Gaze Upon the Military
The President is vowing to end restrictions on gays and lesbians serving in the military. As an army brat watching the military from my front row seat, barring service based on sexual orientation was one thing I never quite understood.
One thing I always appreciated about the military was the fact that it stood for the American ideal that the only discrimination that’s allowed should be based on ability, not race, religion or ethnicity. Despite that, one of the big arguments against gays serving openly in the military was that homosexuality was incompatible with military service. Tell that to the Israelis, the Dutch, the English, the Swiss and a dozens of other nations that don’t have such a ban and seem to function quite well. And if my history serves me correct wasn’t Alexander the Great gay and he went on to conquer the known world? Doesn’t seem like much of a compatibility issue there?
I would also think that in the age of the War on Terror, you wouldn’t have time to discriminate against someone over sexual orientation who can speak several Middle Eastern languages.
Now I know there is the school of thought that says allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve is disruptive. But I would think that as long as people are doing their job and (pardon the stereotypes) not dressing up as Judy Garland while wearing a rainbow boa and doing the YMCA dance you wouldn’t have too much of an issue. The same rules of the military conduct would apply to gays and lesbians as the would the rest of the corps. And as long as individuals are doing their jobs and perform, what’s the big deal?
If America stands for equality and individuals achieving because of what they do, not who they do, then it’s time for the ban to go the way of segregation.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Gay marriage is the defining civil rights issue of our day. But Obama still opposes gay marriage, just as Bush did.
The Democrats could repeal the ridiculous and unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act” right now if they wanted to, instead, they play politics…instead of doing the right thing now, they will wait until equal rights for gays becomes more “mainstream”….when it takes less courage to do the right thing.
October 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
There aren't the votes to repeal it, Unigov, or they would.
Sadly, there's still lots of political mileage in bashing folks.
October 11th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Where in the Defense of Marriage Act is anyone being bashed? Why is defending marriage and defining it as a bond between a man and a woman considered bashing gays? It is often the gay rights folks who are doing the bashing with their 'in your face' activism, attacking anyone who doesn't share their beliefs.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
First is your belief that the national government has any right to do anything with marriage. They are not granted that power at all. On that alone, DOMA should be struck down as unconstitutional as an infringement on state's rights.
Marriage is a personal issue to many, but to the government it should only be a legal contract between two consensual adults. As long as those requirements are met, I could care less what happens between a couple. I won't be insecure enough to think my marriage or a friend's marriage is “threatened” by anyone other than those involved in it. I see no logical reason why tax benefits, power of attorney, and so on can be given to a heterosexual couple, but are denied by a homosexual couple (or at best they have to jump through hoops to get those same benefits that everyone else gets by a marriage license).
That being said, even though I vehemently disagree with regulation of marriage at any level, states have the right to do it.
October 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
DADT should be a “no duh” answer in politics. If we're going to continue policing the world, we need able bodied men and women. And to deny others based on their personal sexual conduct (with in many cases, seems to be based on rumors than evidence) is ridiculous.
The irony here is we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars kicking out able bodied men and women, then spending more money trying to replace them.
October 11th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Gay Rights is, sadly, a pillar of Democratic politics. So long as there is discrimination of gays, there will be a reason for those gays to vote for Democrats in the elections. If the D's solve everything, what are they going to harp on in election years?
October 11th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Indiana Unemployment Trends – August 2009
Indiana Unemployment Trend Heat Maps:
A map of Indiana Unemployment in August 2009 (BLS data)
http://www.localetrends.com/st/in_indiana_unemp...
versus Indiana Unemployment Levels 1 year ago
http://www.localetrends.com/st/in_indiana_unemp...
October 11th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Could it be because Republicans would love to reverse any changes the Ds may make?
October 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
The better question is why don't Rs stop supporting laws that discriminate against homosexuals? We all know that it's religious based and nothing more, and what are the religious right gonna do, threaten to vote Democrat?
If the right stopped supporting DADT and other discriminatory acts, then maybe they'd be able to make a dent? Because until they do, homosexuals are going to overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Calling gays and lesbians “homosexuals” isn't going to help your cause or political organization amongst gays and lesbians. In fact, quite the opposite.
October 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Wilson, you are a FOOL! Gays and lesbians are homosexuals, by definition.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Chill out, Jocelyn Tandy. You are well-known as not only a perennial & losing election candidate, but also as an opponent of gays and lesbians in Indianapolis. You've also screamed FAGGOT at me in public — not exactly ladylike behavior most decent folk would observe…
October 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Wilson, I don't belong to any political organization, and my only cause is equal treatment under the rule of law.
What is so offensive about the term “homosexuals”? Furtheremore, why are the terms “gay” and “lesbian” better than it?
Let me rephrase it. Why do you say so? Because I've never had anyone, until now, act up over the use of the term “homosexual”. You act as if I said faggots.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
It's kinda like calling an African-American or Black a “Negro”. Gays and lesbians have similarly rejected that word “homosexual” — it's simply the current political reality. Skim through the locally-based (but national) LGBT blog http://www.Bilerico.com and notice the terminology. Nowhere will you find “homosexual” used anymore.
I know you mean well, Matt, but inadvertant word choices can signal ignorance and unconcern.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Maybe you do think I mean well, but I doubt you would extend the same to someone who didn't agree with you. You would certainly try to use their use of the word “homosexual” into something much more than it is.
I typed a word onto my keyboard that aptly described what I was trying to communicate. I would hope those reading my post, my blog, and Twitter account would look over the message rather than nitpicking at words.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:31 am
You might try expanding your vocabulary to communicate better … words do have connotations!
October 12th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Oh ENOUGH already on the homosexual/negro comparisons. Not valid AT ALL.
Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered (GLBT) or LGBT or whatever…is too cumbersome to type or say.
Homosexual is a perfectly descriptive and non-judgmental word. Live with it.
Rico, DOMA tells all homosexuals that their committed relationships, where they exist, are less than equal. If that's not bashing, I don't know what is.
It'll happen, eventually. Perhaps not this year, but soon.
It'll just give the Ricos of the world one more thing to scream about.
Marriage is a theological interpretation of the government-sanctioned act of unions. Government has no business whatsoever engaging in the endorsement of any religion's sanctification of unions.
Pesky thing, that Constitution…
October 12th, 2009 at 9:57 am
your right wilson but did you ever notice how many post have queer in them?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Why repeal the Defense of Marriage Act? Each state right now have the right to recognize or not to recognize gay marriage from states that allow them. Talk about rights, all this will do is take the right of the people in each state to ban gay marriage. And I thought many people here were for each states rights.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:19 am
DOMA simply prohibits the Federal government from recognizing as legal the perfectly lawful marriages in states that have opted to make “gay marriage” lawful. In other words, DOMA overrides states rights. There are over 1000 instances where Federal recognition is beneficial to married couples. Most notable is tax filing under married status. DOMA denies this exemption to gay couples legally married in states that allow gay marriage.
DOMA does NOT force states to accept or reject gay marriage. It simply denies citizens in some states Federal benefits. In other words, DOMA is anti states rights>/b> since marriage has traditionally been a local state responsibility, not Federal.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:26 am
It really is very simple.
1) The government should not be in the buisness of marriage. Marriage by definition is a religious ceremony.
2) Civil Unions should be the buisness of the government to track who gets what benefits (ie social security).
3) Marriage should only be a cerimony held at a religious establishment as an addition to the civil union
4) Churches/religous organizations should be able to determine who and what types of marriages they will perform.
5) If a church/reglious org doesnt want to have a marriage ceremony for gays or people who wear black pants and sandles, then they can protect their version of Marraige.
6) Final conclusion. Make everyone get a Civil Union, and marriage cermonies are optional.
Hows that for resovling the issue???
October 12th, 2009 at 10:46 am
In an odd way, that's almost the way it is now in Indiana and most states! You can get married by a non-religious official like Small Claims Court Judge after getting your marriage license. Your marriage is then just as valid although no religious entity got involved. Gay marriage laws nowhere require churches to marry whoever. Catholic priests will not marry Baptists or Buddhists today. No law changes are intended to force them to do so.
The key element is the marriage license, not the ceremony: in many states the current laws prevent such a license being issued to same-sex couples. Remove that arbitrary and antiquated restriction
now and the “gay marriage” issue will be solved easily!
October 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Actually, the gay population is afforded every right that heterosexuals are. Right? Do they not have the right to have their marriage to someone of the opposite sex recognized? What they are actually asking for is special consideration.
I fully support civil unions. And two gay partners in a civil union should have the same rights as any spouse does with regard to the affairs of their partners.
I just believe, as President ACORN does, that 'marriage' is between a man and woman. And it is those who share that belief who are being attacked with the vitriol from the left.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:00 am
And the unintended consequences of legalizing gay marriage is ceasing to recognize civil unions. Watch the gay community scream and shout about that!
October 12th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Sexual harassment is prevalent in the armed services whether you are male or female, straight or gay. At least according to one of my very attractive female friends who just finished 8 years.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:05 am
you assume erroneously.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Randy–not one single state law anywhere forbids any religious organization from refusing to marry anyone they choose.
Which is the way it should be.
When the federal government steps in and formalizes the religious community's definition of marriage, we've got trouble.
The civil document is the only thing government should be involved in. That's the Libertarian way. And that civil document should not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution and most state Constitutions, by discriminating against same-sex couples.
We go a long way in America to tip our hat to the church community. We put it on our license plates, our money…pity the poor non-Christian who finds these actions offensive.
In the case of marriage, we've stepped overboard, pandering to the neocon and far-right world that wants all Americans to submit to a Christian government. News flash–Christians barely claim a majority in this nation.
DOMA will be overturned. It's just a matter of time.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:21 am
If gay marriage is legal in all states, Wilson, employers who offer insurance coverage for domestic partners will no longer feel the need to do so. And if you think there won't be outrage in the gay community about that, then you're as stupid as you look. Frankly, I didn't think that possible.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Again you assume erroneously. Why do you assume that employers who offer “domestic partners” benefits today would not simply change the words to “married”? The costs are the same.
You keep inventing new & oddball arguments to maintain the status quo (no same-sex civil unions or marriage in Indiana).
October 12th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
And you might try reading comprehension instead of making vast assumptions.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Rico, drop the talking point of “well THEY CAN marry someone of the opposite sex too”. That ignores the subject at hand and is trying to divert attention elsewhere.
October 12th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Thank you TA, for being one of the few who isn't a partisan hack, and for reading my message rather than nit-picking at words.
It's interesting that wilson deems “homosexual” an offensive term, but “bisexual” is not.
October 12th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
But Matt, that would eliminate most of Rico's talking points. The guy has to have SOME pleasure.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
You're assuming facts not in evidence. Why would you automatically assume that domestic partners would instantly run to the altar if gay marriage were legalized nationwide?
And since I just wrote that I support civil unions, how is that maintaining the staus quo in Indiana?
October 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I told you where I stand on the issue. I believe, as the Messiah Barry does, that marriage is between a man and woman. I don't need talking points.
I support civil unions and would support legislation in this state to recognize them as such.
October 12th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Would civil unions apply to a man and woman also? If not it would be discrimination.
October 12th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
I think I understand Rico on this one. Marriage should never be recognized by government. It's a fool's errand. I wish the gay community wouldn't call it “marriage.” It makes no difference hat it's called–if the rights are equal, that's the way it should be. The term “marriage” gets folks's panties in a bunch.
Marriage is a religious observation of a government-sponsored civil act.
October 12th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
You obviously don't understand, TA. It's about intolerance. The lefties, partcularly radical gay activists, demand that others accept their way of life. They wear their sexuality on their sleeves. I've never understood why anyone, gay or straight, would want to define themselves by their sexual orientation. It shouldn't be anyone's business, but there are some who demand that it's everyone's business. Civil unions? I'll vote to make it so. Leave marriage alone and recognize the rights' of others to believe as they wish.
October 12th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Matt, Matt, Matt…..this is 2009….If you cannot use the accepted terminolgy, what other outdated ideas are you clinging to your breast? Should slavery be abolished? Should women be allowed to vote? Should we return to prohibition?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It's great that you and others can hide behind screen names, sling mud, distort, and flat out lie all in the name of partisan hack politics.
Whereas I use my real name that links to my Facebook account, write posts advocating for equal rights, and get trashed over a non-offensive, non-judgmental word.
So Fact Checker, when you are willing to have an honest discussion, go back and read my posts, maybe take a course on reading comprehension. Then we can talk. But until you stop assumptions, stop lying, and stop trashing, I won't even bother responding to you.
Why is “homosexual” a bad word to you, FC? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Newsflash: The LGBT blog wilson linked to use lesbian, gay, queer, transgendered, and many other terms that can also carry negative connotations. Many of which I've heard in use in the real world.
You liberals are doing a great job of alienating people who agree with you. Who needs enemies with friends like these?
October 12th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Words have not only denotations but connotations and overtones. It's been explained repeatedly by a 100% Kinsey 6.0 gay person (me) why the continued use of the word “homosexual” is a poor one. Matt becomes prickly & defensive and uses offensive language. Frankly Matt, you're an ignorant prig and not worth arguing with. Your youthful omniscience will dissipate with exposure to the real world with its real people using language in a social setting. You're not an enemy, just a solipsistic scribbler…
October 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Wilson, you didn't explain why homosexual was not appropriate. You simply said it wasn't.
“Gays and lesbians have similarly rejected that word “homosexual” — it's simply the current political reality.”
That's not an explanation.
Are you going to lump TA into the ignorant pile to for saying that “homosexual” is a non-judgemental term?
I'm glad that you know me so well, Wilson. That I haven't been in the real world long enough. Perhaps it's you who needs to be exposed to the real world a bit more? You're the one who's attacking me for the use of a non-judgemental, perfectly acceptable term.
Frankly, you're the one who'll have trouble coping in the real world if simple terminology angers you.
October 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
from Dictionary.com concerning “homosexual”:
Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
That's one of the most horrid PC defenses I've ever seen. In respect to marriage, homosexual is a great descriptive because it differentiates between that and the current status quo of allowed marriages, heterosexual.
Gay, as noted in dictionary.com, nods toward the culture. But there's no discrimination on culture here, it's discrimination based on the sex one is attracted to.
What further astonishes me is that the B in GLBT stands for bisexual, yet somehow that is an a-okay term but homosexual is not.
October 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Interestingly enough, I was reading an old blog post over at Advance Indiana, and Gary wrote that civil unions were very popular among straight couples even though it was created for same-sex.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:42 am
The term “gay marriage,” oxymoronically assumes a traditional baseline & is therefore defined in contrast with tradition rather than uniquely or constitutionally acknowledged, right to associate, contract, etc.
Leaning on tradition or the word marriage is unnecessarily provocative & does little to advance the unique rights to contract & associate (or not).
Whenever we discuss religion, one friend describes himself as a “jewish mormon.” It's his right to describe himself as he chooses & equally mine to take him less than seriously…
October 13th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Kinsey is a scientist only in Indiana and likely only in Bloomington.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:56 am
And what gave the gay community the right to hijack the word 'gay'?
October 13th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The term “gay marriage,” oxymoronically assumes a traditional baseline & is therefore defined in contrast with tradition rather than uniquely or constitutionally acknowledged, right to associate, contract, etc.
Leaning on tradition or the word marriage is unnecessarily provocative & does little to advance the unique rights to contract & associate (or not).
Whenever we discuss religion, one friend describes himself as a “jewish mormon.” It's his right to describe himself as he chooses & equally mine to take him less than seriously…
October 13th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Kinsey is a scientist only in Indiana and likely only in Bloomington.
October 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
And what gave the gay community the right to hijack the word 'gay'?