Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Even Pretend
I’ve talked before about the train wreck that is Robbie George’s American Principles Project, a project that is symptomatic of all that is wrong with the American Catholic right – partisanship over principle on every issue, an America-first nationalism, a radical liberalism in the economic sphere, a selective approach to morality, the all-t0o-ready embrace of Enlightenment-era reasoning, the tendency to focus on meaningless red-flag issues that fire up the base but do nothing to benefit the culture or the common good.
And here is the latest burning issue of the day – an “action item” against repealing the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy prohibiting gays from serving in the military. Why? This is nothing to do with any argument about the morality of homosexual activity. No, is to be opposed because it would lead to the “destruction of military culture… And at a time when we are at war, no less”. No less!
I have a number of reactions to this. In the first place, in the scheme of things, it really isn’t that important. It is not an issue in any other country, including countries with militaristic cultures (Israel, for example). It is only an issue among those who would continue to demonize homosexuals, while turning a blind eye to the manifest heterosexual sins prevalent in our society. This is a basic case of righting an unjust form of job discrimination. It’s that simple. It should be an example of Catholics showing that they are not anti-gay, but that their positions are based on a consistent sexual ethic and belief in a unique definition of marriage. That the Georgians would not only oppose this policy, but try to make a huge issue of it, is very telling, and quite disgraceful.
A final point. They note that “we place great trust in the men and women in our Armed Services at the same time that we demand considerable sacrifices… there is no civil right to serve in the military.” If they honor the military in such a way, surely a more important “principle” to fight for is the principle of conscientious objection, as important here as in health care? For as the US bishops noted in FaithFul Citizenship, “Our Church recognizes the moral right to conscientious objection to war in general, a particular war, or a military procedure”. Will the Georgians, who seem to have so great a respect for the military, exert any energy defending this right, supporting a core Catholic moral ”principle”? Don’t count on it.
Trackbacks
- Man Bites Blog » Blog Archive » Vox Nova’s Pro-Life Advocacy
- Man Bites Blog » Blog Archive » The “Bigotry” of Robert George
Comments are closed.
We either let gays serve, or we don’t let contracepters. Conservative Catholics should be more concerned about the military providing condoms.
Gay people should not serve in the military because NO ONE should serve in the military!
The “destruction of military culture” is precisely what we should be working towards.
Isn’t it interesting how his comment that “there is no civil right to serve in the military” parallels arguments about the exclusion of women and gays from the Roman Catholic priesthood? The military is a parallel priesthood for these people. In both cases, a dualism is set up in which what is true in “real life” — equality of the sexes and among persons of differing sexual orientations — does not apply in the case of the priesthood class.
I also find it interesting that we have gone from a military draft to an all-”volunteer” military and now to the idea that “there is no civil right to serve in the military.” How bizarre. Only pure, heterosexual men may kill and die for for the fatherland!
George is right — There is no “right” to serve in the military. Nor is there a “duty.” Non serviam!
We either let gays serve, or we don’t let contracepters. Conservative Catholics should be more concerned about the military providing condoms.
Condoms should be the least of our worries when it comes to the sexualization of military culture, a lifestyle that includes a high rate of sexual abuse and rape. But of course conservatives overlook all of this when they fall for an idealized view of “our boys” that is detached from reality. Dehumanizing “the enemy” is paired with the dehumanization of women.
As a former soldier, I would caution against treating the issue of gays (and women, for that matter) in the military as a mere “rights” issue. It is much more complex. One you have a strict rank system, the opportunity for abuse is enormous. The military always has a problem with homosexuality, mainly in the ranks of its senior NCOs.
…a lifestyle that includes a high rate of sexual abuse and rape.
And where contract employees, as a condition of employment, must sign away any right to litigate if they are victims of rape — an employment provision a majority of Senate Republican voted to defend.
Before we all get on to the threat to the Catholic Church Robert George represents and the horrors of the right and such a few words from the Vatican on unjust discrimation
SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Headed at that time by you know who
“11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomol.htm
Michael,
Yes, condoms in the military is (and probably should be) pretty low on our list of priorities. And, according to Catholic sexual ethics, condoms are wrong for exactly the same reason as homosexual acts.
I can simply find no reason in Catholic teaching to be concerned about gays in the military. None. I feel totally confused how any Catholic could think this is a problem. (You know, except Catholics who don’t think anyone should be in the military. At least you guys are consistent. ;)
MM is exactly right. If Catholics treated this as an unjust form of job discrimination, the arguments we put forth against same-sex marriage would carry a lot more weight. We’re just asking for this to be compared to interracial marriage when we act like this.
The military is an interesting sub-culture in that it is a state entity that makes private sexual matters part of its business. I know they still occasionally have trials for officers accused of adultery, but I am not sure how often or what the consequences really are for that. Then again I know of one fairly high ranking officer who got a subordinate pregnant and kept his position (and didn’t marry the woman in question either).
I can’t help but notice the lack of links to APP’s work, and look at APP’s website (http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/) shows something less than the single-minded obsession with maintaining DADT than MM would have us believe.
I did however see many statements of support for Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, which would belie MM’s “partisan right-wing” characterization.
A gander at Mirror of Justice (http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/), probably Prof. George’s biggest megaphone, shows he hasn’t posted about this development.
–
So I’m curious why MM is so eager to portray Prof. George and APP as obsessed with DADT, when most evidence seems to indicate they are not.
And where contract employees, as a condition of employment, must sign away any right to litigate if they are victims of rape — an employment provision a majority of Senate Republican voted to defend.
To quote Justice Alito: Not true.
I’m not saying what I approve of or disapprove of, but simply want to share some of what I know from personal experience. Unless you’ve been in the military, and in particular, an all-male infantry unit, I don’t think you can see the reality of the situation.
For the military, this is not a matter of ideological intolerance. It’s a practical matter of morale. On deployment, you’ve got men sleeping in very close quarters, if not sleeping on top of one another. These are not mature men, but mostly young boys who want to be as ‘bad-ass’ as possible. While none of the soldiers I knew were homophobic, I will say that none of them would want to share a tiny hole with an openly gay soldier, not when you had to ‘spoon’ one another all night to keep warm. You wouldn’t want to spoon a woman acquaintance all night either – at least I wouldn’t as a married man.
To put it bluntly, this would be the reaction of a Ranger friend of mine, to an openly gay soldier: “Dude, I don’t care that you **** men, and I respect the **** out of you, and would die to save your ****in gay ***, but I ain’t sleeping next to you. Hell no.” Please excuse the profanity, but that’s the way he’d say it, along with 99% of the other privates.
I’m not trying to defend the military (God knows), but it’s important to realize that this isn’t a case of simple homophobic intolerance. This is a case of knowing what it takes to get 19-year-olds to be prolific killers.
it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account . . .
jh,
I think any fair-minded person would have to acknowledge that given the Church’s concept of “unjust discrimination,” virtually any discrimination against gay people is permissible. Here they are talking about “just” discrimination based on orientation. That is, if you have a “deep seated homosexual inclination,” you can be excluded from the priesthood and from professions like teaching and coaching. But the Church has no problem at all with discrimination against behavior, and since homosexual behavior is disordered, anyone who is in a same-sex relationship or even a totally faithful, legal marriage, can be denied housing, or a job, or just about anything a “normal” citizen is entitled to, because society has a right (and in fact a duty) to discourage and control those whose behavior is disordered — like gay people or insane people.
Question: What about bisexuals? The number of men who are not gay but not exclusively heterosexual is greater than most people probably think. Nobody has ever come out against bisexuals in the military (or the priesthood, as far as I know).
I can simply find no reason in Catholic teaching to be concerned about gays in the military.
Brett,
You are out of synch with the Vatican (CDF) here. Not that I would criticize you for that.
Nate, if holding a “gay” brother in one’s arms throughout a night of violence and stress is what it takes to get 19-year-olds NOT to become “prolific killers,” than I’m all for that!
It sounds like the problem is the military culture itself, not the integration of gay men and women into the military culture.
For the military, this is not a matter of ideological intolerance. It’s a practical matter of morale.
Nate,
How do you explain the fact that Israel allows gay people to serve openly in the military? And many European countries. And would you have made arguments about morale when Truman integrated the military?
I’m not trying to defend the military (God knows), but it’s important to realize that this isn’t a case of simple homophobic intolerance.
Of course it’s a matter of homophobic intolerance. What you quoted your friend as saying is homophobic intolerance. I suppose it’s possible for the US military to avoid problems, they might have to make concessions to people who are homophobic and keep gays away from them. So one might defend the military as just being practical. But they are being practical by permitting homophobic behavior and attitudes, just as they were racist all the time blacks were segregated for purposes of “morale and unit cohesion.”
It seems to me, by the way, that an awful lot of young men are more tolerant of gay people than you think. I don’t think 99% of young men in the military are freaked by sleeping next to a gay fellow soldier. In fact, probably less than 99% are straight themselves, despite the military’s best (or worst) efforts.
Why do homophobic men assume they are so attractive and irresistible to any and every gay man?
In a military setting, women have a great deal more to fear from straight men than straight men have to fear from gay men.
“Question: What about bisexuals? The number of men who are not gay but not exclusively heterosexual is greater than most people probably think. Nobody has ever come out against bisexuals in the military (or the priesthood, as far as I know).”
I actually talked about this issue today
See
Ted Haggard, Gay Afghans, and Being Labeled “Homosexual”
http://opinionatedcatholic.blogspot.com/2010/02/ted-haggard-gay-afghans-and-being.html
The issue among conservatives is complex. Needless to say Catholic of good will can have a diverse position on this issue. The Vatican Document says wthat denying homosexuals a role in military service is not unjust discrimination. But it does not SAY that homesexuals must be taken out of the military
Thus on both the left and the right we must deal with this issue and it is a issue of people of good faith on both sides can disagree on. That is why I find MM’ post so shortsighted. We can’t pull the Catholic Card on us verus them. Both sides can make arguments and both must be met with Christian charity.
I have mixed feelings about this issue.
Firstly, everything Nate says is backed up by my own experience in a combat unit; spooning with someone to keep warm is bound to cause tension (in a couple of senses of that word) if one of the parties may be interested sexually in the other; this applies to both men and women, and to two men or two women where one is gay.
Military culture is almost a caricature of masculinity in many ways, both good and bad. Part of masculine culture is that you trust your buddy to keep the boundaries you agree to in military service: among those boundaries is an implicit agreement that this is about the bonds that happen when you share the experience of your lives being in danger; to add sexual tension to the mix in that scenario interferes with that implicit agreement in some way that is hard for me to define. I think integrating infantry units so that they include both men and women would be a mistake, for the same reason.
I’m putting this all very badly, and will add more after I’ve thought about this some more, but those are some initial thoughts.
Matt,
What is the experience in the Israeli army, or other armies that have gays openly serving in their military?
David – the superficial answer is, “I don’t know.” The deeper answer is, I have no answer for that objection. Thanks :)
I have never been in the military. I do think, however, that I can point out that all the people who want DADT get is to have their false assumptions confirmed at the cost of their fellow soldiers’, and thus their unit’s, psychological well-being.
As a gay man, all I hear is straight men crying that their assumptions that everyone is like them are going to be taken away, and then they (oh, the horror) will have to adjust to the reality that (oh, no!) gay men won’t jump them, and that gay men (who have been adjusting all their lives) aren’t the ones with the real problem. We get by; we’re here. It’s the straight people that go around pretending that we aren’t that make us a problem. I think it’s about time that those who have a problem with us start realizing that they will have to adjust themselves to the world rather than pass laws that require everyone to conform to themselves or to some ideal of themselves.
Do I need to point out that the closeted soldiers weren’t jumping their fellow soldiers when they were spooning with them and no one knew that they were gay? Can the military not be adult about this? If we are up front about who we are and what we feel, then we adjust like grown ups do, and maybe we don’t spoon for warmth, or just put two gay soldiers in every unit and let them get warmth together! But as things are now, the straight person lives in lala land, while the gay person has to make adjustments. Sorry, but that doesn’t sound like a good formula for a healthy unit. It just looks like a bunch of men in denial, which is pathetic for two reasons: anyone who can’t think through something so basic is probably not defending this country for the right reasons, and more specifically, would probably be more likely to harm people like me (both civically and physically) than defend me as a gay man.
I did find the article in question: http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/blogs/apia-action-item-no-repeal-of-qdont-ask-dont-tellq.html
I think MM’s criticism of APP is a bit off base because it is not an explicitly Catholic (or Christian) organization. It is a group organized around conservative values. (http://www.americanprinciplesproject.org/about-app/app-principles.html)
One may disagree with those values, but I don’t think it is fair to insist that the organization follow, for example, Faithful Citizenship.
Unless that same standard is to be applied to left-leading organizations that have Catholic members and leaders…
Those who claim that it is illegitimate for citizens to serve in the military are contradicted by the teaching of the Church: “Public authorities … have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” -CCC #2310
From Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen’s opening comments today. These words remind me of the opening of du Bois The Souls of Black Folk: “How does it feel to be a problem?”
“Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal and professional belief that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals and ours as an institution. I also believe the great young men and women of our military can and would accommodate such a change. I never underestimate their ability to adapt. That there will be some disruption in the force I cannot deny. That there will be legal, social and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made certainly seem plausible. We would all like to have a better handle on these types of concerns. And that is what our review will offer.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6166493.shtml
David,
Indeed, the CDF does suggest that keeping gays from the military could be a form of ‘just discrimination.’ I am not aware, however, of any aspect of Catholic teaching that supports this conclusion. Everything official seems to equate homosexual acts and contraception, and I can’t see how that has any bearing on military service.
As a former Army infantry officer (and a veteran observer of the Halloween parades in both Hollywood and Greenwich Village), I would permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military, with the understanding that inappropriate behavior will be dealt with immediately and severely. Inappropriate behavior would be defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to include physical or verbal propositioning of a soldier of the same sex, as well as florid displays of femininity by male troops. You can easily integrate an Anderson Cooper or a Greg Louganis into a combat unit. You cannot integrate an Adam Lambert or Tim Gunn.
I’m inclined to think that the ban on gays serving in the military ought to be lifted. As David notes, other countries have lifted similar bans, without major problems. On the other hand, I don’t think you can simply say that discomfort with living in close quarters with gay soldiers is simply a matter of homophobia. It seems like it is rooted in a very real need to keep certain kinds of relationships desexualized.
John, I agree that APP does not claim to be Catholic, but there is nothing *conservative* about it. It is completely and utterly wedded to the worst traits of American liberalism.
Anyone here who hasn’t had a chance to read “Why Gays (as a group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a group)” by Stanley Hauerwas should give it a shot. It clears this issue up pretty well.
Let’s just say it sounds a bit like Michael’s comment at 3:33pm.
Anyone here who hasn’t had a chance to read “Why Gays (as a group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a group)” by Stanley Hauerwas should give it a shot. It clears this issue up pretty well.
Let’s just say it sounds a bit like Michael’s comment at 3:33pm.
I read it some years back. I’ll dig out my Hauerwas Reader and re-read it. I have no doubt that he’s rubbed off on me.
“Homophobia” is a propaganda term used to stigmatize those with traditional morals as mentally ill. There’s nothing wrong with the military (or the priesthood) keeping to a minimum those tempted towards unnatural acts. Consider our present reputation for decadence in the areas we are occupying!
Overbroad efforts to suppress discrimination against homosexuals have led to absurd things like forcing e-Harmony to match gay couples together or driving Catholic adoption agencies out of business. These efforts create a de facto ban on morally conservative institutions.
A clique of activist gays run major sectors of political parties and industries. I don’t want to see them let loose in the military.
I’d rather fight to withdraw mothers of toddlers from combat zones than work to put the popular minority of the day into them. Why aren’t we having that debate instead? And won’t strengthening egalitarianism further prevent that debate from happening?
Those who claim that it is illegitimate for citizens to serve in the military are contradicted by the teaching of the Church: “Public authorities … have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.” -CCC #2310
This passage from the Catechism is nice and abstract, just like pro-military types like it. And all the while you ignore the gigantic “IF” at the beginning of the sentence. At the very least, it is entirely permissible to argue that in the united states Catholics should not serve in the military. If the whole military system in this country is dishonorable, then Catholics should not participate. Surely the Catechism is not saying that military service everywhere and anywhere is honorable. The church is in the process of making a conscientious objector in Nazi Germany a Saint. Let’s look at the concrete characteristics of the u.s. military and then talk about whether it’s honorable to serve. But let’s not talk about it apart from the concrete.
This passage from the Catechism is nice and abstract, just like pro-military types like it.
Cartoonish depictions of a world peopled by bad guys and good guys, evil “pro-military types” on the one side versus saintly conscientious objectors (or BU professors) on the other, are themselves abstractions.
…it is entirely permissible to argue that in the united states Catholics should not serve in the military. If the whole military system in this country is dishonorable, then Catholics should not participate
Of course it’s permissible, but that’s quite different from having made your case. That military service in “this country” is dishonorable has been asserted on this blog, but only by means of caricature, which is itself a crude and sophomoric form of abstraction.
The church is in the process of making conscientious objector in Nazi Germany a Saint
And that proves … what? That all conscientious objectors are therefore saints? That all soldiers are therefore devils? Non sequitur, anyone?
But let’s not talk about it apart from the concrete.
No, let’s not.
Of course it’s permissible, but that’s quite different from having made your case.
Quoting a passage from the Catechism is also quite different from having made your case.
That military service in “this country” is dishonorable has been asserted on this blog, but only by means of caricature, which is itself a crude and sophomoric form of abstraction.
Incorrect. Click through my past posts on the u.s. military and you will find that most of them involve concrete examples. I have a paper under review right now that also includes discussion of concrete examples. I have discussed my criticisms of the u.s. military with veterans who largely agree with the tendencies that I see in military culture.
“You can easily integrate an Anderson Cooper or a Greg Louganis into a combat unit. You cannot integrate an Adam Lambert or Tim Gunn.”
LOL Thanks Mark that about sums it up.
We had a number of gay men in our unit – from my perspective those guys inclinations never caused any problems – even back in the mid eighties when most of us (myself included) had not much patience at all for guys that in our view (back than) ticked very wrong.
Particular one of the gay men in our unit was quite a character -a Radar of sorts – he was very important for all our sanity – this live is too short and precious not to appreciate the gifts that all of us can bring to the table.
Just for the record, I haven’t kept up with the current wars over what’s really “liberal” or “conservative.” I consider each term as merely descriptive, rather than laudatory or as a curse word.
So by noting that APP was founded on conservative values, I meant that they were organized around values that tend to be associated with the political right, rather than to compliment them.
I totally agree with Mark Gordon’s assessment.
ES, you asked, “Can the military not be adult about this?”
Not the type of units I’ve been in, no.
Michael Sean Winters has a good piece on this: http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=79651165-3048-741E-4608804918444912
“Assessment” of what?
This reader of Sullivans Blog articulates one facet of the usual course these sort of things take particular in the hands of ‘conservative’ mouthpieces nicely
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/talking-about-military-culture.html
I especially like MSW’s claim that Catholics should find the term “San Francisco military” offensive, because St. Francis was a pacifist.
This would be like Catholics objecting to Michigan fans shouting “Notre Dame sucks!” because Our Lady is a perpetual virgin.
I’m not sure even Bill Donohue has strained so hard to take offense.
–
And BTW, Prof. George did not use that term. APP did not us that term. It was not in an article that APP linked to. But it was in another article from an organization that APP linked to.
Apparently, this makes Prof. George a bigot.
I continue to find this effort to brand Prof. George a bigot puzzling.
It will be bad at first and then things will settle down. A few gays will join in order to make some sort of point or to hunt for young men but military life is hard, hard work and eventually when they find that there is no glamour in it they’ll go off to something else. And before anyone gets huffy I grew up in Washington DC and lived in DuPont Circle. I’ve known and observed more gays than you’ve ever seen.