I don't get it.
Since 1993, more than 13,000 soldiers have been discharged from the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy. Countless others are effectively denied access to mental health and other services because they can't tell.
In 2006, a blue ribbon commission concluded that the policy — at that point — had cost the military some $360 million because of the loss of qualified and trained soldiers and the need to replace them. How much it has cost the men and women who love this country and want to serve and protect it is just incalculable. At a time when our military is strained fighting two wars, why would anyone exclude a person simply because of who they are?
The president's call to repeal this dated and cruel compromise was met with cheers in the hall, but within hours, the old men were lining up to oppose it. I have the greatest respect for John McCain and his service to this country, but what made sense for the military 40 years ago is not necessarily what makes sense today. Military leaders from Colin Powell to Mike Mullen to John Shalikashvili — current and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — have all spoken against the policy. As Gen. Shalikashvili wrote in 2007: "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."
DADT punishes soldiers if they so much as reveal their sexual orientation. Under the policy, as explained by the Pentagon, "the military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender." A gay soldier who says he is gay is subject to discharge for that statement.
Morale? That was the excuse I kept hearing from members of Congress — Republican and Democrat — who were all over the airwaves this morning attacking the president.
But in 2008, responding to a soldier's question at West Point, Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear that "Congress, and not the military, is responsible for (DADT)."
This isn't about the military. The Pentagon has made clear that they are willing to work with the president to repeal the policy. It is about politics.
Every argument being made today to exclude gays from the military was made in the past to exclude blacks. And yet, once the military was integrated, it became a model of real integration for our nation — one of the few places where minorities are indeed fully integrated, equal if not more successful in attaining leadership roles. Freed from the requirement of discrimination, the military has shown that it can judge merit without regard to race or gender. Freed from the requirement of discrimination, the military could lead the way to an equal society.
When President Clinton first proposed eliminating the ban on gays in the military, he pointed to the extensive evidence of harassment suffered by soldiers who were thought to be gay. By all reports, that harassment has not ended. Why would it? The policy embraces the unacceptable and unfair premise that being openly gay is inconsistent with being qualified to serve your country. That premise is a cancer that is not limited to the military. It needs to be fought, not appeased.
Some 20,000 active and former service members belong to an organization of gay soldiers. The issue is not whether gays serve in the military; they do. The issue is whether they get the respect and protection they deserve when they put their lives on the line to serve this country. Shame on us.
Someday, gays will be equal citizens in this country. The trend of history is clear. There will be a day when every American will be equal. Why not now?
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
-Commnet on : "FOCUS ON THE FAMILY" Column ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that those who support killing a developing human simply cannot tolerate those who oppose such action telling others the reason why they oppose such action. Such is often the positin of free speech "LIberals". Liberals support, indeed, advocate the evil act of abortion. I find it interesting that Liberals, despite all their unearned smug elitist arrogance, often advocate policies that result in evil being done; often in the name of good and tolerance and with the philosophy that the "end justifies the means". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have always said that the biggest challenge we face in life is to keep evil from making us do evil. If one agrees and wishes to avoid doing evil I submit that one should study the policies advocated by Liberals, identify the "means" by which they say will result in a desired "ends", and do the opposite of such "means". What Liberals seem to not appreciated is that the "means" is far more important than the "ends" as some "ends" will never be achieved (e.g. the perfect society). Thus, people will often live their entire life engaging in the "means" without ever achieving the "ends". Restated, we become the "means", not the "end." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan states: “The not so subtle implication is that the fetus you aborted would have grown up to be some kind of superstar. How ridiculous. And frankly, how insulting. Without an athletic gene in my body, I can certainly say that I never expected any child of mine to win a Heisman.” Fact is, Susan, it is true an aborted fetus could have become a superstar, even yours. More importantly, however, such a fetus would have become a child, perhaps with great talents, perhaps with no talents, but a child happy to have lived, if only for a day. I find it amazingly presumptuous (but consistent with an elitist Liberal) for mere humans to say that certain other humans are better off not existing. What does not shock me is to discover the majority of humans whom would take such a position call themselves "Liberals." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Susan further states: “The suggestion that abortion is in any way connected to the value or the potential talents of the baby-to-be is so offensive that it is hard to believe Focus on the Family doesn't see the distorted underside of their own advertisement.” The truth often offends Liberals, thus, the fact that Susan is offended by the Focus on the Family ad does not surprise me. I see no suggestion. Abortion is directly connected to destroying the potention talents of a baby-to-be (i.e. developing human). Kill the baby, destroy the talent (however great or small such talent would have been). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Susan further states: “I might go to the bathroom during that ad or make popcorn. Focus on the Family is getting attention and will get more. But it is doing so by running an ad that is deceptive and ultimately cruel.” Right, Susan, need to keep the opinions of others out of the public domain. According to Liberals, Killing a developing human is not cruel, it is humane. But trying to convience someone that killing a developing human is a bad idea, perhaps immoral and could endanger your soul, now that is cruel. Got it. (LOL) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All you young ladies out there considering abortion who are also Christians; consider the following. You will see the baby you kill (abort) again one day. Liberals might trick you into aborting your child saying such an act is OK because THEY say it is ok and it is legal. Please remember, Liberals do not have the power to make such an act “OK” nor do they have the power to make such an act non-evil. A Liberal's opinion on such an issue is meaningless. Eventually we all die and when a young lady that has had an abortion dies, she will face her child again and I am sure such child (and perhaps others) will have at least one question for you. WHY? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I hope you have a good answer.
Comment: #1
Posted by: SusansMirror
Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Fact: Blacks were oppressed socially, physically, and economically!
Fiction: Gays are treated just like blacks!
Fact: Blacks are still oppressed financially!
Fiction: Gays are too!
Fact: Individuals involved in same sex marriages are making more money than the average marriages between a man and woman!
Fiction: So are blacks!
See how stupid that sounds?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Heather
Tue Feb 2, 2010 5:29 AM
|
|
|
|
One question! Is Estrich gay or straight??? I know she is a liberal/rogressive and that alone would put her on the gay freedom rights end of the spectrum.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Frank Navratil
Tue Feb 2, 2010 4:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Richard H. Black reports the following in The Washington Times 02/01/2010
From 1992 to 1994, I served as chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon. During that time, President Clinton ignited a firestorm when he tried to force the Department of Defense to admit known homosexuals into the military. Key obstacles were the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ ) and department regulations stating that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The uniform code prohibits indecent assaults, indecent acts, indecent liberties with children and sodomy. Each of those rules makes good sense in the unique military environment.
Even as Congress was wrestling with Mr. Clinton's proposal on homosexuals, officials were dealing with a major homosexual scandal at Fort Hood, Texas. Homosexuals had advertised a Fort Hood restroom as a gathering spot for casual sex. In just seven days, criminal investigators observed 60 men publicly committing serious acts on post. Officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and enlisted personnel participated. Many wore uniforms displaying their insignia of rank.
The Army dealt with the matter discreetly, and the chief of public affairs referred to it as a "potentially explosive issue." It was "explosive" because it contradicted the administration's campaign to portray gay GIs as "perfect gentlemen - a boon to the force."
At the Criminal Law Division, facts contradicted that party line. Worldwide criminal reports documented serious offenses being committed frequently by homosexual GIs. To be certain, homosexuals weren't the only soldiers committing crimes, but the administration's proposals would have placed homosexuals in situations of forced intimacy, where same-sex attractions invite serious trouble.
Activists claim the risk of crimes from same-sex offenders is no greater than it is between servicemen and women. They are wrong. Women are not required to sleep and shower under the watchful eyes of men.
Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.
Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window. At Marine boot camp, an aggressive female recruit was discharged for sexually touching and soliciting fellow Marines. Her intimidating manner caused fear and distrust throughout her platoon. At Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Airborne All The Way
Thu Feb 4, 2010 1:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
