The Preamble to the Constitution

WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Don't ask, Don't tell, Don't know , Don't care, Don't get it

Disclaimer : I have no idea what it is like to be gay. Although from a military family, I also have no idea what it is like to serve in the Military. My point of view is myopic, WASPY and male and is entirely my own.

A Federal Judge has declared “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” to be unconstitutional. She has also now issued an injunction to the US Military that in effect say “Stop enforcing” Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

The net effect of her ruling applies to the worldwide conduct of all US Military forces and all active and all future investigations.

There are numerous arguments on all three sides of this issue. I say three sides because it is traditionally argued most vocally by Gay protest groups, the military establishment and the politicians. The rest of us have opinions that if polled would range from damn right to who cares and all points in between. The Gay groups (including both democratic and republican gay rights organizations , like the Log Cabin Republicans) argue that gays should be allowed to openly gay as a matter of practice in every situation. The military says that being openly gay “negatively affects unit cohesion and morale” , whatever that really means, to have openly serving gay service members, and the politicians come up with every loopy variation of that including that somehow being gay has anything at all to do with the traditional male/female relationship and the nuclear family. That’s another whole story, but I just don’t get that point of view at all.

The judge , Virginia Phillips, said that the 17 year old policy “"infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members" and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech. I don’t know if you know anything at all about constitutional law, but even if it wasn’t, this is a constitutional issue now nonetheless, because this judge has said it is and there is no going back. The facts don’t change because you don’t like them, and there is now no chance this will be solved politically. Not that there ever really was in the first place.

I am a little bit confused.

Here is what the text of the constitution actually says on due process and freedom of speech:

  • ARTICLE [V.] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  • ARTICLE XIV. SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • ARTICLE [I.] OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS SAYS : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Doesn’t say squat about being gay or serving in the military. So, while I have never supported the idea that being gay is in any way injurious to those of us who are not gay, and I have never served in the military, I have to tell you the message sent by this law and now by the injunction is both confusing and at the same time as absurd as the argument for the law in the first place. Personally ? You want to be Gay and carry a rifle and fight our enemies? OK with me. I could care less about your “gayness”, and care more about your ability to aim your rifle. (for example) Your being gay has no affect on me not being gay. Never has, never will. To say that you can serve if your Gay, as long as you don’t tell us your gay, which if you do, we are gonna act all surprised and kick your ass outta here makes as much sense to me as saying that you have a fundamental right to be gay in the first place. It was bad policy and is a stupid law as it was written and now this ruling comes along and attempts to make us think that it has anything at all to do with due process and freedom of speech.

The law is kind of like saying you can serve in the military if you are a space alien as long as you don’t tell us you are a space alien. The ruling says you have a fundamental right to a credit card as long as you only think about it, but never use it. Like anything ever exists in a vacuum. It is intellectually lazy to simply compartmentalize one subject over another and then draw conclusions from the individual compartments, supporting the other individualized compartments , except that they don’t know the other compartments exist. Makes me go “ Arooouggh?”

If you want to integrate a group into another group (gays into the military- for example) be aware that you do not integrate only a select portion of that group and get to ignore the other portions, because you don’t like the aspects in those portions. All things must be considered as a whole and as parts of that whole. That’s just the way it is. You want to integrate Blacks into the military ? Fine. Everything about being black gets in, you can’t stop it, no matter what your policy is. You want to allow certain types of criminals to serve openly ? Fine. Everything about being criminal gets in too. Just accept it. You cannot make a policy that turns off the mind and think that all is well just because you say it is. It just don’t work that way. See here’s the real problem that no one addresses. Gay people scare straight people. Black people scare white people. Young people scare old people. Men scare women. Dogs scare cats. We are all just afraid of our own shadows. If they didn’t nobody would give a rats ass if someone was gay or not.

I am not expressing an opinion on whether it is right or wrong to be gay. I’m not gay and I haven’t given the other point of view much consideration, if any. Whatever your anatomical equipment preference is makes no difference to me one way or the other. What I am saying is this. Be honest about what you are saying and quit hiding behind a compromised point of view. You want to make a law that says you cannot be gay and serve in the military. Research it, fund it, pass it and enforce it. Just be aware that your opponents are going to be as vocal about repealing it as you are about enforcing it. One side or the other has to lose. When you lose, shake hands, dust yourselves off and get over it, and move on. The policy should have been called “ No guts, No plan, Don’t want to deal with it”, because all it did was make the fight last another 20 years instead of being settled back when it first came up. You can be a gay cop, a gay firefighter, a gay politician, a gay anything else, but you can’t be a gay sergeant? A Senator ( think Barney Frank) , could have been kicked out of the military for being gay in 1990 and then potentially could have served the last 20 years as an openly gay senator with no repercussions?

And now they think the goofiest appeals court in the land , the Ninth Circuit, is going to say this judge is wrong?

Can you say “Supreme Court”? I knew that you could.

Thankx for reading my rant !

bigmike

Visit my blog online at http://bigmikerant.blogspot.com/

I encourage you to leave your own comments or reactions to my rants (even if you don't agree with me) in the comments section on each post. Join my facebook group "We are all tired of Bickering Politicians" at

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=292482513888. We would love to have your voice added to the noise !!

1 comment:

  1. I agree that the constitutionality argument is weak. The fourth amendment has about as much place in this argument as Nancy Pelosi does at an award show for the intelligent and the gifted. I might be persuaded to think that not being allowed to say something, i.e. "I'm gay", could be construed as abridgment of free speech. But even if I was, I understood it was more of a snitching policy. You can tell your fellow soldiers and maybe even a superior and so long as they didn't make it an issue with their commanding officer or whoever, nothing happened. So technically, you're first amendment rights aren't in question. You can say whatever you'd like, just so long as they didn't snitch. Like you say though, it was a half-ass policy from the beginning and should of been taken care of a long time ago. People fear change more than anything...men feared women voting...whites feared blacks with rights... religious folks feared people not believing in a deity. But they got over it. People will eventually get over gay folks being in prominent positions in all walks of life. Peace - Tony

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome (Keep it clean and I will publish it.) I fully support the 1st and 2nd amendments. Nasty comments and SPAM are deleted.