I knew he had a set of brass balls, but this is almost wreckless--and I couldn't be happier that his character took on this issue in Iraq. Perhaps those few conservatives who think he's really on their side will listen to him.
It's been interesting watching these first two nights of his Iraq coverage. Monday night the troops were laughing at the stuff that was most applicable to them, I think--the basic training, the Odierno interview, the haircut. When the camera would pan the room, there were many who weren't clapping, or who had a kind of "Who the hell are you? Impress me!" look on their faces. I'm not sure everyone in that room had seen the Colbert Report before, or knew what they were in for.
Tuesday night, Stephen's introduction got a big ol' Standing O, just like in his studio audience, and the crowd seemed much warmer. It was as if, having seen the basic training clip and the haircut, the troops were much better disposed towards him. I imagine Colbert had also been spending some time around the base--that reference to "Jody" in this segment was clearly some sort of private joke, indecipherable outside Camp Victory--and that made the audience better disposed.
But I gasped when I realized he was about to take on DADT. His balls are adamantium. The laughs were not nearly as loud in this segment, I noticed, but if there was even a single DADT-compliant homosexual in that auditorium it must have felt like manna in the desert.
Colbert is a remarkable man. I suppose, after his legendary performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years back, any discussion of the perfectly adamantine nature of his balls was moot, but he really kicked it up a notch.
"Jody" has been covered on this blog before. It is derived from a Johnny Taylor song, he talks about "Jody" taking your girl away. For decades it has been used by drill SGT.'s as a way of telling young privates in boot camp(like me back in 95) not to worry about back home, and don't worry about your girl back home...Jody is taking care of her.
Also, might this be a way for the White House to passively encourage debate on DADT? It's not a stretch to believe the USO and the military approved Colbert's scripts before they were performed--and the commander in chief himself appeared on the show. While Cobert's "dialogue" didn't superficially take a particular stance, the simple idea of talking about DADT in front of active troops--in Iraq--is certainly telling (even if it's not, eh, asking).
I think the "Jody" reference was a nod to the military marching cadence (& Johnny Taylor song), "ain't no use in going home, Jody's got your girl and gone." The "Formidable Opponent" segment was fearless.
Thanks so much to Keith and atlantapril for the scoop on "Jody"--I must have missed those earlier posts--that definitely explains the huge laugh that line got!
Colbert is amazing. I watched two of his Iraq shows and his rapport with the troops was beautiful. For some weird reason, this crazy persona can pull shit off nobody else could and people seem to both laugh AND listen. The second night he had an Arab-American GI - a translator who enlisted after 9/11, essentially as a gesture of contempt for al Qaeda and out of a sense of honor as a Muslim - and a female MP, and his interview with them was a beautiful thing. Also loved his getting a buzz-cut in solidarity with the troops. Just gotta love Colbert.
As a practical and moral sense I see why DADT is wrong. As someone who was in the Army, I knew of guys that were gay and girls that were lesbians, in fact one girl I knew used it as a way to get out while her partner was allowed to stay in. This was back in 1995, and I think a point has to be made that homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military. I understand that sexual preference should not be helled against someone, but heterosexual fraternization and adultery will also get you booted from the military. To me this is a little different than say segregation and allowing blacks to serve with whites. There is no hiding the color of a person, and yes I understand a person should not have to hide the fact that he or she is gay. But in the Army, if your sleeping with another soldier that is married, you have to hide that as well. If your are both single, and are in a heterosexual relationship, you have to hide that while your in uniform. Again, this not me defending DADT, to me it is a useless rule. I just have a few questions, and wonder what is the end game. If DADT were repealed its not like rainbow pins and hand holding in the mess hall would be allowed.
Lt. Choi's discharge is absurd, but its not like somebody was uncomfortable serving with him and told on him, he knowingly went out on tv and outed himself in protest. When your are in the Army, there are certain liberty's that you volunteer to give up. I served with homosexuals, and off base out of uniform there was no more attempt to hide anything they were doing than what we were doing. If someone had a problem with them, and went to our SGT.'s and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's gay. The first thing that would have happened was the Sgt would have sat the soldier down and asked him/her and a choice would then be made. If I had a thing for a fellow soldier, our fling or whatever would have to wait until we were off base and out of uniform, it didn't matter if the relationship was homo or hetero. This is all anecdotal I know, but it's all I have.
So again, what is the end game? The military lifestyle is not condusive to an indivduals right to freedom of expression, or hell freedom of anything outside of the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Letting people be gay w/o getting kicked out for that sole purpose is the end game! Straight people are allowed to acknowledge their sexuality in appropriate ways without getting kicked out. Gays want the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand?
I responded to your post further down. All I will say here is that gay's are allowed to serve in the military, and while there they make it clear to all of us, gay/straight that there really is no appropiate way or time where any of us are allowed to acknowledge our sexuality.
You are just flat out wrong. Like I said below, it is ok for a straight person to talk about their significant others, dating, finding the opposite attractive. As soon as a gay person does any of that, they are in violation of the "don't tell" part of DADT. It's astounding that you can claim there is absolutely no difference in the standards applied to straight people and gay people in the military.
The upshot is simply that gays can openly serve in the military and the nation will be better served as a result.
It is true fro any civil disobedience that the protester, for his or her protest to carry weight, must be willing to bear the consequences of that protest. Lt. Choi has served his country within the military as a soldier and as a citizen protesting the civil injustice, not to mention, disservice to our nation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gay military service. for both, we owe the man a debt of honor.
I agree the damn rule, DADT is wrong, and ill concieved. It was a crappy way to allow something to happen, whithout having to acknowledge that you are allowing it to happen. I'm just talking from experience here, and it has been my experience that the military is not conducive to allowing free flowing conversations about sexuality that can jeapordize a career. I like the vast majority of people went into the military, not knowing anybody and having to forge new friendships. You gain friends, you feel comfrotable with people and by that point, to most it didn't matter if one was gay or straight. In that aspect, we chose to interpret the Don't Tell part as don't tell the CO that so and so is gay. Now this is purely anectdotal, but when I was in basic, there was a guy that had it and found himself done with the whole thing. He wanted to quit, but of course quitting is easier said than done. When you go talk to the drill Sgt. you have to take a buddy. I went and he told the Sgt. he was gay, the Sgt replied that it doesn't work like that anymore and try again. It wasn't until the guy said he was going to kill himself if they didn't discharge him, did they take him seriously. While I was in AIT(training after basic) there was a girl who was openly lesbian(meaning we knew, she was free to joke about it with us), but it wasn't until she decided she had enough of the army and told the Sgt's that she was sleeping with a girl that was married did they kick her out. By the way, the girl she was sleeping with who was married did not want to leave and ended up staying in the army longer than I did. Now this is of course all anecdotal, and I'm not sure what my point is in all that. Only to say my only issue, is when people use the term "openly gay", and I flashback to my time in the Army and didn't see it so black and write.
The big difference though is that you can get kicked out for saying you are a homosexual even if you are not sleeping with anyone. The heterosexuals do not have to hide the fact that they are heterosexuals, they just have to hide their behavior while the homosexual has to hide the very fact that they are a homosexual regardless of their behavior.
"I served with homosexuals, and off base out of uniform there was no more attempt to hide anything they were doing than what we were doing. If someone had a problem with them, and went to our SGT.'s and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's gay. The first thing that would have happened was the Sgt would have sat the soldier down and asked him/her and a choice would then be made"
What would happen if they went to the Sgt and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's straight. Would there be a choice to be made? There may be gay soldiers that are fairly open off base but that doesn't mean they will not one day be 'outed' to someone in the military that will then report them and have them kicked out simply for being gay, regardless of if they had sex with someone.
How does one know if one is gay or straight if not for behavior? Especially in an enviroment that requires as much conformity and discipline as the military? I think this is a very black and white view of how conversations and behavior works. Your in formation or the barracks and a girl walks by, you don't hear "man, I'm feeling really straight right now". You hear, "damn, she's fine". Guess what, if she decided to make an issue of that I could be discharged for sexual harassment. The military is about restraint, conformity and discipline. Simply being gay/striaght void of any behavior to indicate otherwise, is actually ok under DADT. It's the premise of the policy.
Well, technically writing or saying "I am Gay" is in itself a behavioral act. Semantics aside, your right I know nothing of sexual activity by that statement. Not sure what your point is in regards to the military. If you were not my buddy, and we were in the same company in the Army, you wouldn't know if I were gay or straight. And I wouldn't feel the need to just go around and telling people I didn't know that, not very soldierery...
"But in the Army, if your sleeping with another soldier that is married, you have to hide that as well. If your are both single, and are in a heterosexual relationship, you have to hide that while your in uniform."
What are you talking about? Heterosexual soldiers do not get booted for mentioning their spouse or significant other like gay people do!
"If I had a thing for a fellow soldier, our fling or whatever would have to wait until we were off base and out of uniform, it didn't matter if the relationship was homo or hetero."
If the fling were off base, out of uniform hetero, you'd be fine. If someone found out you were in a gay relationship, even if it was while you were on leave, you'd be out.
Gays aren't asking for specials rights to have a sexual free for all in the military. They simply want to be able to serve the military with the same standards that straight people get to live by.
I am not saying that gay's are asking for the right to have a sexual free for all, or the right to hold hands and wear rainblow pins. What I am saying is that while in the military, it has been my experience that everyone has a certain way they have to behave while in uniform. Straight or gay. I concede that DADT is not practical, and the fundamental flaw is that nobody should be kicked out of the service for simply saying that they are gay. I get that. But it has been my experience that most soldiers are not going to rat out a fellow soldier if the soldier is capable. Nobody outted Lt. Choi because he was a capable leader. I understand why he came out, it was a protest. I guess my only point, is that everyone that choses to serve in the miltary gives up certain fundamental rights that most of us are able to enjoy. Most of my critique here is based on behavior, and Rillion makes a great point about the table being turned and a soldier having a problem with "straightness". My only argument to that is I would say that in the military, discipline and restraint is asked by all that serve, gay or straight. And the basic idea of DADT is, shut up and soldier on and everything will be fine. I understand Elizabeths point about wanting to be able to serve in the military with the same standards that straight people get to live by, and again all I have to say is we all had the same standards when I served. We all had to sacrifice, and we all did. I understand that some people that serve in the military are bigoted, and could out someone if they found out that person was gay. I have a problem with that, and it is wrong that that could happen which is why I believe DADT should be repealed. It should also be said that if while I was in the military, I chose to handle the many bigots I came across in the Army differently and decided to take the issue to the higher ups, they would have been discharged.
You're telling me that when you were in the military you were affraid to mention your wife or girlfriend out of fear of being kick out? That when you called or wrote home you had to pretend that you were writing to a friend? That you never even once mentioned to one of your buddies that you found some woman attractive? Did you have to keep a letter on your person, which was to be sent to your wife in case you died on duty, because the military would not notify her?
I'm pretty sure you didn't have to deal with those things.
You are right I did not have to worry about mentioning my wife or girlfriend out of fear of discharge. But there were friends of mine that were gay, and stayed in longer than I did. They did not have to hide around us, and its not like we could talk about our wives or girlfriends to our Sgt's anyway, that just doesn't happen. You know there is a rule that prevents NCO's(non comissioned officers) and officers from "fraternizing" with anyone below their rank. They are subject to discharge if this happens. The military is filled with idiotic rules that don't make sense to people outside of the military, and in it for that matter. It's why I didn't make a career out of it. Around my buddies I was able to mention the attractiveness of a woman, much like a homosexual would not have to worry about that sort of thing around his or her buddies. But when other people were around, we all had to restrain. As for the letter, all I can say is its not the military's fault that homosexuals can only marry in two states. Thats a whole different issue, in which I'm sure we both agree needs to be fixed. If I weren't married, the military would notify my next of kin and not my girlfriend even if we had a child together regardless of sexual preference. I can't believe defending freaking DADT, but I guess to a certain extent I am. I wish it didn't exist, I guess I just think the issue surrounding it is not so black in white.
I know civilians just don't understand the military.
This is akin to how the South felt about slavery during the Civil War.
You have outsiders who know nothing about you and what you do trying to foist their belief system on you. You see it time and again as they pay lip service to you, yet they show their complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy by forcing their beliefs on you. You work your ass off, sacrifice your life and this is how they want to repay you?
"You work your ass off, sacrifice your life and this is how they want to repay you?"
Sound the tiny violins! You're being "forced" to not discriminate against gay people. How about the 65,000 gay people who are currently working their ass off, sacrificing their lives--they get repaid with nothign but disdain from many of our leaders and people like you.
This is the exact attitude that infuriates soldiers.
I don't know, maybe you speak from experience (if so, I aplogize, from mis-characterizing you), but you're only looking at this from your side of the issue. I'm asking you to look at it from the other side. That's how a lot of people in the military feel.
I'm very ambivalent about it. Emotionally, I don't want to see DADT repealed. Intellectually, I don't see anything other than it being repealed.
Now, instead of being angry about it, and at the people who don't like it, ask yourself, how can you best argue your case to the people who will be most vehemently against it.
ask yourself, how can you best argue your case to the people who will be most vehemently against it
No, we have to argue our case to people that are more likely to be convinced. And be realistic about certain things. Like, for example, there will also be some people that even understanding things intellectually simply don't want you to be their equals. They don't want to hear your case, no matter if you make it with grace o smartly or clumsy or emotionally or coldly or whatever.
I have said that before in these threads in which people opposed to equal rights for gays always end up criticizing us because we are not making our case in the right way but I will keep repeating it:
The rights of an individual do not, I repeat DO NOT depend on whether s/he or any other member of the group to which that individual is believed to belong demand or not demand that right, and whether they demand that right in a smart, proper, timely fashion or not. It doesn't matter if I am an obnoxious asshole who has never served in the Army that you don't like. I am still your equal. I am still deserve to have the same rights as you do. That's the point.
Uh, just sayin' for the record, that THIS Shawn was in the Army for four years (95-99) and never really had a big problem with the ideas of gays serving then or now.
Just to differentiate (sic?) between me and the othe Shawn.
I'm Shawn T. I've been in the Army from '03 to '09. I can tell you, people won't like it. I think the only solution will be to just force it on the military.
Shawn (original), I just have to ask, did you ever serve in combat arms Shawn? It's very different from the rest of the military and I expect that to be the portion of the military most against Gays in the military. From experience it seems like the rest of the military doesn't care that much about the issue. Combat arms does, though. Of course, to be fair to the issue of homosexual service, combat arms has a pretty regressive view of the world.
And YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE (you have a right to see if you can serve). That doesn't mean homosexual individuals don't deserve to serve (they should get that right to see if they can serve). I don't think it's a valid avenue to argue upon. I think arguing along the manpower lines is a more productive one.
I just get annoyed by how little empathy people attempt to give soldiers. What the political world is doing is right, but it's not doing a very good job of explaining it to the guys who are actually fighting.
If I showed more 'empathy' for anti-gay soldiers, would you be willing to show a little empathy for all the gay soldiers who are serving their country with honor, but are constantly told they don't belong in the military?
Though, come to think of, how am I supposed to show 'empathy' towards a person who thinks I'm so disgusting/disturbing/abnormal/immoral whatever that I should lose my job and not be allow to serve along side them? It's a purely emotional stance to have. To have 'empathy' for such a view would require quite a bit of self-loathing, something I'm just not willing to do anymore.
I think you are right to say that people won't like it, and the policy should be forced on the military. I did not serve in arms, I was an avionic mechanic(Army), mostly Air Cav, but had a ton of friends that had Bravo MOS's, and I think to them first and foremost was being up to the job and not letting your buddy down. I have two cousins, an uncle and a Brother-in-law that has served in Iraq, Afghan, and we have talked about this. They don't care, once your over there and the shit hits the fan none of that matters. Like I said earlier, I served with alot of people that had a problem with me because I was Mexican. I know for us, we had soldiers in our company that were gay, and did not have to hide anything around us. If somebody had a problem with them, they had a problem with us because they proved themselves, like we all had to and we would be damned if we let somebody take out one of our own. I found it hard to believe that that same mentality would not apply in combat, where the sense of having nothing but your weapon and the people around you, brothers, was magnified to a higher degree.
Well, if tomorrow DADT is forced on the bigots that think that are better than me, then I will use your very own words: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE
I have some empathy --a lot of it, actually, because I know better than judging them-- for the guy that was taught that gay people are evil, etc and don't know better. I have none for cases like yours, people who know better but still cannot deal "emotionally" with us being in equal footing with them.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I knew he had a set of brass balls, but this is almost wreckless--and I couldn't be happier that his character took on this issue in Iraq. Perhaps those few conservatives who think he's really on their side will listen to him.
It's been interesting watching these first two nights of his Iraq coverage. Monday night the troops were laughing at the stuff that was most applicable to them, I think--the basic training, the Odierno interview, the haircut. When the camera would pan the room, there were many who weren't clapping, or who had a kind of "Who the hell are you? Impress me!" look on their faces. I'm not sure everyone in that room had seen the Colbert Report before, or knew what they were in for.
Tuesday night, Stephen's introduction got a big ol' Standing O, just like in his studio audience, and the crowd seemed much warmer. It was as if, having seen the basic training clip and the haircut, the troops were much better disposed towards him. I imagine Colbert had also been spending some time around the base--that reference to "Jody" in this segment was clearly some sort of private joke, indecipherable outside Camp Victory--and that made the audience better disposed.
But I gasped when I realized he was about to take on DADT. His balls are adamantium. The laughs were not nearly as loud in this segment, I noticed, but if there was even a single DADT-compliant homosexual in that auditorium it must have felt like manna in the desert.
Colbert is a remarkable man. I suppose, after his legendary performance at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years back, any discussion of the perfectly adamantine nature of his balls was moot, but he really kicked it up a notch.
"Jody" has been covered on this blog before. It is derived from a Johnny Taylor song, he talks about "Jody" taking your girl away. For decades it has been used by drill SGT.'s as a way of telling young privates in boot camp(like me back in 95) not to worry about back home, and don't worry about your girl back home...Jody is taking care of her.
Props for comic book nerd references.
Also, might this be a way for the White House to passively encourage debate on DADT? It's not a stretch to believe the USO and the military approved Colbert's scripts before they were performed--and the commander in chief himself appeared on the show. While Cobert's "dialogue" didn't superficially take a particular stance, the simple idea of talking about DADT in front of active troops--in Iraq--is certainly telling (even if it's not, eh, asking).
I think the "Jody" reference was a nod to the military marching cadence (& Johnny Taylor song), "ain't no use in going home, Jody's got your girl and gone." The "Formidable Opponent" segment was fearless.
Thanks so much to Keith and atlantapril for the scoop on "Jody"--I must have missed those earlier posts--that definitely explains the huge laugh that line got!
Colbert is amazing. I watched two of his Iraq shows and his rapport with the troops was beautiful. For some weird reason, this crazy persona can pull shit off nobody else could and people seem to both laugh AND listen. The second night he had an Arab-American GI - a translator who enlisted after 9/11, essentially as a gesture of contempt for al Qaeda and out of a sense of honor as a Muslim - and a female MP, and his interview with them was a beautiful thing. Also loved his getting a buzz-cut in solidarity with the troops. Just gotta love Colbert.
As a practical and moral sense I see why DADT is wrong. As someone who was in the Army, I knew of guys that were gay and girls that were lesbians, in fact one girl I knew used it as a way to get out while her partner was allowed to stay in. This was back in 1995, and I think a point has to be made that homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military. I understand that sexual preference should not be helled against someone, but heterosexual fraternization and adultery will also get you booted from the military. To me this is a little different than say segregation and allowing blacks to serve with whites. There is no hiding the color of a person, and yes I understand a person should not have to hide the fact that he or she is gay. But in the Army, if your sleeping with another soldier that is married, you have to hide that as well. If your are both single, and are in a heterosexual relationship, you have to hide that while your in uniform. Again, this not me defending DADT, to me it is a useless rule. I just have a few questions, and wonder what is the end game. If DADT were repealed its not like rainbow pins and hand holding in the mess hall would be allowed.
Lt. Choi's discharge is absurd, but its not like somebody was uncomfortable serving with him and told on him, he knowingly went out on tv and outed himself in protest. When your are in the Army, there are certain liberty's that you volunteer to give up. I served with homosexuals, and off base out of uniform there was no more attempt to hide anything they were doing than what we were doing. If someone had a problem with them, and went to our SGT.'s and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's gay. The first thing that would have happened was the Sgt would have sat the soldier down and asked him/her and a choice would then be made. If I had a thing for a fellow soldier, our fling or whatever would have to wait until we were off base and out of uniform, it didn't matter if the relationship was homo or hetero. This is all anecdotal I know, but it's all I have.
Right. But the obvious counter is that that isn't what the anti-DADT argument is about. In other words, I don't think anyone expects that.
So again, what is the end game? The military lifestyle is not condusive to an indivduals right to freedom of expression, or hell freedom of anything outside of the UCMJ(Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Letting people be gay w/o getting kicked out for that sole purpose is the end game! Straight people are allowed to acknowledge their sexuality in appropriate ways without getting kicked out. Gays want the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand?
Elizabeth-
I responded to your post further down. All I will say here is that gay's are allowed to serve in the military, and while there they make it clear to all of us, gay/straight that there really is no appropiate way or time where any of us are allowed to acknowledge our sexuality.
You are just flat out wrong. Like I said below, it is ok for a straight person to talk about their significant others, dating, finding the opposite attractive. As soon as a gay person does any of that, they are in violation of the "don't tell" part of DADT. It's astounding that you can claim there is absolutely no difference in the standards applied to straight people and gay people in the military.
The upshot is simply that gays can openly serve in the military and the nation will be better served as a result.
It is true fro any civil disobedience that the protester, for his or her protest to carry weight, must be willing to bear the consequences of that protest. Lt. Choi has served his country within the military as a soldier and as a citizen protesting the civil injustice, not to mention, disservice to our nation of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on gay military service. for both, we owe the man a debt of honor.
Elizabeth-
I agree the damn rule, DADT is wrong, and ill concieved. It was a crappy way to allow something to happen, whithout having to acknowledge that you are allowing it to happen. I'm just talking from experience here, and it has been my experience that the military is not conducive to allowing free flowing conversations about sexuality that can jeapordize a career. I like the vast majority of people went into the military, not knowing anybody and having to forge new friendships. You gain friends, you feel comfrotable with people and by that point, to most it didn't matter if one was gay or straight. In that aspect, we chose to interpret the Don't Tell part as don't tell the CO that so and so is gay. Now this is purely anectdotal, but when I was in basic, there was a guy that had it and found himself done with the whole thing. He wanted to quit, but of course quitting is easier said than done. When you go talk to the drill Sgt. you have to take a buddy. I went and he told the Sgt. he was gay, the Sgt replied that it doesn't work like that anymore and try again. It wasn't until the guy said he was going to kill himself if they didn't discharge him, did they take him seriously. While I was in AIT(training after basic) there was a girl who was openly lesbian(meaning we knew, she was free to joke about it with us), but it wasn't until she decided she had enough of the army and told the Sgt's that she was sleeping with a girl that was married did they kick her out. By the way, the girl she was sleeping with who was married did not want to leave and ended up staying in the army longer than I did. Now this is of course all anecdotal, and I'm not sure what my point is in all that. Only to say my only issue, is when people use the term "openly gay", and I flashback to my time in the Army and didn't see it so black and write.
The big difference though is that you can get kicked out for saying you are a homosexual even if you are not sleeping with anyone. The heterosexuals do not have to hide the fact that they are heterosexuals, they just have to hide their behavior while the homosexual has to hide the very fact that they are a homosexual regardless of their behavior.
"I served with homosexuals, and off base out of uniform there was no more attempt to hide anything they were doing than what we were doing. If someone had a problem with them, and went to our SGT.'s and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's gay. The first thing that would have happened was the Sgt would have sat the soldier down and asked him/her and a choice would then be made"
What would happen if they went to the Sgt and said I have a problem with that soldier, he's straight. Would there be a choice to be made? There may be gay soldiers that are fairly open off base but that doesn't mean they will not one day be 'outed' to someone in the military that will then report them and have them kicked out simply for being gay, regardless of if they had sex with someone.
How does one know if one is gay or straight if not for behavior? Especially in an enviroment that requires as much conformity and discipline as the military? I think this is a very black and white view of how conversations and behavior works. Your in formation or the barracks and a girl walks by, you don't hear "man, I'm feeling really straight right now". You hear, "damn, she's fine". Guess what, if she decided to make an issue of that I could be discharged for sexual harassment. The military is about restraint, conformity and discipline. Simply being gay/striaght void of any behavior to indicate otherwise, is actually ok under DADT. It's the premise of the policy.
Keith, I am gay. Do you actually know anything about my behavior from that statement? Do you know if I have ever had sex or not from that statement?
Well, technically writing or saying "I am Gay" is in itself a behavioral act. Semantics aside, your right I know nothing of sexual activity by that statement. Not sure what your point is in regards to the military. If you were not my buddy, and we were in the same company in the Army, you wouldn't know if I were gay or straight. And I wouldn't feel the need to just go around and telling people I didn't know that, not very soldierery...
"But in the Army, if your sleeping with another soldier that is married, you have to hide that as well. If your are both single, and are in a heterosexual relationship, you have to hide that while your in uniform."
What are you talking about? Heterosexual soldiers do not get booted for mentioning their spouse or significant other like gay people do!
"If I had a thing for a fellow soldier, our fling or whatever would have to wait until we were off base and out of uniform, it didn't matter if the relationship was homo or hetero."
If the fling were off base, out of uniform hetero, you'd be fine. If someone found out you were in a gay relationship, even if it was while you were on leave, you'd be out.
Gays aren't asking for specials rights to have a sexual free for all in the military. They simply want to be able to serve the military with the same standards that straight people get to live by.
I am not saying that gay's are asking for the right to have a sexual free for all, or the right to hold hands and wear rainblow pins. What I am saying is that while in the military, it has been my experience that everyone has a certain way they have to behave while in uniform. Straight or gay. I concede that DADT is not practical, and the fundamental flaw is that nobody should be kicked out of the service for simply saying that they are gay. I get that. But it has been my experience that most soldiers are not going to rat out a fellow soldier if the soldier is capable. Nobody outted Lt. Choi because he was a capable leader. I understand why he came out, it was a protest. I guess my only point, is that everyone that choses to serve in the miltary gives up certain fundamental rights that most of us are able to enjoy. Most of my critique here is based on behavior, and Rillion makes a great point about the table being turned and a soldier having a problem with "straightness". My only argument to that is I would say that in the military, discipline and restraint is asked by all that serve, gay or straight. And the basic idea of DADT is, shut up and soldier on and everything will be fine. I understand Elizabeths point about wanting to be able to serve in the military with the same standards that straight people get to live by, and again all I have to say is we all had the same standards when I served. We all had to sacrifice, and we all did. I understand that some people that serve in the military are bigoted, and could out someone if they found out that person was gay. I have a problem with that, and it is wrong that that could happen which is why I believe DADT should be repealed. It should also be said that if while I was in the military, I chose to handle the many bigots I came across in the Army differently and decided to take the issue to the higher ups, they would have been discharged.
You're telling me that when you were in the military you were affraid to mention your wife or girlfriend out of fear of being kick out? That when you called or wrote home you had to pretend that you were writing to a friend? That you never even once mentioned to one of your buddies that you found some woman attractive? Did you have to keep a letter on your person, which was to be sent to your wife in case you died on duty, because the military would not notify her?
I'm pretty sure you didn't have to deal with those things.
You are right I did not have to worry about mentioning my wife or girlfriend out of fear of discharge. But there were friends of mine that were gay, and stayed in longer than I did. They did not have to hide around us, and its not like we could talk about our wives or girlfriends to our Sgt's anyway, that just doesn't happen. You know there is a rule that prevents NCO's(non comissioned officers) and officers from "fraternizing" with anyone below their rank. They are subject to discharge if this happens. The military is filled with idiotic rules that don't make sense to people outside of the military, and in it for that matter. It's why I didn't make a career out of it. Around my buddies I was able to mention the attractiveness of a woman, much like a homosexual would not have to worry about that sort of thing around his or her buddies. But when other people were around, we all had to restrain. As for the letter, all I can say is its not the military's fault that homosexuals can only marry in two states. Thats a whole different issue, in which I'm sure we both agree needs to be fixed. If I weren't married, the military would notify my next of kin and not my girlfriend even if we had a child together regardless of sexual preference. I can't believe defending freaking DADT, but I guess to a certain extent I am. I wish it didn't exist, I guess I just think the issue surrounding it is not so black in white.
I know civilians just don't understand the military.
This is akin to how the South felt about slavery during the Civil War.
You have outsiders who know nothing about you and what you do trying to foist their belief system on you. You see it time and again as they pay lip service to you, yet they show their complete and utter lack of understanding and empathy by forcing their beliefs on you. You work your ass off, sacrifice your life and this is how they want to repay you?
I'm not saying it's right, but I understand.
"You work your ass off, sacrifice your life and this is how they want to repay you?"
Sound the tiny violins! You're being "forced" to not discriminate against gay people. How about the 65,000 gay people who are currently working their ass off, sacrificing their lives--they get repaid with nothign but disdain from many of our leaders and people like you.
This is the exact attitude that infuriates soldiers.
I don't know, maybe you speak from experience (if so, I aplogize, from mis-characterizing you), but you're only looking at this from your side of the issue. I'm asking you to look at it from the other side. That's how a lot of people in the military feel.
I'm very ambivalent about it. Emotionally, I don't want to see DADT repealed. Intellectually, I don't see anything other than it being repealed.
Now, instead of being angry about it, and at the people who don't like it, ask yourself, how can you best argue your case to the people who will be most vehemently against it.
NO SHAWN
You have INSIDERS like Dan Choi who are trying to change the system. You have OUTSIDERS like gay Americans who want to serve but can't.
Shawn,
ask yourself, how can you best argue your case to the people who will be most vehemently against it
No, we have to argue our case to people that are more likely to be convinced. And be realistic about certain things. Like, for example, there will also be some people that even understanding things intellectually simply don't want you to be their equals. They don't want to hear your case, no matter if you make it with grace o smartly or clumsy or emotionally or coldly or whatever.
I have said that before in these threads in which people opposed to equal rights for gays always end up criticizing us because we are not making our case in the right way but I will keep repeating it:
The rights of an individual do not, I repeat DO NOT depend on whether s/he or any other member of the group to which that individual is believed to belong demand or not demand that right, and whether they demand that right in a smart, proper, timely fashion or not. It doesn't matter if I am an obnoxious asshole who has never served in the Army that you don't like. I am still your equal. I am still deserve to have the same rights as you do. That's the point.
Uh, just sayin' for the record, that THIS Shawn was in the Army for four years (95-99) and never really had a big problem with the ideas of gays serving then or now.
Just to differentiate (sic?) between me and the othe Shawn.
I'm Shawn T. I've been in the Army from '03 to '09. I can tell you, people won't like it. I think the only solution will be to just force it on the military.
Shawn (original), I just have to ask, did you ever serve in combat arms Shawn? It's very different from the rest of the military and I expect that to be the portion of the military most against Gays in the military. From experience it seems like the rest of the military doesn't care that much about the issue. Combat arms does, though. Of course, to be fair to the issue of homosexual service, combat arms has a pretty regressive view of the world.
And YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE (you have a right to see if you can serve). That doesn't mean homosexual individuals don't deserve to serve (they should get that right to see if they can serve). I don't think it's a valid avenue to argue upon. I think arguing along the manpower lines is a more productive one.
I just get annoyed by how little empathy people attempt to give soldiers. What the political world is doing is right, but it's not doing a very good job of explaining it to the guys who are actually fighting.
If I showed more 'empathy' for anti-gay soldiers, would you be willing to show a little empathy for all the gay soldiers who are serving their country with honor, but are constantly told they don't belong in the military?
Though, come to think of, how am I supposed to show 'empathy' towards a person who thinks I'm so disgusting/disturbing/abnormal/immoral whatever that I should lose my job and not be allow to serve along side them? It's a purely emotional stance to have. To have 'empathy' for such a view would require quite a bit of self-loathing, something I'm just not willing to do anymore.
I think you are right to say that people won't like it, and the policy should be forced on the military. I did not serve in arms, I was an avionic mechanic(Army), mostly Air Cav, but had a ton of friends that had Bravo MOS's, and I think to them first and foremost was being up to the job and not letting your buddy down. I have two cousins, an uncle and a Brother-in-law that has served in Iraq, Afghan, and we have talked about this. They don't care, once your over there and the shit hits the fan none of that matters. Like I said earlier, I served with alot of people that had a problem with me because I was Mexican. I know for us, we had soldiers in our company that were gay, and did not have to hide anything around us. If somebody had a problem with them, they had a problem with us because they proved themselves, like we all had to and we would be damned if we let somebody take out one of our own. I found it hard to believe that that same mentality would not apply in combat, where the sense of having nothing but your weapon and the people around you, brothers, was magnified to a higher degree.
Shawn says:
YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE
Well, if tomorrow DADT is forced on the bigots that think that are better than me, then I will use your very own words: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SERVE
I have some empathy --a lot of it, actually, because I know better than judging them-- for the guy that was taught that gay people are evil, etc and don't know better. I have none for cases like yours, people who know better but still cannot deal "emotionally" with us being in equal footing with them.