Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

An anonymous reader writes "The Senate and House have now acted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, [a decision] which President Obama will soon sign into law. While this does not permit homosexuals to openly serve, it does return control of the policy to military leaders after nearly two decades."

Comments

It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

From personal experience in the military, and from being in a war, I can tell you that you feel close to your buddies and that sexuality is almost non-existent in the sense most people thing about it, when you are in combat. After a few days under fire you just comfort each other however you can, and nobody is self conscious about showing affection to each other, man or women. You just want to do a good job and take care of each other.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

The comment above is clearly written in a way that will get a rise out of people, but it makes a legitimate point. Insofar as the LGBTQ civil rights struggle is one rooted in justice and equal rights, the DADT repeal strategy has left a lot of us scratching our heads. Any civil rights struggle which fits in a broader context would necessarily come to the same conclusions that the 60s/70s racial civil rights struggle in the US did: the oppression of classes within the domestic population is part of the same system of oppression waging imperial war elsewhere, and that the internal oppression is used as a means of social control in order to divide people who might otherwise unite to stop the broader system of oppression.

All of which is to say, speaking as a queer personally, I do not see a meaningful improvement in the cause of justice by allowing queers to go kill and die for US imperialism. I don't think the strategy of focusing on militarism is going to do any good for queers here or anywhere else. It will, instead, elicit misplaced pride in militarism, drown criticism of US war in needless and irrelevant murky moral grey (and if you don't believe me, go and take a look at how Israel's queer rights record, in contrast with their neighbors, is used to pink-wash their own colonial crimes), and distract queer movements from the fact that real equal rights are not on the agenda of anyone in power.

Quite a lot of the queer rights movement realizes all this, but the movement has been hijacked by mainstream organizations whose lobbying message reflects the twisted values of the system they've swept themselves up into.

A meaningful queer civil rights struggle would be anti-imperialist and anti-militarist by default, and the extent to which it disregards those values it is actively undermining the fundamental moral principle of equal rights.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been researching this topic a great deal as of late. It's been something of a mixed hobby that has progressed into a bit of an obsession. Probably far too many late evenings digging around various biographies of his close friends and other important figures tends to create a slightly different story then what we see in the silver screen.

All in all, MLK's divergence started out as a young child when his parents were taken from him by a street thug. This event forever altered his path in life and molded him as he grew up. While he was alone throughout his youth he was well cared for. His parents had left him a sizable sum and the heir to the family business.

Through time and training this child grew into a man who dreamed of bringing justice to those who would do harm to others. To protect his identity and estate he would where a costume and a mask. While the police saw him as a vigilante the people would see him as a hero.

Unfortunately, this would end all too quickly as he attempted to swing away on a home made grappling hook and belt combo. It turns out that buildings make terrible anchors and a fall of just 30 feet can be fatal.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

So are you trying to say that it would have been better to continue the open discrimination against LGBTQ?

First of all, DADT wasn't *open*. It was literally the exact opposite of open. Second of all, while I support the repeal of DADT as such, yes, I'm opposed to queers serving in the military. It's not part of the queer rights movement and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is. US militarism is on the opposite end of the moral spectrum from civil rights struggles.

If your answer is “yes, because it’s legitimizing our war machine etc etc etc” sorry, that doesn’t fly.

You're oversimplifying my point. And it's no wonder, after over-simplification, that it "doesn't fly." Let me reiterate: militarism and imperialism are incompatible with civil rights; allowing militarism and imperialism to co-opt a civil rights movement will weaken and diffuse the movement; it will become a tool used to isolate different the queer rights movement from the broader movement for justice; and it will be used as a propaganda tool to portray militarism and imperialism as the opposite of what it really is.

American corporations will continue to use the US military to secure cheap resources and promote their business interests – regardless of public opinion.

Who said anything about public opinion? Justice isn't won by having strong feelings, it's won by making injustice too costly to maintain. The consequences of using the DADT repeal as described above will deal a real, meaningful blow to those of us trying to achieve that.

Even if we don’t challenge your guesswork, it’s a major stretch to believe that this change in public opinion would strengthen US militarism.

Do yourself a favor and look into Israel using gay rights to bolster its image as a liberal utopia, defending itself from its backwards neighbors by colonizing them. This is something that's going on right now, and to think the US won't take advantage of the same thing is pretty naive. And if you don't think it works, go spend some time talking to left Zionists.

US militarism is dictated by corporate interests and the monied

Yes, but it depends on a complacent, if not participating, public. The US imperial agenda was severely curtailed in the 70s under public pressure—not through opinion, but, in the words of the powerful, because the society was falling apart.

public opinion is easily purchased

Well gee duh, that's what the whole DADT drama is about. They're co-opting us and they're going to use growing public sentiment in favor of queer rights to promote similar sentiment to a "more tolerant" military.

All this repeal does is allow gay people to feel a little less “the other” – and that is a good thing.

It doesn't make me feel any less other. How would being entitled to become cannon fodder for the empire make me feel more included?

Please be happy for them.

In case you missed it, I'm queer. So before you go on telling me that I'm dismissing some victory that queers care about, keep that in mind.

Re:It's what you do in a foxhole

[omfgnosis]

It may mean nothing to you, but it means a lot to those affected by DADT.

Since apparently you missed it (don't feel bad, you're not alone), I'll repeat that I am queer. I was affected, at least in terms of legal application, by DADT.

Civil rights are not a binary bit, civil rights or no civil rights. The fight for civil rights is like fighting a forest fire. You have to stamp out what you can, when you can.

Which is a great analogy, and one which I agree with, except for the nagging issue that the DADT repeal is akin to pulling those firefighters out and directing them to use their fire hose to fill a private pool.

Also, I find it saddening that you think so little of those who work for equal rights, that you believe that they can be distracted from the ultimate goal of equality for all, with what you feel is a little sop.

I don't think little of the queer rights movement, I think little of the mainstream lobby movement that has co-opted their energy into the DADT issue. It's not *our* (note, I'm including myself here) fault that we don't have control over those lobbying resources.

I understand your disaffection for the government and their manipulation of the people. It makes me angry too, but I sense at the end of your sentiment the belief that we can do without government and a military is immoral. That may be me putting words in your mouth though. [...]

If you're inferring from my opposition to US imperialism that I'm an anarchist, I can only say this: while I am, in fact, an anarchist, my opposition to US imperialism shouldn't lead you to that conclusion. There is a big difference between opposing a system of government and its military apparatus that has been used for conquest and hegemony for centuries, on the one hand, and opposing all government and military on the other hand.

I could make a case for anarchism, and I do in other contexts, but this isn't the place for that and it will hopefully be enough here to say that my critique of the DADT repeal strategy doesn't depend on that argument. It should be enough to say that I don't want to send queers off to kill Afghanis or be killed by them. And that has no bearing on whether or not a government or a military is a necessary feature of a good society.

Re:How long will it last when 'transgendered' appl

[Derling Whirvish]

Not so fast:

Canadian Military Changes Transgender Policy

"Under the new policy, Canadian soldiers are instructed to wear the uniform of their “target” gender, regardless of their biological sex. Military personnel are also instructed to give transgender soldier privacy and respect for their decision — for example, not asking reasons when a soldier changes his or her name on military records. "

Re:Stupid

[lessthan]

Men don't shower together in the military! This "shower together" meme is stupid, yet rich with homoerotic subtext. Is that what people think of the military? All day, a bunch of guys getting wet and soapy under a stream of hot water? I was in the Marines and the only time there was a group shower was the 3 months of boot camp, where you are so sick and exhausted, EVERY DAY, that you don't even wake up with a morning boner, much less have the energy to perv on guys in the shower. Everywhere else there are individual showers. I was on a tiny FOB in northern Iraq, living in tents and we built a shower stall, rather than some sort of group shower. Why are straight men afraid to shower with gay guys anyway? Women have good reason to be leery of showering with guys. Aren't 99% of rapist men? Combine that statistic with the physical shape a man is required to be in while in the military and women don't stand a huge chance of resisting, do they? I found on Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt, that 15% of the women coming back from the current wars and going to the hospital have been doing so because of "sexual trauma." Sounds like women have a good reason to be afraid of straight men. What good reason do straight men have to be afraid of the gays?

Re:Obama achieved something

[clarkkent09]

And yet California still sends tax money to bail out shit holes like South Carolina or Alaska
 
For your information: 1) California has a lover per capita GDP than Alaska and it's the California that is bankrupt and needs a bail out. 2) Of course coastal states with large population and major cities like LA or New York will have more trade and create more wealth overall than middle of nowhere states like Mississippi. It simple geography that makes California create more wealth, not anything special about "Californians". 3) California is a blue state mainly because of the large immigrant population and block voting by unions. More productive and more educated people are in California, the more likely they are to vote Republican (look at the exit polls for the last election, I think they are still up on CNN).

John McCain Says:

[KermodeBear]

"This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels [...] [We have the] most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. (source)

Men and women were pretty heroic in World War II and the Korean War, just to name two. DADT wasn't in effect back then. I bet that GLBT and everything else were serving in the military back then, too. Hard to believe, I know... But I guess we are somehow more professional because we don't allow gay people to serve?

Speaking of professional... You know what would happen if you did this in a business? You'd get your ass sued right off, and rightly so.

Re:This is why the Dems lost the House

[TheRaven64]

For DADT, there's a very very easy solution - the President is Commander in Chief of the army, he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"

I might be missing something about the US chain of command, but my understanding was that DADT was passed as a law (wikipedia confirms this: federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654)). No officer, even the CinC, may give an order to violate a law without facing court martial. If he ordered the generals to ignore DADT, he would be telling them to ignore a law, which would be an illegal order and they would have no obligation to follow it.