This just popped up in my reader:
Ron Paul, three Texas Democrats buck parties on gays in military
It caught my eye because Ron Paul was mentioned in the title, but also because of the "DADT" policy that's been in place since the Clinton administration. I didn't agree with the previous policy of banning gays outright and I didn't agree with the DADT policy either. There should be no "policy" at all in regards to gays in the military. (and without researching it, I would wager that's Ron Paul's stance, too.)
Granted, the military is a special case and civilian laws don't always apply, but this is more of a human rights specific case. Isn't "all men are created equal" one of the tenets of our society?
Also, I've seen argued that unit cohesion and effectiveness would be damaged with the overt inclusion of gays. I wonder how "covert" inclusion was any different? I'd think that in most cases, people wouldn't know others are gay unless they were told by the gay person. Contrary to TV and movie stereotyping (and some by gays themselves), all gays don't lisp when they talk nor mince when they walk. Sheesh. I've known gay guys who were more "manly" than were some of my hetero friends. (I've also known some lesbians who were more manly than ME, but that's another story)
It also seems a shame to waste talent and manpower (or womanpower, to be fair -grin-) Not all, but many of the gay folks I know are smart, creative and hard-working - good qualities to possess for the military (or for civilian life). I never was in the military, but I was and still am a good shot. I also like to think I'm fairly courageous, semi-smart, and, in my youth, quite physically fit - good soldier material.
That doesn't mean I would've been a good soldier. No, I can also type like a big dog and I expect it's easier to find someone to pull a trigger than it is to type and file the morning report.
In other words, if I had been drafted or joined the military, I'd have probably been some colonel's clerk. And I'm not gay.
What I'm trying to say is it's silly to stereotype all gays into the "gawking, lecher" type that would destroy a platoon of fighting men. Plus, I would think it would be easier for heterosexuals to accept a fellow fighting man in the unit than it would be to include females.
(and I'll admit I don't think women in direct combat units is a good idea. Pilots of fighter planes, captains of warships, etc., sure, but not fighting alongside of men. )
Plus, there are military regulations that severely curtail interpersonal relationships between people in the service. A captain can not have a personal relationship with a private...even if they are of opposite sex. I don't understand why these rules can't simply apply to all in the military. Catch two gays in a compromising position? Drum them out, same as would/should happen with an opposite-sex couple.
Off the soapbox; I'm prejudiced in many ways, but this "gays in the military" controversy has always bothered me...not just because the policy is wrong, but because we feel the need to have a policy at all.
On a related, local note: Our own Mac Thornberry voted against the bill. While I very, very seldom vote Democrat, in this next election I will have to do as I've done the last few elections and either vote Libertarian for the office, or leave all boxes unchecked. He's been in office since '95. I won't criticize his record here, but it's my opinion he's been in there long enough.
Update
Texas lawmakers explain why they bucked their parties on vote
Rep Ron Paul,
R-Lake Jackson
Paul, the maverick libertarian, ditched his Republican comrades and voted for the repeal.
"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said.
"To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."
Them's my sentiments, 'zactly. Thank you Dr. Paul.
No comments:
Post a Comment