This Fourth: Freedom, Crispus and Gay Linguists (Remixed)

The following was originally posted on Huffington Post for the 4th of July in 2007. With the recent discharge of West Point graduate and Arabic linguist First Lt. Dan Choi from the New York National Guard for the high crime of wanting to serve his country openly, the piece seemed due for a remix and a repost. A hope, also, that this will be the last July 4th that passes in which such a post will be relevant:

Crispus Attucks was born a slave in the colony of Massachusetts.

Maybe he was born in Mass.

He might've been born around 1723. Perhaps he was born a couple of years prior. Or could it have been a couple of years after? Hard to be exactly sure. Crispus was born a slave. In the early 1700s nobody was much keeping stats on slaves beyond the quality of their teeth, the thickness of their hide and whether or not they had the audacity to make a run to freedom.

Crispus ran. Was never caught. Fell off the 18th Century version of the grid for twenty years.

The next significant event in Crispus's life was his last. March 5th, 1770. A fight broke out in Dock Square between a few good, upstanding Colonists and some nasty Brit soldiers. Crispus took up a stick, rallied a crowd and rolled out to back up the Colonists against the King's lackeys.

It was true then as it is now: don't bring a stick to a shooting match. The soldiers opened fired. Hit Crispus twice. Killed him, killed four others and wounded six.

Though the event was five years prior to the open rebellion, the Boston Massacre was one of the bloody precursors to the American Revolution. It was citizens rising up to physicalize their displeasure with the Crown. In giving his life, Crispus is considered to be the first patriot of the Colonial revolt. Born a slave, he died fighting for ideals society itself didn't extend to him. But, you know, sometimes those without freedom are precisely the ones who cherish it most.

It's a lesson that's been re-taught to the populace by the Tuskegee Red Tails and the Fightin' 442nd: that the desire to secure liberty, a sense of honor and duty are not the sole domain of any race, or gender, or faith.

Nor are they limited by sexual orientation.

And yet . . .

Since 1998 the US military has discharged 58 Arabic and Farsi translators because -- wait for it -- they were gay.

A REMIX NOTE: according to an article in the LA TImes: "Since "don't ask, don't tell" was enacted in 1993, about 13,000 military personnel have been discharged because of their sexual orientation." In his book Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, historian Nathaniel Frank breaks down the numbers as follows: "11,000 capable service members under the policy, including over 300 linguists, 49 nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare specialists, 90 nuclear power engineers, 52 missile guidance and control operators, 150 rocket, missile and other artillery specialists, and 340 infantrymen."

Fired.

Sent packing despite the shortage of individuals skilled in speaking middle-eastern tongues. Here we are in the hard heart of the war on terrorism. We are told again and again that this will be a decades-long struggle to secure Western civilization which will require shared sacrifice from all.

So, isn't it ironic that securing freedom for all is not open to all?

Why is "Don't ask..." still our policy when it is the enemies of liberty who don't check a list and mark the particulars of their victimss? There was no type of individual that was not laid low by the attacks of September 11th or the bombings in Bali and Madrid and London. Why, then, would we place restrictions on those willing to stand against our attackers? Because of their sexual preference? Tell that to the dead left in the wake of the next successful Al Qaeda attack; actionable intel could not be verified because we could not abide the private lives of those who offered to help.

Fifty-eight willing to fight despite the bigotry some in the country level against them.

Fifty-eight willing patriots kicked to the curb among 11,000 uniformed men and women similarly set-aside since the early nineties. That's nearly a surge in itself.

This Fourth of July, consider the true cost of freedom. Beyond spilled blood and loss of life, it is tolerating those not like us, who wish to defend us.

Comments

[Queenhuh]

Happy July 4th and another on the nose article John. While Gay Apartheid continues to be practiced therefore negating "equality" let's also not pull any punches and say it like it is. We are currently not being defended by armed forces. And this is because we initiated a war with a police action in Iraq which has sparke even more hatred toward us. 9/11 was not a declaration of war by any nation, but a collection of thugs from various countries and backgrounds. Do we need to get rid of Al Q.? I don't know because I've been lied to on so many levels (W years, Wall Street) I don't really know if what I'm being fed is truthful or not.

[texterdexter]

Gay men and lesbians aren't allowed to fight in Iraq to defend our freedoms. Except that Iraq never threatened our freedoms. The Bush Administration lied this country into a pointless war in which gays are not allowed to fight. The current president promised to be "a fierce advocate" for gay rights. Then his DOJ filed a brief, and a nasty brief at that, in support of DOMA. Can YOU figure out what's going on here? I can.

[Melody Kramer]

It's time for America to be what she set out to be a light onto all nations... That means freedom for all!

[coolhandhand]

Discrimination against individuals with same sex attractions will never end. The comparison with the black struggle for civil rights is an erroneous one. Human beings are tribal, but tribalism has always been overcome by a sense of common values rooted in nature - all tribes have this in common. I do believe same sex tendencies are in born; however, same sex attraction is a biological anomally, no different than any other anomally. That is why if their was a pill to prevent same sex attraction, it would not exists. Civilizations and cultures are built on and develop based upon general experiences, not exceptional ones. The military is rooted in the million year old evolution of male aggression. Anything that undermines that - and same sex attitudes most certain does - will be always be rejected.

[Ponderus]

"The military is rooted in the million year old evolution of male aggression. Anything that undermines that - and same sex attitudes most certain does - will be always be rejected."

Tell it to the Spartans.

Homosexuality has always been an unspoken and unacknowledged part of the military, sports, the boy scouts and other usually all male activities. But to argue that human beings can't learn to accept anomalies is goofy -- is it natural to post comments on a website? Male aggression? Sure, but what is business -- and sports -- but a re-channeling of male aggression?

Think evolution.

[joemondo]

Empirically false.

If you look at the trend in the US, the conclusion is inevitable. For many, maybe most people, homosexuality is a non-issue.

And you can easily look at other nations with open gays in the military to see that bias too is easily overcome.

[jmpurser]

Do you even visit reality on holidays?

[laminator]

Wow. If this poster is older than, say, seven years of age, someone needs to take his keyboard away.

"That is why if their (sic) was a pill to prevent same sex attraction, it would not exists."

That one is still making my head ache.

"The military is rooted in the million year old evolution of male aggression. Anything that undermines that-and same sex attitudes most certain does- will always be rejected."

Would you care to explain that to the British and Israeli militaries, both of which allow gay members to serve openly? If Alexander the Great were around, I think he'd have a few things to explain to you, as well.

"Sometimes, it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." (h/t, Abe Lincoln)

[sparky09]

So how do you explain Alexander the Great? The gay ruler of most of the free world?

[coolhandhand]

I agree. Appeal it now. Everybody should have the right to train and kill for their country. Why should we exclude anyone from such a noble cause. Logic is a scary thing. " only a sith deals in absolutes" OB1
Human beings - we are so silly. By the way there is no such thing as a LGBT community. Communities are self perpetuating.

[PitBull6]

There is no such "right". The military remains, for good reasons, a very exclusive profession.

[ez duz it]

“Defending our country in the military is "a noble cause," as you say. Our military leaders, however, leave so much to be desired -- especially when considering that these homophobes would rather have felons in their ranks than highly-skilled soldier-linguists from West Point who happen to be gay. . .

"Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Data released by a congressional committee shows that the number of people admitted to the Army with felony records jumped to 511 in 2007 from 249 in 2006 and that the number of Marine recruits with felonies rose from 208 to . . . “

By Lolita C. Baldor, The Associated Press, WASHINGTON http://www.newser.com/archive-headline-news/1G1-178169516/military-accepts-more-recruits-with-feloniesfront.htm

[StevenKeirstead]

Quoting from Star Wars is no way to decide public policy.

[M1]

Great re-mix....thank you!

[eisendame]

"the desire to secure liberty, a sense of honor and duty are not the sole domain of any race, or gender, or faith."

if that is true then why has one race and gender been allowed to hide behide those of many races and genders for security purposes?
If someone of a particular color or gender or sexual orientation can be denied the "honor" of serving then I believe no person of any race, gender or orientation that has not had the opportunity to serve this country should have the "honor" of being an elected official!
Pass that law and see how many lawmakers we end up with!
This ol' lady believes it would be a great law, a law that would equalize the differences between those who truely wish to serve this country and those who wish to serve their own ends!

[vim876]

That would eliminate members of historic peace churches as candidates for holding office, because of their religion. Pretty sure we've got one of them equal protection clauses in our constitution.

[PitBull6]

While there are many good reasons to repeal the rules the prevent homosexuals from serving openly (as there are many good reasons not to), Ridley doesn't go beyond the lazy "it's not fair" argument.

Is it ironic that securing freedom for all is not open to all? Not really. The US military is not, never has been, nor will it ever be an equal opportunity employer.

Where the lamentations for military members being separated for such reasons as being 5 lbs overweight, for dating a separated but married woman, for getting a DWI? And what about those who were never allowed entry for being too short (men can be denied although they are taller than women who are permitted), or for having a bankruptcy in their past, or for being color blind? If we addressed those reasons, he would have a better argument.

He (and many others) also ignores the fact that DA/DT is a mere policy that was made by executive order. The fact remains that homosexuals are still prevented from serving by US law, something not in the CINC's purview.

[superstition]

The military has had at least six reports/studies since 1957 on gay soldiers, and none of them have shown any support for any type of gay ban.

The fact that homosexuality isn't a disorder (a scientific fact known since 1956 which became consensus in 1973) makes gay people completely equal to heterosexuals. That means there is nothing about homosexuality that causes a decrease in job performance, parenting, et cetera.

So, comparisons to height, weight, and other factors are of no value.

Page 18 of this book discusses some of these studies: http://books.google.com/books?id=Go9XsJ47GswC

[PitBull6]

No, it's not a disorder but neither is height, a misdemeanor record, or otherwise perfect eyesight. You've missed my point that the military has entry/retention rules that it deems are necessary for military effectiveness and outsiders may logically, but ignorantly, declare as being superficial.

[carsntrucks]

First off, they never proved homosexuality wasn't a disorder. A lot of people just voted to say "we don't think it is anymore". They're isn't some comprehensive, non-biased study corroborating that. I'm just saying.

And the comparisons to height and weight are apt...just like mentioning there are more restrictions than the sex of a couple when talking about legal marriage.

Gays love to act like they have a special status of discrimination, because in a way women do and blacks do. But when you scratch the surface, you find that, at best, they have been in the same boat as everyone else.

[SiberianRat]

This is quite inaccurate. First of all, he made arguments well beyond "it's not fair," including giving precise counts of people who had very specialized, very needed skill sets. Moreover, DADT was NOT made by executive order--it was passed by Congress (thus Obama's desire to have it repealed there). The other things you mentioned are behavior based (with the exception of color-blindness and height, the latter I didn't know about) whereas sexual orientation is not--it is the same as being left-handed, having red hair, attached earlobes, introversion/extroversion, or any other trait.

[PitBull6]

But his overall point is rhetorical; that homosexuals are excluded because they are gay and they should be. I did not see Mr Ridley address a single point other than "We need them and the military has stupidly separated them", more or less. I realize his regurgitation of an old column was a not a point-by-point argument, but it really doesn't add anything to the debate at this point.

[PitBull6]

Secondly, I stand corrected; it was not an executive order, but a mere policy and regulation change.

However, DA/DT was NOT passed by Congress. The 1993 law your talking about upheld the exclusion of homosexuals but prevented recruiters from asking the orientation of inductees. Clinton's policy (not law) circumvented the statute by preventing the military from asking the questions subsequent to that.

And I agree that homsexuality is an immutable characteristic but my overall point, as i pointed out to superstition, was that the military has many rules that exclude entry/retention and some are due to behavior and some are due to just being who you are.

[vim876]

Most of those other qualifications either pertain to physical fitness to serve. A DWI is breaking the law. Dating a separated but married woman? You're directly messing with a contract two people have made, making them more likely to break it. If you're gay, it doesn't matter what you do, it matters who you are. You don't have to be in a relationship with anyone. You can be pure as the driven snow, but if the army knows you're gay, you're out. I'm not advocating removing gays who are in relationships. I'm simply saying that we don't, to my knowledge, have any other armed forces qualifications that don't either pertain to physical fitness or your breaking/helping someone else break the law. So no, the "it's not fair" argument is not lazy.

[PitBull6]

Your missing the (albeit subtle) point that the military can preclude entry or remove someone for a host of reasons, which may or may not affect one's effectiveness as a service member, none of which Ridley addresses.

But to use your point about breaking the law, then clearly DA/DT does violate the 1993 law which prohibits homosexuals from serving, period. The law only stops recruiters from asking candidates what their orientation is, not from leaders from discovering if their are homosexuals in their ranks.

Height, body fat, single parenthood, political affiliation (see below), and age are neither fitness nor criminal related, yet they are reasons for exclusion.

By comparison, the military actively exludes/removes members of extremists groups, regardless of whether their beliefs and/or actions influence their performance in a unit (the assumption being that they do)

[superstition]

TERRYKEITH4... Black gays are being fired under DADT. Black gays are being denied the right to marry because of Prop 8, too. In fact, americablog.com is trying to help one of them get elected. His name is Tony Woods.

"Help a servicemember kicked out because of Don't Ask, Don't Tell serve in Congress"
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/help-servicemember-kicked-out-because.html

The race-baiting posts that continue to come up here conveniently ignore the reality that there are black gays, Asian gays -- gays of all types. And, if anyone really cares about equality and discrimination, they'll stop trying to pit one minority against another by saying things like we can't compare the two civil rights movements. Coretta Scott King compared the two movements, and "saluted the contributions" of gays to the black civil rights movement.

Mrs. Obama compared the two movements at a 2008 fundraiser, and so did the President just recently.

[TERRYKEITH4]

I'm not doing that. All I'm saying is it's not Black people's fault in general that prop 8 passed. You people are blaming it on Black people while countless others and groups voted for prop 8.
Yes, there are many Black, and other gays, but White gays treat them the same as the people of the status quo. You people need to clean up your own front yard before you go speaking on other peoples houses. And to call a Black person a bigot just because prop 8 passed is straight laced crazy. The Black vote did not even get Obama into office. He hasn't called Black people as a group to come to the white house to have a party, and he never will. We are nonpersons to him just like all the other presidents and elected officials.
The gays are doing the race baiting while they accuse us of voting for prop 8. What about the countless others who voted for it that voted for it. They're not being called bigots. Well, it's easier to call a Black person a name because people won't call you out on it. Tisk... Tisk. Easy things...

[superstition]

Again, blacks gays are being discriminated against via DADT, DOMA, Prop 8, and the like. So, stop with the race-baiting comments. Whenever you feel the urge to post something with "you people" in it, think twice.

Heterosexist and racist comments are not constructive.

[Pie7]

I concur!

[joemondo]

"White gays treat them the same as the people of the status quo."

Great combo there of racist and homophobic stereotyping.

[joemondo]

It's wrong to call a black person a bigot because Prop 8 passed.

But it's not wrong to acknowledge that the black community has a lot of big 0try against gays to deal with.

If it were only safer for more black GLBT people to come out.

[sparky09]

ANYONE who voted for prop 8 in CA., or prop 2 in FL. is a bigot; no matter their skin color.

[TERRYKEITH4]

If Tony Woods runs for office I will vote for him.

[bannorhill]

No one has been denied their right to marry. Everyone is free to marry under the laws of the state. Any unmarried man can marry any unmarried woman.

Other unions are not a "right" as ruled by Federal Courts.

[superstition]

Gay people are gay. Gay people marry each other.

[superstition]

Coretta Scott King:

"For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law.

I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience.

My husband said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' On another occasion he said, 'I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.' Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.'"

Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.'"

[Tanyars5]

A post from another poster named Jezreel.


Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. never publicly addressed gay rights.

Doctor King was a Christian minister, his wife was not. he was a civil rights activist. And like every activist before him, he came out of the Christian church, which has always been the hub of African American social and political activism.

As a minister, Dr. King would not have advocated for African Americans to ignore the teachings of Scripture concerning homosexuality. He would have been immediately discounted and labeled a fraud and heretic.

Mrs. King believed her husband would have advocated for gay rights. But she did not speak for the rest of her family or for African Americans in general.

Quoting Mrs. King simply highlights the diversity among African Americans.

I personally side with Bernice King, Dr. King's youngest child, Rev. Bernice King, who lit a torch at her father's tomb in March of 2005 to kick off a march advocating a ban on gay marriage, creating a strong image linking her father to the heated social debate.

Rev. King also said; " she knows deep within that her father did not march and did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage,"

I also agree with Martin Luther King III who supports equal legal rights for gay partners and state authorized civil unions.

I join Alveda King -- niece of the slain civil rights leader who said her uncle never intended gay rights to be part of the civil rights movement.

[superstition]

The bottom line is that Mrs. King was right.

[Yozac]

What a wonderful post. I needed to read that. I was denied entry to a MD National Guard Wing because of my skin color. I am saddened that racism still exists in our society let alone homophobia. Let's honor all the patriots this 4th July expressed or denied.

[doneflyin]

Obama can suspend DADT now. As Commander in Chief all he has to do is issue the order. Just like gutsy little Truman.
Needs to man up here and soon. If he loses the gay vote, he could be a one term President.
The gay vote and the Jewish vote put Obama over the top.

Plus it's the right thing to do.

[1logicalthinker]

As did the Black vote, the Latino vote, the Union vote; the Liberal vote. the college educated vote, etc. There weren't just one or two groups of voters who elected Obama.

[TERRYKEITH4]

You're doneflyin' if you believe that. It was moderate White americans who are not gay that got Obama elected and not you. If that's the case prop 8 should not have passed unless you voted
to stop your own rights?????

[JohnJames]

The gay community did as much or more for Obama as any group on a per capita basis with its votes, work and donations. I don't think he'd be trying to keep us happy with the crumbs he's been throwing us of late and the little White House party if we were as irrelevant as you wish we were. Maybe you should worry more about the many problems in the black community and lay of the gays.

[PitBull6]

He can suspend DA/DT but he cannot repeal the 1993 law prohibiting homosexuals from serving. The policy evolved and, to a degree, circumvented the law.

[doneflyin]

Replying to my own post regarding the gay vote.
I'm just sayin' as this was told to me by a Democratic insider.
The gay and the Jewish voter were last minute hold outs. Their votes were really assured until at the very last.
Jewish voters were very skittish about Obama. Didn't know him and weren't sure they could trust him regarding Israel.
Gays were Hillary supporters and didn't get on board the Obama train until the last minute.

[sandlapp]

These numbers don't include the countless gay service members, like me, who chose to get out voluntarily instead of facing an inquisition.

[JohnJames]

Or those who choose not to volunteer in the first place because of this idiotic policy, kept in place by the Christian right (and the spineless Democrats and Obama who are so intimidated by them) who share so many sentiments with their Muslim fundamentalist counterparts in the Middle East.

[PitBull6]

Or those who used their homosexuality to out themselves in order to avoid deployments, service obligations, stop-loss, etc nor the the heteros who claimed to be homosexuals for the same reasons.

[sparky09]

Or the tens of thousands, myself included, who were unfairly discharged before d.a.d.t. was even implemented.

[StevenWells]

I doubt you're even sure of what you mean by "a gay culture in the military." When considering how many ethnicities, religions, backgrounds and so forth are represented, do you imagine our military is broken down into as many sub-cultures? In our armed forces, there is only one overriding culture: the military one. From basic training, everything else is intended to fall by the wayside.

Sure, there will always be those who can't overcome their prejudices and fears, but they are the ones with a problem; not those against whom they're prejudiced. The rationalizations we hear today are the same as those we heard over a half-century ago against racial integration of the military - and are just as bogus. Anyone who did have a problem with it sucked it up and did the job or they were out.

If today's military can't do as well, then it has bigger and more fundamental problems than mere cultural differences. And if you ask the rank-and-file, the majority will tell you that's not the case.

[vim876]

Srsly. I'm pretty sure gay and straight culture in the military are the same. (Witness the guy fighting in pink boxers. j/k :D) Here's a summary: Protect America, defeat the other guy, don't get shot. Doesn't sound like sexuality would mess with that, does it?

[been2there]

The real problem with "gay" military is that men would have to face the same insecurity about other people's intents that women have always faced. In the face of this fear (what if he attacks me?) the facts of other country's successful integration don't matter. DADT needs to be repealed because it is lousy civil rights. As a woman, I can assure the scared silly men that the can learn to cope.

[vim876]

I dunno. If I were in Irag, I'm pretty sure the only people's intent I'd worry about would be the guys shooting at me.

[vim876]

Yep. Gay people will never have full equality until women do. It's still not a reason to deny them legal equality.