Previous post
Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:
There have been a lot of different responses to the news that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been repealed. President Obama is planning to sign the bill this week. Supporters are touting it as a victory for civil rights. Before the Senate passed the repeal, critics continued to voice concerns, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Some have continued to voice those concerns — others, however, have taken those concerns one step too far. At what point does concern turn into hysterics, and when does it becoming insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?
My husband is currently serving in Afghanistan in the Marine Corps. He loves his country and the Corps. His MOS — military occupational specialty — is an 0311, an infantry rifleman. This is a combat MOS. Like many Marines, he wasn’t a fan of repealing DADT. The number one concern I have heard from many Marines around Camp Lejeune was how the repeal would affect unit cohesion, although there are many other issues that come into play. The benefit of DADT has been that it allows the military to remain neutral on homosexuality. Now, the military will have to reconcile service with the gay rights agenda. How will the military now be forced to handle a gay soldier in a relationship? Will they be forced to approve of gay public displays of affection? What about those in the military who aren’t comfortable with their children seeing two men kiss while they’re doing their grocery shopping in the commissary? How will the military be forced to handle a gay soldier who gets married in a state that allows gay marriage? Will gay spouses receive military benefits now, too? And what about the gay servicemembers who aren’t married because their state doesn’t allow it, but are in committed relationships — do they qualify for benefits, too? Will gay and straight servicemembers be allowed to sleep in barracks together? What about when a unit is deployed, and the men are forced to sleep in even closer quarters? What will happen to the soldier or Marine who is uncomfortable with sleeping next to a gay man?
There are a lot of questions and concerns about repealing DADT, and no easy answers. The beauty of the system was that it allowed the military to remain neutral on each and every one of these issues. The military didn’t approve or disapprove. Now, the military is forced to take a stance, and in many instances, I fear it will be in favor of gay rights, giving special treatment to gays. I also am not a big fan of politicians using the military to basically conduct a social experiment, especially when we are fighting two wars.
Obviously, I am not a fan of repealing DADT. My feelings on the matter were very close to those of General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. However, now that the repeal is passed, there is only one thing to do, and that is accept it and move on. Adapt and overcome. While there will be many tough decisions to make, and the adjustment period will undoubtedly be difficult, I have no doubt that our servicemembers can and will adjust. Adapt and overcome.
Today, I logged onto my Facebook, and saw the following in my inbox.
Change your profile picture to black to mourn the death of the United States military as we know it.
How widespread a meme this is on Facebook, I don’t know. But it’s far from a rarity. Joseph Farah, as an example, wrote an article trumpeting the “fact” that servicemembers will be apparently be quitting the service in droves, so upset will they be over the prospect of — gasp!! — serving alongside gay men and women. He’s even urging them to do so. Apparently, there are some people who just can’t fathom that our men and women in uniform might actually be honorable people who will be able to rise above sexual orientation. This infuriates me.
There have been many people expressing a similar opinion, and I find it to be a massive insult to our military. The rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — has been massively overblown.
The question I have for the people who feel this will destroy our military is this: do you think all of the men and women currently serving are so severely homophobic that they cannot continue to serve their country with honor?
If your answer to that question is yes, then shame on you.
General Amos has pledged to support the repeal, doing the honorable thing. (Funny how so many of our servicemen and women tend to do that, huh?)
“Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people,” said Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, in a prepared statement released Sunday.
… “As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines.
“On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years.”
Gen. Amos disagreed with the repeal and fought it every step of the way. It passed anyways, and so he is putting service before his own objections. Many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will likely do the exact same thing. This must be shocking to the people who think so little of our military that they won’t be able to survive serving alongside gay men and women. (Imagine how shocked they would be if they ever found out that many times servicemembers already know who in their unit is gay, and don’t care.)
As of right now, the military will be writing the rules on the new policy. And so far, it looks like many of the concerns I, and many others, have are being addressed.
No public displays of affection. No separate bathrooms. No harassment and no special treatment.
… What if a recruiter refuses to process recruits who say they are gay? What about a sailor who requests a new sleeping area to get away from a gay roommate? Can a service member file a complaint against a chaplain who preaches against homosexuality? And can a gay or lesbian service member get leave to travel home when their partner is ill?
In each case the recommended process is careful and deliberate. The recruiter and the sailor should be counseled about the new rules — but in both cases commanders have the authority to approve a move if they believe it’s necessary in order to maintain unit stability. And, yes, chaplains can still preach what they believe.
The health and social benefits, however, are a murky area that Pentagon officials say they are trying to work through.
In some cases, service members may be able to designate a same-sex partner for benefits. In most cases, however, they are treated much like unmarried heterosexual couples. So, same-sex partners will probably not be able to share on-base housing, and commanders don’t have to make allowances for same-sex couples when making duty assignments around the globe.
Does this mean all the questions are answered and the concerns are addressed? No, but it does look like this is being handled (for now) the best possible way. Perhaps we should wait to go into a rabid panic until there’s actually a reason to panic, and we aren’t quite there yet. Unless, of course, you have no faith in our military.
Why is it so unbelievable that the military would be able to figure out the best way to implement homosexuals serving openly? As the wife of a Marine, I find it deeply insulting to our men and women currently serving with honor to suggest that the mere addition of gay men and women will somehow make our entire military crumble. Understand this: the vast majority of heroes in uniform are better than that. The few that are not won’t last.
The New York Times recently ran an article interviewing a handful of Marines. Most of them, not surprisingly, were just fine with the repeal, although they expressed some reservations about — you guessed it — serving in combat. (Personally, I wouldn’t let the final word on that be several boot Marines who haven’t even graduated yet from the School of Infantry.) My guess on the combat situations? Yes, there will be reservations and the men will be uncomfortable. But if the gay troops prove themselves in combat then I guarantee that those reservations will disappear. When you’re fighting the enemy, you aren’t worried about who the guy next to you is sleeping with. You’re worried about whether or not he’s a good shot and if he’ll have your back in a firefight.
Our troops have been able to defeat some of the worst kinds of evil throughout history. When our country was founded, our military started with a small band of ragtag patriots who were able to overthrow an oppressive empire. Since then, they’ve encountered unspeakable evils and enemies that seemed impossible to defeat, and have come out on top almost every time. We have the greatest military the world has ever seen, yet a small group of people set on hysterics over the DADT repeal would have you believe that this same military can’t overcome gays serving alongside straights.
What an insult to our men and women in uniform, who as I am writing this are fighting thousands of miles away to defend our country and our freedoms from another unimaginably evil enemy. They deserve better.
Our troops have overcome much worse than the repeal of DADT, and given time, they’ll adapt and overcome this too. It’s too bad that we can’t have the faith in them that they have earned, and so richly deserve.
John Dalgity says: I think you have a very balanced response to DADT, one that will smooth over most objections. The one troublesome area is for the Christian soldier and his religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. While I think that most mature Christians look at the sin aspect and the agenda driving the issue to the forefront. I think you are right, the military is going to bend to the homosexual agenda. Therein is the rub. Why do we have to be force fed that this is no big deal. It is a big deal, especially in combat ready units. Eventually it will affect unit cohesion and sharpness. Look, I am fully aware that I probably served with homosexuals during my two tours in Vietnam. But, romance and love have no place on the battlefield, and it will jeopardize the the mission sooner or later. And if I hear one more, “you’re just homophobic”, response I think my head will explode. It is not that at all. It is the idea of undoing hundreds of years of military tradition in morals. I don’t think this will end well. What with this nation is facing in enemies, this is something we can ill afford in our military. You’re right, the military will adjust, as they always do, but the combat edge has been dulled.
Anne G. says: When you use the word “homophobic” you totally undercut everything you said before. I am not “homophobic” which by definition means I am afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality. I do believe the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous (physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually) and that the most unloving thing we can do is not confront those in that lifestyle with the changing power of Jesus Christ.
Service members WILL leave the military because of this law. “In droves” I don’t know, since “droves” is not a quantified number. A recent report said that as many as 40% of Marines will leave once their enlistment is up. Even more importantly, many young men who were considering military service will choose other careers. Recruiting is going to become even more difficult. The number of homosexuals who now choose to serve will not even come close to the numbers we will lose.
Furthermore, you yourself point out so many problems that this repeal is going to cause that I can’t believe you are downplaying the issue. The next thing that is going to happen is that any soldier who expresses an opposition to homosexuality will face disciplinary action.
The repeal is a reprehensible action taken to, as you say, force a social experiment on our military, while they are in harm’s way! As the other commenter pointed out, we are undoing hundreds of years of history. The prohibition on homosexuals serving in the military is a common-sense approach to a very specialized segment of our society. DADT was, sadly, the first step to undoing that. Very clever, Mr. Clinton.
I am not going to include my full name for the simple reason that every time I express a view counter to the homosexual agenda the vicious rhetoric from the pro-homosexual crowd begins. It has amazed me that when those that support that agenda cannot keep up with a reasoned argument, they start calling names. Appalling…and revealing.
jwa says: Pat Lang is already covering this in depth. He has the service record to back up his analysis.
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/
Pete Chase says: I was an officer in the Navy for 6 years from 1988 to 1994. During my time in the Navy I served with officers who everyone knew to be gay, and despite what some would have us believe about intolerance and “homophobia” in the military, there was none of that in my experience – it was simply irrelevant to the job at hand. Sexuality/sexual orientation has no place in the military. That’s why introducing women into combat units and having men & women serving together onboard ship has been so problematic (pregnancies, rivalries, etc.) – anyone remember Kelly Flinn? (Google it). By comparison, gays serving in the military is fairly anticlimactic.
Having said that, let’s think for a minute about what an ideal policy towards homosexuality in the military would look like. Here’s my take on it: 1) There would be no check boxes or questionnaires on military applications (“State your sexual preference: a)straight; b)gay; c) bi; d) questioning (straight, but not narrow!”); 2) Sexual orientation would be regarded as completely irrelevant; introduction of a servicemember’s sexual orientation into the military environment would not be tolerated, nor would particular sexual orientations be recognized.
Whoa! That sounds a lot like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Do you mean to tell me that all this time the military has had an official policy of neutrality regarding sexual orientation? That’s exactly what I’m saying. And now that policy has been overturned.
Let’s be clear – DADT does not ban gays from serving in the military. It simply prevents anyone from making sexual orientation an issue. The repeal of DADT changes all that. This is not about allowing gays to serve. They already serve. This is about introducing a political agenda into a sphere – our military – that thus far has steadfastly resisted such politicization within its ranks – a fact that drives the Left to distraction. To those folks, no corner of society can be allowed to remain free of the Left’s relentless social agenda.
The military is a unique culture. There is nothing which the military simply tolerates: if there is a requirement with which it must comply, the military will have an affirmative policy on it, which all personnel must support. What this means in practice goes beyond annual sensitivity training or command anti-discrimination policies. As a civilian you can tolerate homosexuality without specifically endorsing it, but as a servicemember you will not have that luxury. Officers and NCO’s, as a matter of fitness for promotion, will be forced to affirm and promote a positive view of homosexuality. Command participation in Gay Pride Month will be enforced. And recruitment quotas will be monitored.
This is not about discrimination; this is about forcing servicemembers to acknowledge, affirm, and endorse a moral equivalence which stands in direct opposition to their own conscience.
ginger wade says: Just read your comment on Hot Air and wonder why, after listing all your “objections” to the repeal of DADT, you then give it a wash because the troops will “meet the challenge” and do what they are ordered to do. That is a complete cop out and PC to the core.
Of course we know that the military follows civilan leadership – that is what has made our country so strong – in the past. But forcing ABNORMALITY and cultural dysfunction on a system that has remained strong BECAUSE of its following traditional values and self-sacrifice does nothing but weaken and confuse. If one believes in natural law as do most of those sitting on the Supreme Court, (i. e. Justice Thomas) then it is pretty obvious that embracing homosexuality the way the service chiefs have done is UN-NATURAL and allows for HUGE distractions and complications – oddly enough, as you have so ably listed. And if families can embrace at homecomings, commissaries, change-of-commands, etc. why not gays? IT IS NOW THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO…so if it “bothers” people, there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. It is now accepted as NORMAL! And the dirty little secret is – it is NOT NORMAL! Lastly, you have left out any reference/consideration of religion in your commentary – I just learned a statistic that in Afghanistan, 35% of the troops there are Roman Catholic – and the Church does not condone homosexuality, period. So now what? No more Catholic priests for the troops? It’s a damned quagmire that has no business in the business of warfare. And, as our troops are conducting a “PC” war for this administration, you are right, they will “aye aye” and carrying on with the PC crap that is continually thrown at them – to their own peril. God bless our troops and our country – we will need His support and guidance.
SgtEric says: I’m sorry, but Fiano is clueless and in many ways, an intolerant coward.
I could care less if she’s related to someone in the military. Her claiming that makes her some kind of expert, or that her opinion means jack, is just like the military brats who walk around thinking they know everything about the military.
The fact that Cassy Fiano calls people homophobes who don’t actively support and affirm homosexuality plays into the “hysterical” fears that many of us in the military, such as myself, have. That is, that anyone who does not affirm the orthodoxy that homosexuality is healthy, normal and moral will be punished, and in the end, pushed out of the military.
Cassy, you should be ashamed of yourself, and in my view, as an active duty military serviceman, you have no more credibility than the most anti-military leftist out there. This has nothing to do with me being “better” than something. YOU are an insult to me, not people being concerned about pushing open homosexuality in the military.
The idea that it is some test of strength or courage as to whether or not troops will have objections to homosexuality is idiotic, and I am not surprised it comes from someone such as you who has never served. I don’t approve of using rubber bullets instead of live rounds. Does that mean I don’t trust in the strength of the military? No, it means it would be a STUPID idea!
Let me make it clear to you… you can post all these pro-military pictures and claim you are some big supporter of the military because you happen to be related to one, but to me and many other active duty servicemen, you are a coward and an insult to the military.
SgtEric says: By the way, your friend madisonconservative is just as much of a coward as you are. The fact that he thinks he can play the “spouse” card and that no one can question your credibility or logic because you happen to be married to a marine is ridiculous. This is the same thing Ann Coulter dealt with about using people no one can dare question, no matter how ridiculous and illogical, and in your case, offensive and incendiary, their argument is.
Madisonconservative never served either, and I would be happy to tell him he’s a coward as well. If he thinks for a minute that the wife of a marine has more credibility than someone actually IN the military such as myself, I would be happy to meet him and show him otherwise.
Ray says: I’m curious about your statement that the “beauty” of DADT was that through it, the military was taking a “neutral” stand on homosexuality. That’s an interesting interpretation of neutrality. Suppose an organization said to a Christian, “You’re allowed to join us as long as you keep your religion to yourself. But if you so much as say ‘I’m a Christian,’ you’re outta here.” Would you characterize that organization as neutral with respect to Christianity?
SgtEric says: What a surprise, Cassy deleted my post, as I am active duty and she is nothing but “related” to a service member.
She’s a coward, as is her fellow chickenhawk, madisonconservative. The idea that her empty and incendiary rhetoric toward servicemembers who don’t spout the orthodoxy of pro-homosexuality cannot be challenged because she’s related to a marine is ridiculous.
She’s no different than clueless meghan mccain.
SgtEric says: By the way, I find it far more insulting that chickenhawk cassy fiano tries to tell me, someone actually IN the military, that I am insulted when people don’t want us to be brainwashed by PC garbage.
Fiano, you’re a disgrace to we who wear the uniform.
I’ll make the point I’ve made on my blog previously.
We’re currently engaged in war against an enemy which 1) has stated as one of their reasons for war the West’s perceived sexually permissive society and 2) carries a particular hatred for homosexuals.
Remember Osama’s ‘strong horse’ comment? The repeal of DADT would most likely fall into his ‘weak horse’ category, because acknowledging open homosexuals in the military is simply another piece of evidence that the US is the sexually degraded Great Satan they already believe us to be – we’ve just proven it to them, and this gives them even greater impetus to try to destroy our ‘decadent’ society.
Secondly, I doubt al Q or the Taliban are going to take the time to determine which of any captured US soldiers is homosexual and which are heterosexual – for the sake of expediency they’ll simply assume ALL our military folks are homosexual. And we KNOW what our enemy does to homosexuals, don’t we?
Personally, I think this repeal is going to put our military folks in even greater ‘harm’s way’ than they already are. But I pray to God I’m wrong.
SgtEric says: The watcher,
Clueless Cassy(who by the way, is MARRIED to a Marine, and therefore impervious to any logical criticism) doesn’t care about such things. In her mind, we should push homosexuality on the muslim world to show it how free and great we are.
Clueless Cassy also has no idea about the problems that will come when we have openly homosexual translators in Muslim countries. Any concern for such things are “homophobic hysteria.”
Patriot says: Cassey, I get your point of view, but its small picture: Answer this question: why would you want to serve a LEFTIST controlled military? If the military in Rome were transferred from a decent general to Coliqula, would you still be faithful? The military is not the same military that you swore to defend. In fact one could argue that the enemy is now in the military. Leftism is marxism, and what about defending the country from that? Our military is now the last institution to fall under leftist control in the United States of America. Why don’t you take a step back and understand that a stand against homosexualization of the military IS a stand against the enemy. I am not concerned with homosexuals themselves but the gay agenda they bring. If the USMC fell under the control of Hugo CHavez would you feel the same about serving? What’s the diff tween the One and Hugo? The question is not adapting and overcoming: how can you do this when the enemy is now WITHIN?
Respectfully,
A Patriot
SgtEric says: Isn’t it great how Cassy claims to be a conservative, yet acts like a liberal and attacks anyone who doesn’t have an interest in supporting homosexuality, refusing to accept that their viewpoint can be rational, but only based on hate and ignorance?
You’ve been caught, Cassy. You’re no more a conservative than Jimmy Carter.
russ says: cassy, quick. flame suit ON. sgt. hides behind a computer is raging and calling you a coward.
russ says: Also, people using the fact that we “are at war with an anti-homosexual enemy,” as a reason to not support this. do me a favor and google “man love thursday.”
anyone who has been in afghanistan or iraq knows about this.
The evidence of ‘man love thursday’ doesn’t affect what I said in my comment. Islamic law mandates the death penalty for homosexual activity; Islamists consider the West to be the ‘Great Satan’, in part because of their perception of us as sexually decadent; the repeal of DADT is another ‘example’ they can use to show that decadence: ‘See, we TOLD you they were decadent, they allow homosexuals to openly serve in their military!’ I can’t see how repealing DADT is going to help our military in the field right now.
I agree with Cassie that concern is ramping up into hysteria in some circles, and some folks need to take some deep breaths and relax. Repealing DADT now wasn’t the brightest move, but now that it’s done the military will somehow make it work – military is tactics and thinking on your feet and winning your objective, after all. The major pitfalls are pretty obvious, and they’ll be dealt with efficiently – it’s the little potholes that are going to keep cropping up as time goes on that are going to cause the greatest heartburn. The question isn’t whether the military can deal with those potholes – IMO, the question is, should the military really need to deal with them when, right now, they’ve got as much as they have on their plates?
Cassie, first time visitor here, read Bill Crystol’s piece in the Weekly Standard referring to your blog.
Wow, you are really taking some heat for speaking so favorably of our military men and women. I must say I’m surprised; you didn’t speak out for the repeal of DADT, and even state that you were against the repeal. It sounds to me like you are not defending gays in the military, but rather standing up for the integrity and honor of those who are willing to put their lives on the line for all the rest of us, and the strength of character they possess which will allow them to “adapt and overcome.” As they always do.
I have utter and complete confidence in the men and women who stand a post, and shoulder a rifle on my behalf. Whether we like the idea of gays in the military or not, it is done. Railing against you for speaking of our troops’ capacity to continue on with their mission despite what politicians throw into their paths, seems misguided to me.
Oorah to you, and I thank your husband for his service. Merry Christmas to you.
russ says: again, man love thursday does not fall under homosexual activity (according to their own justification), because they interpret the law as being against “loving” other men. Man love thursday is not love, they are just having fun.
And usually we try to not bend to the will of our enemies. Not doing something because the enemy wont like it, isn’t our policy. USUALLY.
SgtEric says: Russ, I’m in the military, I don’t need to hide behind anything. Do you serve?
From your last comment, it’s obvious you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have made such an idiotic statement that only our enemies will have an issue with this.
Most of our wars, and future wars, are in muslim countries. We regularly need to gather intelligence and interact with conservative muslims in those countries.
I’ve worked in these places. I’m an Arabic speaker. I know for a fact open homosexuality will be a huge deterrent in working with these people.
Don’t you hate when facts get in the way?
SgtEric says: Russ has obviously not been to Iraq or Afghanistan. Otherwise, he’d know that pedophilia is accepted but open homosexuality is not, and gets people killed.
Some of us have to deal with the idiotic results of your decision, Russ. But hey, maybe you can just call us names in order to justify it, like Cassy.
SgtEric says: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2010/12/afghan-sex-practices-concern-us-british-forces
But let’s not worry, none of this will be an issue now, because we can just use Cassy and Russ’ method and just insult people who are concerned about silly things like logistics.
Nathan says: Mrs. Fiano you write that “Many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will likely do the exact same thing.”
What do you have against those of us in the United States Coast Guard?
-Nathan
Georgia Witt says: cassy, quick. flame suit ON. sgt. hides behind a computer is raging and calling you a coward.
24 Comments