Anybody but Clinton

I think I may have overreacted just a tad in my Comment following Kathy's innocent enough observations on the subject of Gays in the military, but this is a subject close and dear to my heart.  I was drafted into the Army in November 1971. 

(This is me in basic training.  Was I cute or what?)

I reported to the induction station with a letter from my psychiatrist that said I was not only Gay, but a bit unstable.  After being interviewed by an Army psychiatrist, I was okayed for processing into the Army.  What about my being Gay, I practically screamed at them?  The sergeant in charge said to me, "Well, won't you have fun.  All those men.  But let me warn you:  we don't care that you're Gay, but it's against Army regulations, so if you get caught doing something Gay you'll end up doing hard time at Leavenworth, and now that we know you're Gay, we'll be watching you."  Oh shit.   

Basic training was the only time I lived in a barracks situation and the only time we did group showers.  There's nothing like showering with a dozen or so guys all nervous about being naked in front of each other to make a person feel all sexual.  Right?  Wrong.  For the most part, guys don't like being naked in front of a bunch of other guys, regardless of anyone's perceived sexuality.  Within a week of beginning basic, I was put into a room more akin to a college dormitory than anything I had imagined as military.  I was not put there because I was Gay, but because I had more time in grade than did most of the other draftees. 

Two years of service later and I had not one unpleasant experience in the Army because of my sexuality.

When I read the bigots who run the military worrying about "unit cohesiveness" I think, what total nonsense.  It's just bigotry, pure and simple.  Otherwise it's a slap in the face of every American serviceman to say they are so unable to control themselves and are a bunch of pussies who will crumble at the idea that someone may stare at their nakedness and humiliate them.  What other reason could there be?  American males are total losers?  I don't think so.

There have always been homosexual soldiers, and since the sixties when the word "Gay" started being used to describe the social and political community of out-of-the-closet homosexuals, there have been Gay soldiers.

Lesbians have an even tougher time.  They're sexually harassed and often assaulted on a fairly regular basis by their fellow soldiers.  They get the "why won't you go out with me?  You a lesbian?"  I know women who were forced out of the Army because they wouldn't put out.

Now about bigotry fueled by religion, what other reason can you think of to deny same-sex couples the right to marry besides religious bigotry? Your Bible, as it is interpreted by many of your religious, condemns all forms of same-sex affection.  Not Jesus, just your Bible.  Most Christians these days worship it and forget to pay attention to what Christ actually taught.  Do you honestly think Jesus would deny same-sex couples his blessings?  Of course not!  That does not stop the midgets in charge of the Catholic Church, the Africans of the Anglican Church and most American Evangelical Protestants from frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a witch-burning Gay baiting.

So there it is.  The two most offensive measures against Gays and Lesbians ever passed by our national government are both courtesy of Bill Clinton.  Forget Hillary apologizing for being stupid nd voting to give Bush unlimited war powers, I think Bill should apologize to Gays and Lesbians for fucking us while only getting a blow job from Monica.

I will not support Hillary Clinton's run for the President.  She is not in favor of same-sex marriage.  She is silent on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and she treats Gays and Lesbians with such condescension that it would be difficult (but not impossible) for me to vote for her for President should she get the nomination of her party.  I much prefer anyone else in the race to Hillary. 

UPDATE:  3/6/2006:  Apparently Hillary came out against Don't Ask Don't Tell when she was running for her Senate seat back in 1999.  Who knew?  Talk about well kept secrets!  Apparently she spoke to the Human Rights Campaign this past Friday.  Didn't hear about it?  Don't feel alone.  No one else heard about it either.  HRC (the Human Rights Campaign, not Hillary Rodham Cllinton) would have you know they also invited Obama, Edwards and Guiliani, but only Hillary thought them important enough to attend (IN SECRET). 

As I said in a previous post, she's not my first or second (or even third) choice among Democrats, but she's acceptable as a candidate should she win the nomination. Here, by the way, is her speech to the Human Rights Campaign, if you're curious about how she stands on issues affecting the Gay and Lesbian community.

Anyone else got something on their mind?

Comments

[Will]

I remember the first weeks of the Clinton administration--so well intentioned, so exciting, ultimately so disappointing and chaotic and problematic. They wanted to accomplish so much and they retreated from it all. DADT was visited upon us like a plague. Fortunately Rep. Marty Meehan is trying now with bipartisan support to kill DADT once and for all.

[Kathy]

I'm not so sure bigotry is the right term to use when referring to the view of some religions on the marriage of same-sex couples.

As regards the Catholic church, canon law dictates that sexual relations should be between married couples for the purpose of procreation. The official position is that any other form of sexual relations is a mortal sin.

This includes masturbation and even sex with your spouse where an attempt is made to prevent a possible pregnancy.

This includes Catholic marriage between a man and a woman who intend in advance of the marriage never to have children.

If you take the issue of whether or not the church approves of homosexuality out of the equation, there's still a problem, same-sex marriage would be an issue because there would never be a possibility of children.

This position gives rise to other questions as well, like would the church bless a marriage where one of the persons was known in advance to be irreversibly infertile?

The Catholic church's position on homosexual marriage is completely consistent with other positions that are not targeted at same-sex couples.

The official position of the Catholic church is also that you can be forgiven for nearly anything, literally. If I were to kill someone, cut them up and bury them in my back yard, then go to confession and ask for absolution, I would be absolved, even absent any legal prosecution, and the confidentiality of my confession would be protected under the law.

The failings in some of these positions are illustrated most dramatically with all these sexual abuse cases involving priests.

I'm not in any way defending these positions, but I believe firmly it's not bigotry at play in this case.

[Houston]

Okay, I promise never to attempt to be married in a Catholic Church. Obviously, having or not having children is not a concern of secular marriage. To use that canard as a cover for denying same-sex couples the right to marry is, well, exactly that: a canard.

Why are Christians so obsessed with Gay sex? They embrace divorce with such enthusiasm, even after Jesus denounced it, specifically, but go apoplectic on the subject of homosexuality, which Jesus didn't think important enough to even mention.

These days, same-sex couples are as likely to have children as opposite-sex couples. Last summer the California Supreme Court dealt with at least three variations of a custody fight between same-sex couples where no problem would exist if the couples had been able to be legally married.

It is about the children. Children have a right to married parents.

If the Catholic Church were a true vehicle of morality, it would not be fighting the rights of anyone to be married, but would be championing those rights.

[Kathy]

I can't tell by your comment about Christians being obsessed with gay sex whether or not you are including Catholics in that mix, but I most definitely don't find the Catholic church to be obsessive on that topic.

The Catholic church doesn't like sex that is outside of marriage and excludes the possibility of procreation, whether the participants be heterosexual or homosexual.

The Catholic church allows divorce, but does not embrace it. Re-marriage is blessed by the church only if those involved are able to show sufficient cause for anullment.

I do not see the position of the Catholic church on marriage as targeting same-sex couples. The issues run way deeper than that.

The prohibition against gays becoming priests, now that's a different matter entirely...