Monday, April 5, 2010


The Marine Corps' top officer [General James T. Conway] said March 25 that even if the ban on openly-serving gays in the services is lifted, he would draw the line at forcing heterosexual Marines to bunk with gays on base.

"We want to continue [two-person rooms], but I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it," Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told during an exclusive interview at the Pentagon. "And to me that means we have to build BEQs [bachelor enlisted quarters] and have single rooms.

[For the full article, see here]

It seems to me that there are two major forces driving this homophobia:

1. The cult of "macho" that infuses the military. People like Conway think that gay men are "weak" and "effeminate."

2. The equation of being Gay solely with sexual activity; gay men want to have sex with every man they see; gay women want to have sex with every woman they see. Clearly, there is a failure to see Gay people as fully human beings, but are seen by Conway as being merely sexual animals. Hence, to people like Conway (and I suspect that most homophobes think as he does), Gay=Sex.

Also, it must be said that homophobia in both the military and in the larger society largely stems from the rhetoric emanating from most of the institutional Church. Most clergy within the institutional Church have blood on their hands, as they have caused untold suffering, suicides, assaults, and murders of LGBT people!

For Conway to be allowed to keep his position by Obama who is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief of the military, after his making such a hateful statement, shows how the repeal of DADT is a long way away, as is the repeal of DOMA and the realization of full and equal civil rights.

Moreover, with Obama's Justice Department ferociously supporting DOMA in federal court, even invoking the specter of incest and pedophilia to bolster its argument, now DADT, despite its basic unfairness and inherent irrationality, is being equally supported by Obama's Justice Department:

There's no indication that the Obama administration is moving forward on the President's promise to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. In fact, all of the evidence is to the contrary - Barney Frank recently said about the White House's approach to repealing DADT: ''They're ducking. Basically, yeah, they're not being supportive." But, the Department of Justice is aggressively defending the constitutionality of the law, even though they don't have to. The latest example is a case brought by Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) back in 2004.

DOJ asked for summary judgment, in order to throw the case out. It's strongest argument is a challenge to the standing of LCR. But, as in the DOMA brief (that invoked incest and pedophilia as a reason the court shouldn't overturn DOMA), DOJ had to go the extra mile to show just how valid the DADT law is. It's hard to miss the section titled:

Because Congress Could Rationally Have Concluded That The DADT Policy Is Necessary To Maintain Unit Cohesion, Accommodate Personal Privacy, and Reduce Sexual Tension For Military Effectiveness, LCR’s Facial Due Process Challenge Fails

They only right-wing talking point they left out is the "we're in two wars" argument.

[Please read the full article, here.]

Only the most dyed in the wool Obamamaniac still holds out hope that Obama will come through in his campaign promises, and hitherto empty rhetoric regarding his desire for equality for LGBT people.

Please listen to this brief video:

allowscriptaccess="always" allownetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true"

[Thanks to AmericaBlogGay.]

And to complicate matters, his indolence in fighting for equal rights, our continuing presence in Iraq, his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his bailing out of large corporations (who are "too big to fail"), his defections regarding medical care for everyone without there being adequate controls on insurance and pharmaceutical companies, are going to cause most LGBT people and progressives to stay home during the next presidential election, thereby virtually assuring a landslide victory for any reactionary Republican to become the next president.

And, let's face it: a reactionary president wouldn't be doing anything other than Obama has been doing on all of these issues. Only the rhetoric is different, but the outcomes are about the same!

In my opinion, Obama has made a crucial mistake in taking his friends for granted and trying to conciliate with his enemies. If, in fact, they are his "enemies."

His waffling on crucial issues, his saying one thing and doing another, and his fading "charm" amidst all of his defections from virtually all of his campaign promises and even current rhetoric, have put him in the position where if he were deliberately setting the stage for a reactionary president to become the next president of the United States he wouldn't be doing anything differently.

Let's face it: we now have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, and if the above outcomes still exist, we have no reason to be optimistic about the acquisition of equal rights for LGBT people now or in the foreseeable future.

For what it's worth, for a long time I've felt that there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, save for rhetoric designed to appeal to each of their respective constituencies.

I feel that our two party system is one big shell game where their respective constituencies are motivated to give their allegiance to a given party, and no matter who "wins" the outcomes on the crucial issue dealing with human rights (and other issues, such as those mentioned above) will be the same.

All of Obama's lofty and promising rhetoric, both now and during his campaign, have shown themselves to lack substance. Indeed, his actions have shown him to have betrayed both his promises as well as LGBT people and progressives!

And, as Jesus says: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matthew 7:20)
Share |


genevieve said...

I left the Democraic Party several years ago because they weren't speaking to me. I have soured on politics because, like you said, both parties play a shell game.

I was in the military and the macho personna was alive back then. It hasn't changed. I'msure many sldier wee injured or killed because of that attitude.

If Obama had signed an executive order that LGBT men and women can serve openly I believe things would have worked out. It did when Truman signed an executve order allowing African-American to serve.

Jerry Maneker said...

Let's face it, genevieve, only the most dyed in the wool Obamamaniac doesn't see that Obama has no desire for equal rights for LGBT people; has no moral center; is just another crass political hack who has betrayed virtually all of his campaign promises and the LGBT people and progressives who counted on him to make a difference in the direction of this country. He has set us up so that there is a reactionary President in 2012, and an even more reactionary U.S. Supreme Court in the future. Best wishes, Jerry.



Not for nothing did I call Obama a wolf in sheep's clothing in my Final Book of Testimony! More people are seeing him for what he is, too. Did you hear how he got booed when he threw out the first baseball of the season?

Jerry Maneker said...

No, Don Charles, I didn't hear about him getting booed. I just wonder if it was the progressives or the reactionaries who booed him. In either case, in my opinion, he's a one-termer, and we'll wind up with some reactionary as President in 2012. Best wishes, Jerry.