April 7, 2009

The Party of Conditional Compassion

Hatched by Dafydd

Riddle me this...

Liberals have a mad desire to cram same-sex marriage -- let's just say gay marriage for the moment, since that's how they think of it -- down our throats. They demand it willy-nilly, generally by court order (Vermont notwithstanding) and regardless of the desires of the citizens of the state in question. They seem terribly urgent about it, as if it's the most important "civil rights" battle in America today (they mean civil liberties, not civil rights, but let that slide).

Yet very few gays would get married, were the option available, according to the polls I've seen -- and in the real-life states that have enacted it: Massachusetts, Connecticut, California briefly, and so forth.

But lo! There is a much more blatant and much less defensible example of anti-gay discrimination in American society: The federal policy barring openly gay men or women from serving in the United States military... at all, in any capacity.

It's virtually impossible to justify on grounds of military necessity, since it's been many decades since anyone seriously believed that homosexuals are weaker or less aggressive than heteros; and the claims that a policy of inclusion would damage morale are no more defensible than the same arguments made in the 40s against racially integrating the military (the argument is essentially that the morale of gay-haters would drop).

At a guess, I believe that at least a hundred times as many gays serve (more or less secretly) in the military as want to get married to members of the same gender, and an even larger number are veterans or would like to serve in the future. At a guess, if about five million legal American residents are homosexual (loosely defined -- say 2% of men and 1% of women), easily as many as a million could be directly adversely affected by the policy. (I cannot imagine that anywhere near ten thousand gays and lesbians seriously intend to get married.)

And Congress or the president could enact that change right this very minute; I don't think Republicans could possibly muster 41 votes to filibuster a bill to lift the restriction, even if they wanted to -- and assuming congressional action is even required; it's possible that all it would take is an Executive Order from the Commander in Chief.

The Left could do it in a snap, even against unified Republican opposition (which I doubt could be mustered anyway). So why don't they?

Well, I didn't plan to leave that hanging as a rhetorical question. As anybody who has read more of this blog than just the seven paragraphs above knows, I ask because I think I know the answer -- which is simply this...

Democrats and liberals couldn't care less about gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transvestites, or any other such subgroup. They only champion the gay (or blacktivist, or feminist) agenda when a particular policy serves the larger agenda of the hard Left: the destruction of traditional Western culture and its replacement by secular humanism.

Simply and brutally put, destroying traditional marriage advances that liberal agenda, so liberal Democrats pursue it with a passion; but allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not advance that vile agenda -- so liberal Democrats truly could not care less.

The only thing that might shake the Left from its apathy on gays in the military is if Democrats start to worry about the 2010 elections; they may decide that they can disguise their larger socialist agenda with the "beard" of civil liberties. They still don't care about gays -- they'll vote Democratic by 75% to 80% anyway; the campaign would be aimed at Independents, who may be won over by the question of fairness.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the GOP would not seriously resist lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the military. In that case, pursuing the change wouldn't benefit the Left anyway; they couldn't point to Republicans and believably scream "homophobe!" So if the GOP is at least split on the issue, Democrats probably won't waste their time pursuing it, as there is no electoral payoff.

I realize I am sounding more and more cynical about the patriotism of the Left, but is it any wonder? All I read, day after day, tells me that they cannot stand America as we are; the only America they love is Sweden.

In any event, if you are gay, and if you're more interested in serving in the military than in marrying a person of your same gender, then please consider joining the GOP. At the least, you will find yourself among a group of people who honestly respect and applaud your service to the country, however much they may disagree with your positions on a few issues. I think a gay or lesbian soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine would have a much more pleasant time at a convention or fund-raiser headed by Romney or McCain or Palin than one headed by Reid, Pelosi, or Obama.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, April 7, 2009, at the time of 8:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3567

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Party of Conditional Compassion:

» The Left doesn't care about gays...they're just cannon fodder in the real war from Random Jottings

Dafydd asks a great question. There are surely far more homosexuals affected by the ban on their openly serving in the military than there are gays who really want to get married. And far less justification for a ban. So, where is the Left? Why are ...

[Read More]

Tracked on April 8, 2009 9:08 AM


The following hissed in response by: Bart Johnson

What percentage of the population are murders? Why is the number relevant? How many homosexuals are members of NAMBLA? Is that number big enough to be welcomed into society?

I said before, I've been in the military, I know that society, and it is very different from anything a non-member can appreciate.

People who advocate changing a substantial society (way more than 2%) should be cautious when messing with something they don't know.

The above hissed in response by: Bart Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 7, 2009 10:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: nash

You build a bit of a straw man in your argument there by suggesting that Democrats and liberals as a whole are for destroying western values and really don't care about gay rights. Sure, some may hold those views, but that's like saying Republicans and the religious right want to impose their Christian values on the rest of society. Some do, many don't. Pointing out the obvious like that doesn't help turn the tide against them and their ideas. It just makes you sound silly in my opinion.

The above hissed in response by: nash [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 8, 2009 6:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Hold on now - the lizard has a point.

Tomorrow we could have gays serving openly in the military. No court order. Just Obama's signature. So why not do it?

While I think the lizards is right he neglects one of the most salient features of liberals...cowardice. They want an "impartial" court to implement gay marriage, they don't want to be seen doing it themselves. They must, to the maximum extent possible, hide who and what they are, which is simply fascists with a smiley face.

The velvet glove covers the mailed fist.

The above hissed in response by: Geoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 8, 2009 10:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: mdgiles

I think the question is not so much whether gays can serve well and honorably, but what effect their serving openly will have on recruitment and retention. In 1948, had white servicemen refused to reenlist or join; I doubt very seriously if Pres. Truman would not have rescinded his executive order. As it were, there was already a level of acceptance of blacks. And of course, there is nothing about the color of skin that speaks to behavior. As for retention and recruitment, much of the armed services comes from regions of the country where the "outlook" is different from the Left and Right coasts. No, "flyover" country is not full of "homophobes", but many potential recruits and/or people thinking of making the service a career may not be comfortable around gays, and the services are a 24 hour a day thing. The proximity in which people live, work, eat and sleep, is like nothing most civilians can imagine. The day is coming for gays in the military though. Oddly enough, I think the growing number of women in the service, has "greased the wheels" so to speak, as the issue of unwanted sexual attention has been reasonably successfully dealt with. In any case, I'm in favor of anybody in the military who's willing to handle those "situations" that might result in me having to learn a new language/religion/political system, in my older years. Anyone who wants to "do violence in my behalf" is just fine.

The above hissed in response by: mdgiles [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 8, 2009 1:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dick E


Democrats and liberals couldn't care less about gays, lesbians, transsexuals, transvestites, or any other such subgroup. They only champion the gay (or blacktivist, or feminist) agenda when a particular policy serves the larger agenda of the hard Left: the destruction of traditional Western culture and its replacement by secular humanism.

Wow, you’ve gotten cynical. So have I, but I think what you say applies to some (many?) in the Democratic leadership, but not to the typical Democrat on the street. They really care about gay, black and women’s rights. Their objective may not be secular humanism, but they don’t see that outcome as particularly problematic. This, of course, makes them putty in the hands of their leaders, who use moderate terminology (gay, black and women’s rights) as code words for the more radical concepts you list.

With respect to gays serving in the military, back in my day (the Pleistocene era) gays serving openly would definitely have been disruptive. There is, of course, no way to prove this assertion. All I can say is, I was there, and attitudes then were far different from today.

I suspect that gays could now serve openly with relatively few problems, for reasons you cite. I’m not sure I want us to jump into that tar baby just now, though. Whether by statute or by executive order, it is a bell that cannot be unrung.

We can’t trust generals to give us the straight poop on whether the policy would work; on such matters they are more politicians than military leaders. Maybe we could conduct a survey of attitudes among military personnel. (I seem to recall that you like surveys.) If properly constructed and conducted, we might be able to find out what real military peoples’ real attitudes are about serving with gays.

The survey would have to be very sophisticated and carefully done, probably using “stealth” questions. I don’t know how feasible that would be, but you are unlikely to get reliable results if you just ask, “Would you care if your bunkmate was a homosexual?” Maybe a word association or Minnesota Multiphasic approach would work. The real purpose of the survey would probably also have to be stealthy; many people don’t understand why it could be a problem if gays served openly -- just make those boneheaded GI’s toe the line, salute and say, “Yes, Sir!”

The above hissed in response by: Dick E [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 8, 2009 7:09 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved