This story was aired in three snippets. They can be found here, here, and here.
The first was with Duncan Hunter, an ex-Marine and Republican Congressman from California. Alison has mentioned this guy in the past (in a good way!). I listened to the story in disbelief, although I guess I should be numb to such things by now. Read the transcript for the full on crazy. In his very first reply, he implies that the biggest danger from the military is from those turds and miscreants, transgenders and hermaphrodites! The horror! I bet they're just hammering at the door to get into the military, I am sure. Way to couch the whole issue in terms of minorities of the minority group against whom you are discriminating.
He goes on to make two slightly less-crazy arguments, that I'll note here. The first is that the he believes the majority of young soldiers in the military are from conservative families, and that they don't want gays in the military. Which may or may not be true (more on that later). What it ignores is that the fact that a group doesn't want another group to be part of their organization has time and again been shown to be no reason to actually keep out that group. I'm going to give an example here in terms of both race and gender (which people who argue against homosexual rights claim is an unfair comparison because they actually believe that people choose to be homosexual and be constantly derided by a large number of their fellow citizens and taxpayers). I think this is reminiscent of the Augusta National Golf Club controversy, and similar situations played out at various other country clubs around the nation that don't allow women or some other minority to join. There's still no women at that club, but they're now on the waiting list. Second, prior to segregation, I am willing to bet that a majority of southerners didn't want black people in their schools, or drinking from their water fountains, or what have you, and they especially didn't want black people marrying white people. But our federal government said something along the lines of "Who the shit cares what you want? If what you want is wrong, then it's wrong!" I'm pretty sure it is against the law for a taxpayer-funded group (i.e. our military) to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, not to mention the moral odiousness of it.
The second only semi-crazy argument that he makes is that somebody coming out to their unit mates decreases the cohesion of the unit (I'll categorize his weird homoerotic comments about showering together with this one too). Now, I can understand how this could be true, if your unit is made up half of gay people and their supporters, and half of intolerant folks. But I don't think that's the way the military works these days. It's way more varied, and soldiers form bonds with other soldiers in battle situations where they feel like they can trust one another. My question is this: how can you possibly have unit cohesion if one or more of your unit members is hiding the biggest secret of their lives, being forced to lie about who they are, and presenting a pretend face to you while you are deployed in the most intimate and dangerous settings possible?
And don't even get me started on the likely amount of buggery going on amongst professed heterosexuals on deployment either.
I'll leave the Hunter section here with this quote, where he puts it all on the line with a full court press of insanity, trying to justify himself by comparing the military to NPR:
BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldn't you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.
Rep. HUNTER: No, but they aren't open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you don't go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that I'm gay. You probably don't care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. That's why don't ask, don't tell works.
To which I say, "Have you ever been to an NPR office? It's just one big gayfest!" And yes, NPR does not care "one way or the other;" the point is that the military does care one way, and it is codified.
So yesterday afternoon they had two more segments. The first was a letters segment, which I only include because not a single opinion read on air agreed with Hunter (shocking!). I liked two in particular.
1. "It's good to know that our representatives in Congress stay cognizant of national security issues. I had no idea that a hermaphroditic takeover of our armed services was a real threat."
2. "I am so glad that Representative Duncan Hunter gave an interview to NPR. His blatant ignorance and inarticulate yet transparent bigotry created some of the best arguments for repealing don't ask, don't tell that I've ever heard." FTW!
The third was an interview with Major Mike Almy, a former Air Force officer who was discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I don't have much to say about this one, since I obviously agree with the dude, and don't really have any analysis to add. I'll say this, though. He states in his interview that he would gladly go back into the military at the drop of a hat if he were allowed. Can you imagine wanting to rejoin a company that has treated you with such disdain for who you are? But there you go. In a time when we're fighting two wars (although, of course, there was never a declaration of war), and the military is stretched thin, should we really be kicking people out for this? We're allowing in criminals, and people are not going to be allowed to stay in a job they love because people like Duncan Hunter are uncomfortable with gay men seeing their willies in the shower, or they think that they're going to be taken forcefully by another man? I mean, come on, are we collectively in the second grade? Don't answer that.
