General: December 2007 Archives

I watched the 60 minutes “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” segment Sunday night. This is, in part, what Andrew Sullivan had to say about how gays are viewed in America today.

I guess it’s a sad but useful reminder that gay people - even those who risk their lives to defend their country - are still, in the eyes of the Republican base, a sub-moral caste of undesirables, people whose presence in any institution - the military, the academy, the priesthood, civil marriage - inherently debases it. There is, alas, nothing we can do to rebut this - no act of courage we can display, no love we can profess, no virtue we can uphold, no family we can defend to prove our civic equality and human dignity. Our inferiority is a priori for the religious right. It makes us impossible to “bond with,” because we are moral contaminants. That’s what we’ve learned this past decade. And it’s the only reason the policy remains in place. (source)

I couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t always agree with Andrew Sullivan. In fact, more times than not, I don’t agree with him. But he hit the nail on the head this time.

THIS is why I write less and less on “gay rights”, “marriage equality”, and all the rest. I’ve never been a quitter. But I’ve come to realize the hopelessness of this battle that we fight. It’s hopeless to me, because this is a battle that will span lifetimes. For me, in the small amount of time I have left on this earth, these issues will not be resolved. For me, I’ve moved on and am living my life the best way I can. That means that I won’t discuss with my family why I want to marry my partner, when I’m talking to people who feel that a civil union is the appropriate arrangement for people like us. I can talk about important legal options that marriage affords us. Their answer is to get a Power of Attorney, etc. Of course we have that, but that is much easier to legally challenge. And here I am going over this argument AGAIN when I know that it is hopeless.

What does one say to a gay soldier who is in Iraq (I’ve talked to many of them online) who is risking his very life for our country? What do you say to him when he is discharged when he is no longer needed, after troop levels rise? What do you say to a gay person who was denied the right to be with his/her partner in their final moments because the person who made the decision to deny the visitation is a self righteous bigot? What do you say to them?

Ninety percent of the population of this country is composed of selfish bastards who care only for themselves and their needs. This applies also to the African American community who, after going through a horrific past at the hands of white folks, conveniently distance themselves from our struggle by telling us, “...but YOUR struggle is nothing like OUR struggle...”. I guess it’s easy to forget and be selfish.

I can’t tell you how many straight soldiers I have supported in this war. I bought phone cards for many so they could call their families back home because they couldn’t afford to. I did this only to find out later what they really felt about gay people. They pretty much feel that we should have no rights or equality.

But that’s ok, because I happen to belong to that ten percent of Americans who are not selfish bastards. I think of others, whether they like me or not. That is the lesson that America needs to learn. That is the test of what we are made of. And let me tell you, we are FAILING MISERABLY. The test is simply, how do we as a country treat a minority we don’t like? The answer is clear. We legislatively trample on them without mercy or a second thought about what this will do to them (yes, I’m talking about all the amendments to state constitutions prohibiting marriage or civil unions to people like us). Yeah, something to really be proud of; stripping people of hope.

As for me, I’m starting to reluctantly buy into this notion that being a selfish bastard has it’s merits. The phone cards that I issued to the soldiers have been canceled. I guess they’ll just have to learn to live with disappointment. I have. It’s the American way.

And in the spirit of moving on, we are thinking of getting a “civil union” because hell, it can’t hurt. At least in the State of Connecticut, it has some meaning. I mean, last week, I received and read the benefits package offered by our company. In every respect, they mention “spouse/partner” when applicable. That has little to do with our state offering civil unions. It has to do with me making it clear to our management the inequalities that we deal with. I was told earlier this year that they would change their benefits to include partners in the package. They do not need proof of a civil union to do this. Sometimes, one person can make a difference.

As far as the civil union is concerned, I’ll post it up so you can all see what a civil union looks like. I’m sure at the top it will have big fancy letters that say, “Civil Union ... State of Connecticut...” blah blah blah. I’ll frame it. Someday, it may have historical significance pointing to a time where separate and supposedly equal was the law of the land. I’ll title the entry as “Our Certificate of Inequality”. I do want to be accurate, after all. It’s strange. I thought that joining two people was supposed to be joyful, and not such a damn struggle.

This is why I hate talking about these issues anymore. They always turn out to be so negative. I hate that. But, negative or not, I’m being honest about how I feel. Would you want me to lie?

ON NOV. 30, a group of 28 retired generals and admirals released a letter urging Congress to repeal the law mandating the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays. [...]

The letter followed by just two days a Nov. 28 CNN forum for GOP presidential contenders in which all the candidates (except Giuliani) expressed support for the current policy, arguing that it is “working” or that it would be disruptive to integrate open gays into the military. Sen. John McCain said specifically that senior generals had told him that the policy is “working.”

Is the policy working? Well, a lot of deplorable policies have “worked,” depending on your goal, but that doesn’t mean that they are the best policies or that other policies would not work better. Racial segregation in the military “worked.” For that matter, racial segregation in the whole Southern society “worked” too. At least for white people. Stalin’s concentration camps “worked.”

Islamic “honor killings” of women who have been raped “work” too, I suppose, if you are not the victim. But do many people want to defend those policies as the best policy?

Remember those Arabic-language students a couple of years ago who, despite the military’s crying need for Arabic-language translators, were discharged because they were gay? Is that an example of the policy “working”? What about all the other skills gays may have been taught that are lost when they are discharged from the military? More examples of the policy “working”? (source)

Bigotry... always “works”.

It works because it’s very existence is a testament to the circumstances and world it exists in. Throughout the history of this country, we have always justified our actions because it was “the right thing to do”, or that it “worked”. Today, we do the same thing. We justify torture by saying that we need to protect the country from terrorists. That’s a hugely broad statement to make. Not one of the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo have been charged . But, the system “works”, because the President says it works.

And what about those Arabic-language translators that were discharged from the military because of their homosexuality? Was that in the best interest of this country? Right after they were discharged, the military put out a plea for translators that could speak Arabic.

And what about the ban the American Red Cross has against gay men donating blood? I suppose I can understand their rationale, saying that gay men are more likely to be exposed to the AIDS virus. Again, a very broad (and very dangerous) assumption. Their ban prevents any man who has had sex with another man since 1977 from donating blood. That’s their rationale, and their policy.

But here’s what I don’t get about it... A straight man who has had sexual relations with a female prostitute(s), must wait for three months before he is again eligible to donate blood. He suffers no life-time ban for this. We are talking about a virus here that really doesn’t know or care about sexual orientation. Perhaps the heterosexual form of AIDS only has a life span of 3 months? I’m just trying to make sense of the Red Cross policy. But, apparently, that policy “works”.

Bigotry... always “works”.

Oh, one more thing. I understand the Republican candidates views with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My biggest disappointment is with Senator John McCain. He actually has a brain on his shoulders and he doesn’t have a hard on for Jesus so much. He knows better. He served with men in the military he knew were gay. Today, would he be able to look those men in the eye and say, “You should have been discharged.”?

He would probably say, “No.” Yet, he supports the current policy because he feels the policy is “working”. Such hypocrisy. John, you showed great courage and conviction in the past. What happened to that?

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided a case — Boy Scouts of America v. Dale — involving an openly gay scout from New Jersey who was barred from serving as troop leader. The court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that, as a private organization, the group had a First Amendment right to set its membership rules.

The issue became a local concern in Philadelphia in May 2003 when the national Boy Scouts held their annual meeting in the city. During the conference, a local scout challenged the organization’s policies by announcing on television that he was gay and that he was a devoted member of the organization. He was promptly dismissed by the local chapter, which is called the Cradle of Liberty Council. [...]

“At the end of the day, you can not be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination,” said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, who represents the district where the building is located. “Negotiations are over.” (source)

To me, this is a victory for justice. I have nothing against the Boy Scouts of America, per se. I have a big problem with an organization that is this discriminatory. Sure, they have a right to discriminate, as a private organization. That doesn’t mean that the taxpayers (people like me) have to tacitly support their discrimination through our tax dollars.

It’s nice to see that the laws are being enforced. It’s like the whole hate crimes issue. Many people argue that if you attack a person (gay or straight), it’s a crime, and there are laws that deal with those crimes. True. But that doesn’t mean that those laws aren’t selectively enforced. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen gay bashings go unpunished, even when the attacker confessed to the attack. Why? Because the cops didn’t see much wrong with beating the hell out of someone who is gay.

I do believe that attitude is changing in some parts of the country. In many parts, it’s still that way. But at least in Philadelphia, they are making it clear that this won’t be tolerated.

Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for the local chapter, said it could not afford $200,000 a year in rent, and that such a price would require it to cut summer-camp funds for 800 needy children.

“With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of children almost daily in this city, it’s ironic that this administration chose to destroy programming that services thousands of children in the city,” Mr. Jubelirer said. He added that the organization serves more than 69,000 young people, mostly from the inner city, and that its programming focuses on mentoring and after-school programs instead of camping trips. (source)

To imply that the city is being unfair to them is a cheap shot. If they are so concerned about the $200,000 they are going to have to now pay, and the 69,000 young people that benefit from their programs, then they should put their best interests ahead of their own discriminatory practices. This is all on the Boy Scouts of America, not the administration running the City of Philadelphia. They are merely enforcing the laws that have been put in place.

Will this change the Boy Scouts’ policy in the future? Probably not for a very long time. Discrimination dies hard.