When Rick Santorum said in the GOP debate that he'd reinstate the ban on openly gay military service, it raised some serious questions. Not only did Santorum stand by as the audience booed an active-duty gay soldier's question, but he seemed not to understand a thing about actual military life, much less what "don't ask, don't tell" and its repeal did and didn't do. "Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," he said, bemoaning that, by removing the gay ban, "they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege."
Repealing "don't ask, don't tell" did no such thing. The policy singled out gay, lesbian and bisexual people and slapped a unique restriction on the speech and behavior of them alone, leaving straight people free to have as much sex as they can fit into their off-duty time, and to wax poetic about their sexual escapades on an hourly basis. So in what universe is ending that double standard giving one group a "special privilege"?
Ann Coulter, the, er, eminent military sociologist, defended Santorum, equating equal treatment of gay people with the "sexualization of the military," and insisting that only a marginalized "nut candidate" could support such a thing. The phrase was an echo of the 2008 congressional testimony of Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, who solidified her place in nut history complaining that gay people engaged in "passive/aggressive actions" that "sexualize the atmosphere" in the military. And this week, Michele Bachmann also defended "don't ask, don't tell," saying that "it worked before and what it says is the issue of sexuality is one that doesn't come up and people aren't allowed to be open about it because the United States military is unique."
Really, Ms. Bachmann? A policy that laid waste to 14,000 troops, including scores of Arabic translators, for something that had nothing to do with performance "worked"? And that policy said sexuality "doesn't come up and people aren't allowed to be open about it"? No, what it said was that gay people can't bring it up, but everyone else can. "Sexual activity has no place in the military," Mr. Santorum? Does he actually think our troops are celibate, and that married military couples never get it on?
Of course not. At least, he'd be better off if he's spinning than if he's really that ignorant. So what's going on with the repeated assertions that treating gay people the same as everyone else somehow means giving them special rights? And why do social conservatives have so much trouble seeing equality as equality, insisting every time a besieged minority finally gains equal treatment that they're getting an unfair privilege?
We all know the right-wing message machine is as disciplined as it is dishonest. "Special rights" was born of this machine precisely to keep people from getting equal rights. We also know that politicians and pundits often say things they don't believe for personal gain or, if we're to be more generous, because they believe that sometimes the ends justify the means. But could there be something else going on that helps explain the particular phenomenon of right-wing resistance to equality for gay people? While granting that these voices of unreason may not actually believe what they're saying, it's worth taking seriously their rhetoric for the wider psychology it helps tap us into, and because many of their listeners surely do believe it.
For one thing, straight people, particularly those who are unsupportive of or resentful toward LGBT equality, often suffer from a version of the same blinders identified by scholars of racial bias: white privilege. White people often don't think twice about how they unfairly benefit simply by being born white. The other day I locked myself out of my house in a racially diverse neighborhood of Brooklyn, and as I scaled the wall and hoisted myself in the front window, I realized that if I weren't white, I could have ended up in a squad car and been forced to produce a title deed. I'm also not likely to be passed over by a cab driver just because of my skin color. And I'm far less likely to be shot, executed or imprisoned than a black person, all else being equal.
In the same way, straight people often don't consider how they benefit from not having been born in a closet. What must it feel like to be constantly encumbered by the burden of disclosure, to have the world always assume you're something you're not, and to only be able to set things straight, if you will, by announcing that you're different?
Anti-gay conservatives lack the imagination and empathy to consider these questions. Coulter's defense of the gay-only military gag rule, for instance, is: don't bother announcing it. "Not talking about your sex life with your co-workers," she says, "is not lying about who you are. In fact, many Americans manage quite easily to go days and days without talking about their sex lives with co-workers." Fine, then ban the practice for everyone in the military, not just gay people. Equality means equality. Even better: join the reality-based community where people -- whom we trust with bombs, guns and deadly switches -- are expected to be able to discuss who they are and what they're up to in a way that won't bring down the most powerful fighting force in the world.
Straight privilege in the military has meant rarely thinking twice about the freedom you enjoy to simply mention a date, a spouse, a crush; to wear a wedding ring without fear of being investigated and fired; to know that if you should return from a war zone in a body bag, your chosen partner will enjoy the dignity of being notified by military officials, just like straight partners. When the question, "what did you do this weekend?" becomes legally unanswerable -- for some people and not others -- that's a burden that's unnecessary, unjustifiable and unequal. Ending "don't ask, don't tell" ended that; it didn't create a new privilege.
The other thing right-wing anti-gay rhetoric says is that social conservatives can't think "gay" without thinking "sex." Never mind that they, themselves, routinely have sex as an expression of love or harmless desire (not to mention trampling their marriage vows while espousing pristine family values). For social conservatives, gay people are a stand-in for all the messy, guilt-inducing impulses that they, themselves, can't handle. This surely says more about them than it does about gay people, but their confusion wreaks havoc with the lives of millions. Having exactly the same freedom as everybody else to express your love or desire sexually does not "sexualize" things any more than allowing the straight world not to be monks sexualizes things. This is why the Supreme Court, in a decision written by a Republican appointee, poignantly said that the fundamental liberty to express intimate feelings was not simply about "the right to engage in certain sexual conduct." Reducing gay intimacy to sex, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, "demeans" the claims of freedom for gay people "just as it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse."
Of course, the right-wing doesn't want gay people to marry either -- and that's part of the reason: it would further deprive the anti-gay agenda of its capacity to paint gay people as interchangeable with sexual license.
When will "equal," to the right-wing, become simply "equal"? And when will they learn that gay people are not (only) about sex. That is, unless you're someone like Rick Santorum. Maybe that's why his name actually has become synonymous with, well, you can Google him here.
Striking 'don't ask, don't tell' ends decades of discrimination
Republican isn't enough, says Family Research head
Don't blame Joe Girardi for this failure
Bachmann would reinstate 'don't ask, don't tell'
'Don't ask, don't tell' repealed – Don't enlist!
Senior discounts: If you don't ask, many retailers won't offer
The GOP really is a sack of sh *ts.
Any one who has this much hatred for another human for no other reason than just hate is not human
coulter is nothing more than a pumped up slander monkey deserving of no protection from our armed services
But we do it anyway
So people not working get the special privilege of unemployment benefits while those working are discriminated against.
Minorities get an affirmative action privilege while white people are discriminated against?
Old people get socila security benefits while the young are discriminated against?
Poor people get a welfare privilege while middle income people are discriminated against?
Using your logic we should all be recieving social security, welfare, and affirmative action privileges.
And the government MUST have a very good reason for discrimination!
While homosexuality is sin and abomination biblically, just like lying, stealing, or adultery, if you don’t believe the bible, it is also contrary to evolutionary theory and nature reveals this in the many manifestations of different diseases and health problems that this group are more subject to, as documented by the CDC, Department of Health, AMA and even some of the LGBT websites.
Since the very beginning of the country this life style has been known to be contrary to the natural order of life by a vast majority of the population. Two men were drummed out of George Washington’s army for it. Since the 1970’s and due to threats and intimidation the life style has gradually become accepted by a larger number of people and become a politically correct hot potato. During WWII a certain bad guy said that if you tell a big lie long enough people will come to believe it. There are lots of big lies out there being absorbed by many and that this lifestyle is ok is one of the biggest.
History has shown that when this lifestyle becomes acceptable the nation soon falls.
Now I know this will make a number of you mad and you’ll call me a hater but it’s not hate it’s truth.
Take a look at pictures of Michael Jackson through the years and tell me which is which. Okay, for most Blacks who don't have Jackson's money, passing is not an option. But why just because it's possible for members of one group to live a lie, we should expect them to do so?
"While homosexuality is sin and abomination biblically, just like lying, stealing, or adultery,"
Biblically, it's like eating shrimp or wearing blended fabrics. There are two kinds of morality: ethical and dogmatic. There are reasons to believe lying, stealing, and adultery are unethical, the arguments against homosexuality are pure dogma.
"it is also contrary to evolutionary theory and nature reveals this in the many manifestations of different diseases"
Celibacy has no evolutionary advantage, and lesbians are the healthiest group, far ahead of the celibate.
"Two men were drummed out of George Washington’s army for it."
Washington owned slaves, was that an example of his moral superiority?
"During WWII a certain bad guy said that if you tell a big lie long enough people will come to believe it."
Isn't that what you're doing?
Or hey, how fair is it when the left supports wage suppression H-1b work visas? Yeah, it was great to watch Microsoft lay off middle aged Americans in 2008 and then replace them with imported H-1b labor.
That was so fair. I can't believe how fair and wonderful the left is! So fair, we don't have jobs and wages are stagnant!
Most of the GOP frankly doesn't particularly care. If gay people want to get married or serve in the military openly, more power to them as long as they do their jobs and maintain military decorum and discipline, just as any other serviceman is expected to do.
Frankly, I feel Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum's views on the matter are ignorant and I cringe when I see them answer questions on the subject. If you all hadn't noticed though, the more they speak, the lower their poll numbers go - and I'm talking about Republican support.
The broad based alignment that many voters displayed in 2010, was in reaction to the policies brought forth by the WH and congress, not a backlash because of the color of anyone's skin or anything silly like that. (Again, I'm speaking in general terms -- I'm sure there was a segment that voted on that issue, but I'm confident it wasn't a high % at all.)
Peace
They're the "Priviledged" of the USA, looking done on everyone else!
They both volunteered
As I did
You're so blinded by hate you can't even tell when you have crosed the line into total hyopocricy
If you don't love our country then get out
Yeah you know love it or leave it
We will take our country back from your hate filled two faced lies
You want a fight well baby now you get one
Nothing but a bunch of tough guy punks who think its cool to boo soldiers who serve and stomp girls heads at a pinhead rally
You deserve no respect and you will get none
I do wonder how much of the vehemence against gay people from the right at this point in time is because they want to get people's minds off the real problems that they are doing nothing to fix. I mean, they will always hate you. You exist, therefore they are irked. But you are very convenient right now as a distraction.
The right has no answers, no plans, and no compassion for those who are affected by their actions. It is so much easier for them to rally their base by calling "special privileges" and "showering together!!!" than it is by trying to get people back to work, rebuilding our infrastructure, educating children, or any number of things that truly need to be done.
deeply held religious beliefs. After millennia of defining "marriage" as between a
man and a woman, expecting accelerated acceptance of a new definition to include
same sex unions is unrealistic. The arc is bending and attitudes are evolving.
More time is necessary. In other matters, the differing definition between the parties
of "equal" is more easily addressed. The right believes in equal opportunity and the
left in equal results. The difference is astronomical and will not be resolved without
unconstitutional force of government. The most intelligent, talented, educated, skilled,
motivated, creative, successful, etc. will not willingly foreswear a system of meritocracy
in favor of bureaucratic redistribution. A careful review of history overwhelmingly
supports the superiority of freedom and self determination as a means to prosperity.
Even a cursory glance at results of the past year will reveal many examples of
Solyndra vs. Apple type results. I can not think of a single agency that hasn't been
responsible for a major untoward or embarrassing situation. There are 3 open scandals
right now: Solyndra, Light Squared, and Fast and Furious.
Free market capitalism has wrecked the economy every time it has had control
One of the robber barrons had 90% of the rail coming into NYC and there was a construction boom at the time He wanted in so he ordered his rail company to raise the rates on his competition or not haul it at all driving his competition out of business
Tghen he price gouged the materials
Now they use our money to buy our politicians so they can write the rules in their favor
You suffer from a bad case of ideolgical myopia son
Corporations are not people they are the undead who bleed us dry
You want growth don't you? We need immigrants (nevermind the poverty it will create). You want growth? Well, Microsoft needs engineers so left issue H-1b work visas (nevermind the wage suppression). And on and on.
There is nothing free market about the US economy. We have been massively regulated for specific types of growth since the 1830's.
The federal government employs about 5 million people.
800,000 of them work for the post office. A constitutionally mandated, largely self-funded and deficit neutral, organization that has to send a person to every house in the country at least once a week. Daily in most cases. So lets ignore them.
3 million are employed in some fashion by the Department of Defense. This is in direct violation of Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. At the federal level there isn't supposed to be a standing army. Just a navy to protect shipping interests.
James Madison:
---------
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.
---------
----------
Wars beget great Armies; Armies beget great Taxes; heavy Taxes waste and impoverish the Country, even where Armies commit no violences; a case seldom to be supposed, because it has seldom happened. But where great Armies are, they must be employed, and do mischief abroad, to keep them from doing it at home; so that the people must be exhausted and oppressed to keep the men of the sword in exercise.
--------
So ... I see a lot of people who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" who don't blink twice at the thought of our country making up 40% of the entire globes annual military expenditures. They claim that thrift applies only to butter, never to guns.
Does that sound fiscally responsible to you?
Fanned and faved
But I do see the guys point I fall in the same position and also think we need to scale the military way back