The Intolerable Pace of Bigotry

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, is facing some tough questions this morning about controversial comments he made about homosexuality and gays serving in the military during a newspaper interview.

Pace was asked about his view on gays in the military by the Chicago Tribune. His answer was carefully worded, but his meaning was unmistakable.

"My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace said during the tape-recorded interview.

"I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct, in that we should not tolerate that."

"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

And I am soo opposed to the military's efforts to kick out adulterers. Why it's nobody's busi....wait....what?....they don't?

Nevermind.

Can we all distinguish between personal belief and public policy? Apparently Gen. Pace cannot.

Pace was asked about his view on gays in the military. He was asked a policy question, not about his personal beliefs. That he offered his personal beliefs as an answer about policy is the problem here. He's entitled to his beliefs. But as Chair of the JCoS, his duty is to the law and to the military. As it stands, substituting his personal beliefs for his duty serves neither.

His views on the morality of gay people themselves is wholly irrelevant to that question. His personal moral beliefs, misguided as they are, cannot be the basis for military policy. Again, he wasn't asked for his view on gay people, he was asked for his view on the policy.

His answer revealed that he was basing his support of the policy, not on the best interests of the military or the law, but on his personal beliefs. And he did so in a very peculiar sort of way. For he expressed disapproval of both adultery and gay people, but only gay people are barred from service. Heck, RW Christians supposedly disapprove just as much of anyone who has sex outside of marriage. And yet if kicked out everyone who has extra-marital sex, there'd be no one left. Somehow no one is claiming that allowing fornicators to serve in the military is somehow" approving="" of="" their="">

At a time when we desperate for people, people with families are being forced into third and fourth tours, we're even allowing some people with criminal pasts - saying that gay people are just a bridge too far morally is not in the best interests of the nation or the military. To disallow gay people from serving on moral grounds, while allowing all manner of other "sinners", speaks of a kind of bigotry that transcends mere personal belief. Why that so-called "sin" is sooo bad that that one alone is grounds for exclusion for service when our nation so needs every able and willing person defies logical explanation. And so it is not without consequence for our nation that the top general would reveal that the fundamental basis for his support of the exclusion of gays from service is a bizarre moral prejudice.

Moreover:

Australian, British, Canadian and Israeli allies at the least are on notice that General Pace thinks that their gay service members are "immoral" and that he supports the hugely failed American "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Every single one of our major allies in NATO, the "coalition of the willing" and the GWoT have open gays in the military. Pace just insulted our allies.

And it is not just side by side with our allies that GLBT service members are risking their lives for our freedom and security.

Gay-rights groups accused the U.S. military of hypocrisy Wednesday after it disclosed a sharp reduction in the dismissal of gays since the beginning of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pentagon said it dismissed 612 people for homosexuality in its most recent fiscal year, fewer than half the 1,227 dismissed in fiscal 2001.

Gay-rights groups said the numbers show the hypocrisy of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which forbids commanders from asking the sexual orientation of service members but requires gays and lesbians to keep their sexual orientation private.

“It is interesting to watch rates of discharge go down when the military needs people the most,” said Bob Kearney, a senior public policy advocate for Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights group.

The decline in dismissals comes amid simultaneous wars that have strained the military’s manpower.

“It is not appropriate for the U.S. military to tell lesbian and gay Americans that they are worthy of fighting and dying in a war zone, but unworthy of serving their country on the home front during peacetime,” said Steve Ralls, a spokesman for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides legal help to military gays facing dismissal.

But this is nothing new.

Prior to the onset of the Korean War, the Navy typically discharged 1,100 sailors a year for homosexuality. In 1950, at the height of the Korean War, that number dropped to 483. In 1951, only 533 gay sailors were expelled from the Navy. In 1953, when the Armistice was signed, the number of naval discharges for homosexuality jumped to 1,353.

In the three years prior to 1966, the Navy discharged between 1,600 and 1,700 sailors each year for homosexuality. From 1966 to 1967, the numbers dropped from 1,708 to 1,094. In 1968, gay discharges fell again to 798, and they dipped to 643 at the peak of the military build-up in 1969. In 1970, the Navy discharged only 461 sailors for homosexuality.

It's supposedly in combat in particular that the need for trust mandates that gays cannot serve. And yet, repeatedly, at times of war, GLBT people don't seem like such a threat.

And then of course, after the crisis and after their service, then it's time to kick out GLBT people and deny them their benefits. That is the morality of the General Pace. Allowing GLBT people to risk their lives to defend their nation and then kicking them to the curb when their service is over. A real paragon of virtue, indeed.

So the question for the general is regarding the policy, what's more important: Liberty and Security or his personal beliefs. And if it's the later, which it appears to be, then we have a problem.

So here's why Pace is a homophobic bigot and not just expressing a personal moral view.

You see, the key word there is "personal". It's one thing to hold that view for one's own personal life and to live one's personal life accordingly. It's another altogether to use the force of law or to seek to use the force of law to punish others who do not share those personal views. Pace isn't some schmoe. He's the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. He has responsibilities. His "opinion" impacts policy. There are real life consequences to having this bigot in his position. We're no longer talking about an innocent exchange of ideas.

Pace framed the issue well himself in his comparison to adultery. Of course I disagree with the comparison. But let's take it at face value, that both are just as wrong in his eyes. Then explain why his personal view that being gay is "immoral" justifies excluding gay people from service but his personal view that adultery is immoral doesn't preclude the service of adulterers.

It's the fact that the homophobes have taken this so-called "sin" and made it the subject and rationale for punitive legislation that separates their actions and beliefs from merely personal views. Where are the Constitutional Amendments making fornicators second-class citizens? Where are the laws prohibiting divorcees from adopting?

Even within the RW fundie mindset, they clearly have decided that this one "sin" and this one alone is the proper justification for a host of punitive measures. Something other than just personal beliefs has to explain that.

Something does. Small-minded, hated-filled, bigoted, intolerant homophobia.

And there's no sin in calling it what it is.

Read the full post.

Coulter and the F-Word Redux

Sorry to come late to the party, but a dust-up by Glenn Greenwald in Salon on Ann Coulter's latest attention grabbing device deserves to be picked up on and amplified.

He argues that the importance of Coulter's use of the "F-Word" to describe John Edwards lies more in what it says about Republicans than Coulter or Edwards. Greenwald goes beyond the standard observations that this is scarcely the first or the worst obscenity to come out of Coulter and yet she was still greeted warmly at the Conservative Political Action Conference and was introduced by presidential hopeful Mitt Romney with the words, “I’m happy to learn that after you hear me, you’re going to hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing.” Romney's campaign later called the remark "offensive." So we can only surmise that he was hoping she'd joke about poisoning a Supreme Court Justice or insult the widows of victims of 9-11 again. What a hoot!

Instead Greenwald points out, I think correctly:

Coulter plays a vital and irreplaceable role in this movement. The reason I linked to that Bob Somerby post on Maureen Dowd yesterday is because he makes the critical point -- one which Digby, among others, has been making for a long time, including in a great post last night -- concerning how the right-wing movement conducts itself and the rhetorical tool they use not only to keep themselves in power, but more importantly, to keep their needy, confused, and scared base feeling strong and protected. As Digby put it:

The underlying premise of the modern conservative movement is that the entire Democratic party consists of a bunch of fags and dykes who are both too effeminate and too masculine to properly lead the nation. Coulter says it out loud. Dowd hints at it broadly. And the entire press corps giggles and swoons at this shallow, sophomoric concept like a bunch of junior high pom pom girls.

Coulter insisted last night that she did not intend the remark as an anti-gay slur -- that she did not intend to suggest that John Edwards, husband and father, was gay -- but instead only used the word as a "schoolyard taunt," to call him a sissy. And that is true. Her aim was not to suggest that Edwards is actually gay, but simply to feminize him like they do with all male Democratic or liberal political leaders.

For multiple reasons, nobody does that more effectively or audaciously than Coulter, which is why they need her so desperately and will never jettison her. How could they possibly shun her for engaging in tactics on which their entire movement depends? They cannot, which is why they are not and will not.

The converse of this is equally true. As critical as it is to them to feminize Democratic and liberal males (and to masculinize the women), even more important is to create false images of masculine power and strength around their authority figures. The reality of this masculine power is almost always non-existent. The imagery is what counts.

Coulter is more than just another right-wing hit-person. Greenwald is right. She plays a vital role for them. She presents herself as a hyper-feminized sexual object. Hair dyed, anorexic looking build, she is usually pictured in something tight fitting and low cut. This is part of the appeal. She says to the soft and flabby chickenhawks and yellow elephants: Democrats are bunch of sissies. You're the real heroes. And she offers herself up as an idealized sexual prize.

Liberals are sometimes fond of pointing Coulter's Adam's apple and joking that she's not really a woman. I think they correctly picking up that she is in female drag, an overdone version of herself. But they are also playing into the same gender schema. One liberal site has even claimed that Coulter is a lesbian. All of which just reaffirms Coulter's subtext that gender inappropriate behavior is bad.

It's a game Democrats cannot win if they accept those terms. Democrats will always be the party of women who can be strong and men who can sensitive - which should be a good thing. Democrats will be the party that supports, or at least doesn't actively bash, GLBT people. They cannot tacitly accept that traditional gender roles are somehow inherently better.

John Edwards got it right not by being "offended" at being called gay but by attacking the implicit attack on gays.

Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.

I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it

.

Had he puffed his chest out and acted macho or gone after the masculinity of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, he'd have simply invited the national conversation to focus on gendered behavior of the parties and their people.

In response to Edwards' call for people offended by Coulter's remarks to help raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" to show that he would not be intimidated by "bigoted attacks", Coulter responded, "I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!" I'm sure it's true. Coulter can't be shamed. And her followers think it's all hy-larious.

But Coulter isn't the point. It's Giuliani who called her "completely inappropriate." And McCain who said the remark was "wildly inappropriate." Watch. They're so offended, they won't stop campaigning with her. What a hoot!

Read the full post.

Man on Dog: Is Massachusetts Sinking Into Moral Decay?

There is some low level clucking and hand wringing going on in Right Wing circles over a new law proposed by four liberal Democratic state senators in Massachusetts. Cynthia S. Creem, Robert A. O'Leary, Michael E. Festa, and David P. Linsky have introduced Senate Bill 938 to take a series of archaic laws off the books. These are all sections of Massachusetts Chapter 272.

The stricken sections include: Section 14, outlaws adultery, Section 18, outlaws sex outside of marriage; Section 21, outlaws sex toys, contraception, and implements used in abortion; Section 21A, exception to 21 for married couples using contraception; Section 36, outlaws blasphemy; Section 63, prohibits homeless people from asking strangers for money or food; Section 64, provides for punishment for homeless people (noting that some of the acts prohibited such as "wilfully or maliciously injur(ing) or threaten(ing) to injure any person" would be covered by other law); Sections 66-69, define 'vagrants' and 'vagabonds' and provide for arrest without warrant and specific punishments.

But that ain’t what the Right Wingers are concerned about. It’s Section 34, which reads:

Whoever commits the abominable and detestable crime against nature, either with mankind or with a beast, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years.

This is proposed to be replaced with:

Whoever commits a sexual act on an animal shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 20 years or in a house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

It would strike the prohibition of “the abominable and detestable crime against nature...with mankind” and provide for treatment or a fine as an alternative to prison for bestiality.

The World Net Daily has the article that all the RW'ers seem to be linking to.

Four state legislators in Massachusetts have introduced a bill that would soften the crime of bestiality, a move pro-family activists say is a natural progression of the state's legalizing same-sex marriage.

Have at it Freepers.

Bawney Fwank making eyes at his pet poodle?

I'm sure Kerry pushed hard for this considering his taste in women.

I have come to the conclusion that democrats are just perverted. There is no other explanation for the things they defend. Yep. And in order to increase the number of registered Democrats they seek to corrupt the minds of children. When the kids turn 18 and have already had an abortion or have identified as a "sexual minority" or some other dreadful thing, then 99% chance they will register as 'rats.

If someone really wants to marry or have sex with Helen Thomas, I suppose I'd let them.

The bit that will percolate up through conservatives generally goes something like this:

Once again, we were right. We said this is the sort of thing that would come next if homosexuality was accepted as "normal" - and so it begins.

I seem to recall that this (along with polygamy/polyandry) was predicted as a "natural" consequence of pro-homosexual legislation. I seem to recall that this prediction was voiciferously denied by the militant homosexual lobby, and that the fellows who made the prediction were derided and vilified. well, well, well.

And

More than two and a half years ago, the nation laughed as pro-family crusader Rick Santorum predicted the consequences of legalized gay marriage: If man-on-man marriage was sanctified, man-on-child and man-on-dog unions might not be far behind.

Those who jeered Santorum were silenced last Tuesday. Man-on-dog isn’t legal just yet, but if the Massachusetts State Legislature has its way, it might be soon. On November 1, cheerleading for bestiality was just one of a string of stunning pieces of legislation that converged on the legislature’s judiciary committee in a bizarre, post-Halloween orgy. The imminent collapse of the state cannot be far behind.

To be fair, a couple of Freepers made this point, but just didn't seem to make any further connections.

And, so, here are the 24 states with no laws prohibiting bestiality:
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missiouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming.

And so here we go. The state with the nation's lowest divorce rate, Massachusetts, is heading towards "imminent collapse" because they legalized same-sex marriage and might provide for less draconian punishment for bestiality. On the other hand, the state with the highest divorce rate, Nevada, has no law prohibiting bestiality and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Whether or not this bill ever passes in Massachusetts, look for this to be cited by anti-gay rights activists as proof that same sex-marriage leads inexorably to inter-species marriage.

Read the full post.