Republicans, Gays and the Military: Continued Prejudice
Robert Fantina
January 16, 2008
At the most recent debate between the members of the multitude known as ‘Candidates for the Republican Presidential Nomination,’ those gentlemen seemed to fall all over each other in their quest to shine their conservative credentials for all the world to see. Nowhere was this more evident then in their responses to one of moderator Wolf Blitzen’s questions. Mr. Blitzen asked each of the candidates his position on allowing homosexuals to serve openly within the military. In typical political-speak, being unable to give a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a simple question, each man blathered on and on until the result was ‘no,’ openly gay men and women should not be allowed to serve. Arizona Sen. John McCain, increasingly prone to bizarre comments, even made the following startling statement about the policy: “It is working, my friends. The policy is working. And I am convinced that that’s the way we can maintain this greatest military.”
A report from May 24, 2007 indicates that it is not working; fifty-eight Arab linguists had been discharged from the U.S. military because they are gay, in keeping with the ‘don’t ask, don’t’ tell’ policy on sexual orientation. With these rare and vital skills being lost, how can Mr. McCain believe that the policy that is causing that loss is working?
This situation raises several very serious issues.
The United States is drowning in the quicksand of an unwinnable war that should never have been waged, and while doing so it is sending hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens to their graves, increasing the worldwide terrorist threat and decimating whatever is left of America’s tattered reputation throughout the world. Yet much-needed Arab language skills are being eliminated from the military, simply because the experts possessing those rare and vital abilities are gay.
The case of Ian Finkenbinder is telling. During his tour of duty Mr. Finkenbinder worked in some of Iraq’s most dangerous areas. Being one of a small number of American soldiers fluent in Arabic, he worked in gathering intelligence.
Yet special talents, dedication, patriotism and valiant service are insufficient for Uncle Sam; Mr. Finkenbinder, who is gay, did not fit some outmoded, vague and poorly defined stereotype of an American soldier. He decided not to keep his sexual orientation secret and was discharged as a result. This was required by the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ policy which states that homosexuals can only serve their country if they hide their sexual orientation.
It is not as if these particular language skills are in abundance within the armed forces; the military is actively attempting to bring people with Arab language proficiency in through the front door, as it unceremoniously kicks others with that ability out the back.
This problem has not gone unnoticed by Congress, although that august body appears to have paid scant attention to it. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) put it quite plainly: He said: “We cannot kick out highly qualified service members because of their sexual orientation.”
Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council, however, disagrees with Mr. Meehan, and supports the decision to discharge openly gay Arab translators. Said he: “The military is a traditional, conservative institution, and there are many people there who simply would not serve with an open homosexual if -- if they were asked to do so.”
This comment itself raises some interesting questions. Does Mr. Sprigg feel that soldiers have a right to pick and choose with whom they will serve? In the ‘traditional, conservative institution’ of the military, isn’t ‘following orders’ the cardinal rule? One may certainly question the validity of that concept, but it does not appear to be consistent with Mr. Sprigg’s statement.
Mr. Finkenbinder’s comments about his own experience further put Mr. Sprigg’s statement into question. Mr. Finkenbinder stated that many of the soldiers with whom he worked closely knew of his sexual orientation and had no problem with it.
One can almost imagine the words of Mr. Sprigg being spoken fifty years ago, with one significant change: ‘The military is a traditional, conservative institution, and there are many people there who simply would not serve with an African-American if -- if they were asked to do so.’
This, of course, is not a quotation of the Family Research Council, which did not exist fifty years ago, and is not meant in any way to suggest that that organization would ever have made such a statement. But one must look at the parallel situation. This racist attitude has been part of America since its birth. Although African-Americans have fought valiantly in every war since the American Revolution, it wasn’t until 1948 that President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces. African-Americans were often relegated to working in the mess halls or shining officers’ shoes until such time as the number of white draftees and/or recruits was insufficient to accomplish whatever it was the government had established as a goal. Then and only then were African-Americans allowed to serve in battle. These degradations of forced menial labor did not end in 1948, but it was then that some change began.
The U.S. can be seen to be in a similar situation today. With American soldiers policing and, despite their best individual efforts, aggravating the Iraqi civil war, Arab translators are desperately needed. Rather than being forced to symbolically peel potatoes, qualified gay Americans should be able to serve side-by-side with their heterosexual counterparts. The sexual orientation of individual soldiers should be no one’s business but their own; certainly the U.S. government has no right to monitor such a personal characteristic.
Army recruitment standards today are as low as they have ever been; a high school diploma is still required, but lower test scores are now accepted. About 17% of recruits in 2006 were granted waivers for medical, criminal or so-called ‘moral’ problems (moral problems being defined as misdemeanor arrests). These waivers included recruits with drug and/or alcohol problems.
The granting of these waivers can be seen as a positive sign: a mistake one has made in one’s life can be overcome. But one wonders why a soldier with high test scores, special skills, no ‘medical, criminal or moral’ issues, and with a proven record of valid and vital service to his/her country is discharged because of sexual orientation.
President Bush has stated repeatedly that the war in Iraq is vital to American and worldwide security. If the U.S. does not defeat the ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, he warns darkly, they will soon be causing havoc throughout all fifty states. If that is the case, why are men and women with vital skills who are willing to serve in Iraq being discharged? Does a soldier’s sexual orientation so compromise the ability of the military to do its work that such a soldier must immediately be separated from the military once he/she dares to go public? One can only wonder what those who advocate such a stance fear.
While all the Republican candidates oppose allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military, the Democratic crowd takes the opposite view, with each of that party’s candidates supporting the service of gays in the military.
The U.S. has made only baby steps in racial equality over the years, and seems to have not even achieved that level of progress regarding sexual orientation. Until it does so, another minority group will continue to experience the long and shameful victimization of prejudice that seems so ingrained in the fabric of American society. And while the individual victims will suffer, the nation as a whole will also.
A report from May 24, 2007 indicates that it is not working; fifty-eight Arab linguists had been discharged from the U.S. military because they are gay, in keeping with the ‘don’t ask, don’t’ tell’ policy on sexual orientation. With these rare and vital skills being lost, how can Mr. McCain believe that the policy that is causing that loss is working?
This situation raises several very serious issues.
The United States is drowning in the quicksand of an unwinnable war that should never have been waged, and while doing so it is sending hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens to their graves, increasing the worldwide terrorist threat and decimating whatever is left of America’s tattered reputation throughout the world. Yet much-needed Arab language skills are being eliminated from the military, simply because the experts possessing those rare and vital abilities are gay.
The case of Ian Finkenbinder is telling. During his tour of duty Mr. Finkenbinder worked in some of Iraq’s most dangerous areas. Being one of a small number of American soldiers fluent in Arabic, he worked in gathering intelligence.
Yet special talents, dedication, patriotism and valiant service are insufficient for Uncle Sam; Mr. Finkenbinder, who is gay, did not fit some outmoded, vague and poorly defined stereotype of an American soldier. He decided not to keep his sexual orientation secret and was discharged as a result. This was required by the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ policy which states that homosexuals can only serve their country if they hide their sexual orientation.
It is not as if these particular language skills are in abundance within the armed forces; the military is actively attempting to bring people with Arab language proficiency in through the front door, as it unceremoniously kicks others with that ability out the back.
This problem has not gone unnoticed by Congress, although that august body appears to have paid scant attention to it. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) put it quite plainly: He said: “We cannot kick out highly qualified service members because of their sexual orientation.”
Peter Sprigg of the conservative Family Research Council, however, disagrees with Mr. Meehan, and supports the decision to discharge openly gay Arab translators. Said he: “The military is a traditional, conservative institution, and there are many people there who simply would not serve with an open homosexual if -- if they were asked to do so.”
This comment itself raises some interesting questions. Does Mr. Sprigg feel that soldiers have a right to pick and choose with whom they will serve? In the ‘traditional, conservative institution’ of the military, isn’t ‘following orders’ the cardinal rule? One may certainly question the validity of that concept, but it does not appear to be consistent with Mr. Sprigg’s statement.
Mr. Finkenbinder’s comments about his own experience further put Mr. Sprigg’s statement into question. Mr. Finkenbinder stated that many of the soldiers with whom he worked closely knew of his sexual orientation and had no problem with it.
One can almost imagine the words of Mr. Sprigg being spoken fifty years ago, with one significant change: ‘The military is a traditional, conservative institution, and there are many people there who simply would not serve with an African-American if -- if they were asked to do so.’
This, of course, is not a quotation of the Family Research Council, which did not exist fifty years ago, and is not meant in any way to suggest that that organization would ever have made such a statement. But one must look at the parallel situation. This racist attitude has been part of America since its birth. Although African-Americans have fought valiantly in every war since the American Revolution, it wasn’t until 1948 that President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces. African-Americans were often relegated to working in the mess halls or shining officers’ shoes until such time as the number of white draftees and/or recruits was insufficient to accomplish whatever it was the government had established as a goal. Then and only then were African-Americans allowed to serve in battle. These degradations of forced menial labor did not end in 1948, but it was then that some change began.
The U.S. can be seen to be in a similar situation today. With American soldiers policing and, despite their best individual efforts, aggravating the Iraqi civil war, Arab translators are desperately needed. Rather than being forced to symbolically peel potatoes, qualified gay Americans should be able to serve side-by-side with their heterosexual counterparts. The sexual orientation of individual soldiers should be no one’s business but their own; certainly the U.S. government has no right to monitor such a personal characteristic.
Army recruitment standards today are as low as they have ever been; a high school diploma is still required, but lower test scores are now accepted. About 17% of recruits in 2006 were granted waivers for medical, criminal or so-called ‘moral’ problems (moral problems being defined as misdemeanor arrests). These waivers included recruits with drug and/or alcohol problems.
The granting of these waivers can be seen as a positive sign: a mistake one has made in one’s life can be overcome. But one wonders why a soldier with high test scores, special skills, no ‘medical, criminal or moral’ issues, and with a proven record of valid and vital service to his/her country is discharged because of sexual orientation.
President Bush has stated repeatedly that the war in Iraq is vital to American and worldwide security. If the U.S. does not defeat the ‘terrorists’ in Iraq, he warns darkly, they will soon be causing havoc throughout all fifty states. If that is the case, why are men and women with vital skills who are willing to serve in Iraq being discharged? Does a soldier’s sexual orientation so compromise the ability of the military to do its work that such a soldier must immediately be separated from the military once he/she dares to go public? One can only wonder what those who advocate such a stance fear.
While all the Republican candidates oppose allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military, the Democratic crowd takes the opposite view, with each of that party’s candidates supporting the service of gays in the military.
The U.S. has made only baby steps in racial equality over the years, and seems to have not even achieved that level of progress regarding sexual orientation. Until it does so, another minority group will continue to experience the long and shameful victimization of prejudice that seems so ingrained in the fabric of American society. And while the individual victims will suffer, the nation as a whole will also.
Print
Email
