DEAF-CON FUN
The "Onward Christian Soldiers" brigade that has infested our Armed Forces, by shoving Jesus onto the battlefields and into the academies, has scored a genuine coup de grace (well, not quite a coup de grace - Christian soldiers always can keep marching).
A recent Pentagon manual released to the public reveals that the Pentagon still considers homosexuality a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association abandoned this position in the early 1970's, as did most organizations save for the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family.
I can understand why the military has classified gays as "disordered." After all, it was no less than that staunchest of Republican military supporters, Barry Goldwater himself, who said that, "I don't care if you're straight, as long as you can shoot straight."
But putting aside the force of history that the military has on its side with respect to this issue, a puzzlement remains. In 1993, as many recall, Bill Clinton attempted to let gay servicemen and servicewomen openly serve in the military. This initiative, of course, was shut down by Republicans who knew what havoc such same-sex arrangements could wreak; after all, their multiple deferments had then and continue today to give them superior knowledge of military expertise.
Of course, the "compromise" that was reached with respect to this issue was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (a policy that, in the mid 1990's, was upheld as constitutional by J. Harvie Wilkinson of the 4th Circuit. The challenge was brought by a gay organization, but conservatives wanted Wilkinson to strike down the arrangement altogether. So tempted to use the "a" word here).
I'm not an expert vis a vis what conditions can serve to disqualify an individual from military service, but back in the days of Vietnam, as Rush Limbaugh could tell you, having a pilonidal cyst (ingrown, removable butt hair) and a "bum knee" could easily get you out of service. More recently, public shock was on display when it was revealed that the military had duped a 16 year-old autistic child into signing up for Iraq service. Mental disorders, therefore, it is a pretty safe bet to say, have been found as disqualifying conditions over the years. (If I am incorrect about this, after having consulted a blog written by someone who is an expert in military matters, I will correct the mistake).
And yet, as we all know, gay people - "disordered" people - are serving in the military, which most certainly does not, in deciding whom to exclude from service, distinguish between those conditions that are readily discernible and those that are not.
So, the Pentagon wants to stigmatize gay people by preventing them from coming out, and by saying that they are disordered. Such policies, of course, cannot be reconciled with allowing gay people (wittingly or not) to serve in the first place; if other disordered people can't serve, they can't either, right?
But I think I have bridged the paradox here. The desire to stigmatize and to label gays as "disordered" is DESIGNED to get gay servicemen to come out precisely SO they can be fired. After all, it is understandable that someone would want to be fired from a job when that job makes you fear for your life, exposes you to constant ridicule, and the constant threat of physical violence, FROM YOUR OWN "people?" The very fact that a gay person would react to such ridicule in such a logical manner proves he is not disordered. I know what you're thinking. I'm getting all "Catch-22" on you ("I'm too insane to go on any more missions"; "If you say that, then you recognize the danger of the missions, and recognizing that danger is evidence of sanity; therefore, you are sane and must fly.") I'm not. Here's the difference: if you are gay, evidence of either sanity OR insanity will get you fired, without your ever having said anything about whether you were sane in the first place. Why? Because the Pentagon has already done the labeling - and the resulting sealing of your fate - for you. This is not so much, in terms of military movie titles, "Catch 22" as it is "No Way Out."
A recent Pentagon manual released to the public reveals that the Pentagon still considers homosexuality a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association abandoned this position in the early 1970's, as did most organizations save for the Eagle Forum and Focus on the Family.
I can understand why the military has classified gays as "disordered." After all, it was no less than that staunchest of Republican military supporters, Barry Goldwater himself, who said that, "I don't care if you're straight, as long as you can shoot straight."
But putting aside the force of history that the military has on its side with respect to this issue, a puzzlement remains. In 1993, as many recall, Bill Clinton attempted to let gay servicemen and servicewomen openly serve in the military. This initiative, of course, was shut down by Republicans who knew what havoc such same-sex arrangements could wreak; after all, their multiple deferments had then and continue today to give them superior knowledge of military expertise.
Of course, the "compromise" that was reached with respect to this issue was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (a policy that, in the mid 1990's, was upheld as constitutional by J. Harvie Wilkinson of the 4th Circuit. The challenge was brought by a gay organization, but conservatives wanted Wilkinson to strike down the arrangement altogether. So tempted to use the "a" word here).
I'm not an expert vis a vis what conditions can serve to disqualify an individual from military service, but back in the days of Vietnam, as Rush Limbaugh could tell you, having a pilonidal cyst (ingrown, removable butt hair) and a "bum knee" could easily get you out of service. More recently, public shock was on display when it was revealed that the military had duped a 16 year-old autistic child into signing up for Iraq service. Mental disorders, therefore, it is a pretty safe bet to say, have been found as disqualifying conditions over the years. (If I am incorrect about this, after having consulted a blog written by someone who is an expert in military matters, I will correct the mistake).
And yet, as we all know, gay people - "disordered" people - are serving in the military, which most certainly does not, in deciding whom to exclude from service, distinguish between those conditions that are readily discernible and those that are not.
So, the Pentagon wants to stigmatize gay people by preventing them from coming out, and by saying that they are disordered. Such policies, of course, cannot be reconciled with allowing gay people (wittingly or not) to serve in the first place; if other disordered people can't serve, they can't either, right?
But I think I have bridged the paradox here. The desire to stigmatize and to label gays as "disordered" is DESIGNED to get gay servicemen to come out precisely SO they can be fired. After all, it is understandable that someone would want to be fired from a job when that job makes you fear for your life, exposes you to constant ridicule, and the constant threat of physical violence, FROM YOUR OWN "people?" The very fact that a gay person would react to such ridicule in such a logical manner proves he is not disordered. I know what you're thinking. I'm getting all "Catch-22" on you ("I'm too insane to go on any more missions"; "If you say that, then you recognize the danger of the missions, and recognizing that danger is evidence of sanity; therefore, you are sane and must fly.") I'm not. Here's the difference: if you are gay, evidence of either sanity OR insanity will get you fired, without your ever having said anything about whether you were sane in the first place. Why? Because the Pentagon has already done the labeling - and the resulting sealing of your fate - for you. This is not so much, in terms of military movie titles, "Catch 22" as it is "No Way Out."
posted by EnterCenter at 7:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home