Apparently, tons of people (thanks to all of the media coverage and celebrities like Lady GaGa getting involved) are jumping on the "Repeal DADT" bandwagon. So, naturally, I have to put my two cents in.
First off, I am all about gay rights. I think they should have every right any other American has, because, after all, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't have an "unless you're gay" clause. If you're a woman and you want to be with a woman? Go for it. Live long and prosper, good citizens!
I'm not CRAZY about "Gay Marriage", but I have no problem with a "Civil Union" that comes with all of the bells, whistles, and taxes of being married. I don't understand why Sue and Jill, who have been together for 50+ years, can't get one another's assets when one of them dies. It's ridiculous, considering Mike and Kim, who have been together for 3 years, have 4 kids, and are planning on getting a divorce because they should have never been married to begin with...would be entitled to one anothers' stuff in the event of death. Stupid. Plain stupid.
I also believe that gay/bi men and woman should have as much of a right to serve in our military as straight people. If you want to serve our country, then by God, do it. You're willing to put your life on the line to defend our freedoms and way of life, and that makes you a better person than I am. God bless.
In saying this, I am torn about DADT. And I'm looking at it from an "I have a best friend who is gay and other gay friends and I worry about their safety on a daily basis" stand point. I do believe that DADT is, at it's core, in place to protect the men and women who are out there serving the country. I don't think it's meant to be oppresive or derogatory. I have heard of higher ranked officers taking it upon themselves to go through soldiers' personal things and using personal e-mails, letters, and journals against them when they had no proof before hand, only personal speculation. This is wrong and shameful. Period.
However, I'm worried about the backlash. If you have a group of soldiers, and one makes reference to their boyfriend, there are three scenarios that go through my head. One, the other soldiers just nod and go on with their daily lives without any further concerns with the gay soldier's business. No big deal. Two, is that gay soldier then becomes the target of verbal and physical abuse, which could lead to a case like Allen R. Schindler, Jr. Three, would be that the soldiers talk amongst themselves and decide "Wow, I've been out here for 18 months and haven't gotten laid in that time. Well...Bob's gay, right? He takes it up the poop chute, anyway..." And Bob then becomes a target and/or victim of rape. After all, rape in the military is not unheard of.
I'm worried about options two and three. I think about my best friend in Army Greens, and I picture him getting his head stomped on in a public toilet in Japan because some assholes in his group (I can't think of the military word for this.) didn't like the fact that he likes other men. I think about him getting harrassed and verbally shat on day after day until his spirit is completely broken and he kills himself. These fears keep me from jumping on the repeal.
I want members of the GLBT community to enjoy every freedom, every liberty, and every right that any straight member of this country has. I want them to be happy and free from persecution, and I want them to be able to love without limits. But I do not want their lives risked in the process.
So where do I stand with Don't Ask, Don't Tell? I'm not really sure.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, so leave me a message below! Thanks for reading.
*~~*T Jay*~~*
I never thought of DADT as a way to protect those in uniform who are homosexual. But that does make sense. I think it's about the intention of the DADT polity. And I don't think their intention was to protect, for sure. I also am not sure how I feel DADT. But I agree with points you made. :-)
ReplyDeleteI think that any time a victim is silenced and made to be held responsible for the actions of another, that's wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo tell someone that they are not allowed to make reference to who they are because someone else might hurt them for it, that's wrong.
It's the same thing as blaming a rape survivor for the actions of her attacker - her wearing that skimpy dress and no underwear just made the man crazy enough to attack her. That's essentially what you're saying - a person makes reference to their same-sex partner, and either gets bashed or raped...well, it's their fault because what they did MADE someone else do something.
How about the military step up and defend the rights of it's soldiers? How about they take a stand as an organization and not punish the victims, but state, loud and clear, that homophobia and physical assault will NOT be tolerated, under any circumstances, regardless of what the victim MADE the attacker do?
If speaking out endangers their lives, then maybe it's time that we, as a society, defends those that needs defending instead of giving a license to those who want to remain small-minded.
By saying "oh, but that's just not the way the world works, people are going to openly attack and bash the GLBTA community", we're implicitely licensing and endorsing thier actions.
Time to stop blaming the victim.
Awesome point, Scarlett! AWESOME point!
ReplyDeleteMy point there, though, is that you're never going to get rid of homophobia, just like you're never going to get rid of racism 100%. There will ALWAYS be hate and bigotry and stupidity out there. There are laws in place to keep you from killing someone in the private sector for any reason. There are laws in the military about "friendly fire" and all that. It still happens, in both military and citizen life. I just hate the thought of people being targeted because of who they love. I'm just scared for them. But, again, you make a very compelling arguement. I guess I'm just in Momma Bird mode, whereas you're more in Momma Bear mode. LOL
ReplyDeleteSo between the two of us, we cover both land and air, right? :-) We just need to get someone in Momma Shark mode, and we'll rule the world and protect, defend, and nurture all the creatures of our Earth. <3
ReplyDeleteI agree with Schuyler and with You and with Scarlett. I don't think the purpose was to protect anyone but more to make everyone believe that the military is full of only hard-core heterosexual males and the occasional bad ass girl. I also agree that we need to protect the rights of people choosing to tell. I always have that hideous scene from Full Metal Jacket in my head where they beat the guy to death with bars of soap. Its gruesome what can and does happen and its not something thats going to just fade away. At some point, someone will be forced to make a FINAL decision.
ReplyDelete