This analysis is set to appear in the first issue of St Joseph Free Press (MO), a bi-monthly unionist/environmentalist/queer/anti-authoritarian/indymedia, but is more broadly worded and with references/quotes from pols. Therefore, we hope the story can also appeal to an audience outside these circles.

Rainbow Covered Coffins?

by Cory Stephens

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, restricting open homosexuality in the military, was enacted by the Clinton Legislature in 1993 and was meant to pander towards his liberal supporters but caught a rather nasty snag from the center-right while in Senate. Unfortunately, Clinton leaned into the snag rather than ripping at it, as to avoid defeat in the next election. Instead, the policy came out sounding more like your parents right before the holidays, “We support your lifestyle…but, please don’t tell your grandparents, you know how traditional they are.” Later at Thanksgiving dinner when Grandma urged you to have a second helping, ever so casually you let her know there will be plenty more food at your boyfriend/girlfriend’s parents’ dinner, in which you are dreadfully late for.

Around the table, gasps were bountiful and your father’s face was as red as cranberry sauce. Over the years your grandparents annual cash-filled birthday cards have ceased, but your Uncle Barack wants to help any way he can—even if he doesn’t think you should have the legal right to get married.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, the likelihood of a monument being erected on Fire Island in honor of Obama’s pledges to the LGBT community couldn’t have been greater. Candidate Obama correlated his need for political acceptance with the struggle for gay social acceptance. Linking the two, he molded himself into the candidate for gay rights (see also: women’s rights, farmers’ rights, human rights, etc.) This is where we run afoul. It is true one person cannot be everything to everyone, but can he be blamed for trying?

Barack Obama’s stated position on gay marriage was that it remains a state issue, not a place for federal intrusion. This effectively absolved him of the argument on gay marriage in the most deftly delivered example of Clintonian political maneuvers, and also handed the GOP an oblique victory in their quest for limited federal control of government. Here we see again that the guy just wants to be accepted by his peers, is it so wrong? Yes, because if everyone is onboard the Change boat there will be no tide to go against.

Ten months into Obama’s first term and the DADT policy is still firmly in place. Ceremoniously, the White House announced (on the eighth anniversary of the War in Afghanistan) plans for a “big gay rights speech” at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner. Obama offered nothing substantial and merely asked for continued patience on his promised change. Admittedly, there are huge leftover national and global problems usurping the President’s precious time and attention. But a Presidential decree and a signature is all that is needed to end this poorly thought-out policy.

The ramifications, however, to ending this poorly thought-out policy would drastically trip up the progress of more pressing economical matters. Ramifications such as, the method of determining which soldiers would receive familial benefits, would it differ for homo-soldiers versus hetero-soldiers? Would servicemembers in same-sex marriages be offered all the same benefits; housing for spouses, combat and separation pay, death restitution and military funerals? If not, what if children are involved; will they receive the parent’s proper benefits? Would the military even honor same-sex marriages and civil unions and would the marriages transfer from state-to-state and base-to-base? Could gay military personnel become married after enlisting? How would this affect the legality of civilian same-sex marriages? What about those already discharged for being gay, could they re-enlist?

Then there are the more personal questions regarding safety. Will the military adopt hate crime laws? Will it cover hazing, sexual harassment, and what about rape? Well, if the current military attitude towards these offenses is any indication, then they don’t care.

These are just a small number of the trip-ups the Obama Administration would have to iron out if they had a serious intent in revoking DADT. Evidence points the other direction, that in which the White House is actually trying to shove the whole issue into the closet. On July 29, 2009, Representative Alcee Hastings, (D-FL) drafted an amendment to “add language to a defense appropriations bill to prohibit spending money on investigating suspected or admitted homosexuals and bisexuals.” This amendment would nullify part of DADT in regards to the discharge process wherein a trial is held to determine if a soldier is actually homosexual, but without directly asking said soldier. (Casual same-sex hugging is considered homosexual under the policy.) Rep. Hastings later said in a press release that “due to pressure from some of my congressional colleagues and from the White House, I have withdrawn my amendment.” Rep. Hastings would not say who in the White House applied pressure and only stated it was not President Obama.

Navy Lt. Dan Choi has called DADT “discriminatory, wasteful and dangerous.” Lt. Choi graduated from West Point Naval Academy as an Arabic Linguist and served in combat during the Iraq War. During an appearance on the Rachael Maddow Show on March 19th 2009, the sixth anniversary of the Iraq War, Lt. Choi announced that in accordance with the West Point creed of ‘Always choosing the better, harder decision over the worse and easier decision’, he said three little words that would excommunicate him from the military: “I am gay.”

Within one month, Lt. Dan Choi was dishonorably discharged.

According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, over 13,000 people have been discharged since the policy was instituted in 1993. Since 2001, discharges based on homosexuality have dropped in half from the yearly average, historically, discharges across the board decline during times of conflict. However, since 2004, over 800 mission-ready troops, at least 59 Arabic linguists and 9 Farsi linguists have been discharged for admitting to or being found gay. A startling 619 gay discharges were reported just in 2008. Other federal service bureaus, like the FBI, CIA, NSA and Presidential Secret Service do not have a ban on homosexuals. Why then does the military?

A majority of those serving do not agree with the ban on gays and the civilian opinion mirrors this outlook. A common sentiment held by those in support of gays in the military centers around the idea that if a person wants to kill like a warrior then it shouldn’t matter what their orientation is. On the other hand, dissolving the WASP-y, conservative mindset that homosexuals are not-quite human is difficult enough in civilian life, but when trying to stand up against homophobia in “This Man’s Army” is like saying, “Racism is over because we have a black president.”

Not only are machismo, racism and sexism the foundations of military culture, those traits are continual building blocks to maintaining a strong status quo. In the book Army of None, author Aimee Allison relates a still-haunting experience from Army boot camp about a five-mile hike where she and a hundred other female recruits were instructed to chant “Kill the people! Burn the village!” A similar such racist-tinged exercise happened when she received training on how to operate a 50-mm vehicle-mounted machine gun without it overheating and jamming. The instructor told her to squeeze off rounds in five second intervals by saying the following phrase twice then releasing the trigger: “Die, towelhead. Die.” When speaking to a group of high school students she recalled how she was sexually assaulted by her drill sergeant, and statistically, one in three female recruits would also endure such treatment.

“Often times the lesbians under my command were under scrutiny by the same men sexually harassing straight women,” says Anoradh Bhagwati, a former Marine and founder of the Service Women’s Action Network “So it was this sexist undercurrent of ‘You don’t belong here.’”

Why anyone would actively seek out this narrow view of the world is baffling and even more so when said person does not match the status quo. Aimee Allison lays blame for her enlistment on the deceitful promises recruiters fed her; college money, career training and good pay, in what is commonly referred to as the Poverty and Minority Draft. Army data reveals only six percent of nearly 50,000 enlistees receive the maximum promised benefits—if you’re discharged you have to pay the military back. Recruiters prey on the socially-dispossessed, low income minorities looking for a way out of their abject and derelict neighborhoods and they find plenty eager to take the bait. According to the New York Times, in 2004 alone, nearly one in five Army recruiters found themselves under investigation for “coercion and false promises.”

“Rank is everything,” Allison says on being an African-American woman, “And you can’t have it.” Seeking acceptance and striving for comeuppance is natural human behavior, but this goes beyond wanting acceptance, it’s just masochistic. It’s like trying to gain acceptance from an extremist hate group when you are obviously the target of the hatred. Not that the United States military is comparable to these groups—although it is worth mentioning that not since the American Civil War has there been an American-led war on another Caucasian nation.

Before the drafting and installation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, gay activists claimed they were being discriminated against with their exclusion from the military. Now the same activists are pointing out how gays in the military have suffered the shame of the bureaucratic closet. Paula Hoffman Villanueva of the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD) has counseled many former LGBT servicemembers. She says of those that “come out and get out [of the military] do so because they can no longer tolerate the degrading secrecy.” These are valid points for removing the ban on open homosexuality, but unfortunately are semantic and hypocritical. There is no recourse in which arguing for gay rights within a murderous federal institution should trump the worth of another human life on the other side of the machinegun. How can equality come before peace? The oppressor cannot complain about being oppressed.

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy admitted hushed gays into the military and, of course, gay oppression ended, but these gay soldiers soon found they were now repressed and so the policy must come to an end and allow open enlistment to all sexual orientations. The military will finally be an inclusive, accepting and diverse killing machine! The oppression, repression and outright murder can blissfully continue by the hands of the hetero, LGBT and asexual eunuchs of the United States military forces. Perhaps we could have a murderous, bloody rampage through all the oil-rich nations as a sort-of “coming out” party for the Open and Accepting U.S. Military of Tomorrow!

President Obama chose to align himself with the gay community, as we pointed out earlier, to win a contest with a built-in segment of an estimated 10% of the populace. The contingency reasoning behind pledging to revoke DADT was not to win friends in a popularity contest though, by revoking the policy it comes a blessing in disguise just as it was when women were first allowed to serve: More warm bodies; cannon fodder. The mid-term congressional elections are stalling the process and if Obama makes it into a second term maybe he’ll consider revoking the policy. Then the Gay Draft will open up a whole new market! What sort of offensive and self-serving pack of marketable lies will be sold directly to the gay community? Army-sponsored pride parades? Navy-sponsored Caribbean cruises? Will we see recruiters in the club? Not likely, but as I said, offensive nonetheless. You may be unaware, but tucked quietly into the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ there is a sub-clause that requires public schools to supply military recruiters with private student contact information. That is far more offensive than a recruiter in the club.

In a similarly grotesque fashion, gay activists responsible for the creation and the revocation of DADT will have a no-win situation when they undercut progress and become the unwitting spokespeople for openly gay enlistment and therefore, effectively killing people with their good intentions.

We need to combat the real threat and it isn’t the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It’s the whole nature of militarizing our society. Like John Steinbeck wrote in The Grapes of Wrath: “Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed.” Don’t blindly fight for the right to kill in the name of your government. Fight for the right for all humans to simply exist, how and with whom they wish.