Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t think.

Obama finally found a way to, at least for a day or so, distract the pundits from railing him about the economy, the war on terror, and his incessant bowing.  He’s opened talks to keep one of his campaign promises, and repeal the “don’t ask don’t tell” law governing gays in the military.  Thank god, we need to focus on this important issue!  It’s right up there with abortion as far as hot-buttons with minimal impact on our day-to-day lives, but boy do people get screaming about it.  The homos really fire people up, sometimes deliberately, mostly not.

First off, a clip from The Daily Show about McCain flopping his stance on DADT, now that he is no longer in the running for a major office:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-3-2010/a-few-gay-men—women I’d like to preface my next comment (as people who are about to let rip a serious scalding and want to soften the blow, are wont to do) about McCain by saying I have the utmost respect for his military service.  What he endured at prison camps is unthinkable, and that he didn’t leave his cellmates behind when he had the opportunity says volumes about his courage and integrity.

So what happened to that integrity?  There he is, doing a complete 180.  I know, par for the course for politicians, but we shouldn’t just accept that (except, of course, when they flip to a position we agree with; then, it is called “seeing the light”).  To see that both saddens and angers me.  I also understand that he comes from a different military generation than the one in which I served.  He saw hellish war and came home to a country that denigrated his service.  That has to do things to you.  I guess I’m trying to excuse him, while at the same time pointing him out for the sake of my post; feel free to judge me.  I wanted to use that clip to show what I think is the hypocrisy surrounding this issue.

My position: repeal it and let gays openly serve.  I understand the arguments against it and agree that they do indeed have some merit.  Yes, a lot of people will be uncomfortable serving next to somebody who is openly gay – especially if they don’t get hit on, which will damage their self-esteem even though they won’t admit it – and will have unfounded fears of being buggered (or the female gay rape equivalent word) in the night.  Will it have an effect on the “people in the foxholes” where unit cohesion is so much more important?  Yes, I’m sure it will, and initially that effect will be at its highest, and after a while it would taper off.  People in the military already (unknowingly, for the most part) serve next to homosexuals.  I know that knowing makes a big difference to some people.

Sexuality, whether gay or straight, shouldn’t be an issue.  Women know all about dealing with sexual harassment, both overt and covert.  It makes working a nightmare, whether it comes from a man or a woman.  Most people don’t really want anybody talking at work to them overtly about sex, and if they do, they will tend to keep it private.  That’s the way it should be.  When men get into a group there is a point – usually at about the two-minute mark – where conversation will turn to sex, or to the ass and things that come out of it.  Or perhaps I need some new co-workers, who knows, although I’m just as guilty.  You can make the argument that that talk absolutely does not belong in the work place, and I wouldn’t disagree with you.  It just doesn’t matter whether that talk is straight or gay; if you don’t want to deal with it you don’t want to deal with it.

You could also argue that the military is different from the civilian world – true on so many levels – and that servicepeople spend their lives together for long chunks of time, away from their family.  That leads to a special kind of camaraderie which could be damaged by serving with open homosexuals.  Again, true, but again I think the damage would be lessened in time.  I’m not comparing having women in the military to having homosexuals in the military, but we faced the same issue – sex – when women were integrated.  Most military members will tell you it doesn’t matter what somebody does in their off-time (with reasonable legal limits, of course) as long as they can do their job when called.  We already have servicemembers fraternizing.  True, there could be stigma attached to a homosexual couple who gets caught in the act, but that is part of having people serve together under extremely stressful conditions, away from home for so long.

I can also understand the argument about benefits and harassment.  The latter first: certainly, open homosexuals would get harassed.  That is something deep down in the psyche of some people.  I’m not excusing it, but admitting it exists and will have to be dealt with.  Just like other issues of harassment are dealt with.

Benefits is another can of worms.  Do you give married rights to married homosexuals?  I think you would have to.  What would that lead to?  The same thing we have with straight couples getting married too soon and having things blow up.  Only the mechanics are (slightly) different.

We have homosexuals in the military who serve honorably, and they want to do it openly.  They deserve that right.  Of course, there will be some people who DO try to push a flaming agenda down our throats, but I think they are the very small exception to the rule.  Straight people and homosexuals have the same desires and dreams; most people, regardless of sexual orientation, just want to make a good life for themselves and/or their families, and they want to do behind closed doors what they enjoy doing behind closed doors.  That’s why doors were invented, because we have things that we prefer to do out of the public eye.  Everybody should have that right.

I welcome any rebuttals.