More

Aubrey Sarvis

Aubrey Sarvis

Posted January 21, 2009 | 10:27 AM (EST)

The Dream of Equality Is for All, Not 'Almost All'


You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the immense and immensely enthusiastic crowd that filled the Mall and beyond on this cold, bright morning, stretching from the Capitol, past the Washington Monument, around the Reflecting Pool, to the Lincoln Memorial and the Potomac. Estimates of its size range from 1.4 million people to two million and perhaps more if those lining Pennsylvania Avenue to watch the inaugural parade in the afternoon are included. Washington has never seen such numbers.

But it was not so much the numbers of the crowd as its mood, which was at once jubilant and serious, joyous and sober. And we have plenty to be sober about, but for the moment the country is full of hope as we continue the "ongoing journey of America to become America," as Queen Latifah put it at the concert Sunday that launched the inaugural festivities.

"We have chosen hope over fear," President Obama said in his inaugural address, "unity of purpose over conflict and discord... The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."

Inspiring words indeed, but lest we bask in too much self-congratulation, we're not there yet. "All" may deserve a chance "to pursue their full measure of happiness," but all are not getting it. "All" includes men and women of every hue, of every opinion, of every rank and class. It should also include all men and women regardless of their sexual orientation. It does not. The law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that forbids gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces of the United States is still firmly on the books.

President Obama noted in his address that his father, born in Kenya to African parents, "less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant." His own father! Sixty years ago in Washington, DC, he would have been turned away at the door. The President might have added that little more than 60 years ago his father would not have been allowed to serve in the same military unit as a white man. (I say "man" because there were no women in the white men's units.) President Truman took care of that by executive order.

Now the military is integrated by race and by gender. Neither the president nor his father would have any trouble joining up. In the current situation, in fact, they would have been eagerly welcomed. It is only gays and lesbians who need not apply. It is one of the last official vestiges of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The President has vowed to change that, and let us hope the change comes sooner rather than later. Change needs the President's continued leadership. It needs the support of Defense Secretary Gates, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of their chairman, Admiral Mullen. It's already got the support of the American people and of any number of flag officers. Now it needs Congress to get behind it. Congress passed the law, Congress must repeal it -- and pass another law opening military service to all who are qualified, not almost all.

"Yes we can," as President Obama said many times in his campaign. And yes, the people did, and Barack Hussein Obama won. He is now the 44th President of the United States. Hopes are high. Not just Americans are counting on him. The world is counting on him. And here at home millions in the LGBT community, and thousands of gays and lesbians now serving their country but forced to serve in silence, they are counting on him too.

Bono, the lead singer of the band U2, said at Sunday's inaugural concert that the dream of which Obama spoke is not just an American dream. "It's also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream, an Israeli dream, and also a Palestinian dream."

It is a noble dream. And it is the dream of gays and lesbians in America. Now is the time to realize it.

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the immense and immensely enthusiastic crowd that filled the Mall and beyond on this cold, bright morning, stretching from the Capitol, past the ...
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the immense and immensely enthusiastic crowd that filled the Mall and beyond on this cold, bright morning, stretching from the Capitol, past the ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
04:17 PM on 01/21/2009
The inequality that the gay community is now facing should serve to remind women that we were there once, too, and that we still have a long way to go. Unequal pay. Gender bias in the media. Abortion rights. The list goes on.

But women also make up 56% of voters. We helped propel President Obama to the presidency. Now we need to use that same power to tell the president that the conversation isn’t over. We’re still talking.

JFK, a man President Obama is so often compared to, put together a presidential commission on women in the 1960s to address the status of women. Imagine that: a group created to talk directly to the president about women’s issues.

Why can’t we have one of those now?

Oh wait. We can:
http://www.womencount.org/its_our_time
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:11 PM on 01/21/2009
As a gay man, I agree with you 100%. Women should have the same style commission that JFK had. First and foremost on the agenda should be repealing all of Bush's anti-woman orders as well as equal pay legislation for women.
03:39 PM on 01/21/2009
As not only a gay American, but a gay Veteran, I applaud President Obama's comments. I believe that he will work with the Joint Chiefs to make the inclusion of openly gay men and women in the military, as it should be. There is absolutely no reason not to. This isn't about sexual orientation...it is about the most qualified people, regardless of sexuality, to be able to contribute to our national defense in an open and honest manner, without fear of recrimination and a less than honorable discharge for no other reason than misperceptions by an older and less than informed military leadership. By and large, the troops don't have any concerns about this; they are the 'will and grace' generation, and largely don't care for the most part about ones sexual orientation as long as they perform their duties accordingly.

President Truman proved this by desegregating the military; Clinton made his mistake by not getting the military leadership on board. The time has come, and there will be little or no dissent.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:32 AM on 01/22/2009
Truman did not wait to get "the military leadership on board". If he had, we might still be waiting. Truman said "I realized that I could take the first step. It came to me that I was commander and chief of the armed forces, and that I could order them to integrate as their commander in chief, and they would have to do it." None the less, a great many members of "the military leadership" resisted integration. Gen. Julius Becton, Jr. recalled the day the order was issued: "The commander had assembled all of the officers. He read the order, as directed, I presume, by Washington, and then he said something which I'll never forget-'As long I'm here, there'll be no change.'"

In 1948 a large proportion of career military officers were Southerners who believed that segregation was God's law as well as man's. Today a large proportion of career military officers are evangelical Christians who believe homophobia is God's law as well as man's.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:52 AM on 01/21/2009
The US military is not yet fully integrated by gender. Women are still excluded from many military occupations. Most notably, they may not serve in ground combat units including the infantry and armor nor aboard submarines.
11:09 AM on 01/21/2009
How about, "The dream of equality is for all, not 'almost all'"...except for gays and lesbians who can't get married? How about, except for women, who get paid substantially less than men for the same work?
12:14 PM on 01/21/2009
Not to mention that those women, already getting paid substantially less than men, often end up in single - parent situations (sometimes because their husbands left them for other men, which is so okay in gayland) where they are raising children without 'all the benefits of marriage' which LGBT's are so sure are 'rights'. But those women are just breeders, so why bother with their sorry lives ?
03:16 PM on 01/21/2009
co-sign
05:15 PM on 01/21/2009
The abandoned mothers you speak of had the "right" and the legal option, to marry the man they loved, for better or for worse. They had the freedom to make a mistake without the gov't intervening and telling them no, we won't let you marry this man because 50% of marriages end in divorce and the children suffer.

So do you think heterosexual women would in any way agree to the gov't deciding on their spouse? Do you think playing cupid is a role gov't should take upon themselves?

Moreover, stop quoting the exception as if its the rule. The majority of dead beat Dads are straight.