Conservative ideology is imploding not only in the economic realm. Even the culture wars-- the preferred method of distraction from the nation's pressing problems and the failures of the political establishment-- have not played the central role they have in past election years. Dems have rarely sought to be out front on gay rights, fearing they'll be tarred as outside the mainstream, or servants of special interest groups. But now even the GOP has remained largely mum on the issue, signaling it no longer serves as the wedge issue that Karl Rove used effectively to divide voters in recent elections.
Which drives social conservatives batty. And so now comes word that the religious right is scheming to dredge up gay "horror stories" to convince the world that "homosexuality is wrong" and gay troops-- currently serving, and dying for, America-- "threaten our national security" and the "personal safety" of other soldiers.
In e-mails obtained this week by the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Colleen Holmes, a conservative Christian and director of Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, laid out a strategy to wage a "PR battle" to "recruit members of the military" who might be reluctant to publicly oppose gay service. The e-mails were mistakenly included in a correspondence with a talk show host, in which Holmes cancelled a scheduled on-air interview.
The e-mails acknowledge that such "horror stories are very difficult to find," but could be one of the only tools left to combat growing acceptance of homosexuality. They complain of the "Will and Grace effect" in which "the other side has so effectively used rhetoric and emotionality to manipulate and flat-out bully" people who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Hollywood "and other media outlets" endure bitter scorn for their "virulent" reactions against those who dislike gays. The war against gay service, concludes Holmes, is an intense "spiritual battle."
The need to dig up gay horror stories that are acknowledged to be "very difficult to find" speaks volumes about the conservative position on gays in the military. If evidence showed that the presence of known gays in the ranks undermined cohesion, morale, recruitment or readiness, there would be a real argument to have about whether the rights of gays to serve their country should outweigh the needs of the military to remain as strong and capable as possible. After all, we are talking about life and death here.
But in literally half a century of research into the effects of gay service on military forces, not a shred of evidence has been uncovered showing that gays undermine the military. To the contrary, we now know that the Pentagon commissioned and even conducted its own studies of the issue and buried them when their conclusions diverged from the anti-gay assumptions and beliefs of military leaders. We also know that thousands of gays serve openly both abroad and in the U.S. military and it is not they, but the peculiar constraints of "don't ask, don't tell" that harms the armed forces: wasting the badly needed talent of Arabic linguists, suffocating the potential of gay and lesbian troops, and forcing service members of all sexual orientations to lie and be lied to.
So social conservatives, who, as Holmes acknowledges, care first about the moral and religious implications of gay service and only incidentally about the national security implications of kicking out highly trained, mission-critical specialists, have turned to PR gimmicks to make their case. What's most egregious about the effort to showcase gay "horror stories" is that it's the very essence of prejudice: using a scattered handful of stories about a disfavored group to argue that all members of that group are undeserving of equal rights or, worse, a danger to American society.
During hearings this summer on "don't ask, don't tell," the two conservatives that Republican leaders were able to find to testify against gay service (the GOP was offered three slots but could only fill two, and the Pentagon declined to send anyone) both resorted to the most rank prejudice to make their case. Elaine Donnelly, suspected to be the recipient of Holmes' recent e-mail about gay horror stories, charged that letting gays serve openly would introduce "erotic factors" into the military and "sexualize the atmosphere." Her evidence that gay service would undermine the military was a lurid tale of a band of "black lesbians" who allegedly "gang-assult[ed]" a fellow soldier. Disturbing stuff. But the story was thirty-four years old. Her testimony was so confused and shocking that normally-staid lawmakers called it "dumb," "bonkers," and "inappropriate." The other witness, Sergeant Major Brian Jones, suggested gays were less capable of the "selfless service" required in the military, even as a gay veteran, the first amputee of the Iraq War, sat two yards behind him. Still, Jones argued that gay troops upset "esprit decor" [sic] and caused "increased risk to individual soldier's [sic] lives as well as mission-accomplishment." He later asserted--falsely--that the gay Arabic linguists who were fired from the military were discharged because they were having orgies, and he warned that lifting the ban would result in gay couples living on-base "having parties."
When I began researching my forthcoming book on gays in the military, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, I set out to understand why reasonable people might oppose gay service. Although I was always suspicious of the motivations behind the gay ban, trained as a historian who looks for all sides of a story, I was committed to understanding those I disagreed with, not to gratuitous condemnation. I listened to many military men who once genuinely feared the sky might fall if the gay ban were lifted, men like General John Shalikashvili, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Admiral John Hutson, former JAG of the Navy. These and other one-time critics of gay service have since reviewed the evidence and reversed course, and now say there is no principled reason to continue the gay exclusion rule.
In other words, I set out to learn if reason or prejudice was behind the gay ban. What I found was that good people who once feared the consequences of change did their best to deploy reason to understand the situation and express their position. But nearly every last one of those good people have since used their reason to amend their position and endorse the change their country is now ready to make. Which leaves a few Christian soldiers in the wilderness, who are doing, no doubt, what they think is right, but who are in fact, well, wrong.
