Lavender: Part II
One of the more interesting panel discussions at the conference was an update on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Not being a military junkie, I was not as aware as perhaps I should have been just how little DADT differed from its predecessor policy. Apparently the 1993 DADT policy changed two words. Two words!
DADT was not really a compromise. It was a face-saving measure for Clinton. Which is not to say things have not improved for GLBT persons in the military. One of the panelists noted anecdotally that some commanding officers will, when a gay serviceman submits his "I'm gay" resignation, attempt to solve the harassment problems that led to the resignation in the first place and shred the evidence. Partly this is a wartime phenomenon--who can afford to lose any able-bodied and generally willing individual?--but it also reflects a change in the culture. Good news.
But the policy itself, because it continues to be premised on bizarre beliefs, is an affront to at least my sensibilities. Yes, the public arguments in favor of the policy have moved away from the more egregious examples (we don't hear "homosexual assault will be a serious problem if we allow gays in the military" or "gay men cannot fight as well as straight men" in courtrooms very often anymore). But for every silly argument that is discredited, another pops into its place. The panelists noted two modern arguments: (1) that straight servicewomen and -men will become uncomfortable around out GLBTs, and this will degrade unit cohesion, and (2) that gay and lesbian servicewomen and -men will "fraternize" with each other, and this will degrade unit cohesion. The second becomes less plausible (at least as a doomsday scenario) when one notes that, in most areas of the military, heterosexual men and women currently share close quarters, and even to the extent that they do not follow orders not to fuck each other, we certainly have not seen a complete breakdown in the effectiveness of the unit. The first is supported by bogus polling data and biases that, with time, will become less of an issue. Do we still have a problem with racial integration in the service? Yes. Is it enough of a problem to resegregate?
The panel discussion also dealt with some of the military court cases coming out that are interpreting Lawrence v. Texas. Most of which depressingly distinguish its "sodomy laws are unconstitutional" holding by reference to the special case that is the military. But there was at least one case mentioned--the name of which temporarily escapes me--that seemed to require sodomy and evidence that the sodomy is somehow harmful to the military. That is, nibbling on another's genitalia may no longer be sufficient. However, it was noted that although this may save heterosexual cocksuckers from jail, it may not save homosexuals. Why? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lovely, no?
DADT was not really a compromise. It was a face-saving measure for Clinton. Which is not to say things have not improved for GLBT persons in the military. One of the panelists noted anecdotally that some commanding officers will, when a gay serviceman submits his "I'm gay" resignation, attempt to solve the harassment problems that led to the resignation in the first place and shred the evidence. Partly this is a wartime phenomenon--who can afford to lose any able-bodied and generally willing individual?--but it also reflects a change in the culture. Good news.
But the policy itself, because it continues to be premised on bizarre beliefs, is an affront to at least my sensibilities. Yes, the public arguments in favor of the policy have moved away from the more egregious examples (we don't hear "homosexual assault will be a serious problem if we allow gays in the military" or "gay men cannot fight as well as straight men" in courtrooms very often anymore). But for every silly argument that is discredited, another pops into its place. The panelists noted two modern arguments: (1) that straight servicewomen and -men will become uncomfortable around out GLBTs, and this will degrade unit cohesion, and (2) that gay and lesbian servicewomen and -men will "fraternize" with each other, and this will degrade unit cohesion. The second becomes less plausible (at least as a doomsday scenario) when one notes that, in most areas of the military, heterosexual men and women currently share close quarters, and even to the extent that they do not follow orders not to fuck each other, we certainly have not seen a complete breakdown in the effectiveness of the unit. The first is supported by bogus polling data and biases that, with time, will become less of an issue. Do we still have a problem with racial integration in the service? Yes. Is it enough of a problem to resegregate?
The panel discussion also dealt with some of the military court cases coming out that are interpreting Lawrence v. Texas. Most of which depressingly distinguish its "sodomy laws are unconstitutional" holding by reference to the special case that is the military. But there was at least one case mentioned--the name of which temporarily escapes me--that seemed to require sodomy and evidence that the sodomy is somehow harmful to the military. That is, nibbling on another's genitalia may no longer be sufficient. However, it was noted that although this may save heterosexual cocksuckers from jail, it may not save homosexuals. Why? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Lovely, no?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home