Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Or Just Be Gay and Get on with the Killing?
In what amounts to a judiciary hat trick for the homosexual agenda—the first two goals being the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) ruling and the overturning of California’s Prop 8—U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in Central California issued a ruling yesterday stating that the Military’s nonsensical “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) is unconstitutional. Even by the restricted version of the First Amendment under which the Armed Forces operate (no swearing, no blabbing secrets, no dressing in drag unless its for a fun Lady Gaga tribute video), Judge Phillips found that DADT doesn’t meet the threshold of what is “reasonably necessary” for limiting free speech. (I’m guessing she was referring to the “Don’t Tell” part of the statute here.) Also, she said that the policy violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of Due Process, meaning that just being actively gay apparently isn’t a good enough reason to be drummed out of active duty.
The federal Department of Justice—the defendants in this suit—are now backed into a corner and left slipping around on appeal (sorry!). Why? Well, because while it’s their policy and they’re supposed to defend it, the (pink) tides have obviously turned on this issue, both publicly (78 percent of Americans favor allowing gays in the military) and in the highest levels of the government. Just this spring, the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of the Army, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all came out against DADT and attached its repeal to the defense authorization bill—the one that provides the money to buy bullets, desert camo, and vacuum-sealed Salisbury steak for our fighting forces. It’s since passed the House, and is supposed to come up for a vote in the Senate, but is stalled (shocker!) by obstructionist Republicans and some chicken-shit Democrats,
All of which begs the question, What is the big deal with having gays in the military, anyway? Alex Briley took on the role of The G.I. in The Village People way back in 1978 for their third studio albumCruisin’ and managed to take this outfit to the top ten in 1979 with their hit “In the Navy.” In fact, the Navy itself even went so far as to let The Village People shoot their music video for the song on a real warship, with a real crew—a no dancing stipulation was in effect for the sailors—in the hope of using it in recruitment commercials. The armies of Russia, Spain, Israel, and the U.K.—all of which have seen plenty of action recently—all allow gays to serve, and those nations still get respect in the street. (Canada also allows homos in, but who even knew they had a military.) And many of the “documentaries” I’ve watched repeatedly (on reputable Web sites like MilitaryBadBoys, MenInUniform, and YoungRecruits) demonstrate quite graphically the lengths (and girths) to which our soldiers will go to get along with their gay comrades.
As with other “controversial” issues like gay marriage or gay adoption, I’ve always held the view that homosexuals should be afforded the same opportunities as straight people to dig whatever shape grave they so desire. That said, I will not vow, as I did with DOMA, to sign up if the ban is overturned. (I’m too old, anyway, right?) But I do not think I’m alone in saying that I absolutely cannot wait for the first openly-gay Military wedding.
Brett Berk writes gaily about culture, politics, and cars for VF.com, and is the author of The Gay Uncle’s Guide to Parenting. Visit him atwww.brettberk.com or follow him on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment