Getting Over Gay

Growing up as a teen in the 80's, it was nothing to refer to someone as a "fag." It was as easy as "tool" and "douche bag" are now. It was also quite common to pick on an effeminate male or a butch female too. Since that time, much has changed on the surface, but I don't know how much things have really changed. I often wonder if the prejudice towards homosexuals is much like what black Americans go through. The odd looks, the whispers, that burning ear sensation one gets when you feel that someone is talking about you.

Sure, I think on balance things are better for homosexuals now. The progress made by people like Harvey Milk, Ellen Degeneres, Martina Navratilova, and others have allowed gays and lesbians to live "out" instead of in hiding. Movies, TV shows, books, and even politics (see Barney Frank) have increasingly larger numbers of gay representation. Ellen's daytime show is so successful that no one blinked an eye when she was added as a judge to that most American of phenomenons, American Idol.

Which is all well and good, but there are two frontiers left to be crossed, that of gay marriage and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Regarding gay marriage, I just don't see how it's any of my business to tell two consenting adults that they can't have the same rights as my wife and I do just because they are of the same sex. Of course, most of the arguments against gay marriage are religion based. And I get that. I've read Leviticus; I've heard all the moral arguments against homosexuals getting married. Here are some I would like to debunk:

--It would destroy the institution of marriage- Well, with a divorce rate of nearly 50%, I think us heteros are doing everything we can to damage the fabric of commitment.

--It would force churches to marry homosexuals- Don't believe it. To get married in the Catholic Church, you have to convert to Catholicism (if you aren't already of that persuasion) and they will only marry divorcees if they have their prior marriage annulled. So basically, the Catholic Church has standards for whom they will marry and no one stops them. Which is just fine with me.

--God did not intend for gays to marry- Ok, that may be perfectly true, but please explain to me the legal rationale for disallowing gay people the same rights as the rest of us. I understand the moral concern that many of faith have with the thought of gay marriage, but I don't see how denying homosexuals the right to marry is anything other than discrimination. Once again, I am speaking from a legal perspective, not a religious one. Who are homosexuals harming if they get married? And when I say "harm," I don't mean the damage that it would do to society, which is not quantifiable and is more of a psychological issue. In short, if there is no injured party due to same-sex marriage, the fact that it "bothers" you is simply not a good enough reason to deny the right. Besides, if all sin is equal to God, then what's the difference between gay marriage and a lie to save some one's feelings? You know, like "That dress doesn't make you look fat." I'm really not trying to be trite here; I just don't believe we can make laws based around how something makes us "feel."

Not to mention, in the New Testament, Jesus doesn't mention homosexuals one time. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Now, far be it for me to put words in Jesus' mouth and say that he would be "for" gay marriage--I would never make that leap. However, I do know that the top concerns of Jesus were probably the ones he actually spoke about. Like love one another and take care of the poor. Maybe if our society focused more on that and less on the type of commitment two people make towards each other in private, we would all be better off.

Now, onto gays in the military. Which surprisingly, is a much less controversial subject. A recent gallup poll found that 70% of those surveyed were in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Even more interesting is that when you break down the polling demographically, all segments were in favor by a clear majority (including 53% of conservatives!).

This issue has been picking up steam since the Presidential election of 2008. Many gays expected a quick repeal of the infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy instituted by President Clinton in 1993. Unfortunately, they are still waiting. As usual, the will of the politicians is lagging behind the will of the people. I'm sure our current President remembers the heat that President Clinton took for taking this issue on so early in his first term. There are many things that can and have been said about Clinton both negative and positive. But his effort to allow gays to serve in the military was a genuinely brave one. While "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a compromised (and fatally flawed) policy, I genuinely believe it was the most Clinton could get at the time.

However, all the available polling data now states that the American people have truly turned around on this issue and are ready for a more honest and inclusive military. Clearly, even those who don't approve of the gay lifestyle are ready to accept gay servicemen and women. I suppose some of this notable change in opinion is due to more gays and lesbians living open lives. I imagine it's hard for people to continue to hate or dismiss homosexuals when they learn that they have family members who fit that description.

As well, in the 9/11 age, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been exposed as a failed policy. Since put in place, over 12,500 members of our armed forces have been discharged due to DADT. Several of whom speak Arabic. At a time when we are waging two wars in the Middle East, does that make sense to anyone? Can we really afford to have fewer people who speak the language of the people whose soil we fight on just because they are gay?

There is also a real financial toll that this policy has taken on our military budget. The estimated cost of training those 12,500 soldiers and replacing them is over 190 million dollars. Not to mention the loss of time, experience, and intelligence that is involved anytime you have to replace a person.

For many years, it was believed that having openly gay soldiers would negatively impact the morale of their fellow service members. But I don't think that gives our men and women in uniform enough credit. My dad served in Vietnam, and his greatest concern was whether the guy next to him would cover his ass (so to speak) in a fire fight or not. Of course, I'm well aware that many soldiers who were thought to be gay were hazed and treated with abuse by fellow soldiers and even military brass. But I think--if these polls are to be believed--we have evolved since then.

The recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court has put this issue back on the front burner. While Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School she upheld a policy that prevented military recruiters from performing their duties on campus because she felt that DADT was discriminatory. And isn't it? Can we really say that someone isn't qualified for a job due to their sexual orientation? Is there any other employer who could get away with this? If not, why in the world should the military be exempt? I do realize that the military is a unique employer, but in a land where all people are supposed to be created equally, how is it that gays can be allowed to do anything but this?

I think I know the answer. The only reason that gays can't marry or join the military is that they are somehow considered lesser because of their well, gayness. It's an almost casual form of bigotry. How else can one explain it? If we really think that the fundamental rights of fairness apply to all people then shouldn't they apply to gays? Are they not people? Do they not want the same things that the rest of us want? A good life, a decent job, and someone to grow old with?

I know we like to hold our country up as the paragon of democracy. And we do have a lot to be proud of. But make no mistake; we are pretty good at this discrimination thing. Follow the trail of the broken treaties with the American Indian. Recall the ships that brought over the African men and women whom would help build this country and even after their release from slavery were considered 3/5 of a person. Women could not vote until the 20th century. Asian Americans were placed in internment camps during WWII. And in just a couple of short months, Latinos in Arizona will be stopped and told "I need to see your papers" (just for kicks, say that out loud and with a German accent).

But it doesn't have to be this way. Tolerance does not have to equal acceptance. I tolerate Glenn Beck, but I certainly don't accept him. It just means you have to get the hell out of the way and let everyone enjoy the same legal rights that you do. Unless of course, you think that you are somehow more "equal" than "they" are.

Sumo-Pop
May 14, 2010