McCain Says Military Gay Ban Working
March 11, 2007
It must not feel so good to be a gay Republican these days. I mean you got Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot,” Mitt Romney denying that there is even a need for non-discrimination laws and Dick Cheney wanting to beat down Wolf Blitzer for asking about his lesbian daughter’s pregnancy. Now, as the fine folks at Think Progress point out, comes word that John McCain supports the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that bans openly gay soldiers in the military.
As we all know from the very different stories of Eric Alva and Matt Sanchez, gays and gays-for-pay can serve ably in the military and the reserves. Alva was the first American soldier injured in the Iraq war and is working with the Human Rights Campaign to overturn the military ban. Sanchez, the former porn performer and now conservative activist, is in the Marine reserves.
One would think that McCain and the Republican Party would have more things to worry about than gay soldiers, you know, with Osama bin Laden recently celebrating his 50th birthday, Iraq falling apart and the U.S. military suffering from bad leadership.
Much love: Americablog
Entry Filed under: 2008 Election, Congress, Conservatives, Iraq, John McCain, LGBT, Politics, Republicans, War. .
9 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Smiley | March 11, 2007 at 10:44 am
Yeah, DADT needs to go. Tell me, do you know your history? Did a Republican or Democrat enact that law? (evil grin)
2.
bloggernista | March 11, 2007 at 10:48 am
Yeah, I know the history. Bill Clinton signed DADT into law. It was a stupid thing to do. He felt pressured by the Republicans in Congress and haters like Bill Nunn. He should have shown more cojones and ordered the military to accept openly gay soldiers.
3.
Smiley | March 11, 2007 at 11:50 am
Yeah, and that’s why I get so fumed over this conservative/democrat infighting. Because the bottom line is that we are not going achieve equal rights by relying on politicians. Perhaps Democrats may be more on our side – but they’ll only give us a watered down version. Equal rights should’ve never become a political issue. And it’s our fault that we allowed politicians to put us in this position. We need to be in the streets, protesting. Not on the net infighting over the likes of Sanchez!
4.
Shane | March 11, 2007 at 6:18 pm
McCain can “think” all he wants about DADT but his “opinion” doesn’t explain why so many men and women have been denied or relieved of duty due to their homosexuality during a war when We NEED as many troops as we can get. Last I checked, homosexuality wasn’t a disability that would keep a would-be soldier out of the military. And is that really the reason Clinton inacted this excuse for a compromise??
5.
bloggernista | March 12, 2007 at 1:26 am
Shane, it is the excuse that was given publicly. Of course, there was probably more going on. Clinton an ill-timed comment that conservative Republicans pounced on and blew up into a controversy. Conservative Democrat Bill Nunn further fueled the issue when he toured a battleship with a camera crew in tow to raise questions about unit cohesion and the close living quarters. At the time, the LGBT advocacy groups were less powerful and our community was not ready to take on the issue.
6.
Agent KGB | March 12, 2007 at 4:30 pm
The law has no basis, sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with ability to serve as a soldier, and to continue to prevent gays from joining at a time when they’re sending others back for a second or third tour is to take its idiocy a step further. To suggest that an openly gay person in the military weakens a unit, or in this case to pass a law with that idea, is beyond ridiculous. Hopefully with Alva and others they’ll change it.
7.
Smiley | March 12, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Bloggernista. I don’t know the real reasons Clinton was a coward about it. But I do know that we were stronger, and more unified back then. Were you old enough for the March in D.C. in ‘93? We have become fragmented (as you reference intramural bloodbath). We were in better shape then. We had organizations like ACT UP and Queer Nation, Luke Sissyfag; Larry Kramer was still around. We were UNIFIED. Where our mistake lied was blindly trusting the Clinton Administration to do our battles for us.
8. McCain: Age Ain't Nothing But a Number « Bloggernista | April 10, 2007 at 7:23 am
[...] case you missed it: McCain Says Gay Military Ban Working In case you missed it: Straight Talk My [...]
9.
The Moderate Republican | May 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm
First of all it’s an issue because although we heard “it’s the economy stupid” a million times in the 1992 campaign, the first thing the newly elected democrat President did in 1993 had absolutely nothing to do with the economy. Nope, his pressing issue (which he apparently hid from the public) was addressing gays in the military. So any liberal “I can’t believe republicans are making this an issue” disbelief is humorous because liberals make issues out of a lot of things they never emphasize to the public.
Second, the military is not the IBM, Goodyear, or McDonald’s corporation. Military personnel eat, sleep, shower, and live together. Ask Pelosi if she would want to shower with Harry Reid. She would say no, but why? Would she think Harry would rape her or ogle her into a state of paranoia? She would say no again, so why not shower with him? Is it just because they have different bodies? No, showering or sleeping next to a workmate who is predisposed to have a sexual orientation to your gender is naturally offensive and wildly discomforting. Not knowing is one thing but knowing for sure, when you already have an ultra-stressful job to consider, is absolutely unnecessary and detrimental to the spirit and welfare of military men & women everywhere.
So remember, this is not about difference. The analogies of integrating blacks into the military are of the poorest kind. This is about sexual orientation, predisposition, and behavior. And we certainly don’t need to stress out our troops anymore, last I checked anyway.