The Wrong Side of History

After the long years of the Bush administration, the United States needs to elect a president in 2008 who can inspire the nation and call upon us to be the best Americans we can be. In that light, I watched last week’s Republican presidential debate with special interest. The moment in the debate I found most revealing, most distressing, was when the moderator asked the ten Republican candidates to raise their hand if they believe gay and lesbian Americans should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces of the United States. Not one of them raised his hand.

At a time when our military is desperate to recruit qualified men and women, when more than eighty percent of Americans oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and when our national security depends on our international credibility as a nation dedicated to the values of tolerance, religious liberty, individual dignity, and equal justice, it is deplorable that candidates for the office of president still embrace and defend a policy that both excludes tens of thousands of qualified Americans from military service and denies patriotic gays and lesbians the right to serve their country unless they deny who they are, lie about their identity, and return to the darkness of the closet.

That sorrowful and degrading moment in the Republican presidential debate called to mind an earlier generation of American “leaders”: the generation of Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, and Strom Thurmond. Exactly half-a-century ago, Governor Faubus expressed his conception of “American values” by calling out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine African-American children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School.

Several years later, Governor Ross Barnett rose to power in Mississippi by proclaiming that “the Negro is different because God made him different to punish him.” A fierce defender of “American values,” Barnett ferociously opposed James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi, promising in 1962 that Mississippi would never “surrender to the evil . . . forces of tyranny.”

Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina came to national prominence when he stormed out of the 1948 Democratic National Convention after the party endorsed civil rights for African-Americans. Thurmond declared that he would never “admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.” Racial segregation, he added, was red-white-and-blue American, for it was “honest, open and aboveboard.”

I don’t know whether John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney and the other Republican presidential candidates agree with General Peter Pace, who recently opined that gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military because homosexuals are “immoral.” Perhaps McCain, Guiliani, Romney, et al. don’t share that belief. Perhaps they are merely pandering to the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. I’m not sure which is worse: a presidential candidate who sincerely holds beliefs forged at a time when men burned witches or a presidential candidate who is thoughtful and decent enough to know that such beliefs have no place in American society, but who is nevertheless so cynical that he is willing to endanger the nation and endorse indecency in order to mollify those extremists who still hold such beliefs.

I recognize, of course, that not everyone accepts the moral analogy between discrimination against blacks and discrimination against gays. But those who fail to see the power of that analogy have simply blinded themselves to reason, in the same way that Strom Thurmond, Ross Barnett, and Orval Faubus blinded themselves (or pretended to be blind) to the moral connections between slavery, racial discrimination, and "separate but equal."

Like racial, gender, age, disability, religious, and ethnic discrimination, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is grounded in ignorance, intolerance, and immorality. It is a deeply irrational policy that has no more place in American law than a rule forbidding Mormons, Italians, Aquarians, or people born on Friday the 13th from serving openly in the military.  Of course, there are those who thump their bibles and proclaim that their condemnation of homosexuality is rooted in their religious faiths. That may be so. But that is not a <em>legitimate</em> basis for making public policy in the United States.

This nation is dedicated to the proposition that we are all “created equal.” It embraces and celebrates the principles that we are all endowed with certain “inalienable rights,” that we are all entitled to “equal protection of the laws,” and that we are all deserving of equal dignity and respect. We do not always live up to those commitments, but the history of our nation is one of progress toward a more tolerant, more open, more reasoned society. It is a source of righteous pride that we Americans have overcome many of the prejudices, hatreds, and fears of those who came before us.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not a policy that reflects true “American values.” Like “separate but equal,” it was, at best, a transitional compromise with bigotry. Perhaps, for a time, it was a necessary evil. But by failing now to condemn that policy, the Republican presidential candidates have shamed themselves, their party, and their nation. And they are on the wrong side of history.

Comments

[Lingua Franca]

Amen Brother Roach. You've got it exactly right. Stone has a gay daughter and therefore anything that bugs gays must be bad bad bad.

[The Dude]

Why do the responders who wish America to be destroyed care whether America admits open-gays into the military? It seems as though they would want America to make the worst decisions possible, or at least to make the decisions that would cause this nation to crumble? Why do these responders live in America? If I hated my country so much, I would move to another country, rather than sit brooding in my own hate and self-loathing.

Anyway, it seems to me that the best and most meaningful reforms are those that occur from within.

As far as DADT being a sexist (discriminatory) policy, it was invented by a rather open-minded and liberal sociology professor at Northwestern, Charles Moskos. At the time, it was widely applauded by progressives as, well, progressive. I wish we lived in a society where all people were respectful of other's choices regarding sexual preference, within reasonable bounds. (IE, I don't think we should respect Jeffrey Daumer's sexual preferences.) But until that is the case, it seems like we should be more interested in how to change prevailing social views, rather than forcing progressive minority views on the nation. To wit, I think the best thing to ever happen for the Republicans was the Roe decision. It has changed legal reality (and almost certainly it has improved the US; look at crime rates since Roe), but it has not changed mindsets. I worry that too many progressives believe that government solutions to social issues create positive change, when in reality, I think that these forceful pushes actually cause social backlash. I don't write this as a republican apologist. Cass Sunstein actually teaches this in his behavioral law class-- the article is called "Gentle Nudges v. Hard Shoves" and was written by a very liberal professor. (See Dan M. Kahan, Gentle Nudges vs. Hard Shoves: Solving the Sticky Norms Problem, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev 607 (2000).)

Anyway, a few of the posters have taken stances that are so partisan, there is really no way to engage with them in a reasonable debate. Certainly to contend that America is always right or always wrong, such that America should either receive a free pass or such that America should be destroyed, is beyond the pale of reason.

I am all for a time and society where America fully accepts gays, and as a result, gays have a normal and accepted role in all institutions, including the military. People hate what is different and what they don't understand, and most heterosexual men do not understand sodomy, and some probably fear it and fear those who practice it.

But to claim America will be on the wrong side of history for this less-than-optimal social policy ignores a million other factors, many of which are in America's favor, and many of which are errors on America's part that are far worse than whether gays can serve openly in the military. For instance, would not public and legal acceptance of gay marriage be a better place to start than whether gays can serve openly in the military? Just a thought.

Finally, I would just say this: Prof. Stone don't be so hard on yourself! In the last 200 hundred years, America has accomplished a great deal, both internally and abroad. Much of the good done in the world is the result of America's progressives, from FDR to Woodrow Wilson to JFK to Bill Clinton. There is no reason to think he sky is suddenly falling because of the current set-backs caused to American progressivism by the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, considering the 9/11 event, the detriment to social liberties and generally liberalism could have been much worse. Who would have guessed in 2002 that liberals would retake the house and senate? Take some solace progressives!! The sky is not actually falling!!

[Joan A. Conway,]

Lee Optical's "one-step at a time" logic means all decisions have assurance of being set-aside and redetermined.

The Woman's Movement, to my mind, never sought inclusion in the military, like the Gays and Lesbians do, as well as in the Police Force ranks. Am I wrong here?

Gays and Lesbians have survived through a hostile environment and are atuned to the behavorial weaknesses of their homosexual partners, and the heterosexuals in their mists. They seek to take advantage of the discrepancies.

About Jeffrey Daumler's sexual preference, I hold that he suffered from a lack of discriminating preference, and he could not discern from the body parts he refrigerated to the body connecting those parts to the human being made up of the body connecting those parts. It is rather like the House that Jack built. Jeffrey Daumler's sexual preference was not his problem. Jeffrey Daumler was a flawed human being unable to discern. The issue is Daumler was mentally ill. Not - whether or not he killed males or females.

The military is therefore under-inclusive by not protecting the rights of gays and lesbians in their request to serve the military in an arbitrary government.

The military is therefore over- inclusive by not seeing saboteurs, disloyalty, in its heterosexual recruits, and only in the homosexual hopefuls seeking to join those ranks.

This is a "fundamental right" that has been denied to defend one's country with weapons, and not with rainbow banners, float costumes, pasties, and tiaras it reigns upon the heterosexual community every year. And it falls under the New Equal Protection and Strict Scrutiny - about the issue and not the impact - the right to defend oneself. Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

So in spite of the complication and confusion of what this brings about to our core beliefs in the military and with the military "GI Joes" and "Tommies," we must include "Peter Allen" and "Rock" and "Ellen" and "Rosie" too!

But I believe the military, like business, is a little behind the times, and it is still 25 years away from full acceptance.

[Pericles]

The reason gay men and women should be allowed to serve in the military has nothing to do with "morality." It has to do with the fact that the U.S. Military is stronger than Rome, stronger than the Mongols, stronger than Britain at its height -- stronger than any military that has ever existed in human history (even despite the current manpower crisis). Since at least the days of Alexander some of the finest warriors in the history of the West have been men who happened to be sexually attracted to other men (alas, women are not allowed to serve in the combat arms). Homosexuality in the Roman legions is perhaps exaggerated, but it was certainly well represented. There is absolutely no reason to prevent homosexuals from serving openly in the military -- and I say that as a conservative. Britain and Israel both allow homosexuals to serve openly. Are there any conservatives who think either of these countries have "weak" or "unstable" militaries?

[LAK]

Exactly. That is why all the repubs are on the wrong side of history. A bunch of homophobic bigots. But then again, they are attempting to appeal to Republicans, the party of homophobic bigots and creationism.

[Political Umpire]

Given the current recruitment crisis, which can only get worse in the light of the way things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military would be wise to consider on what grounds it wishes to exclude applicants. Physical and mental weakness are the two obvious grounds of proper exclusion from the military. Being homosexual does not necessarily imply either. All kinds of scare stories were dreamt up about black people joining, but the military moved on and, in comparative world terms, became stronger after admitting them. Perhaps the same will occur with gays.

[ADR]

These are precisely the sorts of non-legal posts that are NOT needed. Professor Stone should find another outlet for his increasingly strident, shrill polemics.