Should the Military and Federal Agencies Celebrate LGBTQ Pride?

Reposted from my Substack, why ending (or “pausing”) identity-focused celebrations is not an attack on our “rights”:

Lately, I have been seeing a lot of discussions in LGBTQ online groups decrying the ending of LGBTQ Pride commemorations and Pride Month celebrations in the military and federal government offices, and the State Department’s ordering that only the U.S. flag be flown and U.S. embassies and consulates around the world.

For example, “Going forward, DoD Components and Military Departments will not use official resources, to include man-hours, to host celebrations or events related to cultural awareness months,” the Department of Defense announced on Jan. 31. “Service members and civilians remain permitted to attend these events in an unofficial capacity outside of duty hours. Installations, units, and offices are encouraged to celebrate the valor and success of military heroes of all races, genders, and backgrounds.”

These developments are being described in somber tones as a rollback of LGBTQ “rights.”

In truth, what we as gays and lesbians sought in the pre- and post-Stonewall fight for legal equality was the “right” to be treated the same as our heterosexual peers, not to have the government require that our sexual orientation be celebrated by others.

The Trump administration’s “pausing for review” all identity-focused commemorations and celebrations is a statement that military service, especially, and the federal government, generally, should focus on what unites us as Americans. In our own community spheres, we can choose to celebrate our particular identities, whether based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or other defining factors. But that is not the role and constitutional mandate of the government.

Returning to that principle, while at the same time making clear that government must ensure equal opportunity and merit-based hiring and promotion, is what America is about at its best.

While the previous administration’s obsessive focus on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) was overly broad to the point of self-parody, the current administration could by over-reacting by cancelling all recognition of our “strength through diversity.” But corrective action was needed, so at least for the immediate future jettisoning Pride Month in the military and federal agencies isn’t a lamentable loss; it’s a return to the proper role of government in a democratic republic.

In short, it is not the role of government to celebrate anyone’s sexual orientation. How did we come to think that it was?

How Trump’s Transgender-Military Ban Might Have Been Defensible

The executive order would be more defensible if rather than veering into whether transitioning ones gender identity is dishonorable and untruthful, not to mention selfish, the administration had instead focused on practical issues. A point made in passing that should have been central is the reference to “the hormonal and surgical medical interventions involved.”
An argument certainly could be made (but wasn’t) that just as insulin-dependent diabetics are barred from enlisting — as insulin can’t be guaranteed to deployed troops — so, too, it would seem reasonable to bar transgender personnel dependent on the lifelong use of cross-sex hormones, as people who have physically transitioned typically are. https://stephenhenrymiller.substack.com/p/how-trumps-transgender-military-ban


Added:

Along similar lines, The Scroll’s Adam Lehrer reports:

Rob Smith, an openly gay combat veteran, argues that the removal of trans people from the military is the right move because, he says, transgender service members are non-deployable, meaning that while their treatments are covered by Veterans Affairs, they effectively can’t serve the military primarily because they require ongoing medical treatments that are not compatible with military readiness. So, while some are criticizing the removal of 8,000 service members from the military, Smith and others assert that the executive orders remove 8,000 non-deployable service members and replace them with 8,000 deployable members.

Lest We Forget

True to form:

Chick-fil-A Targeted

Brad Polumbo writes:
Chick-fil-A’s only connection to any of this is that its owners — not the company — through their separate foundation donate to the National Christian Foundation, the 8th-largest nonprofit in the U.S. That foundation works with Christian charitable groups. And there’s a weak connection between a tiny percentage of the groups NCF works with and anti-LGBT ministers in Uganda. Yet connecting those groups to ministers does not connect them to this legislation. Even Snopes admits “it’s not clear to what extent National Christian Foundation-funded entities were involved in the creation or promotion of a bill to make homosexuality punishable by death.”
A better way to response to Uganda:

Israeli Pride

Point:


Counterpoint:

Grenell Confirmed


The president’s moves to ban transgender service members from the military, even those who have fully transitioned, may preclude him from being seen as transformative on LGBT issues within the GOP, but the party is still changing. Even former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, an ardent social conservative, praised the appointment as ambassador to Germany an openly gay man who supported the fight for marriage equality. Grenell wrote in the Wall Street Journal in May 2012, “I can be proud of President Obama’s personal support for gay marriage and still take exception to his dismal national-security and economic records.”

More. Via The Hill:

The fight over Richard Grenell isn’t the cause of the clearly changing sentiment within the GOP; it’s more of the fulcrum than the spark. There have long been Log Cabin Republicans, now dutifully championing the fact that one of their own will likely be the highest-ranking gay official in U.S. history. Yet now, there seems to be a larger presence of openly gay Republicans than ever before; and consistent with polling data, no one in the party really seems to mind.