One of the sad things about this is that a lot of gay soldiers followed the policy and were kicked out later by someone who found out somehow, by either invading the soldier's privacy, or some other means. The military has lost so many amazing soldiers for the simple reason of whom they love. Since the military's soldiers are mostly men, and since we are a highly patriarchal society, we as a culture are more accepting of 2 men holding guns than 2 men holding hands. That's messed up. The same paradox applies to a quote I once read of a soldier who was discharged under DADT. He said, "I was awarded for killing a man, and punished for loving one."
Allow me to share with you a few great ironies in this country:
-"Be yourself." We teach this to our kids, and in the real world when it comes to making friends, it's completely true. The best friends and colleagues are the ones who love you as you are. But the military has a problem with that?
-Be all you that you can be. (The army's slogan.)
A lot of conservative people were supporting DADT for many years thinking they were doing the gay community a favor by implementing this policy. Their justification was that with the policy in place, gay people would be protected from homophobes or anyone who wanted to cause harm to a gay soldier. I have to say, in theory this makes sense. But why do you need to protect a group of soldiers from their colleagues and brothers in arms? If you're holding a gun on the front lines, does it matter who your fellow soldier loves in his private life? What difference does it make if you kiss girls, but the guy next to you is attracted to men? Well, DADT also served to console homophobes who feared being flirted with by another guy. They didn't want to feel uncomfortable knowing that while they're sharing a community shower, another guy would be looking at his genitalia and immediately become aroused, leading to an extremely awkward moment between fellow soldiers. The policy preys on gay stereotypes that all gay men are sex-hungry devils, looking to have sex with anything that moves. DADT serves to put homophobes' minds at ease.
When DADT came to a potential repeal vote in the Senate recently, international pop singing sensation Lady Gaga made it a personal mission to rouse her millions of fans to become politically active in telling their legislators to support repeal. She addressed a big crowd and reminded everyone that the best thing about our country was the fact that we're all EQUAL. She explained how DADT strips gay soldiers of being seen as equals, and that, in fact, the policy was backwards, penalizing the wrong people:
Doesn't it seem that [DADT] is backwards? Doesn't it seem...that we're penalizing the wrong soldier? Doesn't it seem ... that we should send home the prejudiced; the straight soldier who hates the gay soldier? The straight soldier whose performance is affected because he's homophobic? The straight soldier who harbors hate instead of our nation's values?I couldn't have said it better myself. All these military officials and personnel who want to keep DADT going justify it because they say that soldiers who are open about their sexuality will disrupt or destroy unit cohesion, which is the glue that holds troops together in combat. If you're holding a weapon and fighting an enemy, you want to feel close to the people you work with. So how is it that working with people who are forced to hide a part of themselves...how is that being cohesive? How does that promote cohesion? People in groups become stronger groups, more connected groups when they know the people they work with.
Watching a simple YouTube video with an internationally renowned pop star giving an address about human and civil equality astounds me. Her ideas made more sense than the policy implemented for over a decade by the American government, a government consisting of highly educated individuals; people who are or work with scientists, doctors, lawyers, business owners and other highly qualified, highly trained, highly educated professionals. How is it that a simple pop singer/songwriter's thinking makes more sense and is more aligned with the American values of equality, freedom, liberty, freedom from oppression, the pursuit of happiness than those of the people we put in power to administer over our country's future?
But you know what really upsets me? Senator John McCain. I think the only nice thing I have to say about him is that I'm grateful for his service to our country. But he's been coming up with excuse after excuse to impede repeal. He wanted to know how the top military officials felt about repeal; they supported it. He wanted to hear from the troops themselves; the in-depth survey conducted over 9 months shows that the vast majority of soldiers support repeal. He wanted to hear from the Pentagon; it also supports repeal. Everyone he's wanted to hear from has supported repeal. And now he's saying he won't support repeal because the economy is so messed up. Are you kidding me?!
McCain, I think it's time for you to retire.
How can we be a country whose Pledge of Allegiance ends with "...with liberty and justice for all" be the country that it is today, denying equality and justice to all of its people?
This country is extremely backwards sometimes. This country needs to look at itself in the mirror and change what truly doesn't work so everyone can have the same treatment regardless of any part of who they are. It's the reason why this country has become so incredibly diverse over the years. We're a melting pot of societies, of cultures. What message does it send to the world if we guarantee equality for all as long as certain conditions are met? That's not what America is. That's neither whom we strive to be nor whom we are.
They say that you can judge a country based on how it treats its minorities. Repeal DADT. It's unfair, it's unjust, it's discriminatory, and America, despite recent actions, is much smarter than this.
No comments:
Post a Comment