The very first soldier wounded in the Iraq war-a marine who lost his leg- comes out. Retired Sgt. Eric Alva also wears a wedding ring to signify his relationship with his partner, Darrell.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is considering hiring at the State Dept. at least some of the Arabic-speaking gay linguists discharged from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" (also known as "lie and hide").
How much longer can this increasingly antiquated and just plain wrong policy last? I dunno, although renewed efforts for repeal are underway in Congress. But the arguments against it that will be most effective will draw on examples such as Sgt. Alva, and not the kinds of anti-military protests now popular at our elite liberal universities, which seek to hamper armed services enlistment and oppose the war while incidentally citing the gay-exclusion policy.
"Stop the War!," "End Campus Recruitment!" and "Let LGBTs Serve!" is not a winning message.
15 Comments for “Truth Comes Out.”
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
I can’t make a decision on this one until I learn if Sgt Alva is fem or not.
posted by Roy X. Penguin on
http://365gay.com/Newscon07/02/022807ask.htm
Repeal may be near. Legislation re-introduced today.
posted by Alex on
I doubt that without someone in the White House willing to stand with us, this is going to go anywhere. (Is there any declared candidate that would sign such legislation…I doubt it.)
posted by log cabin? on
Only three republicans in the House have signed on to the repeal of the absurd ban, and the Log Cabin Republicans want to highlight this fact in their press release? It’s pitiful. It shows the GOP cares more about bigotry than defending America. And the sad sad LCR crew decides to brag about it’s sad three co-sponsors.
posted by thom on
Researching Sgt. Alva, I discovered that he approached HRC, and they have helped him fight against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” This forum and its readers heap abuse on HRC. However, it seems to me that HRC’s involvement with Sgt. Alva should be considered a good thing. Not that it outweighs all the problems with HRC, but at least, credit should be given when it’s due.
posted by Carl on
ColoradoPatriot, will you marry me?
-How much longer can this increasingly antiquated and just plain wrong policy last? –
As long as there’s a Republican in the White House.
And the slam against “liberal” universities seems odd to me, and out of place. I agree with thom that HRC should have been mentioned in the praise.
A majority of the public supports repeal, but I don’t know if I can see Congress or the military ever going along. And the media always takes their side, because they hate gays.
posted by ETJB on
The anti-war movement has always been different from the LGBT equal rights movement. Different goals and often times a mutual distrust.
Plently of historical tension that you can read about in Randy Shilts book on gays in the military (1994?).
You are correct that in working to end the ban, the anti-war movement is not going to have much crediblity.
Frankly, the extream anti and pro war movements have both lots much crediblity with the public.
However, ending the gay ban is not likely their goal.
I would also question if the people that opposed having military on college campuses really were interested in ending the ban.
posted by section9 on
As long as the HRC remains as an appendage of the Democratic National Committee, gay issues will go nowhere within the Republican Party, except with people like Rice and Giuliani, both of whom are very gay-friendly. Others in the Republican Party are either indifferent or hostile on theological grounds. There are those who are hostile on political grounds, for example, have become so because of gay activists campaigning against the Boy Scouts. Then you’ve got your plain, rotgut homophobia, which exists everywhere. But most Republicans in the rank and file aren’t zealots and don’t really care.
At any rate, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was actually a creature of the Clinton White House and remained there through the Bush years. The ban will be repealed, probably by the next President, be he Rudy or Hillary.
posted by kittynboi on
“”A majority of the public supports repeal, but I don’t know if I can see Congress or the military ever going along.””
But if the majority of the public supports repeal, why would the government not go along? If the majority supports it, then doesn’t it make MORE sense for them to go along with it to win support and goodwill from voters?
It seems like the government increasingly cares more about what the extremely small, increasingly marginalized, increasingly irrelevant religious right thinks about stuff like this. As if a few ideologues are their only constitutents and the majority who oppose those people don’t matter.
posted by Randy on
Credit should go exactly where it is due: Towards the Serviceman’s Legan Defense Network, which works tirelessly to oppose the ban AND help all enlisted in dealing with it.
This is one gay group that we can all agree does good work, no?
posted by CPT_Doom on
Not sure if Stephen is aware of it, but the most recent protests against DADT conducted by Soulforce are not the knee-jerk liberal type that he claims are occurring (it would be nice if he backed up his claims with evidence). From the Soulforce website:
“This fall openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young adults who are willing to serve will attempt to enlist in the military in thirty cities across the country. When their desire to serve is rejected, young adults will sit-in at the recruitment centers. Each city will have its own schedule and demands. In all, over 1000 young adults across the country – LGBT and heterosexual, Christian and non-Christian – will sit down in the fight for equality.”
posted by Brian Miller on
But if the majority of the public supports repeal, why would the government not go along
For the same reason that the government is staying in Iraq and increasing troop levels despite massive public opposition, and the same reason that Democrats are giving Bush more money than he asked for for the Iraq war — after having been elected on a platform of stopping the war.
It’s because public opinion on crucial issues doesn’t mean a whit to them. As long as gay voters are stupid enough to go in and vote for a Democrat or a Republican candidate, consistently — regardless of that candidate’s poor record on gay issues — the farce will continue.
posted by Mark on
I’ve participated in several protests at an “elite liberal universit[y].” None have been “anti-war.” They were organized by the law school’s GLBT student organization (OUTLaw) and had as their sole message the repeal of either DADT or the Solomon Amendment, focusing on the discriminatory nature of each.
I just wanted to distinguish these protests from other general anti-war protests you seem to be referencing.
posted by Brian Miller on
There’s also nothing mutually exclusive about calling for a properly prepared military force that’s open to GLBT people, and opposing this disaster of a war built on the incompetence and mendacity of the Democrats and Republicans alike.
I don’t have to support the fool’s errand in Iraq to support a well-prepared armed force that doesn’t discriminate on blatantly stupid terms.
Further, I suspect that the top military brass, who also generally opposed both Rumsfeld’s war and the anti-gay ban, would strongly agree with me (and they’ve got slightly more pro-military credibility than the armchair warriors of the conservative movement).
posted by ETJB on
National public opinion polls may support an end to the ban, but we really do not have national elections, we have federal ones.
Also, straight Americans do not often put gay rights concerns at the top of their list of things to bitch to their Congressman or woman about.