Friday, February 12, 2010

DADT = Flouncing Admirals?

The Other McCain is one of my favorite blogs - one of a dozen or so I check in on every day. Usually, I find I agree with a lot of what I read there...

Yesterday's post about the repeal of DADT was not only an opinion I disagree with completely, it's an example of where the conservative right loses me (again) on social issues.

Q. How would you feel if you turned on the TV and saw a Navy admiral flouncing down Castro Street in full uniform in the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, right next to Dykes On Bikes and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?
I have to say (respectfully, because I do generally enjoy his work) that this faux-poll question by RSM strikes me as disingenuous at best. Do conservatives sincerely believe if we repeal a wrong-headed policy, this will be the result?

I don't happen to be gay. And I'm hardly a fan of some of the things that happen in your typical San Fran Pride Parade... But I can not understand - or get behind - forcing people to deny a fundamental truth about their personality in order to voluntarily put their lives on the line for their country. It's not as if they aren't gays currently serving honorably in our military. There are, and we all know it. It's just that they can't SAY they're gay.

I've posted before about this issue. I've received emails from the right that made my blood boil at their homophobic rhetoric. I've addressed my feelings about the over-the-top displays at some Pride Parades and other events.

I've even tried to be crystal clear that although I oppose Kevin Jennings' position in the school system (something I keep reading about in connection to DADT - as though the two issues weren't apples and oranges) that my opposition to Jennings has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

But here, again, I find myself feeling alienated by conservatism as it applies to social issues.

I have a sincere question. I don't necessarily expect an answer from any reader (or the man who wants to be my congressman come November - I emailed him the same question), but I'm going to ask:

You're all about smaller government when it comes to taxes, entitlement programs, spending... all important things I agree with you on 100%. Why then, when it comes to what should more properly be church- or family-based moral discussions, do you suddenly have no problem with government involvement? You want the federal government to define the term "marriage", and you want homosexuals kept silent if they choose to serve YOU by enlisting.

I'm struggling to understand this...

1 comment:

Republican Redefined said...

No need to try to understand it Scratcher. You know my feelings on "conservatives" abandoning fundamental arguments with situational expediency. I think as a practical matter Don't ask dont tell was flawed from its inception. Point blank - no questions asked court martial for fraternization - end of story. Every other "company" in America has a similar rule. Why can't the military? Leave the social concerns to the states or the people. When these individuals are dodgin bullets they're not worried about trying to figure out who in the fox hole is straight or not. They only care about who can fire a gun.