Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why I Can't Celebrate the End of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Many are applauding the repeal of DADT as an advance for gay and lesbian civil rights. And while any advance in civil rights is difficult to oppose, I am troubled by the celebration and fanfare that has accompanied the repeal of this policy. After eighteen years of such a costly and repugnant policy, why do I not rejoice at this step forward in legal protections for LGB individuals? Why can't I celebrate the end of DADT as an advance in civil rights?
Part of my reticence to celebrate comes from the current news coverage that suggests that the repeal of DADT is the final victory of a monolithic LGBT community that has been fighting for inclusion in the military for decades. But the gay community has never been uniform in its support for military inclusion. Eighteen years ago Clinton's decision to lift a ban on homosexuality in the military was met with reservation from many quarters of the LGBT communities who opposed the creeping militarization o f our lives and communities . This reticence and resistance from within our communities is missing from this celebration of civil rights. While "inside the beltway" activists honor and defend as a civil right every individual's decision to serve their country through military service, are LGBT communities obligated to support such a corrupt, misogynistic, and homophobic institution? Have we forgotten the Pentagon's plan in 1994 to develop a "gay bomb" that would release female pheromones on the battlefield, thereby triggering uncontrollable lust among enemy combatants on the battlefield, rendering this newly created gay enemy unable to fight? Such adolescent misunderstandings of masculinity, sexuality, and human nature should be enough to make LGBT communities question if the military is really an institution worth joining.
What might a progressive and/or a radical LGBT community response to the repeal of DADT look like today? We might begin by acknowledging that while ending this ban will make it easier for LGB people in the military to stay there, and easier for others to join, there are larger political implications to this inclusion. This civil rights victory entitles LGB persons to serve as "the mercenaries of a military industrial complex" as Barbara Smith said. These "mercenaries" have succeeded in killing more than 110,000 civilian non combatants in Iraq, and more than 10,000 civilian noncombatants in Afghanistan. Is this truly progress, and if so for whom? Our military leaders claim that the creation of a stable democratic society is the goal in these countries. Nonetheless the Pentagon was slow to condemn anti-gay honor killings in Iraq and seems not to think that rampant violence directed at sexual minorities is incompatible with a democratic society. Should progressive LGBT communities not also be globally engaged ones? Should civil rights victories here manipulate us into abandoning our moral courage and outrage at homophobia and sexual violence abroad ? When Abu Ghraib revealed homosexual rape to be part of the military's humiliation of prisoners, I wondered if that could have happened if an LGBT service member had been present. Yet, today, I fear that misplaced patriotism, jingoism, demonization of the enemy-- all well worn practices of the United States Military--will create camaraderie among queer and straight soldiers long before it would help gay servicemen and women see their own connection to sexually subjugated enemy combatants.
A truly radical LGBT response would go further still. We might be working to dismantle the military industrial complex and shift those billions of dollars to help the very economically distressed communities and individuals that military recruiters target to make their monthly enlistment quotas-- sites which will now include LGBT community centers. Deploying promises of a steady income, high tech training, college grants, and upward social mobility, the US Military targets the highest risk populations in our society for recruitment. Suspect under normal conditions, during a prolonged recession this strategy is simply dishonest and exploitive. It seems even more exploitative when one realizes that all of these promised benefits have become comparatively less generous and less effective in recent decades.
A radical LGBT community movement might also demand that the savings from the repeal of DADT be directed toward those LGBT community centers that are now targeted for recruitment: a kind of queer combination of a Peace dividend and reparations to a community for historically egregious official discrimination. With more than 13,000 GLBT service members fired under DADT and an average investment in their training priced at $52000 per service member, a queer dividend of $383 million invested at the community level over the next 18 years could help address the many forms that LGBT discrimination takes today.
But of course no such dividend will be forthcoming. In the current budget debate as the military insists that any cuts to its budget will cripple its readiness, we should remember that this $383 million was money the military squandered upholding a discriminatory policy. Surely, this is a painless budget cut that all taxpayers can applaud. Unfortunately, like the Cold War "Peace dividend," the end of this war on LGBT people by the US military will bring no advantage to these communities nor to American taxpayers. The military will simply find another unneeded weapons system in which to invest, another politically connected Halliburton to which to funnel taxpayer dollars.
Although it is tempting to see any advance of civil rights as a good thing, I cannot celebrate the repeal of DADT. If the goal is the advance of LGBT civil rights, many areas exist where national leadership and congressional action would make a more significant impact on the lives of beltway activists, progressive GLBTs and Radical queers all. National laws making it illegal to discriminate against LGBT people in housing, in adoption, in civil unions, in immigration or in the workplace would have far reaching consequences for many. A law that ends discrimination in the workplace could bring truly progressive change to greater numbers of people in the United States and might also have been applied to the military as one of the country's largest employers. When finally the Employment Non Discrimination Act, or some future incarnation of it, passes and becomes the law of the United States, I will celebrate. Until then, consider me "Section 8," but the military is no place for queers.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show AllA good start on a necessary discussion. The figure of 110,000 civilian, non-combatant deaths in Iraq is far, far below what other scholars and students of the endless war have calculated, such as the UK Lancet study estimating 655,000 civilian deaths as of 2006. And who can calculate how many die due to the destruction of infrastructure rendering water supplies polluted, necessary basic drugs and treatments for chronic disease like diabetes unattainable, etc. The basic moral question GLBT people face with the whole US citizenry is what stance one takes individually and as a group toward a US ruling elite trying to dominate the entire globe by military force and financial chicanery, fraud, and gross criminality? Does one become a morally blind tool of global empire which is obviously playing a major role in bringing the planet's environment into ever accelerating collapse? Does one ignore the fact that the US is involved in military invasion, occupation, intrusion with the most violent and destructive weapons ever invented in lands, peoples and nations which never have posed any direct threat to the US? Whatever a few "terrorists" from whatever part of the world may do, this is an international crime to be solved by seeking the real actors, not by attacking and devastating whole nations. And the devastation at home is just as real and definable as the $l TRILLION annual military spending then results, along with the Wall Street bailout, in a US without a basic national health care system for all, an infrastructure needing $2 trillion in upkeep, a public education system in decline, a lack of mass transit and forests, rivers, lakes, lands and wildlife in increasing peril. These are all the costs of a nation become empire with over 1,000 military bases in over 100 nations such that US officials speak of "US national security interests" in such broad terms that it clearly includes the entire land and water surface of the earth and extends out into space, the 'high ground". GLBT people need to join with the rest of humanity in rising to save our futures, our home planet and our destiny as a species in resisting the death summons of US military empire.
What DADT should have done was to simply stop any official conversations about personal sexual orientations and ensure they weren’t part of military policy-making, promotions, discharges, assignments, etc. – rather like the idea of “color-blindness” for race.
Instead, it handed the homophobes a powerful tool for control, basically outlawing certain behaviors and forbidding any public review or discussion of the consequences.
Now of course, our favored outlaws, “Islamic extremists,” are simply targeted for assassination by drones: cheaper, more final, no appeal, no accountability.
I have to say 'right on', courtjester. Does a person learn anything from being a member of a racial or despised minority? I used to think so, but that was before I heard about Log Cabin Gays, or saw black upper middle class people defending greed and 'the American way' (and before, I have to say, Obama). I've always considered myself fortunate in being gay principally because it helped me from becoming and up-tight little fundamentalist turd. I guess learning from life experiences has nothing to do with being dumped on for your race or sexuality. Life is more complicated than that, it would seem.
Tragically, an Achilles Heel or fatal flaw of identity politics is that it forces advocates for a given special class or interest group to acquire a form of occupational monomania or obsession.
This narrowed focus of concern, though arising for good reason, mitigates against genuine radicalism, and more often than not turns issue-centered activists into moderates-- which in turn inclines the overall movement towards moderation.
I don't believe that it's inevitable-- thoughtful and determined persons can recognize and avoid this trap.
But it's simply all too common, and understandable, that those who are devoted to advancing the cause or movement for a specific sub-group come to place the needs of, and deference to, the sub-group ahead of broad, general concerns.
To cite a traditional, limited parallel: if your local suburban country club doesn't accept Jews or Negroes (to use the terminology of the day), by all means activist Jews and Negroes ought to righteously pound on that country club door until it breaks down and admits them in good faith.
The institutional bigotry, racism, etc. is genuinely oppressive, and is intolerable both on principle, and because of the practical consequences of such discrimination on society and daily life.
But stepping back from the legitimate narrow evil of a country club's unacceptable classism and bigotry, it's arguable that country clubs themselves are such manifestly obscenely pretentious and malignant sops to bourgeois, nouveau riche status-seekers that no aware, self-respecting person should WANT to join such a club.
But the fact that the institution may be itself depraved and reprehensible in no way justifies or excuses its heinous policies and practices. And it's idle to argue that its faulty operation is irrelevant, or actually a benefit to the excluded parties, since it's so inherently rotten that it's doing the excluded parties a "favor" by rejecting them.
As I see it, though, the problem is that the more dedicated activists are, especially those who are full-time "career" activists working in advocacy organizations, the more the "tree" of the discriminatory institution or practice dominates their field of vision. They become unwilling or unable to give the forest more than fitful or superficial, rhetorical consideration.
There are always individual "trees" at the top of the agenda, i.e. battles to reform institutions, work to give one's special class increased status, representation, parity, and so forth. Consequently, a Catch-22 develops over priorities: pulling back to devote energy and resources to broader and deeper issues seems to undermine the narrower battles, and even place gains at risk.
Thus, a "loyal" LGBT advocate is prone to be locked into a pernicious either-or dilemma, and is discouraged from also being a radical anti-war, or anti-Empire, or anti-capitalism advocate.
Please see my 3:33pm comment addressing this issue at "New Cost of Defending the Indefensible: $1.5 Million" by Abby Zimet*
__________________
* http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/10/05-0
Excellent post! Yes to gay marriage and gay public kissing, no to gay war criminals, it really is that simple IMO.
yes, excellent article, and excellent post by OS as usual, thanks OS! If this were facebook I'd constantly be liking your posts. good thing we can't do that here, we have to actually say something! Guitarist, hope you read the post below by deborama. She is spot on in my opinion about marriage. Do my sister and I have to get married to share domestic rights? Marriage should be a ceremony celebrated in whatever form desired, and completely separate from the state. domestic partnership rights should have nothing to do with sex.
I don't disagree at all, get the state out of marriage. My only was to affirm the right of gay people to make commitments if they choose to do so.
yes, and of course I celebrate happily with all my friends, whatever their sexual preference/orientation upon their marriage.
the greatest piece i have ever read on this topic...now someone with your authority needs to write a similar one on gay marriage, because marriage is every bit as much a regressive, exclusionary institution as the military, and it's NOT a point of pride to be able to marry...women fought for years to be allowed the right NOT to marry! the real issue with marriage is the many financial benefits that accrue by virtue of legal marriage...these should be entirely decoupled from legal wedlock and any adult of right mind should be able to appoint any other adult of right mind as his or her heir, guardian, proxy, beneficiary, or whatever...i think it's horrible that instead of fighting for the legal equivalence of all people regardless of their marital status, gays instead decided to put all their energies into being allowed to join the "in" group of married people...what a waste! how is discrimination based on marital status any better than discrimination based on sexual orientation? it's not
Completely agree, and well articulated deborama. I have been sharing this argument with my gay friends for years now. marriage is about religious/spiritual beliefs and sex fits in there usually. domestic partnership is a state issue, and if my sister and I want to share property and care for our offspring we should be afforded the same rights as anyone else. I've grappled with the myriad of relationships out there, what if three people are in love? for now, within the constraints of our political consciousness, I think a partnership of 2, any 2, would work well and at least be a start to a paradigm shift in this limited categorizing of relationships.
Excellent post, Deborama!
"The military is no place for queers"? --- Ammunition for right-wingers, if they deigned to frequent this website. I think it's a shameful sentiment: if the author believes that our military should consist solely of straight citizens, he is reinforcing the prejudices of those he probably sees as his adversaries. I've seen counterproductive viewpoints in my time, but nothing so flagrant recently.
Why are you supporting the military that is used to kill third world people for the financial and political benefit of an oligarchic elite? THAT is a right wing position. End the empire of overseas bases and bring our money and people back home to rebuild our democracy and our communities. Break up the Federal government and lets promote social justice, and sustainable infrastructure from a grassroots basis, the Federal government protects Wall St not the 99%.
tommy, i can't tell if you are playing games here or if you are for real. I am not certain you even read this piece.
Your comment makes no sense except within the context of you being gay and in the military. If that is the case................No comment.
Sir, in a totally ideal world you may be right. Unfortunately the world is not totally ideal and the crucial issue at hand, at least for me, is not whether GLBT persons should or should not serve in the Armed Forces on whatever grounds; it is discrimination. As Professor of Government you know that states can legally discriminate. A good example is driver license. My state of Texas will not issue such licenses to persons younger than 16. That is clearly a discrimination of a specific group of Texas residents. The state of Texas can do this legally in contravention of any equal treatment clause as you well know because it has produced in court what is known as "compelling evidence" that this statue is needed to protect most of the young drivers and most of the residents of the state from harm. No politician will run for election here on a plank to issue driver licenses to ten-year old children because he/she will get exactly zero votes. Every time the walls of unreasonable discrimination are breached, especially walls erected on the Bible, because the Federal Government (in the DADT case) or a state cannot provide "compelling evidence" to continue a discrimination I rejoice because it is another wall breached and sets a precedent for the destruction of another wall in the future. Hallelujah! I am sad to notice that you seem to be totally blind to that aspect of the DADT vote in Congress. I am afraid that your idealism is leading you astray. For me the DADT case was a battering ram. Legal same-gender marriage will be the next battering ram. I urge you to study what the destruction of discrimination walls has done to society in the Netherlands. Wonders. It has become one of the most civilized societies on Earth.
Sincerely yours. Crowsnest
I agree with the thrust of your comments. For example, what does it say about society's treatment of a minority if they are forbidden to join. To me it clearly implies that the minority is untrustworthy or unfit. This attitude towards the population is detrimental to all members of society. It needed to be ended.
I also share revulsion towards the military industrial complex. Further, I agree that discrimination against one group to further the interests of another- is nothing more than a sellout and in the end achieves very little for social justice.
As a gay man, I share some of the institutional concerns over marriage, but also recognize it as a fundamental right. Further, many in the Lesbian and Gay community do not share my institutional concerns. It is not for me to challenge them on this issue. Perhaps outlawing marriage altogether and replacing it with civil unions would be preferable, but the dominant ethos believes marriage is in some way superior.
What is of greater concern to me than this debate, is that transgender citizens still cannot serve openly. This is an injustice that reminds us that there is still much more work to be done.
I applaud the fact that now gay people can be in the military without all the crap involved with DADT, but I think that any gay person who joins the military, for any reason, is a fool, and should be ashamed of themselves. I'm reminded of the Log Cabin Gays, who are so fucked up they don't know who their enemies are. These ass holes in the military are not your friends, they are not the friends of any of the young people who join up. I just saw the documentary on Pat Tillman. What a smarmy bunch of creeps, from the mid level officers all the way to Donald Rumsfeld. If gay people want to belong to this group of people, be ruled by them, be trained as killers by them, I think they are showing a huge lack of intelligence and moral fiber.
When I was called up for the draft in 1962, I was grateful that I had the excuse of being gay to stay out of the military. I have always counted that as one of the huge benefits of being gay. It probably saved my life, or of having to make the choice of staying in the United States. Why anyone, gay or straight, would want to join the military is a total mystery to me. But at least now gay men and woman have the same opportunity to be idiots as their straight counterparts.
Gary, you rock!
I'm with Gary. The point is that it's no cause for all the hoopla and celebration, not that GLBT shouldn't be allowed into the military. The fact that so many GLBT are so excited about this bit of 'inclusion' just shows the down side to assimilation into the larger, effed up society.
America needs a military force. War is a nasty business, and I'm totally against unprovoked agression and killing of civilians, but, in the event that we're attacked, we must defend. To discriminate against those of us who would rise to the occasion is truly ungrateful. To the GLBT community, I see no reason why you shouldn't join the military if you wish to defend America from aggression. However, if it's unprovoked war, as the War in Iraq, I hear you. But anyone who joins the military does so at personal risk. You become an object subject to discipline from a command that may not be very bright. Be wary.
yes