DIDN'T ASK...DIDN'T TELL...NOW WHAT?

Morning talk radio can be such white noise most of the time. But one recent morning as I drove to work, my ears perked up while I listened to an interview with Elaine Donnelly, founder and President of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR). CMR presents itself as an “organization formed to take a leadership role in promoting sound military personnel policies in the armed forces.” Sounds very patriotic and progressive, right? It’s not. CMR exists primarily for one purpose – to keep gay Americans out of the armed forces. The day I heard Donnelly pontificating on the radio was the first day that the old Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy no longer existed. Gay Americans could openly and proudly serve their country. Donnelly wasn’t having it.

When asked if she saw possibilities for positive contributions from gay service members, Donnelly (below, left) said she could not think of any. When asked what her main objection to gays in the military was, (other than the fact that they were gay), she said all it accomplishes is adding stress to all of the other military personnel. Donnelly calls the new military structure, post DADT, a “San Francisco military,” and “the president owns it from this day forward.” About the new laws supporting gays in the military, Donnelly says, “This is a political payoff on the part of the president to LGBT activist groups.” Donnelly’s take on the new military world? “There is nothing beneficial for the military here.”

Donnelly, who in the recent past has also suggested that gay men and women should not be allowed to teach in public schools, peppers her statements with terms like “gay agenda,” and “gay separatists.” To his credit, the interviewer speaking with Donnelly this week asked her repeatedly how military readiness would be affected by the inclusion of openly gay service members in the U.S. military. To Donnelly’s discredit, she never answered the question. Donnelly’s limited thinking is not confined to gays in the military. She has also suggested that the horrors of Abu Ghraib had much to do with allowing women in the military. Donnelly, whether she knows it or not, has fashioned herself into the 21st century Anita Bryant.

How odd that Donnelly, a woman of reasonable intelligence, does not realize that extremists with exclusionary causes like hers, do nothing more than galvanize the majority of fair, forward-thinking Americans to defeat discrimination. One has to wonder how Donnelly can establish an organization called “Center for Military Readiness” and not truly address the real issues threatening military readiness:

• In March, Congressman John Olver (D-MASS) expressed his own military readiness concerns. He pointed out that in 2010, in Afghanistan “one-third of deaths and casualties could have been avoided if proper body armor and vehicle armor had been provided from the start of the war.” Troops are still in danger and the current armor solutions are not adequately protecting them, Olver said. (Note to Elaine: Perhaps CMR needs to focus some of its attention and funding on properly outfitting our service members in war zones – including those who are gay).

• Sexual assault runs rampant in the U.S. military, overseas, according to the Pentagon’s own statistics. The numbers show there were more than 3,000 women sexually assaulted in fiscal year 2009, up 11 percent from the year before; among women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the number rose 25%. When you look at the entire universe of female veterans, close to a third say they were victims of rape or assault while they were serving — twice the rate in the civilian population.” (Note to Elaine: These are heterosexual assaults mostly by male military personnel against female military personnel. Perhaps the CMR needs to work toward protecting victims of these assaults and look into the reasons the Code of Military Justice is not being routinely enforced). In its March 10, 2010 issue, TIME Magazine reports anecdotally, that many women overseas stop drinking water after 7PM, so they will not have to go to the bathroom after dark and run the risk of being raped.

• A 2010 U.S. Army report reveals 160 suicides by active-duty soldiers in 2009 and an additional 146 deaths resulted from risky behavior such as drug or prescription medication abuse. Seventy-four of those deaths were overdoses. There were 1,713 attempted suicides last year. Even more recent numbers: In July of this year, the U.S. Army reported a record 32 suspected suicides, the highest number in one month since the Army started keeping suicide records two years ago. (Note to Elaine: What are the deficiencies in the U.S. military that would create a higher suicide rate among military personnel than in the general population? Don’t depression, drug abuse, medication abuse and alcohol abuse threaten our military readiness? CMR might want to focus some efforts here).

• At Fort Hood, TX, the nation’s largest military post, in 2010 one in four service members sought mental health counseling for combat stress, substance abuse, broken marriages or other emotional problems, according to Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Peter Chiarelli. If we’re really going to concentrate on military readiness, shouldn’t our efforts be put here, rather than on who’s sexually attracted to whom? Elaine? Are you listening?

• By now, it is common knowledge that the U.S. Army has employed questionable, if not downright unauthorized tactics in recruiting new service members. Improprieties include recruiting high school students under the age of 17, promising potential recruits job training that does not exist, promising educational benefits that far exceed what the military covers, recruiting in commercial areas or high school campuses where recruitment is not allowed and more. Elaine, I’m wondering: If the military is recruiting individuals who are not qualified to serve, and if recruiters’ superiors are turning a blind eye to fraudulent recruiting techniques, wouldn’t that somehow knock our military readiness down a notch or two? I’m just sayin.’

Military readiness is not about sex or sexuality. Let’s call this what it is – a non-issue. Gay service members have quietly been sharing quarters with straight service members forever. Everyone has co-existed relatively peacefully. Military readiness has more to do with how recruiters are persuading people to sign up, how military personnel are being treated once they’re in, what types of protection (or lack of such) is being afforded combat personnel, and how the military justice system is or is not dealing with clear violations of military law. Fringe group extremists like Donnelly accomplish nothing more than taking the necessary focus off of real issues that affect national security. Elaine, we’ve heard your rhetoric over and over again. It is meaningless, and to most of us it sounds like the rantings of a bitter person who has a personal anti-gay agenda. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is history and your attempts to spread paranoia were ineffective. If you truly want to serve your country as a private citizen, start using your resources and your energy to strengthen the existing military and to improve its reputation among other world powers (especially the 25 countries that already allow gays to serve openly in their military) who have come to view the current “gays in the military” debate as nothing more than tired, old American provincialism. Elaine, we Americans are bigger and better than that. If you are not, then you need to step out of the public spotlight, permanently.

Bitter, Nasty & Vindictive: That’s our JOHN MCCAIN

Before you get too far into this, let me just warn you: The theme today is “Bah Humbug,” and playing the part of Scrooge is John McCain. And as much as I’d love to be able to say that he’s just old and crotchety and lovable, the best I can offer is old and crotchety. I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to think it is time for McCain to hang it up. Way back in 1986 the U.S. eliminated a mandatory retirement age, so as I see it, John McCain could keep playing Senator for another 20 years, depending on longevity. After all, he is 77. I do not think that should be allowed to happen.

Last Saturday, the most significant piece of civil rights legislation in decades was passed by the U.S. Senate. All of the years of gay people honorably serving their country, but dishonorably being forced to hide who they were came to an end. By the day before Christmas Eve, President Obama had signed it into law. The bigotry that clearly defined the U.S. military was voted down, not just by the Democratic majority, but by several Republicans, as well. Before the vote, here is what McCain had to say about the “danger” of allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the U.S. military:


Without trying to play dime-store psychologist, it is not difficult to see the anger that boils just below the McCain surface. Maybe the anger has justifiable roots. After all, this is a guy who is well known for having spent five years in a Vietnamese prison camp. Much of that time he was in solitary confinement. It is widely reported that he was routinely beaten while held prisoner, causing permanent disabilities. He cannot, for example, raise his arms above his head. In his later life he has battled repeated bouts with skin cancer. Just this is enough to cause a guy to feel lifelong anger.

But then there is his political career. Although he has served in elective office for decades now, he ran twice for President of the U.S. and never quite made the cut. First, he was defeated by George W. Bush in 2000. Then he was defeated by Barack Obama in 2008. His campaign speeches were described by supporters as “fiery,” and his self-labeled persona was “maverick.” If you take the time to look back at his rhetoric and his demeanor, it is better described simply as angry.

Maybe it is just that anger that has driven McCain to make some very extreme moves, and to make some rather ill-advised statements. When the Senate was about to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, McCain called it a “very sad day.” He mentioned that the American people did not support this move, even though the last poll that was done before the Senate vote, by the Washington Post and ABC revealed that 77% of Americans favored the repeal. So, for whom was that a sad day? There was an obvious disconnect between McCain’s manipulative rhetoric about marines with no limbs in veterans hospitals, and the will of the American public.

It is not the first time that McCain has demonstrated how out of touch he is with contemporary American thought. It is also not the first time he has reversed himself on major issues. In 2006, in an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, McCain said, “…I‘ve had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.” In early 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen both publicly supported the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. McCain’s reaction was to publicly denounce both of the senior officials for supporting the repeal.

McCain appears to support that which is most convenient for him in the moment. For example, I am not the first one to bring up his hypocrisy as it relates to military rules. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 125) makes it clear that sodomy is cause for dismissal from the U.S. Military. Since it widely assumed that sodomy is part of homosexuality, the UCMJ essentially outlaws homosexuality. But article 134 outlaws adultery, specifically sexual intercourse with someone who is married. When McCain returned from Vietnam, his then wife had been in an accident and was partly disabled. Shortly thereafter he took up with his current wife, while he was still married. Would McCain support a military that discharged him for violation of the UCMJ 134? If not, how does he justify the discharge of others who violated article 125?

I could cite many other examples of McCain’s reversal on key issues, and examples of McCain’s selective use of military and U.S. policy, when it suits him (e.g. in 2003 and again in 2006 McCain publicly supported pathways to U.S. citizenship for U.S. immigrants, but last week he voted against the Dream Act, which would enable young people already in the country to stay and ultimately achieve citizenship). Instead, let me just say this: There is a difference between being politically conservative and being out of touch with contemporary societal mores. McCain’s view of gays in the military is an outdated display of ignorance. His ill-concealed anger only serves to show that his emotions are dictating his political moves. Is 77 to old to serve in the U.S. Senate? I think not. However, a Senator of any age who fails to keep up with the morals and cultural progress of his constituency is not fit for the office he holds.

My observation is that the American people ultimately see their elected officials for what they are, and McCain, having repeatedly compromised his credibility is now the emperor with no clothes. It is not John McCain’s age that will do him in. Rather, it is his rigid inability to recognize the true will of his own constituency. John McCain was clearly positioned to be a senior statesman in the highest levels of the most powerful government in the free world. Instead, he has morphed into an angry old man, embittered by a series of bad breaks in his life. It is that persona that will sully his legacy and ultimately result in his own obscurity.

THE TIME TO ASK AND TELL IS NOW

It is hard to believe it was 18 years ago that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) was first suggested by then presidential candidate Bill Clinton. It was promoted as a way to overturn the ban on gay Americans serving in the armed forces. In truth, it was a continuation of our society’s unspoken declaration that homosexuality must be a dirty little secret. The very idea that a homosexual person must hide his or her identity in order to fight on the front lines or fly life-threatening war time missions is absurd. Not unlike now, Congress in 1992 was populated mostly by older white guys all in matching suits who generally purport to be heterosexual. The law of averages tells us there are most likely several gay members of Congress, but very few people run for office waving a rainbow flag.

Still, DADT was passed and has been in place ever since. Since 1993, there have been five legal challenges to the law, but all five were unsuccessful in Federal court. Still, it is Congress that has the power to kill DADT and allow gay people to serve openly in the military. About a year and a half ago, a Washington Post/ABC News poll revealed that fully 75% of American citizens favor the repeal of DADT. If Congress works for us, it would appear we have spoken and the law is outdated and discriminatory. And get this: in the poll, 64% of Republicans favored overturning the law, along with the 80% of Democrats. That is a very strong majority.

So, why is DADT still in place? First, many elected officials do not want to touch anything that remotely regards gay rights. Although our culture has come a long way in the last 20 years, Senators and House members are always focusing on re-election, and all things gay tend to be viewed as hot button issues that could be overly divisive. You may consider that avoidance short-sighted and not fully representative of your views/needs as a citizen, but politics are politics. Second, although more than 100 retired generals and military officials have supported the ban on DADT, current military powerhouses have been reluctant to commit to overturning the law.

Even those who support the ban have not taken aggressive action. President Obama devoted exactly two sentences to overturning DADT in his recent State of the Union speech, and failed to outline a specific plan or timetable. Some months ago at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C. he stated that the ban would be repealed, but offered no plan to do so. Meanwhile, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff finally came out in support of repealing DADT this month. Still, people in high places object. Senator Ike Skelton (D-MO), who was in on creating DADT in 1993, said this in an interview on C-SPAN: "I am personally not for changing the law.” His comments matter because he is the leading House Democrat on military policy.

Having lived long enough to see how these things go, I know that ultimately DADT will be obsolete and the law will be repealed. I don’t know when, but I feel confident it will happen. Social change that relies on governmental intervention comes slowly in our country. As recently as 1968, a law was finally passed that allowed black Americans and white Americans to get married. Still, every day that passes does so at the detriment of gay military personnel. Reportedly, the number of active duty military personnel discharged for violating the DADT policy is approximately 13,000. In the one year since Obama took office, 600 people have been discharged. Some military personnel are under investigation or awaiting a final decision on their cases. Watch:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The only documented step toward ending the ban is The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283), which would repeal the ban and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. It was introduced in March, 2009 and now sits in committee. It could linger there for a very long time, but it is at least a tangible step toward justice.
Meanwhile, after Obama’s SOTU speech, here is what none other than Senator John McCain had to say:

“In his State of the Union address, President Obama asked Congress to repeal the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. I am immensely proud of, and thankful for, every American who wears the uniform of our country, especially at a time of war, and I believe it would be a mistake to repeal the policy. This successful policy has been in effect for over 15 years, and it is well understood and predominantly supported by our military at all levels. We have the best trained, best equipped, and most professional force in the history of our country, and the men and women in uniform are performing heroically in two wars. At a time when our armed forces are fighting and sacrificing on the battlefield, now is not the time to abandon the policy.”

How is this any different from the days when black citizens were not allowed to drink from the same water fountains as white citizens? How is this different from Asian or Hispanic citizens who were forced to work in sweatshops earlier in the 20th century? What distinguishes this discriminatory law from the one that outlawed women from voting until 1919? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. DADT was a mistake when it was enacted, simply because it categorized gay citizens as somehow less than straight citizens solely because of their sexuality. Did someone forget to tell the U.S. government that sexuality does not define a person? Shame on the Clinton administration for launching something that so blatantly diminishes one entire segment of the population. Shame on his successor for ignoring the issue for eight years, and shame on Barack Obama for continuing to dangle a carrot in front of the gay community, but failing to commit to serious action to end the discrimination.

IT IS TIME TO ASK...AND TELL

When Bill Clinton was campaigning for his first term as President, the issue of gays in the military started to gather some steam. Around 1993, I heard a report about a pending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that would permit gays to serve in the military. Make no mistake…gays had always served in the U.S. military, but no one really spoke of it. In World War II there may have been hundreds of thousands of gay service personnel. If a more aggressive effort was not undertaken to rid the military of known homosexuals, it was only because there was such a massive need for troops and support personnel. In a war like that one, the U.S. could not be quite so picky about sexual orientation. Still, military people who were discovered to be sexually active with people of the same gender often found themselves in psychiatric wards.

We don’t presume to ship gay people off to mental hospitals anymore. That hasn’t been done in decades. But somehow, even now, in 2009, our government still fails to recognize the remarkable achievements of some individuals, once it is determined that they are homosexual. In fact, for thousands of U.S. military personnel, their sexuality has rendered their heroism, their bravery and their commitment to America null and void.

Such is the case of Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach, a fighter weapons systems officer, an aviator with 18 years of service. Fehrenbach, whose mother and father served in the U.S. Air Force, and who estimates the military has spent upwards of $25 million training him, will shortly be involuntarily discharged because he is gay. How interesting that the U.S. military earlier saw fit to ceremoniously decorate him for heroism, and yet now sees fit to fire him. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is in full bloom, and currently no one – not the President, not the Congress, not military officials—no one is speaking of it.

That is, until Lt. Col. Fehrenbach decided to speak. He did so on Rachel Maddow’s program. Listen to what he had to say:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Think about it: What is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” anyway? It is a policy that simply says, ‘We, the U.S. government agree not to discuss your sex life with you because we need you in large numbers to fight for your country; and you, the service personnel that we need, agree not to discuss your sex life with us, because you have something to be fully ashamed of. And if you slip up and express yourself honestly and act on your attraction to another human being, we’ll have no choice but to fire you.’

The premise is flawed. Of course, our government has a choice. Their option is to cancel the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and work toward social change in the military. Congress has the power to do this. You have the personal power to communicate your opinion to your Senators and Representatives. Here is the place you can find their email addresses. Speak up. In the end, it is about you. Socio/cultural change is always about all of us.