Solutions to the problem of Gays and expression in the military

Solutions to the problem of Gays and expression in the military

Last week I pointed out that homosexuals in the armed forces do not have the freedom to express their sexual preference. I reflected upon the issue by posing several questions. This week I will look at some possible solutions.

Recently the highest ranking military official Admiral Mike Mullen told the senate panel that allowing homosexuals to openly state their sexual orientation was “the right thing to do.”

Mullen plans to appoint a committee that will spend one year looking into the best way to implement a repeal of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. They will then report their findings to congress so that congress can review and possibly vote on the subject. There should be no surprise that most Republicans oppose this plan.

I feel that this “plan” is a ploy to appease the people that want the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy removed. On the surface it appears that Mullen is truly is concerned about the matter. In reality all he has done is stall the matter. In one year the committee reports its findings to senate. Then the idea and any proposals must move through congress. This will take time. By then it will be 2012 election time in which the Republicans feel that they could win. If the Republicans win the next Presidential election the matter of open sexual preference in the military will be a dead issue.

A better solution exists. They key is to convince the people of America that this continued infringement on the rights of these brave service men and women is a violation of their liberties. It time for activists to wake up and see through the masquerade that Mullen’s has put on.

I believe that this can be resolved peacefully. Violence and rebellion will not work. Activists and opponents of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy need to continue to plea to their congress men and women to get this law repealed. It needs to be done now. Soon enough the Democrats will lose their power in congress, if homosexuals and supporters of individual rights don’t stand up and fight now it will be too late.

If the Republicans gain control over congress this issue will end. The question is where it will stop. What other liberties are they willing to remove? This is the land of the free. Our civil liberties and individual rights are what make this nation so great and so different from other nations. A homosexual should not have to lie about their sexual orientation while bravely defending our nation.

Homosexuality is taboo according to many religious principles. Our nation was not founded on what is written on religious texts alone. Our nation was founded on the notion that we have the freedom to separate religion from state. If religion continues to dominate this nations decisions than we may as well surrender all of our rights because that is what “the good book preaches”. America it is time that we take a stand. This is a matter of personal liberty versus a majority opinion. How long must these homosexuals live in fear?

We can further look at natural, moral, and civil law as it pertains to this issue. People are entitled to their natural rights. It may be natural for a homosexual to want to express their sexual orientation. I as a heterosexual male express my sexual orientation. Why should a homosexual be denied this right? Moralist may disagree. I feel that our morals in this country tend to be too influenced by interest groups that should stay out of certain affairs. It should not be a matter of civil law because of the separation of church and state. Our constitution says nothing about the sexual orientation. If the country keeps making this a civil issue them maybe it is time for civil disobedience. This could be accomplished by all homosexual military personnel and their sympathizers threatening to disband from the military. This may land some in court marshal, but if a mass of civil protesters threaten to do this, then what choice would our military have but to act on this issue with rapid change. Sometimes it takes such a radical move to make things happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704022804575041101835826096.html

Gay and in the Military

Our country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. The second amendment to the constitution gives our citizens the right to bear arms and form militias in the defense of our country. The United States has had a standing army since 1787. The question that I pose is, if all men are created equally should a homosexual be allowed to express his or her sexual preference while serving in the Armed Forces? Whether the answer is yes or no what does this say about our military. Is the matter truly secular or is there some non secular motive lurking behind the scenes? Does it even matter? I will attempt to answer each of these questions with thought provoking answers.

In the land of the free and home of the brave why are we so scared to accept homosexuality? I believe that the answer lies in our Judeo Christian history. Our country was founded mostly by devout Christians. Homosexuality is taboo in the Bible. One could easily use this for justification to ban sexual openness in the military and most Americans would accept this. However, we also live in a land where religion and government are supposed to be separate.

Based on the separation of church and state, our military is setting itself up for a dilemma. By banning the openness of homosexuality in the military our country is already showing that we are biased to religion. Are we are going against our own constitution by discriminating homosexuality. Is this discrimination solely based on protecting the rights of homosexuals, or is this discrimination infringing upon their rights? This is a question that one must ask.

If we are discriminating homosexuality in the military, and if it is based on non secular reasons, then the question is where does this stop. I ask you to think about this in political terms. Democrats seem to be more liberal when it comes to homosexuality. Republicans seem to be less open minded about the subject. Over the past twenty years many people feel that the Republican Party has become increasingly influenced by the ultraconservative Christian right. The Christian right does not support the concept of homosexuality. Should one particular world view dominate a major political party’s decision making process? If so than is this constitutional? One must consider what would happen to the plight of homosexuals in America if an ultra conservative candidate were to become president.

The issue of homosexuals being allowed to express themselves in the military may just be the tip of the iceberg. Our country seems to be torn between conservative Christian values and liberal open-mindedness. Where will it lead? If the conservatives were to take power homosexuality may become intolerable. If extreme liberals were to take power gay marriage may become the norm. The issue can be viewed this way, six one way and half a dozen another. Regardless of whether or not either of those hypothetical situations was to ever occur, I believe that people should be allowed to express themselves whether they are working in a retail store or defending this country.

What I have learned so far

I have never read Poe, Thoreau, or Emmerson until now. I had heard their names mentioned before on Jeopardy. I knew that Poe lived in Richmond for awhile. I knew that Emmerson and particularly Thoreau had a passion for nature. I have learned how Thoreau believed that man needs to reconnect with nature and the simpler things in life. I wish it were that easy. I was thrilled to learn that Emmerson was a non conformist like me. Lastly Poe taught me just how monstrous the human mind can be. To sum it up, so far these past three weeks have taught me a lot about what each of these authors had to say. More importantly each of the assignments has taught me a little more about myself.

My Ideal me

What constitutes the best me? That’s an excellent question and one I have never pondered. I can think of three things that I feel at least point towards the answer. I want to be the best father and family man that I can be. I want to be able to think for myself. I also want the freedom to express myself.

On the first, I wish to be the best father that I can be. I deeply desire to be with my family more than anything else in life. The mere thought of being apart from them is disheartening. This holds true especially if I must travel abroad without them. In Self Reliance, Emerson says “the wise man stays at home and when his necessities, his duties on any occasion call him from his house, or into foreign lands, he is at home still.” This passage sums up how I feel about my own ideal family life. Home is where the heart is. If your heart is on your family then you are truly at home. That’s how I see myself.

As I posted in the class discussion I want to be able to think for myself. I do not need to be programmed to someone else’s protocol. I need to be allowed to make decisions for myself. Emerson describes it best when he wrote “Nothing is at last sacred but your own mind.” Emerson was discussing conformity. Conformists are not free thinkers. This leads to my third trait that I feel constitutes the best me.

My ideal self would be the absolute contradictory of conformist. Society would have us mold ourselves and forms of expression to whatever the current culturally accepted trend is. I thank God for blogs (or whatever force may have created blogs). Here is a real chance to express one’s self. I could care less if I have many or none who follow my blogs. The fact is that I wrote my feelings and expressed my point of view on a subject that may only be important to me.

An example of the kind of social/cultural acceptance that I am talking about is not being allowed to express myself in my profession. This is just not tolerated in the culture of my profession. I think that it is nonsense that I am told what I can and cannot say. Oh but I got clever. I learned alternative ways to express my view especially when they contradict the culturally excepted rules. Subtle Latin phrases posted on social networking sites, and crafty pictures hanging on the walls where I work that have a deeper meaning than what meets the eye. I already mentioned blogs. Emerson sums it all up in Self Reliance when he writes “Nothing can bring you peace but yourself.” Amen. Self reliance is self satisfaction and justice.

I never really sat and thought of the ideal me before. This assignment has made me realize a few things about myself. I see myself as a family first, freethinking non conformist. I would say that Emerson and Thoreau would be proud but then again I rely on myself and could care less what others think of me. That is how I see the best me.