Religious Right Trolls "Horror Stories" to Oppose Gay Troops

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.

Comments

[nanettereally]

okay this colleen person is really a hypocrite. she sits in judgment uses phrases like, i don't want to pull a mccain?? whatever this woman's emotional trip is her luggage was opened in this situation. lol.

she is an abusive person and like many others who totter on the fence of arrogant lust for some kind of power in DC or Capitol Hill especially she is just showing her real colors and was 'outed' in her own way. what a total and complete witch.

you know for "Christians" - if you called elaine or the power girl with the listen to me complex , said hey ladies are the two of you in this mix? they wouldn;t answer truthfully. so much for the Christian part of who they claim to be. colleen seems very two faced or backbiting. and those kinds of people are always incredibly manipulating and power hungry.

if you look at her info on Eagle Forum (bleeuuch) you will notice that she is a newbie there. what does that tell you? that she is trying to force her hand- be in the in-circle at the Washington scene.
love the way she tries to suggest to "elaine" what she thinks she should do. lol.
like those people need colleen to give them ideas.
what's her motive anyways?
then like every other abusive type, she justifies herself defends herself with lies. oh sure she was so loving towardsher gay uncle. prove it you witch! stop using everyone. get help.

[ps2os2]

This is a typical mud slinging stuff that has gone on for *YEARS*. Hey if the NSA allows, out gay people to serve the armed services should be no different. Does it happen, maybe, but far less than any rape cases or fraternization with officers. I would hazard a guess it might happen in less than 1 percent of the cases. There is absolutely no reason to deny any gay person (assuming no criminal background) to any of the armed forces. I just wish the people that listen to these stories would check out the veracity of so called lurid stories. I have not served the 20 years like others on here have, and I would never consider doing so. The pay is so much better in the real world that IMO you have to be a certain kind of person to do so. If you are go for it.

[Murkey]

I served 25 years in the military as a lesbian and am now retired with honor. I didn't bother or offend anyone. I did my job and did it well, even while being closeted. Most of my peers and some of my commanders "knew" and didn't care.

[martymartymarty]

Well, if nothing else, I am delighted that the horror stories are proving difficult to find. I have long maintained, if a member of the armed forces is so distracted by being around homosexuals, how could they possibly be brave enough to take on our enemies?

[xdevildawg4u]

Nathaniel, you want to know why "why reasonable people might oppose gay service"? I don't know why “reasonable” people oppose it but I know EXACTLY why unreasonable, anti-gay people (who sometimes seem otherwise reasonable) do and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with unit cohesion, or morale or national security.

Simply, it has EVERYTHING to do with the fear that openly gay service members will come back from combat, sometimes wounded or in body bags, and they and/or their partners will expect and demand to be given the rights that they sacrificed and died so that OTHERS could have. THAT is these peoples' greatest fear. It was the exact same fear that many racist/segregationist had when the service was opened up to African-Americans. How do you tell a wounded veteran that he can’t drink from the same fountain as another citizen?

It's hard to look into the eyes of a combat veteran (like Eric Alva) who lost a limb fighting to protect the rights of Americans and tell him, "sorry, but some of the rights that you fought for, sacrificed for and possibly even died for simply aren't available to you because you don't qualify for first-class rights".

These people certainly won't admit that this is their driving though sometimes subconscious motivation. They might not even be aware of it themselves, but I will assure you that this, and not a genuine concern for the military or American security, is their real and primary concern.

[LeftRight]

I'm much more concerned about the effects on Unit morale and cohesion that intra-service rape has. When a US soldier (or sailor, or marine, or airman) rapes another US soldier (or sailor, or marine, or airman) that has a MUCH greater effect on the unit than if a gay person is there!!