Obama to fire Army National Guardsman who is openly gay

It’s too bad it doesn’t work well for everyone, but I can understand the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule for the armed forces.

Except in extreme situations, men’s and women’s barracks and showers still are segregated in the Army. Why? At least in part, it’s for the sake of privacy, related to sexuality. Trouble is, there’s no practical way to segregate gays from straights in military barracks, so the brass decided the easiest answer was not to know who was gay or straight. Obviously, it’s not a perfect answer. It’s a balance of rights.

Here’s the mathematical problem: If the right to sleeping privacy demands a space free of non-significant others who are sexually attracted to your sex, to which barracks would you knowingly assign gays and still preserve that right?

Executive privilege. That said, in specific instances, the president could override the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule. Obama could save Dan Choi’s job simply by explaining that Choi’s skills as a translator and linguist make him an exception more important than the rule.

Frank Warner

Comments

[David Holliday]

Can we expect a man to sleep in the same room with a woman and not have sex? Can we expect anyone regardless of attraction to sleep in the same room with someone of the sex to which they are attracted and not have sex? Haven't we all showered in Gyms or gone to the bathroom in public restrooms where there were people who may have been attracted to our sex? Did we all run off and have sex just because we were there? Isn't this as exceedingly stupid as it sounds?

When we penalize on the thought instead of the action we cross a line which should not be crossed.

[George]

Is it stupid to eliminate men and women's locker rooms? Let's just have one big locker room for everybody. Bathrooms - same thing.

[George]

While we're at it, let's eliminate sex differentiation in sports. Congress requires equal funding for women's and men's sports at the college level. Why are we paying for a group of inferior players to have their own games, officials, fields, etc.? Generally speaking, it is the men's sports that bring in the money. Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government is forcing us to operate at a loss.

If you truly believe that we need to break down these sexual/gender barriers, they must be broken down everywhere; not just in the military.

[Kevin]

I think you're missing the point, David. Would you be ok with your wife taking a shower in a room with a bunch of men, as long as they didn't necessarily have sex with her later?

Because that's what it's like taking a shower with a bunch of gay men. I did it one single time in Snowmass, CO at a health club. Never EVER again. EVER. It's creepy as hell. The things they talk about are unbelievable, and not fit for a blog comment.

Gay people should be allowed to serve in the military just like any other American, but should definitely be segregated in the same way that men and women are segregated from each other.

[Frank Warner]

We may be missing David's point. I'd like to hear more.

The separation of men from women in Army barracks isn't to keep them from having sex (though that probably is considered); it's to protect their privacy. Here, as always, the right to privacy is difficult to define, and yet we know we have that right.

[jj mollo]

Maybe when you enlist they should give you a drug implant that eliminates your interest in sex. I don't suppose it's on the market yet, but would anyone enlist under that regimen?

[Frank Warner]

Probably not. But rules on sex matter. Consider the Catholic Church. Tell priests they can't have sex in a highly sexualized world, and some bad things happen.

[David Holliday]

I don't think there is anything in my comment, which is really about dealing with sexuality, that leads to men and women sharing the same facilities or losing gender differentiation in sports. George I love you, in a totally non-sexual way of course, but I just don't think that’s a valid counter argument. Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

And Kevin, I think a more accurate analogy, if I was married of course, is would I be freaked out if my wife showered with a showerful of lesbians. I don’t want Frank to ban me from his blog so I’m going to leave that one alone. And while it may be creepy, I don't think being creepy is sufficient cause to be removed from your job. By the way, there are other ways to be creepy than being gay and making comments in a shower that creep straight men out. Do we remove all people from the service who creep someone out?

My point is that society should never let its members lose responsibility for what they do regardless of which side of the spectrum they are on. Actions define who we are. If a person is gay but otherwise acts responsibly then I don’t see that there should be a problem. If his behavior is improper then I don’t care if he’s gay or straight get rid of him. When we give a green light to some to treat others differently we encourage prejudice. In my book, the “all” in “all men are created equal” means everyone. All is an unqualified inclusive. When we start qualifying it we head down a well-trodden path to shame.

[Frank Warner]

Wow. It's hard to disagree with all men are created equal.

On the other hand, there is that right to privacy, "privacy" being as hard to define as "equal."

[David Holliday]

The easy retort to that is that Privacy is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

[Kevin]

And Kevin, I think a more accurate analogy, if I was married of course, is would I be freaked out if my wife showered with a showerful of lesbians.

It makes no difference the gender of the person who wants to have sex with your spouse, Mr. Holliday. I'm surprised that gender even entered your mind, being all new-age as you are. *wink*

And while it may be creepy, I don't think being creepy is sufficient cause to be removed from your job.

Yes, it pretty much is. In my scenario, what we were talking about amounted to sexual harassment. It causes people to be removed from their jobs all the time. And if you don't segregate the men from the women in the military, it would be even MORE common.

And if you don't segregate the gay men from the men and the lesbians from the women, it would be even creepier (aka sexual harassmentier).

Of course, the other option is to force gay people to keep it secret and fire them if they can't keep their lips sealed. Tough choice, really. Glad I don't have to make it.

[David Holliday]

"New-age" no one has ever called me that before. I can only imagine the laughter if I told any of my friends that someone called me new-age. I can only imagine it because there's no way I'm going to put up with that.

The crux of my argument is whether we should punish thought. I'm in agreement that inappropriate behavior should not be tolerated. But I don't assume that because someone is gay their behavior will be inappropriate. What if it’s not? Should they still be punished?

We should make our decisions based on actions of the individual. Anything else is discriminatory.

[Frank Warner]

It's a tough call, and perhaps there is a better way to handle it.

But is the separation of men from women in Army barracks a punishment? They didn't do anything wrong, and yet they're separated, principally for reasons of privacy.

[Kevin]

David,

"We should make our decisions based on actions of the individual. Anything else is discriminatory."

Ok, now I see where our opinions differ. I'm definitely of the opinion that when you make decisions individually, instead of applying the law equally, you end up with favoritism. That's VERY discriminatory. This guy was well aware of the rules, and he broke them. That's all we need to know! He has to be fired. Civil disobedience is not conducive to the armed forces.

That said, I'm all for increasing the military budget so that they can set up four separate barracks for men, women, gays, and lesbians, and then changing the "don't ask, don't tell" rule. But until then, break the rules, suffer the consequences.

Sorry about the 'new age' thing. I put a *wink* after it to let you know I was just kidding :). Sometimes, unclear I can, you know, be, with the words and stuff. When typing.

[jj mollo]

Well, it seems to me that every person needs a separate barracks. The idea is to keep them away from others to whom they are sexually attracted. Of course, even that won't work. How do we keep narcissists away from themselves. It's a quandary.