Irony overload

[Matt-Chicago]

Follow me-
Gay members of the party which wants to amend the constitution to discriminate against gays and who just blocked congress from abolishing the discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military - have successfully won a ruling for gay rights which is now being challenged by the justice department of the President and political party which ostensibly want to get rid of the policy they are now defending in court.

Excuse me while my brain reboots.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_in_military_challenger

GOP gay rights group fights against gay troop ban

SAN DIEGO – When he left the Bush administration in 2009, R. Clarke Cooper decided he had to raise his voice.

The decorated Iraq war veteran had been serving in the Army, with some in his unit aware that he was gay. And yet, he said, no one had ever tried to get the officer discharged under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"This is not an example of why the policy works, it's an example of why it is broken," he said.

Almost two years later, Cooper finds himself leading a 19,000-member group for gay Republicans that has managed to accomplish what its fellow gay rights activists on the left have not — bring the 1993 Clinton-era law closer than it has ever been to being abolished.

A federal judge ruled last month in a lawsuit brought by the Log Cabin Republicans in 2004 that the ban on openly gay troops was unconstitutional, and ordered the Pentagon to stop its enforcement. An appeals court has temporarily frozen that order while it considers a government request to suspend it pending an appeal of the case.

Even getting this far hasn't been easy for Cooper or the Log Cabin Republicans.

They have never been entirely embraced within the gay rights movement, which generally finds a more receptive audience in Democrats. Many in the movement viewed the group's six-year quest to overturn the policy as quixotic.

"I heard that repeatedly. I heard that as recently as seven months ago, people saying this case didn't have a prayer," said Christopher Barron, the Log Cabin Republican's former political director and the founder of a rival group for gay conservatives.

The liberal gay rights groups' approach to ending the ban in 2004 involved suing on behalf of one sympathetic service member at a time, while they also lobbied Congress to overturn the law. Some advocates also cringed at the idea of joining forces with Republicans.

They "saw the Log Cabins as people, frankly, who want their taxes cut and are willing to affiliate with a party that is grossly anti-gay because of that," said Aaron Belkin, executive director of the Palm Center, a think tank on gays and the military at the University of California Santa Barbara who was an expert in their case.

The Justice Department tried to block the Log Cabin Republican's lawsuit from going to trial, arguing that the organization did not have members who were directly affected by the policy.

The group initially filed its lawsuit on behalf of John Does and said they were active military members who could not be identified for fear of being discharged. The group later named gay veteran Alexander Nicholson as a plaintiff to better its chances.

In its 2004 lawsuit, the group ended up arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment, association and due process rights of its members and sought its immediate demise.

"To the extent there were people who were upset I think it was because they didn't know in advance that Log Cabin was going to sue," said Jon Davidson, executive director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights legal affairs group.

Patrick Guerriero, who was Log Cabin's president from 2003 to 2006 and is now registered as an independent, recalled how it wasn't just liberal gay activists who objected. Fellow Republicans also were upset by "a lawsuit against the U.S. military, against Bush's Department of Defense."

Guerriero said the group was compelled to act after receiving letters, calls and e-mails from gay service members in Iraq discussing the difficulty of having to be pretend to be who they weren't.

At the time, Republicans were debating whether to pass a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

"People forget the climate we were in. There was no legislative road map," he said. "We thought it was important to have it be nonpartisan and even have a Republican angle to it, that that would send a more powerful message to the courts and perhaps Congress."

Cooper, who became president of the group two months before the trial began this summer before Judge Virginia Phillips in Riverside, Calif., said he was always optimistic. "There's been a general cultural shift that's been helpful to us," he said.

Phillips' ruling catapulted the group to the forefront of the fight and put President Barack Obama in the position of facing off with a Republican organization challenging a law he, too, opposes. Obama supports a legislative repeal, but it stalled in the Senate this fall.

Cooper said the fight shows Republicans are not always the enemy. "I'm not going to deny the fact that there have been years and times when the Republican party has not been friendly to the gay voter," he said, "but that's changing."

He said he has shared his secret with his closest Army friends and keeps it quiet around others whom he feels do not need to know. And he pointed out that President George W. Bush knew his sexual orientation when the 39-year-old Army captain served under him.

"I don't think I've been protected," he said in a telephone interview from his Washington D.C. office.

The Florida native, who says generations of his family have served in the military, continues to serve untouched, and has been speaking out about his experience across the country.

Cooper said fellow service members have been discharged after having their e-mails searched, their diaries read and letters analyzed. He knows of others who are also openly gay and serving in some capacity.

Officers, like himself, are often left alone, he said, while enlisted service members are more likely to be discharged, especially if they are not well-liked.

"I was in two weddings this past year that were Army weddings, where the grooms asked me to be in their weddings," he said. "These are people who are very important to me in my life. They know everything about me and don't see me as any different."

He added, "I've just been very fortunate that I've been surrounded by very understanding, smart people who don't see my orientation as an impediment to my work and to my being an American citizen and a patriot."

When Phillips ordered the policy stopped Oct. 12, Cooper was in a war games exercise at Fort Huachuca in Arizona. He and the other soldiers heard the news hours later. Some didn't find out until the next day.

"I overheard people say 'well, it's going to happen at some point' and one person said 'oh I already thought the repeal had been implemented,'" he said. "There wasn't anything equated to wailing or gnashing of teeth.

"The reaction was more like a shrug of a shoulder, so what, no big deal."

[samonuh]

Disgusting

[Dad]

I don't get this at all.

If homosexuals want to die for our country, let them. I've met some who could kick my ass in a heartbeat.

If homosexuals want to get married, let them. They have every right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

This is just a perspective check. Do NOT try to guess my views on the subject.

A commander has to order his soldiers into situations where he knows some will die. This decision needs to be clear, logical and tactical, unclouded by prejudice or affection. The soldier must carry out his orders without second guessing the motivation of the order. Throughout the history of our military the ideal fighting force is a homogeneous one, bereft of ethnic, religious, sex or sexual orientation distractions.

That is the ideal. It is also the argument against blacks in the military (1940's and 50's - civil war too). Women in the military (60's and 70's). Women in combat roles (1990's and oughts). And of course gays (1990's through present). There is also evidence of religious intolerance indoctrinated up to WWI and in the military academies long after.

It is a real fear. When its YOUR life on the line you take it seriously.

Try to see it from that perspective before you think the whole military is one giant homophobe club.

[(SWGO)Kren]

I know this post relates to the US however:

It should not er what sexual orientation you are if you are willing to serve and die for your country that then should be the thing that should be considered.

As I have mentioned on previous posts; in the time of a crisis i.e. a world war, internal conflict, call to arms etc then would that country really be bothered if you were gay or not, provided you were doing your part and helping out the country and colleagues. I mean what happened during the word wars, was everybody who fought all straight; come on get a grip.

In this instance it appears that depending upon the rank this dictates if you are discharged or not, how very wrong. The army appears not to be looking at the ability of a person simply their sexual orientation. The government and others appear to have some type of block which impairs their ability to get past the stereotype of a gay person, how sad.

I don't want to turn this into a Sparta post but they can be used for reference. If they were gay (Spartans) and could fight what has changed? We are now supposed to be more accepting however as a society we don't appear to have moved forward, rather backwards by classifying people and segregating others into discrete groups. Because a minority cannot accept others or allow them to demonstrate their value due to the ignorance and preconceptions it shows the society we all live in, no wonder the world is having such difficulties.

Regards,

Kren
:action-smiley-043

[mrjamwin]

Well this is nice and dandy for all the civilians who've never served in the military to say these nice things. Nothing like people with no understanding ditacting policy for those that do. That's all I got to say.

[burzerker]

It's not just "they want to fight let them", there are a lot of things to consider in normal barracks life, that is the main issue. I have not been in the millitary but I do know several people that have been and have been in fighting situations. There has to be a social cohesion in a group beyond the "hey how are you today" type of thing, these are people that are going to have your life in their hands at some point. I don't have anything against homosexuals, I have known several and have been glad to be friends with them over the years, but when it comes to showering and dressing in front of men who I know may have a sexual attraction to my appearnce, even if it is totally not expressed, I would find that awkward. You don't put men and women in the same barracks for the exact same reason, the sexual tension is too much of a distraction to people that need to keep 100% focused or their life will be in danger. As I'm sure most of you are men reading this, we all know that the appearance of a half dressed woman is extremely distracting, gay men have the same reaction just with other men instead. I'm glad that there are homosexuals that are willing to fight and die for this country, but I'm not sure that this would be an ideal thing for the military.

[(SWGO)Kren]

I'm sure it would be awkward for people showering together especially if they were looking each other up and down but is that not a bit of a preconception in itself. I mean for example you have one gay person and 99 other people. If by what you are saying that one person is going to force all these others to hide behind their towels and wants to crack-on to the rest of the men then that kinda questions the mindset of everyone else. Preconceptions and discrimination springs to mind.

I mean one gay person is not suddenly going to become a nympho. They generally tend to be attracted a type of person have a partner or simply have no interest much like us straight people. I would not suddenly start running after women in my martial arts class, why...well perhaps that's because I have more about myself, would not disrespect myself, my wife and family. If I was single I would not be looking to bed every female out there. Would the same not apply to a gay person, are they attracted to everyone, perhaps you should direct that question to someone who is gay? I think you would be laughed at and told to get a grip.

How did they all get along before the gay subject was blew out of proportion; perhaps they did not care? If they did not know someone was gay and they showered together would they know any different unless said person started doing something out of character. It's an assumption that one gay person wants to hump the rest of the population...ROFL! As mentioned in antiquity you had perhaps one of the greatest fighting forces in the world and they could fight and get along but now we can't. Did it prevent them from winning battles, laughing together, dying together...the answer would be NO.

At the moment it is a preconception that someone’s preferences will compromise everything else, the whole fighting force will crumble. I thought the sum of the whole would be stronger than the individual; perhaps it questions the psychological complex of people. “Oh no, there's gays around, run for the hills.”

Yeah you are right I don't know how things run all the time in the army, navy, air force etc but by the very posting you have a high ranking officer (in charge of men) who is left alone but yet a single low ranking soldier can affect the whole fighting force....mm a bit strange. If the high ranking officer who is directing men into battle is somehow compromised due to his preferences how is it he is in that rank and can remain in that position? Has the officer caused countless deaths due to his sexual preference and would a soldier of the same orientation allow others to die?

Scenarios:

* If you (Soldier/civilian) saw someone in a burning building and decided to rescue them would you ask them if they were gay before you helped them out?

* If a soldier saved countless lives of other soldiers and came back home and it was found out he was gay, would you then assume the reason for him saving the lives of other soldiers was due to the fact he fancied them?

Regards,

Kren

[Dad]

You said...

homogeneous.

hee hee

And yes, I just trivialized your statement.

[burzerker]

I never said that they would "want to hump the entire population", but you can't deny male nature of being stimulated mainly from the visual. It's pretty likely that in a large group of men, especially fit, young men, that there would be at least one that a gay man would be attracted to even if he didn't plan on or had hopes of "humping" him. This is further complicated by the fact that it's a bit hard for a guy to hide the fact that he's arroused. This could easily lead to him being ostricized by the group and complicate the tightness of the group necessary to work as a perfect team necessary to keep everyone alive. This isn't guaranteed to be hard for them to do, but it isn't something that you just impose without a lot of thought and input from people that would be effected, not just because you think it's unfair so do it.