Gays in the Military?

I came across this hilarious video on Brave New Films after watching 5 minutes of the Republican presidential candidate debate, in which the panel of 10 white men, including Giuliani & McCain, attempted to individually avoid the question of whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military until finally the CNN questioner (Scott Spradling?) asked for anyone on the panel to take the floor if they thought that the ban should be lifted and the seconds tick by in silence. So, after that depressing moment, I found this video to cheer me up and ended up writing such a long comment, that I thought I'd repost it here:



Besides the Republican line of the hour, "Lifting the ban is a social experiment that would be irresponsibly dangerous to indulge in at this critical time of war," what is Mark Smith trying to convey here?

First, he wants to make it clear that Mark Smith (or insert other generic white male name here) has a rampant heterosexuality that is uncontrollable to the extent that he cannot even focus on his own impending death when there are women in short shorts around. The female body as an unfailingly sexy object of desire is also important to protect the macho image of the virile male. If he can't get it up for a couple of Hooter's girls having a pillow fight on the front line of combat, he is probably not good for anything.

By the same coin, the ultimate macho man ends up taking the place of the Hooter's waitress when he is the sex object for the gay soldier. Thrown into a troop of (scantily clad?) Mark Smiths, the gay serviceman must be helplessly drawn to Mark Smiths unquestionable manliness. He MUST! If he doesn't, well that must mean that there is something wrong with Mark Smith's pristine masculinity! Yikes! How can Mark Smith even think of subjecting the troops to that kind of identity crisis, especially when we're in the middle of waging an ideological war?!

Furthermore, if Mark Smith can't face the fact that every gay male on the planet would not fall for him immediately, regardless of what he might actually be doing on the ground in Iraq (i.e. dressed from head to toe in camo, carrying upwards of 50 pounds of gear not including firearms, fighting for his life, trying to communicate with desperate people who speak another language, surviving attacks and dust storms, or other NON-SEXY things), then our manly troops couldn't handle it either.

What the Republican party in general is saying with this line (see the above-mentioned GOP debate for multiple repetitions of said line) is that they need to protect the masculine ego of a uniformly hetero, male military.

But wait a second... What about all those women we've allowed into the ranks? Aren't the good old boys going crazy trying to keep in line when bananas appear in their pockets every time G.I. Jane marches next to them? Oh, well, maybe it's just understood that the women in the military are those "rough" "tomboy" types anyway. So, the GOP would be okay with assuming they are all lesbians, as long as they keep their mouths shut about it and, indeed, about anything else other than patriotic sloganage.

This is a tough topic. Like many other political debates, I find myself torn by the disconnect between conceptual perspectives and practical realities. I'm hesitant to shout, "Gays in the Military!" at a protest rally, because I don't believe that war should be waged at all. I am a pacifist and cannot see any war as justifiable. Having complete peace imposed on the warmongers--THAT would be the real social experiment, and that is probably not possible right now, if it ever will be. Furthermore, our government's treatment of the troops is morally questionable and fiscally irresponsible. (See Aztlan y Vietnam for accounts of racist & classist draft practices during the 1960s. See Fahrenheit 9/11 for documentation on military recruiters in action.) Why would I want to fight a political battle so that my queer family can go and fight wars that only serve to keep old white men in power? Those are my main objections. That said, the reality is that there are queer people who want and are able to serve in the military, but are disallowed or fired for being honest.

Unequivocally, I feel that the government should not be charged with policing self-image and identity. Those are personal things that should not concern public policy. What the goverment should be doing is supporting those people who are strong enough to choose this violent, traumatizing way of giving back to their communities. The government should be serving those people to the best of their ability, not forcing them to subscribe to a certain perspective on sexuality, or to lie about who they are to the people they work with. This policy does nothing but demean the professionalism of all troops, gay or straight, and results in the thinning of their ranks with intent only to punish the existence of human diversity. It's reprehensible and should be stopped.

Go to Lift The Ban for more info on what can be done.