James Conway and Gay Straight Segregation

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/26/marines.gay.housing/index.html?hpt=T2

This will be a shorter article, but I could not resist writing some commentary on this issue that has come up in relation to the changes being put in place with DADT by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Recently, the top officer in the Marines, James Conway, has advocated that new barracks be made for homosexual officers, so that straight marines won’t have to share rooms with them. This already smacks of the intent behind segregation in the 50s: that even if you kept people separate, you were giving them equal treatment and not denying one group rights that the other has. But like segregation with blacks, if you are making such a large problem out of gays and straights cohabitating, it begs the question why such ideas haven’t been enforced in other areas of life, like college campuses, particularly state funded ones. Not to mention that separating people into groups based on appearance and other aspects of life is only good in the abstract, not the concrete. Public services and basic civil rights as such should be equally given and shared by all humanity, which was the reasoning that led to segregation eventually falling away.

But if the issue is about trust, then why shouldn’t college campuses do the same thing Conway is arguing? Because college campuses appear to be more informed and understanding of the complexity of such an issue. If I had had a gay roommate for example, I wouldn’t have had a significant issue apart from what would be a similar issue if one cohabitated with a roommate of the opposite sex. Just because there is such a possibility does not mean the people in question cannot confront this issue face to face, talk about it and come to an agreement that does not favor one over the other. While my gay roommate would understand that I don’t see his sexual orientation as anything immoral, I would think it reasonable that they accept that I’m not gay myself and thus would not want any unwarranted sexual attention that would be indistinguishable from sexual harassment.

With such an institution as the military, the idea of self control is reasonably assumed to be part of training. By association, it is hardly irrational to suggest to recruits that while you may disagree with gay and lesbian people and their sexual orientation that there is no reason to deny them the same right to serve one’s country; and that there is also no reason to fear them living in the same barracks as you. The same issue was confronted no doubt when they were thinking of letting women serve in the army, though admittedly gender separate housing could be said to be more reasonable in terms of such an area as the army. But co-ed housing would hardly be completely out of the question. The army is not like college, however, so my comparisons are questionable to begin with, but the importance of such a claim from a senior officer can’t be ignored. Passing the adjustments to DADT policy won’t change people’s opinions so easily on such things as allowing gays to cohabitate with straight people. That will be another thing entirely. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

The Future of Don't Ask Don't Tell

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/military.gays/index.html?hpt=T2

The development on this case has been a persistent interest of mine. This is especially relevant considering that while I do not have an interest in serving in the military in any form or fashion, I do see it as a necessary function of equality that it should extend to the military as well as in other areas of life. While Defense Secretary Robert Gates is in the majority, the fact that other senior members within the military have misgivings on this suggests to me that this won’t be an easy process. But the adjustments seem like they’re moderate and not excessively inclusive in the acceptance of homosexuals in the military. The alterations to the policy are primarily on who can instigate inquiries or expulsion within the chain of command as well as what will constitute accurate and trustworthy information on said inquiries. Gates’ focus on reducing the disruption and polarization within the ranks is particularly promising, along with the note of concentrating these efforts to those on the front lines. The repeal of the DADT policy will have many hurdles to jump, but the first should be getting the idea across that there is no reason to think that just because a fellow member of your unit may have sexual feelings or attraction towards you, a member of the same sex, that they cannot exercise self control and focus on the task at hand. To think otherwise is to discriminate against those in the minority having same sex attractions in contrast to the majority that, in the case of those of the opposite sex, have the same responsibility to prudence and abstinence as those who happen to be gay or lesbian.

I can’t say there’s much more thought on my part on this, since the development is a step in the process that, unlike the present health care issue, has not made a significant jump in progress, due no doubt to everyone’s concern more about their personal insurance rather than the well being of those that are fighting in one way or another to protect the security of said people worrying about their insurance. Not that I’m saying there is anything intrinsically wrong with self interest, especially if the intent is socialist in wanting to extend your self interest sympathetically to others in a similar or greater state of need that are unable to provide for themselves in extreme situations. But in such an issue as this, GLBT or straight, we should be concerned for those serving in the military that are afraid they may be discharged for admitting such a simple thing that is only different in accident, not in essence, from a similar admittance from the majority of recruits; that is, what sex you are attracted to and/or get arousal from. If we didn’t know such a thing, it would cause more problems overall in military protocol, etc. For example, what if there was sexual tension between a male and female that distracts them from a mission or a similar situation with two males or females. It is good to know these things about your fellow recruits in the military, but it is not good to then say that they can’t serve alongside you just because they happen to be biologically constituted in such a way that they create a different conflict within the ranks than simply what inevitably occurred with allowing women in the army. It’s a bridge you have to cross, however difficult it may be to admit you have to move on. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.