Sexual Politics and the General

When I first heard a general had been fired I originally thought it was that jerk William Boykin who referred to the war in Iraq as our war against Satan. Unfortunately, Boykin has not yet been fired. And though he likes to reduce Western Religion to phallic symbols, stating he would beat the Muslim enemy because "I knew that my God was bigger than his" he maintains his position at the Pentagon as deputy undersecretary for intelligence (ironically enough).

In defending Boykin, Rumsfeld said, "Whatever he said was in a private capacity. That's the way we live. We are a free people." So instead of reading about Boykin's removal (finally) I was reading about removal of Four Star General Kevin Byrnes.

While General Boykin is inspiring terrorists all over the world, General Byrnes is being removed for expressing a little sexual freedom. According to the New York Times, the general was removed because he was having an affair and refused to cease contact with the woman. The woman was a civilian. The general, until a month ago, was married. The charge is adultery, which the Army Manual on Court Martial describes as unacceptable conduct.

But, it's not so simple. While General Byrnes is only recently divorced he has been separated from his wife since mid-2004. His "adulterous" relationship appears to have commenced well past the separation -- though not necessarily, and anyway who cares. It also began before the legal end of the marriage.

If the General (who by all accounts I've read is a highly distinguished and effective commander) was cheating on his wife that is between him and his wife. If he wasn't, if he was just having a consensual relationship with a woman after his marriage had already ended (in everything except the legal sense) then we have a larger problem. Because once again we are allowing the government into our bedrooms and that is a place where the government does not belong.

It is absolutely insane that any person should lose their job because they have begun a relationship before they have ended their marriage. This is the same kind of thinking that discriminates against lesbian, gay, and poly couples and once again reinforces the absurd notion that intimacy is only acceptable when sanctioned by the state. Love does not flow from court documents; nor does it require the permission of a manual. Love is not the problem. Hate is the problem. Boykin is the general that needs to go.

Stephen Elliott