RANGER AGAINST WAR: Plessy Versus Ferguson II <

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Plessy Versus Ferguson II


We hold these truths to be self-evident --

that ALL men are created EQUAL

--U.S. Constitution

___________________

"Needs of military take precedence over liberal social engineering" was a recent USA Today op-ed by Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins arguing against the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT).

Every one of Mr. Perkins' assertions was deserving of refutation, and away we go:



[1] First, his thesis is erroneous.


The military has long been a site of social engineering. Testing -- vocational and psychological -- began in WW I; racial integration of non-segregated combat units began post-WW II. The current Volunteer Army (VOLAR) is also a form of social engineering by virtue of creating a separate military caste (versus the previous draft army.)


Military academies and ROTC are also forms of social engineering, as they professionalize the officer class. The integration of minorities and females into the officer corps of the military has also been a social engineering project. Females serving in deployable units is yet another form of social engineering.



[2]
"A soldier must represent his or her country and maintain military discipline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This is why sexual behaviors such as adultery and sodomy remain crimes under military law."

This is a non-sequitur, and a faulty comparison, to boot. Sexual behavior does not necessarily impact upon one's ability to represent one's nation or to maintain discipline. (Sloppy sexual behavior would be an exception.) Adultery is a crime, or certainly a breech of contract; sodomy is just a variation on a theme, and not one confined to homosexuals.
It is not a crime (even in Texas.) Why is sodomy a no-no, but fellatio and cunnilingus aren't?

If we are so moral, why are illegitimate offspring of service members now afforded coverage under the Tricare system? Is this sanctioning of fornication any less of an offense to order, discipline and soldierly conduct? To equate adultery to sodomy to unsoldierly conduct is hypocritical.



[3] "To put people with sexual attractions to one another into conditions of forced intimacy — sharing bathrooms, showers and sleeping quarters — runs the risk of increasing sexual tension, harassment and even assault. These are clear threats to good order, morale and unit cohesion."

But
"people with sexual attractions" are already in proximity -- they are called "men and women". Mr. Perkins is carrying on the libel that homosexuals are predatory and not in control of their libido. His illogic is revealed if one replaces gay male soldiers with female homosexual soldiers, or heterosexuals of either gender.

Is Perkins presuming men are strong enough to be soldiers, but not strong enough to fend off unwanted advances? Or that homosexuals are not regimented enough to curb their libidinous drives? He is condemning them a priori. It is the Mandingo fantasy in its 2010 update.


[4]
"There is no constitutional right to serve in the military, and individuals are routinely denied enlistment on the basis of characteristics that would rarely, if ever, be the basis for exclusion from civilian employment. These include height, weight, family responsibilities, or even relatively minor health conditions such as asthma."

Homosexuality is not a pathology. It is a gender orientation which has no bearing on the individual's ability to perform a task. It does not prevent the service member from executing duties faithfully. As an aside,
the first U.S. military service member wounded in the Iraq Occupation was Marine Staff Sergeant Eric Fidelis Alva, who lost his leg to an IED. Staff Sgt. Alva is homosexual. (Alva is quoted on his Wiki page as saying that his name, "Fidelis", means "faithful, and that he has always been faithful to the Corps, as have many previous generations of his family.)


[5]
"Polls showing support for homosexuals in the military have been distorted by biased wording."

Opinions are irrespective of the Constitution. We have all become such slaves to the talking heads and the pollsters, but their views or results are irrelevant to the topic. Polls do not trump the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of all.


[6] "
Only one in eight of the world's countries allow homosexuals in their armed forces. The 10 largest military forces all exclude homosexuals."

Irrelevant. We are our own example, and lead by American exceptionalism. It would be more relevant to look at our NATO allies. Nations like Afghanistan are filled with good family men who keep personal dancing boys for their pleasure. (But they are not gay, you see, because they do not love the boys.)

If you prohibit homosexuals from the military, not only do you indulge in affirmative action bias, you do not remove the scourge of rape and sexual abuse which is rampant among hetero service members.


[7]
"The needs of the military must come before the demands of radical social activists."

Au contraire. The needs of the nation precede those of the military. We are not a military dictatorship.

One wonders if Mr. Perkins has ever known or had any interaction with a homosexual. Surely he acknowledges that a percentage of our population is homosexual, and phony arguments cannot change that fact or marginalize these people.

His arguments are lacking in Christian compassion and understanding, qualities which should not go missing in a man who is the leader of the
Family Research Council.

[Cross-posted at MilPub]

Labels: , , ,

10 Comments:

Blogger Underground Carpenter said...

Hi Jim and Lisa,

zOMG, homos! I've never understood the fear and hatred of people who prefer someone of their own sex as a sex partner. My first thought is who the hell cares? The funny thing is, guys that think male homosexuals should be put to death also think female homosexuals are kinda hot.

Dave

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 7:45:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Juan Moment said...

Have to agree 99% with you Ranger. In particular your statement that the needs of the nation precede those of the military. We are not a military dictatorship. Right on.

Mind you, the amount of tax revenue and foreign debt US administrations are blowing on the MIC could give one easily the idea that the military and its associated industries do dictate national policies in one way or another.

The one line that had me frowning is your lead by American exceptionalism. Somehow that term makes me cringe, probably coz I can't see it, the exceptional America. I wasn't brought up to view the US as having a special role amongst all nations, with superior notions of human rights. In this case, as you pointed out, should its armed forces allow openly gay troops, the US would simply be joining the list of other countries who already have enacted this aspect of equal rights.

Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 8:44:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Juan,

There was a time when American Exceptionalism was a force of goodness and certitude. What we are talking of now is the erosion or encroachment upon that exceptional stance. It is our hope that we can re-capture those values.

That's why you are not commenting in Japanese.

jim

Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 1:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

Juan,
I was gonna discuss Nato members and the gay issue, but didn't b/c it really doesn't matter what others do, we are supposed to lead by our example.
I for one, like Dave/UC do not get it when fear is used to deny gays the right to serve.
How can gays be politicians , but not military? This makes no sense.
jim

Thursday, September 30, 2010 at 1:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Juan Moment said...

Ranger, the only exceptional decision I can see the US took 65 years ago was to nuke two cities. That indeed was a stunt no other nation has ever pulled. But to say Australians today are speaking English thanx to American exceptionalism would be the equivalent of Polnish people being told by Russians that if it weren’t for Russian exceptionalism they’d be speaking German.

Friday, October 1, 2010 at 12:25:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

UC,

Great observation.

These men are insecure re. their manliness, and so are threatened by gay men, titillated to think they are "man enough" to convert a lesbian.

Truth: They're the sorts who convert women to the other team :)

Saturday, October 2, 2010 at 3:40:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am sympathetic to the "amer. exceptionalism" criticism. i do, however, find the polish analogy absurd. absurd. show me your katyn forest, etc. if i had my druthers, we would've stayed home. you would've been on your own, for, good or for ill, & i wouldn't give a damn.

Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 7:00:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Juan Moment said...

Anon, I know where you are coming from, and I admit the analogy I used was pretty shonky, the Polish suffered indeed badly under the Sowjets, but I was using it in the context of questioning the idea that if it wouldn’t have been for American exceptionalism Australia would these days be ruled by Japan. Along the same line, a Russian could argue that if it wouldn’t have been for Sowjet self-sacrifice and concern about human rights, Poland would today be run by Germans. I reckon neither is true.

The US and Russia did what they did not out of the goodness of their heart, but were primarily driven by the need to self defend (Pearl Harbour, Operation Barbarossa), and once military superiority was achieved, remove the fascist governments in Berlin and Tokyo. In other words, The US would have pounded the Japanese even if they had no intention to invade Australia, just like the Russiands would have fought and marched all the way to Berlin regardless if Poland was German occupied or not.

Don’t get me wrong, Australians have every right to be grateful for US efforts in WW2. Without their assistance the map in this region of the world would no doubt look different. I don't dispute that. I argue though that the US was motivated not by exceptionalism but by self-interest.

if i had my druthers, we would've stayed home. you would've been on your own, for, good or for ill, & i wouldn't give a damn.

Cheers bro. But get over your illusions that Midway was the battle for Australia.

Monday, October 4, 2010 at 7:56:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

JM,
You loyal colonialists are a hoot.
Your EMPIRE starts a war -twice or twiist as we'd say in the south-and then beg us to save your asses, and then 60 some years later claim that we did it in our own self interest.
That takes some balls, for sure.
Whatever our motives the outcome was good since the Aussies continue to support US self interest.
IMHO ww1/ww2/2nd indochine were the results of crummy French and English colonialism that was opposed by Germany and overflowed to the European continent.
The entire war on terror is a response to British and French exceptionalism and the US is too stoopid to see this.
France and England should be cleaning up AFGH/PAK and the entire middle east since they are the ones that fucked it up.And as usual the us GETS PULLED IN , AND WE'RE DUMB UNUF TO THINK THAT WE CAN CLEAN UP A HUNDREDS years of hatred.
Excuse the caps-my machine is as crazy as US policy.
I oppose all NBC weapons, and do not agree that the 2 bombs used in WW2 were necessary, nor were they legal. Neither was British/US firebombing of Japan/Germany. Just b/c they were evil this gave us no right to a non proportional response.
Whatever the reason i'm glad that you do not speak Japanese.
jim

Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 11:23:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger HopeSpringsATurtle said...

Great piece guys! Thank you so much for the clear-headed approach to a topic so sullied from being thrown under the bus. :::Wild Applause:::

@ Dave: What do you mean "kinda hot?"

Saturday, October 9, 2010 at 9:24:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home