Anti-sex rants and outrage over GOP donations obscure the real talking points about this gay hookup site.
But would the same success follow a man-on-man smoocher?
advertisement
advertisement
|
Friday, March 16, 2007
The CEO of the country’s largest employer called homosexual acts “immoral” and compared them to adultery this week. That, of course, was Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. Armed Services.
Hungry journalists seized on his comments as a lance with which to joust presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Did they think homosexuality was immoral, journalists asked? “Well, I’m going to leave that for others to conclude,” said Clinton. Obama offered, “I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That’s probably a good tradition to follow.”
Ben Smith of Politico.com snidely labeled both responses as “Profiles in Courage” after each candidate roundly ducked the “morality” question. But c’mon? Anyone who thinks today’s politicians are courageous should probably just stop reading now.
Politicians won’t touch an issue until it’s polling at least in the 60s, and they rest easier when support is in the 70s. If the LGBT movement has learned anything from HIV/AIDS and the marriage battle, it’s that we shouldn’t hitch our wagons to political courage.
But we also shouldn’t let some journalistic preoccupation with a political hand grenade focus our movement.
The fact is, we don’t need Clinton or Obama or even the American public to declare homosexuality “moral” in order to get our rights. Would it help? Maybe. But consider this: Is it easier to change your mind about what you consider moral, or is it easier to change your mind about what’s fair and possibly in your best interests? We think it’s the latter and that’s where the candidates are placing their bets too.
Support for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is high, with somewhere between 60 and 79 percent of Americans saying gays should be allowed to serve openly.
The candidates know this. The Edwards campaign has said, “It is long past time to end the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy … It is critical to our national security that we have the best people in our military.”
And part of Sen. Clinton’s response to the aforementioned “morality” question was, “Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not working. We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desperately need, like translation skills.” Amen, sister.
No we’re not Clintonites, we’re pragmatists. No nation in the world has granted same-sex relationship recognition without first integrating its military—The Netherlands, Canada, Great Britain. Apparently, countries that let their gay soldiers serve openly also decide those soldiers should have equal access to the rights for which they are willing to give their lives.
Do we condemn Gen. Pace’s comments? Absolutely. They are nothing less than reprehensible for the leader of a force that clearly includes gay personnel—people who have chosen to remain closeted so they can defend their country and, in some cases, die for it. He may as well have spit on their graves.
But maybe on this one we should hold hands with the candidates who are headed in the right direction. Instead of trying to convince people that it’s moral to be gay, let’s get our rights first and then watch as people slowly but surely conclude our love isn’t a sin.
|
