Since I first wrote this blog more than five years ago I purposely kept away from certain topics such as religion (sometimes), abortion (pretty much always) and homosexuality (infinitesimal if at all). These are subjects many try to avoid because people very often have very passionate and very unyielding positions on those very, very hot pockets topics. The time has come to discuss a bit about homosexuality, specifically in the military, due to the release on Tuesday by the Pentagon of a long-awaited report as to the probable effects of gay and lesbians serving openly in the service.
The outcome of a survey among some 100,000 military members showed an extremely significant majority of service men and women who believe that gays serving in the military would not adversely hurt the institution. About 70 percent of those surveyed believe that the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy which began in the Bill Clinton era should go and that homosexuals should have the ability to serve openly in the military.
Now the matter rests with Congress — or not. Some military officials I heard talking yesterday on cable said if the matter — DADT — is put off by congressional members as some Republicans really desire then a legal challenge may ensue. It kind of has already since one federal judge ruled DADT is unconstitutional. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is one of those who don’t want to pass a bill banning it. The former Navy captain, flier, POW and member of a family with a dad and grandfather who were admirals, said he didn’t think enough military people were asked in the survey. Do you believe, Senator, that the military is a democracy? Whose Navy did you say you were in? And to top it off, McCain has been all over this subject, for getting rid of DADT, saying it should stay. Waffle Man. Too bad he has become a douche bag who will say anything to get elected, for I really have a lot of respect for him, waning though it is.
Everybody and their dog has an opinion on this matter. Well, not everybody, but perhaps it would be safe to say that a majority of Americans would like to see it go. I am one of them. Equality is one reason. It’s just the right thing to do, such as when Harry Truman called for integrating the military. But beyond that, I believe everyone has a duty to serve their country in one way or the other. Sexual orientation, like gender, should not be a barrier. But what about all those little ” unpleasantries” that could happen behind the barracks door or on board the ship? Everyone will have their opinion, as I said, so here I give mine although part of that comes with experience in the military.
Back when I served in the Navy, from 1974-78, we knew guys or gals who were gay. We called them “queers.” That was an epithet back then, of course I really didn’t know much better, although the term has seemed to be one somewhat acceptable among some in the gay “community.” Not all, mind you, but some. There was, of course, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” the TV show that played upon the stereotype of gay guys and their innate fashion sense and neat streak.
The premise of the show was that these gay guys would give a straight a makeover of home or self which would be a hit. This is because of the fact that a lot of straight girls like gay guys. And, many straight guys like lesbians, or at the very least, fantasize that they could get them to switch “teams.” But I am straying.
I know there were incidents between straight and gays in the service back then. There were incidents of superior officers or petty officers, noncoms, who hit on younger men or women. Of course, that went for straight and gays. But I never knew of any violent incidents involving gays and straights at any of my places of duty and most knew who were “queer” and who weren’t. I do remember an incident in which a guy for some reason or other was outed and it was, understandably, a melodrama among those who knew the guy but it was no Matthew Shepherd incident. I was even “hit on” by a gay guy, although it was kind of both kind of cute and sad. I felt that way because I could remember being rejected by one or two girls and it is kind of disheartening to get turned down, no matter your orientation.
People who “sweat this situation” don’t see or don’t want to see that mechanisms are already in place to deal with open gayness. I also was hit on in civilians life more than one time. Most of the times were innocent, a couple were a little creepy and could have led to some less-than “gay old times” to paraphrase the “Flintstone’s” theme song. Hey, you don’t think Fred and Barney were … no, surely not.
The social mechanisms are the same if you are male or female. You let people know which way you veer and you don’t have to be a jerk about it nor does the other person. There are also legal provisions if someone is bothering you whether you are straight or gay. If someone who is your superior officer asks you out, and suggests it will affect your job if you don’t go, that should be dealt with. Granted, it will not always happen because their superior officers worry about their superior officers. The military justice system can sometime be pretty crappy. Fortunately, these days there is a Twitter here, a Facebook there and Skype there everywhere so the SOB should easily watch their “six.”
I’m not out to change minds. Like Popeye, I yam what I yam. But there is a pretty good chance that 25, 40 years down the road, gay people in the military may likely be “so what?” just as such a non-reaction about black folks in the armed forces nowadays. Let’s see, we had a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, an Army Chief of Staff of Asian descent. Who knows, maybe the first confirmed homosexual in space. The sky’s the limit and the Universe will likely be left a much neater place.
