There's been a lot of gloom and doom around here lately, and this morning seems like a good opportunity to look on the bright side of life.
- Both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton spoke out against the Uganda anti-gay bill - at the National Prayer Breakfast! Obama used the word "odious" to describe it.
- Senator Orrin Hatch is open to repealing DADT.
- Colin Powell is not just open to the repeal, he now "fully supports" it.
- Gayle Haggard (wife of Ted) believes the government "should provide equality under the law" for same-sex couples, and to that end supports civil unions.
None of these is without qualifiers and wiggle-room. But every one of them goes against some pretty widely held notions about the public figure involved. It behooves us to acknowledge what each of them has said. That simple courtesy is an important aspect of progress.
16 Comments for “Credit Where Credit Is Due”
posted by Bobby on
I’m glad Colin Powell has come around on this issue, for many years he was against it and had this attitude of “only blacks suffer discrimination and blacks can’t choose to be white while gays can choose to stay in the closet.”
I feel sorry for the Haggards, they lost the power they once had. Both Ted and Gayle have come a long way and if they choose to stay married that’s their business. Gayle gains nothing by supporting civil unions, the fundamentalists are going to turn against her now and the secular world had nothing to offer her.
posted by CPT_Doom on
Not to rain on your parade, but apparently today Senator Hatch “clarified” his remarks by retracting them. The rest of your list is great, though.
posted by Carl on
Yes, the liberal media was mean to poor Orrin.
Even if everyone in the military did support this repeal I doubt the Republicans in Congress will ever go along. They would rather just use it as a wedge issue.
Scott Brown, the new hero of the right, opposes a DADT repeal, doesn’t he? Get ready for comments like, “Brown won, so even liberal Massachusetts doesn’t want those gays in the military!”
I also am baffled by the “special rights” claim from Hatch. If anything it’s DADT that singles gays out.
posted by Debrah on
“Get ready for comments like, ‘Brown won, so even liberal Massachusetts doesn’t want those gays in the military!’ “
*************************************
As with the issue of SSM, that would seem to be illustrative of a “Duh!” moment in many respects.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“Special rights” is generally used to mean “any rights.” Or to be precise, it means that gays are entitled to all rights except whichever rights are under discussion. It’s reminiscent of the Monty Python sketch involving a cheese shop that has every type of cheese there is, except for whatever the customer requests.
posted by Carl on
“As with the issue of SSM, that would seem to be illustrative of a “Duh!” moment in many respects.”
I don’t see why. Polling shows far more support for gays in the military than for same sex marriage.
The only “duh” moment in this I can see is that the Log Cabin Republicans said they wanted to work with him on the issue, when he was listed during the campaign as opposing repeal, and now, he hedges on the issue. Judging by the way Orrin Hatch backtracked so quickly, I don’t know if any Republicans in the Senate will go for this. Maybe one of the Maine senators.
posted by Throbert McGee on
The sense I get from heterosexuals who are actually in the military, and also from civilian conservatives, is that most of them would be happy if DADT were changed to TOBTSTFUAI. (Tell Once, But Then STFU About It.)
In other words, there’s a perception that official permission for military personnel to be openly gay will lead to “flamboyancy” and/or “strident political correctness and identity politics.”
posted by William Quill on
People confuse openly gay with outwardly gay. Maybe the emphasis should be moved to allowing soldiers to be honest about their sexuality, and letting them get back to their combat training and situations if they happen to mention it in conversation. It’s not about seeking to change the military in any fundamental way, but that in a time of war, it makes little sense to be dismissing able soldiers for something trivial. I think it makes sense in the upcoming debate to argue from the point of view of the military and national security rather than gay rights, even if that is the fundamental injustice.
posted by Debrah on
“………most of them would be happy if DADT were changed to TOBTSTFUAI. (Tell Once, But Then STFU About It.)”
********************************
ROTFLM-T’s-O!
Just one more example as to why the illustrious “Throbert” is considered a treasured cyberspace bon vivant.
posted by Amicus on
Just a note, 2-cents:
Don’t let’s underestimate the opposition. This will be a big fight, with lies, distortion and everything else, even with a friendly Administration and some brass, like Mullen.
Reading the tea-leaves, the fight this time is not going to be about unit cohesion. I believe the opposition is smart enough to realize that has run its course, even though they will do it to play up homo-panic.
I’m guessing it’s going to be about the particulars of partner benefits, DOMA, and possibly vexing conduct rules.
The thrust is going to be: the country hasn’t made up its mind about how to treat these things, so don’t use the military as a ‘social experiment’ or as a leader on social issues.
Just guessing from an early read of the forces massing on the horizon…
posted by Bobby on
Did anyone watch Sean Hannitti debate Oliver North about DADT? Ollie has lost his mind, he said that allowing gays will allow everything into the military, including NAMBLA. I was thinking, why would a bunch of pedophiles want to join a child-free environment?
He also said that if you allow gays then you have to marry them, then you have to allow polygamy, then you have to build special barracks for them. His arguments are totally insane.
I wonder if anyone gay served with Ollie, now is their time to give that bastard a phone call.
posted by Eric Whitney on
Simple courtesy can move mountains. I remember hearing Ken Roth, head of Human Rights Watch, on the subject. He says he approaches everyone, even the most vicious tyrant, with an open posture. He tries to give everyone room to become the person that deep down he wants to become, but for some reason isn’t right now. Roth isn’t doe-eyed about what he’s up against, he’s just discovered through experience, that attacks always lead to counterattacks. Whereas courtesy leaves all possibilities open, including success.
posted by Carl on
“The thrust is going to be: the country hasn’t made up its mind about how to treat these things, so don’t use the military as a ‘social experiment’ or as a leader on social issues.”
And watch the Democrats cower in fear and refuse to address any of this. And then when Republicans win seats, the media will blame gays.
posted by Jerry Giesige on
I, as a closeted gay man, fully understand the hurt the men and women who suffer the ill effects of DADT feel! Give em hell democrats and make me proud. I’m tired of living a lie and hiding behind my Christianity as a shield. I may not be military, but I get it!!!!
posted by Jorge on
Wiggle room, wiggle room, I love wiggle room!
Powell’s remarks seem to me to indicate that he has a list of conditions for supporting a repeal that he believes are currently being met. McCain has a list of conditions that he thinks are not being met. And Hatch has a list of conditions that will probably be met (he usually reserves the right to a lengthy interrogation, so if Hatch was impressed, it means that Mullen and Gates probably know what they are doing).
Therefore, fellow conspiracy theorist NAMBLA-phobes, we must convince McCain, Powell, and Hatch, who are all very old men who have had many normal gay people write to them, that the scorge of NAMBLA is coming and scare the pants off them (I did not watch the Hannity interview).
I suppose since you’re asking very nicely, I could write each of them a letter…
posted by Jorge on
Not to rain on your parade, but apparently today Senator Hatch “clarified” his remarks by retracting them. The rest of your list is great, though.
Hmm.
Sorry, Hatch, but that’s not much of a retraction. Did I mention that I love wiggle room?
He opposes a repeal and he’s open to a repeal. Well that’s the definition of being open to change, isn’t it? I think we should just ignore him for now. It is obvious he’s only going to be convinced by the actual study.