The imperative of America's press is not truth, it is conflict - or, more accurately, drama. Truth and facts are tools the press uses to enhance dramatic conflict, but it is the fight, not the resolution, that animates the press.
Gay equality provides a rich vein of material, and we are used to our opponents exploiting fears and anecdotes to support laws that put the government into the active position of discriminating, from Sam Nunn's infamous "field hearing" in 1993 where he led legislators into submarines to see how gay soldiers would be sleeping and showering this close to our heterosexual fighting men, to Martin Ssempa's ongoing campaign in Uganda to provoke citizens into a full understanding that homosexuality means eating one another's poo-poo.
But it's not just our opponents who want to work people up into a sweat. The New York Times does a fine job this morning of stirring the pot. According to their reporting, if DADT repeal passes (a prospect still months away in the Senate, apparently), there will be all kinds of "thorny issues" that will arise, from allowing same-sex couples to live in base housing together to hospital visitation.
But this being the New York Times, these concerns are coming from homosexual soldiers. See? You don't have to hate gays to exploit us; you just have to be deeply enough committed to conflict.
To be fair, the NY Times did get Elaine Donnelly to weigh in with a typically overwrought comment, in order to maintain its liberal cred. Donnelly, true to form, brought up the perils of living right next to the homosexual menace: "Same-sex couples in family housing will become a reason for families to decline re-enlistment or a change in station," she fretted. If you thought it was bad having to live next to black neighbors in the 60s, imagine what it would be like if the black neighbors were homosexual.
It is not until the 17th paragraph of the 25 paragraph story that the NY Times states the obvious, noncontroversial truth "that tens of thousands of gay people already serve in the military, many open to their closest peers, without problems."
It's possible to imagine, in some alternate universe, an accurate, truthful and informative report where that is the point. But who in our own galaxy wants to read about something "without problems"? No one - or, at least no one who isn't primarily interested in conflict and drama.
After a lifetime of loving the theater and literature, I have come to take pleasure in the non-dramatic. In our age, this is nearly a confession of error, or gross and alarming nonconformity. But sometimes I just want the facts without the adjectives and adverbs, the breathless reporters and all the agita.
Which brings me to Rush Limbaugh, and a savvy defense of him on gay rights. As Timothy Kincaid observes at Box Turtle Bulletin, while we're used to assuming Rush is a Neanderthal reactionary on gay rights, that may not be correct. Bellicosity is Limbaugh's style, and I wouldn't argue he's the calm, rational journalist of my dreams. But on gay rights, he's hardly been leading the charge to maintain inequality. He's got some rough comments about political excesses from our side, and lord knows I couldn't disagree with him on that. But when it comes to the actual policies of DADT and equal or equal-ish rights for same-sex couples, Rush isn't on the front lines.
Tim offers some evidence -- from the right -- that Rush may be squishy on civil unions, and maybe even on sexual orientation being a choice. Whatever is in Rush's head or heart, though, it's clear that the prospect of gay equality is something he hasn't exploited with the bombast at his disposal.
Which may mean he's actually a bit more responsible and conscientious than the writers and editors of today's story in the NY Times. Certainly the NY Times has taken a strong editorial stand in favor of equality. But when their news side feels comfortable and duty-bound to use us in order to make sure people have something to argue about, it's worth pointing out that it looks, for all the world, as if they're trying to out-Limbaugh Limbaugh.
17 Comments for “Let’s You And Him Fight”
posted by Bobby on
Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh knows that he’s a fair-minded guy who stands for freedom. He wants you to be free to eat, smoke, pay less taxes, keep your privacy, keep the government out of your way, choose whether your kids get sex education in school or whether you have the right to keep them out of that class or homeschool them yourself.
The people who hate Rush don’t listen to him, they read about him on Media Matters and other progressive websites funded by George Soros.
posted by Jorge on
I remember very little about Limbaugh, although for some very odd reason my parents have his 1993-ish book. I remember in that book he was very harshly critical of the 1992 Democratic platform in support of gay rights, and he painted the gay community by its excesses. While I think that was a wrongheaded thing to do, I consider it forgivable.
“Responsible and conscientious” are a strange pair or words to describe Rush Limbaugh’s ommissions. His actions and words are aggressive and incendiary on the issues he does talk about. He is one of those who believes there is a culture war in this country, and most such people believe that the gay agenda is part of it.
posted by Jerry on
The whole topic of housing and visitation is a red herring and it’s long past time we said so. If all 66,000 gays currently serving went out tomorrow and married someone of the opposite gender, there would be no question of their access to base housing on the same basis as all heterosexuals and hospital visitation, access to PXs, and commissaries, and any and all benefits provided by the military to serving and retired service members. And if we are going to run around that maypole of religious morality, then I want all divorced and remarried military thrown out for cause.
posted by Lori Heine on
Who gives a fart in hell whether Limbaugh thinks homosexuality is a choice? When did he become a behavioral scientist?
He never really claims to be anything but an entertainer. Too bad so many of his followers don’t get that.
posted by Throbert McGee on
David Link pulls out his purple crayon and scribbles:
So, bland but utterly commonsensical reportage on a few of the debates that are likely to come up in a post-DADT military amounts to “exploiting” gays?
David, you adorable pile of self-parody, you — it’s not the NY Times that’s being a drama queen here.
posted by Tom on
Whatever might be said about news media hype, the fact is that implementation of DADT repeal is going to be complicated, and it will create thorny issues regarding partner recognition with respect to military housing, benefits and pensions. That’s why the RAND study and a careful implementation plan are necessary.
But don’t miss the forest for the trees — the reason that these issues are so complicated is due in large part to DOMA, which forbids the government from recognizing same-sex marriages and relationships.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Tom — a lot of the “thorniness” would still be there even in the absence of DOMA, since marriage and civil-union laws are the domain of the separate states. But in a world without DOMA, offering military spousal benefits only to gay service members who reside in states that legally recognize same-sex couples would not be tenable for very long.
On the other hand, it’s not clear to me why DOMA in itself would necessarily prevent the establishment of a domestic-partner registry specifically for military personnel — although there would be plenty of resistance from social conservatives to any such measure.
posted by Jorge on
Who gives a fart in hell whether Limbaugh thinks homosexuality is a choice? When did he become a behavioral scientist?
He never really claims to be anything but an entertainer. Too bad so many of his followers don’t get that.
Rush Limbaugh claims–accurately in my view–to be an entertainer who says things a lot of mainstream America agrees with. This means when Rush Limbaugh says something, agree or disagree, a lot of people on the right are going to take it very seriously. This is a claim that not just any person on the right or center-right can make. Not saying something sets a certain tone, too.
I personally do not pay attention to Rush Limbaugh. If I did, I might understand this country a little better.
posted by Tom on
As is constitutionally proper, in my view.
It seems to me that the military could go farther than “offering spousal benefits to gay service members who reside in states that legally recognize same-sex couples”.
The military currently offers spousal benefits to all straight couples who are legally married in any state, regardless of the laws of the state in which they are stationed, which may, in some cases, not recognize those marriages. Once DOMA is repealed, I see no reason why the military could not treat married same-sex couples identically, offering spousal benefits to all same-sex couples who are legally married under the laws of a state permitting same-sex marriage, regardless of the laws of the state in which they are stationed.
I guess that’s right.
posted by Peter Holden on
A central point of all military-related discussions in my lifetime has always been that “the military follows different rules, and servicemembers know that they don’t have all the same rights or obligations while they are serving as civilians.”
In other words, a lot of civil laws don’t apply, and civil rights and protections that civilians take for granted don’t always apply. Take it or leave it. That was true (and explicitly stated) when I was in the Navy, and is true today.
Bluntly, lots of rules that apply to civilians at the federal level don’t apply to the military.
Under that logic, it should go without saying that if the military wants to grant marital benefits to gay servicemembers, either those who are civilly married, or via an military-only civil unions or domestic partnership , then the military should be able to do it without a peep out of the civilian populace or the courts.
We’ve been throwing gay people out of the service for decades with the “civilian rules don’t apply; this is entirely about unit cohesion and military readiness and taking card of the troops.” If taking care of the families of gay servicemembers, offering housing and dependent services improves unit cohesion and readiness (and it will), then by the same logic, it is none of the Christian RIght or civilian Republican Party’s business.
Of course, I don’t for an instant expect any of these people to operate on principle. Most of them wouldn’t know a principle if it showed up etched in Divine Handwriting on stone or gold tablets accompanied by angelic choruses.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m fairly certain that the military doesn’t have the autonomous power to establish any kind of domestic-partnership benefits program without an act of Congress — even if there were more or less unanimous support for such a thing among military personnel, it would still have to be “sold” to a sufficient number of politicos in the House and Senate, not a few of whom have significant numbers of anti-gay constituents.
posted by Neil D on
What’s with this bizarre attempt to make Rush’s conservative positions acceptable by arguing he might not hate homosexuals after all?
Well good for Rush. I’m so glad he doesn’t hate us. He’s still wrong on nearly every other political issue.
It’s becoming clear that gay conservatives are nearly as dangerous to civil society as straight ones.
posted by Bobby on
“He’s still wrong on nearly every other political issue.”
—Hmmm, you’re displaying progressive arrogance with that statement. Rush has been right about many issues, he has also made predictions that end up coming true.
“It’s becoming clear that gay conservatives are nearly as dangerous to civil society as straight ones.”
—No, gay conservatives are the ones that help people like Rush Limbaugh realize that we’re not all a bunch of radical left-wingers.
As for us being dangerous, it’s the progressives who are dangerous, it’s progressives like FDR that put people in jail for their beliefs.
You don’t see the conservative movement trying to censor MSNBC, do you? Yet there are progressive groups that have sued Fox for using the slogan “fair and balanced” and have tried to pressure the FCC to revoke their licenses. As Rush said, progressives can’t win the war of ideas, so they must censor anyone who disagrees with them.
If you want proof of this, go to the average college where you’ll find teachers being openly hostile to republican students, not to mention “hate speech” laws that protect the radical left yet not the mainstream center-right.
posted by Debrah on
>”If you want proof of this, go to the average college where you’ll find teachers being openly hostile to republican students, not to mention ‘hate speech’ laws that protect the radical left yet not the mainstream center-right.”
***************************************************
Nothing could be more jarringly accurate and it’s all quite astonishing that such a contrived and unproductive atmosphere is allowed to exist.
Read this entire article:
Mandatory Opinions
“>
posted by Debrah on
Sorry for the faux pas above. Let’s try that one again.
“If you want proof of this, go to the average college where you’ll find teachers being openly hostile to republican students, not to mention ‘hate speech’ laws that protect the radical left yet not the mainstream center-right.”
***************************************************
Nothing could be more jarringly accurate and it’s all quite astonishing that such a contrived and unproductive atmosphere is allowed to exist.
Read this entire article:
Mandatory Opinions
“As one example, one of the most visible and institutionally supported aspects of diversity at Ohio State and most of America’s taxpayer supported campuses is gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) sexual relationships and activity. Political issues surrounding GLBT sexual relationships and activity are among the most divisive, controversial and emotionally charged in America. GLBT advocacy groups, and their supporters, say that the traditional perspective on sexual activity and relationships is personally and financially discriminatory. Most Americans disagree. In the latest political typology study done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in 2005, Pew found that liberals were the only one of the nine distinct political types they identified that approved of legalizing marriage between people of the same sex, and that liberals did so by the overwhelming margin of more than 5 to 1, with 80% approving and only 15% opposed. In sharp contrast, among the eight other political types Pew identified, approval for marriage between people of the same sex ranged from a low of 8% to a high of 37% with the average being just 24%. A 2009 Pew survey found largely similar results. Despite this, Ohio State has made it clear that it is lending the full political weight of its taxpayer-supported educational institution to one, poorly-supported side of this divisive political battle.”
posted by Bobby on
Great article, Debrah, I use the following example from my article to prove my point:
“At another Ohio university, in May 2008, Crystal Dixon, a black woman who was the University of Toledo’s interim Associate Vice President for Human Resources, wrote a letter objecting to an op-ed in the Toledo Free Press that equated discriminating against someone because they have black skin with disapproving of a person’s gay sexual activity. University President Lloyd Jacobs published a letter in Toledo’s largest paper, The Blade, repudiating Ms. Dixon for this opinion. A short while later, he fired her. ”
—Notice how open minded progressives are, if you don’t think like them, first they repudiate you, then they fire you.
“Diversity” is such a nice sounding word, why not call it what it really is: conformity. Just like the Ministry of Truth concerns itself with lies and the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with scarcity, Diversity Committees concern itself with ideological uniformity, censorship, shaming, and blacklisting.
posted by Debrah on
Bobby, as a side issue, albeit related…….
…….it’s taken the media and the general population a while, but they are beginning to see just how lax and inept Obama has been in handling the BP oil spill and its horrific effects.
One has only to recall how GWB was constantly raked over the coals for Katrina—nonstop.
What it been? A month and a half and Obama is finally coming to the realization that he has to put some real effort into the problem?
He should have spent the entire Memorial Day weekend down there with those people and actually getting his hands dirty.
That little prissy visit dressed in a crisp white shirt and unlaced shoes the other day……”fingering” the shore scape as if he were surveying an hors d’Åuvre table was truly lame.
His ineptitude with regard to foreign policy strategies and situations such as the oil spill are beginning to astound me……
…….and many others, obviously.