Yeah, We Gays Are Just Going To Stop The Military In Its Tracks

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone

As expected, the Department of Justice has filed for a stay of Tuesday’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell injunction. Yes, the President is so committed to legislative repeal that he’s going to fight for its constitutionality in the courts. (Apparently no one likes it when the Judicial Branch actually does its job of checking and balancing the other two branches.)

I’m reading through the application for the stay, and really find myself irritated by a lot of the language. Defense Secretary Gates said yesterday that there were “consequences” to repeal and that “preparation and training” is needed. The application expands on these ridiculous notions.

Before I get into it, let me just say that this whole notion of the study and review of repeal is pointless. We were so in the wrong to settle for said “compromise.” It’s built on lies. There is nothing to study except the current homophobia in the ranks, as if that’s a good reason for delaying repeal. The lack of security for the online questionnaire and the negatively biased questions, plus the omission of the basic question, “Do you support repeal?” add to the obviousness that this study accomplishes nothing except delayed equality. Seriously, it’s just bullshit.

Check out this argument from the stay application:

The Working Group is nearing completion of its report to the Secretary, which is due on December 1.  The immediate implementation of the injunction would disrupt this review and frustrate the Secretary’s ability to recommend and implement policies that would ensure that any repeal of DADT does not irreparably harm the government’s critical interests in military readiness, combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, good order, discipline, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.  Accordingly, a stay should be entered while defendants appeal the Court’s entry of a worldwide injunction.

Aside from being utterly without foundation, this claim actually offends the decision. The judge found that DADT hurts military readiness and cohesion. The DOD cares more about making sure it doesn’t lose all its most homophobic troops than it does about ending inequality and unconstitutional oppression! Remember, the judge also found that DADT violates troops’ freedom of speech.

And the DOD also has the gall to suggest they were caught off guard by the injunction. Because, you know, a little inequality isn’t a big deal. Just let us finish our study. We’re getting to it, we’re getting to it. We didn’t think you’d actually file the injunction that was clearly a very real possibility.

In its ruling, the Court notes that the Government did not seek a stay of the plaintiff’s proposed injunction.  The Government did not make such a request before the Court issued a ruling on plaintiff’s proposed injunction, as it was not known whether an injunction would issue or what the terms of the injunction would be.  Now that the Court has ruled and entered a worldwide injunction, defendants respectfully request a stay of that injunction.

Pathetic.

And what’s worse is that the application goes on to claim that if this injunction isn’t staying, the whole military is just going to fall apart. Apparently homophobia is the only thing holding it all together?

In contrast, the precipitous changes to military policy required by the Court’s injunction would result in a host of significant and immediate harms to the recognized public interest in ensuring that the Nation has strong and effective military operations.

A stay is particularly appropriate here, where a precipitous change in policy could harm compelling public interests in military  readiness, combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, morale, good order, discipline, and recruiting and retention.

An immediate injunction would not only disrupt the process being undertaken by the political branches, but would also have both short-term and long-term adverse effects on the recognized interests of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

Sorry, guys, you lost that argument in court. That’s the whole reason you’re in this boat. And what, suddenly the courts don’t count as a branch because they’re not “political”? That’s the best part about them!

They go on and on about discontinuing DADT in a “comprehensive and orderly manner.” What’s more comprehensive and orderly than stop enforcing it!

This fear that gays and lesbians have so much power and we’re just going to change everything makes me wonder why we don’t harness it more. You know how on shows like Heroes, The Event, and V, the whole theme is “they walk among us” and “anybody could be one.” That’s us. We gays are EVERYWHERE and you should fear us. We’re going to completely corrupt national security just by suddenly being allowed to email our boyfriends and girlfriends without fear of being fired for it. Right.

Here’s another good argument: we need more time to get our act together.

The DADT statute implicates dozens of DoD and Service policies and regulations that cover such disparate issues as benefits, re-accession, military equal opportunity, anti-harassment, and others. Amending these regulations would typically take several months, because of the need to notify and seek input from all affected to ensure that changes do not inadvertently result in unanticipated negative effects on the force. Properly implementing any change in policy would thus be a massive undertaking by the Department and the military and cannot be done overnight. And if the Court’s judgment is reversed on appeal, the Department and the military will have to implement another major policy change – creating further disruption and confusion.

That’s your problem. The fact that you can’t get shit done in your own forces isn’t a good excuse for an unconstitutional law to persist.

Apparently training troops is a tough job too:

Thousands of military personnel have enforced the DADT statutory policy for many years.  Thus, the end of DADT will require that these personnel receive training and instruction in a number of areas, including:  (i) how the policy has changed; (ii) why the policy has changed; (iii) how the change in this policy affects other existing policies; (iv) appropriate treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers who reveal their sexual orientation; (v) appropriate treatment of servicemembers who object to serving with servicemembers they know to be gay or lesbian; and (vi) principles to consider when handling other issues that may arise after the elimination of the DADT statute. The immediate injunction ordered by the Court does not permit adequate time for this necessary training and instruction to occur.

Is it really that hard? Let me try. (i) We don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation anymore. Period. (ii) What we were doing before was wrong and unconstitutional. (iii) So now we treat gays and lesbians with the same equality as we do races and sexes and religions. (iv) That means we interrupt harassing behavior and respect people’s privacy. (v) You either fight for all Americans or you don’t. If you have a problem fighting alongside someone different from you, you really shouldn’t be fighting at all. (vi) That’s really all there is to it.

Obviously, the armed forces are going to have to get their own version of “safe zone training.” Maybe they’ll hire me to help people understand why treating gays and lesbians like shit isn’t good for anybody.

I can’t bear to read anymore of this pretentious nonsense.

I’m so glad to know that gays and lesbians are such a concern for our armed forces. If only our leaders stopped talking about us like our mere presence brings about Armageddon, we might actually be doing okay.

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+0Share on Reddit0Share on Tumblr0Email this to someone
Back to Top | Scroll down for Comments!

There are 1 Comments to "Yeah, We Gays Are Just Going To Stop The Military In Its Tracks"

  • libhomo says:

    “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is Bill Clinton’s misleading term for his version of the military ban. People don’t have to come out to be thrown out. In fact, the actual policy was designed to increase the number of discharges and witchhunts, which it did.

Write a Comment