Sunday, March 11, 2007

Military Progressiveness, Please?

Reposted from the MilitaryTimes forum:

The notion that one's sexual orientation compromises military readiness if one is homosexual versus heterosexual is without logical foundation.

One's sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual can compromise operational readiness if that conduct occurs. For example, when a heterosexual member of the armed services engages in an affair with the spouse of an active duty member in their unit or command, or a male engages in sexual intercourse with an underage female on and off base, or a senior enlisted active duty member of the armed forces acquieses to the promiscuity of his daughter with other military men on base, operational readiness can be impacted. It is not a leap of logic to find that this otherwise private conduct is either unlawful or has an immediate impact on command readiness given the web of sexual conduct and intrigue within the command. As reprehensible as this conduct is, it would be unlikely to directly undermine command readiness unless it's illegality would subject the member to legal or administrative sanction. In all of these instances, the command was aware of the conduct and did not act against the member, all of whom were former students of mine. The common element was that the sexual conduct involved a male and female, not male and male or female and female.

By contrast, another highly decorated male in the armed services who was viewed as a very macho "man's man" was drummed out of his highly sensitive job in a local military team. His job was among the most dangerous and clandestine in the US military for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to train him. Several of his missions saved the lives of fellow military personnel. Still, he was seen walking in a gay area of San Diego with another military-looking man. Hushed rumors matured into hate messages and death threats. He accepted an honorable discharge after less than 10 years in the military. He had intended to make it his career. Members of his team felt betrayed by him since they believed that he did not share their interest in women. Perversely, they thought if he was not interested in women he must interested in them! The man with whom he was walking was another member of the armed services in a different branch. They were dating at the time. That he did not "tell" nor did his command "ask" was irrelevant. This command did not protect him.

In another instance, a married couple who were both my students, also occupied sensitive posts which called for both to have TOP SECRET security clearances. They were bisexual and some how their command found out about their off-base activities. In an effort to force one of them to leave the service (why one and not both was never clear), their command insisted that one of them would have to leave the sevice to be the responsible adult guardian of their daughter. They had no family who could assume that role. It seemed logical, but they command had always known of their family situation and it had never been an issue until their bisexuality became known. Moreover, the $60,000 re-enlisted bonus each had received would have to be surrendered by the spouse leaving the military. They were understandably outraged. The counsel I gave them in a letter they could share with their command sent their superiors into a panic. As difficult as the matter of guardianship of their daughter might be in the future if sent overseas, the alternative for the military was one that could have lead to reprimands of those up the chain of command, or worse.

The matter of their bisexuality and daughter were dropped. They are still active duty members of the armed forces today serving the nation in their TOP SECRET posts.

I mention these instances to illustrate the conflicting attitudes toward service members' sexuality and just how arbitrary and capricious treatment of individual members can be.

Wrongful hetesexual conduct can be excused and overlooked. Bisexuality can be overlooked if in the nation's interest. Openly gay men and women serve in active duty in all branches of the military without difficulty so long as they are ultra-discrete and closeted in their private lives (not exactly the same standard for heterosexual members).

It is unfortunate enough the irrational prejudices toward gay and lesbian members of the military continues, but this is compounded by the irrational attacks on Matthew Sanchez's political beliefs. It is akin to the illogical notion that all gays must be Democrats . . or it is illogical for a black American to be a Republican.

Those gay advocates who condem Sanchez's political conservatism demonstrate intolerance toward gay members of the service (or former members) who espouse political ideas with which they do not agree. This is much like self-annointed "conservatives" condemming those who criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. Both act from a rigid ideological base from which they shelter themselves from truths that they do not want to see. One can be gay and conservative. One can also be a loyal American and not want to go to war in Iraq.

It would be better to have a lively poltical discussion with Matthew than to engage in the distraction of how many gay movies he appeared in, or what he did sexually while in the military. They may be titilating in a "National Inquirer" and "Star" centered discussion with lots of heat and overblown rhetoric, but hopefully most of the readers of the Navy Times aspire to more.

Richard Dittbenner, J. D.
San Diego, California
rdittbenner@sprynet.com

5 comments:

David N. Scott said...

I agree with this, though I think Sanchez is looking a wee bit shakier as this goes on (and I wish he hadn't let people use his story in ways that didn't happen... e.g. I can understand being gay for pay or bisexual, but I didn't think he had been gay and decided one day not to be, so not correcting that seemed pretty bad.

But, then again, he's still a person and it would be exciting for someone you personally admire to mention you in an op-ed, so I think he doens't have to be an evil or weird guy to link to it.

DADT can be pretty gross, it seems. It hadn't been much on my radar, but examples like the ones listed are very unfortunate...

Sean said...

Very well put. Well done. Well done.

As for Sanchez's willingness to let others make assumptions about his situations - e.g. whether or not he decided to "switch sides" - perhaps he simply wishes that particular aspect of his present life to remain private.

Members of the gay community often get upset when someone is not willing to stand up alongside them in their fight for equal rights &c. But consider, perhaps, that he simply does not wish to and wishes for that particular part of his life to remain private. Some will contend that thanks to the movies it has already been made public and he cannot turn back now. Well I would contend that he has every right to. People have every right to disagree with his decision. But they should not attack him for it.

To my knowledge the man has not attacked the gay community, nor made derogatory comments about it, nor has he intimated that being gay is wrong.

He should not be attacked for his personal choices, nor for assumptions about private beliefs or attitudes that have yet to be made public.

Wang said...

S. I completely disagree about him wishing to keep things about his current life private, only because he has decided to leverage aspects of his life that are convenient for him to make known. He has been open about things that make the right wing pundits embrace him, he's used it to leverage attacks against liberal minded people. If you are going to leverage your life story to become famous, the rest of it should be fair game.

He has gone beyond the admirable task of rights for veterans on campus, he has basically whored himself out to every news outlet willing to print him or air his voice in order for him to talk, not about his cause, but about his situation of being a victim, how conservatives should love him and how liberals are terrible people..

Sean said...

if that is indeed the case i redact my statement
~S

va home loans said...

I agree becareful what you leverage on it increases your risk.
VA Loan