mean-spirited, etc. You, in turn, tell us WHY it is not any of those things. But You can't just respond to criticism of the policy your supporting by saying, "IT'S THE LAW!" History is littered with unjust bans and laws that have been eradicated by societal progression.

Moving on -- Of Ackerman's other gay-supporting comments, in which he complained to Rice that the military had fired Arabic and Farsi translators after learning they were gay, Donnelly is quoted as saying:

"I asked this question of the Department of the Army [earlier]," shares the CMR spokeswoman: "Why were they expending resources of the Defense Language Institute to train individuals who are not eligible to be in the military?"

Well, that's likely because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means that the DLI DIDN'T ASK and the translators DIDN'T TELL! But Ms. Donnelly's question would actually seem to serve as a supportive statement for our gay-inclusive cause, as the translators were clearly good enough to do their job, skills that didn't change once it was discovered they were gay. So the only reason why the DLI expended resources that ultimately proved fruitless is because of the military's policy to keep the army "fruit"-less!! They didn't "expend" any more resources on these gay translators than they did on the straight ones; those expenditures were just squandered because of long-standing bias!

It's actually a bit bizarre that just pointing out the law as it currently stands seems to be Ms. Donnelly's new debate tactic. We saw her use the same line of logic earlier this month, and we found it just as feeble then. If she is to truly challenge folks like Congressman Ackerman who choose to challenge the military's bias, then she's going to have to do more than just remind them of what they are challenging. She must answer questions like, "How can you, in good conscience, disallow millions of tax-paying American citizens from serving their country simply because they love in a different way?" She needs to explain to us in real terms WHY this ban strengthens, not weakens, the fabric of a free democracy! The burden is on her side to flesh out why this discrimination is unlike all of the other forms of bias that time has eventually rendered inhumane!

Then again, we've never taken on a role in which buttressing unfairness was the number one goal. Perhaps we're not qualified to tell Ms. Donnelly how to perform such a job.

NY congressman's 'flippant' pro-homosexual remarks questioned [ONN]

**More over at SLDN's Frontlines blog

Technorati Tags: , ,

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

Your thoughts

Their arguments are bankrupt for the simple reason that all the "sky will fall" reasons they try and offer make no sense in terms of the European military forces with openly gay servicemen and women. Either European forces are radically different to American ones (does anyone seriously believe that?) or American forces are so weak they're unable to acknowledge the existence of a small group of people *who are in their midst already!*

Furthermore, those anti-gay arguments (about affecting morale, inciting harrassment, painting the Humvees pink, whatever...) are a profound insult to the openly gay soldiers from other countries working with American forces right now. Yeah, go on bigots, tell the people fighting on your behalf how much you despise them.

Posted by: John C | Feb 13, 2007 10:34:57 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails