An anti-war group that helps service members get an early discharged from the all-volunteer military by claiming new-found conscientious objector status must decide whether to help service members exit the military because they don't want to serve alongside those who are openly gay, the New York Times reports.
I guess the debate is whether they're more anti-military than anti-anti-gay. Perhaps soon-to-be-confirmed Justice Kagan could help them decide on the most progressive course of action given the circumstances at hand.
14 Comments for “Perplexed Progressives”
posted by Jorge on
Fascinating article. Is it too late to put it in the DADT study?
posted by BobN on
Perhaps the Quakers should direct these distressed servicemen to one of the many right-wing organizations which are not at all perplexed about the issue. There are hundreds of lawyers available to defend the sensibilities of the deeply devout warriors who are too timid to shower with “degenerates”.
Heck, with just a little bit of spin and right publicity agent, these guys could turn their “conscientious objection” into a money-making road show on the 700 Club circuit, maybe even a personal appearance with grizzly momma Palin.
posted by Mike Airhart on
There is nothing perplexing about this — except to conservatives who don’t understand Christianity or who want to label so-called “progressives” rather than understand them.
The problem is simple. From the article:
“In the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ situation, they’re not opposed to
participating in war, they’re opposed to who they’re participating with,”
Ms. McNeil said.
CO status is intended to protect people of faith who have doctrinal religious objections to warfare. The bigots in this case don’t object to warfare — they object to serving with soldiers who are different from them.
It’s unfortunate that IGF is leaning against religious freedom in the armed forces and taking cheap swipes at issues that it is not interested in addressing intelligently.
posted by Tom on
The legal question is fascinating – Does objection to serving with gays and lesbians in service constitute conscientious objection under the laws of the United States?
I’m no expert, but a quick look suggests that it does not.
The courts have established two primary criteria for CO status: (1) the objector must be opposed to war in any form, Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), and (2) the objection must be sincere, Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375 (1955), even though not based on religious training, United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970).
All of the cases involve the draft. Today’s military is a volunteer force. My guess is that it won’t become much of an issue, because those who are not willing to serve with gays and lesbians simply won’t reenlist when the time comes to make that decision.
posted by Bobby on
You can’t become a conscientious objector after joining the military, this is crazy! When you join the military you give up your rights and become property of Uncle Sam. Did you know you can’t even bring tobacco products, porn, guns, knifes, etc, for basic training? This is bullshit, people in the military enlist for a number of years, after their contracts are fulfilled they are free to re-enlist or quit. As far as I’m concerned, I see these conscientious objectors in the same light as deserters. If they really want to go, perhaps they should get a dishonorable or general discharge, because these people are far from honorable.
posted by Jorge on
Perhaps the Quakers should direct these distressed servicemen to one of the many right-wing organizations which are not at all perplexed about the issue.
Yeah. I don’t like the idea of hotline staffers prosteletyzing their own religious or political views to callers in crisis, many of whom are already AWOL. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening, but the discomfort reported by that woman in the article is something I don’t think should be shared with the client. With oneself or co-staff, definitely. Part of business is working with or on behalf of people you find repulsive.
You can’t become a conscientious objector after joining the military, this is crazy! When you join the military you give up your rights and become property of Uncle Sam…. If they really want to go, perhaps they should get a dishonorable or general discharge, because these people are far from honorable.
I can’t say I agree with this law either, but I’m not going to raise a big stink about it. I think it serves a good purpose. Personally I’d be perfectly content with returning from service having gone absolutely mad for the rest of my natural life, which is what happens to a lot of people. I really would rather that people who are about to go mad get a mental health checkup instead. But my gut tells me to say to each his own.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I agree, although the woman’s seeming lack of professionalism might be mitigated by the fact that she probably made up the whole fucking thing as a hypothetical scenario to give the reporter — conveniently enough, that client-confidentiality thing makes it un-fact-checkable, assuming that a reporter from the NY Times were inclined to fact-check in the first place.
This whole thing smells to me like a musing-aloud piece that really belonged in the Op-Ed section or on one of the staff blog pages (if anywhere), but someone decided to turn it into a “news story” in order to generate more reader feedback and page hits.
posted by Mark on
I believe you should be able to quit your military job like any job. But being anti-gay does make you a C.O.
posted by Bobby on
“I believe you should be able to quit your military job like any job”
—A military job isn’t like any job.
“”I can’t say I agree with this law either, but I’m not going to raise a big stink about it. I think it serves a good purpose.”
—How? Discharging bigots is going to costs us thousands of dollars, specially if they get benefits, not to mentioned the money that was wasted training them. The military is not about being comfortable, it’s not the Holiday Inn or a Crystal Cruise. The military is a commitment, if you enlist for 3 years you’re supposed to serve those 3 years. If you join the ROTC you’re supposed to serve after college. We cannot have people getting benefits without doing their duty. How would you feel if someone got a free college education at West Point and then decided that he’s a quacker who doesn’t believe in war or something along those lines? That’s unacceptable. I pay taxes, I didn’t get a free college education, so if you got one at West Point, great, now go to Iraq and Afghanistan and do your duty.
posted by Jorge on
—How? Discharging bigots is going to costs us thousands of dollars, specially if they get benefits, not to mentioned the money that was wasted training them. The military is not about being comfortable, it’s not the Holiday Inn or a Crystal Cruise.
You’re right. The military–or more accurately, war–is simply the most harrowing and traumatic experience most people can volunteer for. Most people can take that reasonably well, but there are those who will crack, or experience religion, who will not be able to give their 100% forever. There are many stories about suicides and even homicides in the military. I’m sure that’s just the tip of the iceburg. Once people have outlived their ability to be useful, it’s reasonable to get them out of the military before they cause any damage to themselves or others. There are times when splitting the difference may be wise. Like I said, that’s not the way I’d do it.
posted by Bobby on
“You’re right. The military–or more accurately, war–is simply the most harrowing and traumatic experience most people can volunteer for. Most people can take that reasonably well, but there are those who will crack, or experience religion, who will not be able to give their 100% forever.”
–I agree it’s not for everyone, which is why the military tests candidates before they let them join. However, people who crack under pressure have plenty of resources at their disposal.
“There are many stories about suicides and even homicides in the military.”
—-Well, I read there are way more homicides adn suicides in the private sector. For every marine that blows his brains out there are way more civilians who do the same, and I’m talking statistics wise.
“I’m sure that’s just the tip of the iceburg. Once people have outlived their ability to be useful, it’s reasonable to get them out of the military before they cause any damage to themselves or others. There are times when splitting the difference may be wise. Like I said, that’s not the way I’d do it.”
—I don’t think that’s the problem, It think everyone is useful unless they are sabotaging the mission. You also have to remember that if the military lets anyone who wants to quit get out they could lose key personnel. That’s the reason gay discharges are so subjective, some of them take months, some happen right away, and in one case I read about the gay soldier had to offer photographs of him having sex to get his discharge.
Ending DADT should not be used as an excuse to weaken the military by letting people quit before the end of their contracts. If Private Bigot doesn’t like gays, tough.
posted by Mark F. on
“A military job isn’t like any job.” No, it isn’t, but so what? You are arguing in favor of slavery if you think there are jobs you shouldn’t be able to quit.
posted by Bobby on
“No, it isn’t, but so what? You are arguing in favor of slavery if you think there are jobs you shouldn’t be able to quit.”
—Dude, I’ve never heard of a slave signing a contract. Besides, in the ad industry people sign contracts all the time. For example, if they pay your relocation then you’re not allowed to quit in less than a year, or if they fire you in less than a year they’ll pay whatever salary they own you, so if you get fired in May you might get a salary until December (I’ve never had that contract, but friends of mine have).
Contracts matter, for example, if David Letterman wanted to quit his job tomorrow he would lose millions of dollars unless he negotiates his exit. People in the military are getting many benefits from the taxpayers, these benefits should not be given lightly. For example, military pensions demand service for a number of years, 20 I think. So I would not want someone quitting the military on year 5 and expecting a pension. Also, I don’t want medical discharges from people who are faking psychological conditions or simply want free healthcare without fulfilling their contracts.
It’s bad enough that we have teachers working in rubber rooms in New York, the last thing we need is a military where anyone can come and go as they please. This would destroy order, morale, and would put everyone in danger. Can you imagine being in the middle of the ocean and quitting? Or some guy in a submarine saying “I miss my wife, I want to go home?” Buddy, this isn’t the private sector, national security is at stake.
You also have to consider the cash incentives soldiers get to re-enlist which can range from $1,000 to $40,000 or more. This is serious money and I don’t think any company in the world is gonna give you $40,000 and then let you quit the next day without penalties.
posted by Jimmy on
“Contracts matter, for example…”
Yes they do. That is why DOMA is categorically in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution.