There’s nothing like breaking news on Gay Rights to persuade the Right to shelve all other serious business and howl at the moon.  This past week’s somewhat unexpected movement on the military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule is certainly no exception, since it carries the extra added attraction of the Obama Administration apparently outsmarting the Far Right.   Granted, outsmarting the sociological Luddites who oppose allowing LGBT persons to serve their country in the military is a little like “shooting fish in a barrel;” nevertheless, the opponents of DADT repeal thought they’d won another round on the issue when the military branches were granted a year to “conduct a study on how the troops feel about “teh Gays” and how best to implement the policy change if DADT is repealed. 

In the minds of conservative homophobes, that extra year is key because it would schedule the vote on repeal out beyond that magical date in November, 2010 when the US electorate is expected to recognize the folly of its ways and vote to re-establish Republican control of the Universe Congress; then when “God’s in His heaven and all’s right with the world,” all such trashy socialist legislation will simply disappear.

Despite some Republicans’ (most notably Sen. John McCain) position that the administration’s DADT maneuver is somehow a sneaky, back room deal designed — to use one of their favorite phrases – to “jam this legislation down our throats” — while cavalierly ignoring the opinions of our troops —  it is no such thing. 

Here’s what has actually happened . . .

Foiled Again!

President Obama made a campaign promise to repeal DADT during his first term in office; public opinion (as measured by any reputable poll out there) is overwhelmingly pro-DADT repeal, numbers vary somewhat but all are in the 70%-80% range; military advocacy groups and bloggers report a consensus among active-duty troops and veterans and their families that it’s time to repeal DADT; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen made an impassioned stand, before Congress, for repealing DADT and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is pro-repeal. 

Not surprisingly, an amendment to repeal DADT was added to the 2011 Defense Appropriations Bill.  The current amendment contains a widely endorsed compromise written such that, if passed, the repeal would not go into effect until after the Pentagon publishes, in December, the results of a survey on how service members and their families view the change, and until the president, the defense secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that the repeal will not affect the military’s ability to fight.

This past Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of repealing DADT and shortly thereafter the US House of Representatives voted 234-194 to repeal.  Of course Republicans, who, while in the minority, have become ardent supporters of the slooooow approach to all things legislative, voted overwhelmingly and predictably against it.  They cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

They might have been referring to someone like Marine Chief General James Conway, who felt that Congress must not take action now because “the value of surveying the thoughts of Marines and their families is that it signals to my Marines that their opinions matter.”

Or, maybe they were thinking of Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations who said that “our Sailors and their families need to understand clearly that their voices will be heard.” Evidently the Admiral has undergone a recent conversion on the subject because only a few months ago he had made the following public statement: “We’ve never assessed the force because it’s not our practice to go within our military and poll our force to determine if they like the laws of the land or not…That gets you into a very difficult regime.”

The most likely reason for delaying tactics, in my opinion, was put forward by Jason Arvak, on The Moderate Voice, who said:

“So since they know DADT is almost certainly on the way out, the real question for senior military leaders is to negotiate the best terms for its repeal. And what they want to protect more than anything else, as ADM Mullen’s comments indicate, is their ability to retain control over military personnel policies generally. If they fight a repeal that happens anyway, the loss of control would reverberate over the long term. But if they hold off implementing a repeal that is coming no matter what until they can say that they completed a study that endorses repeal, they can put themselves on the “winning” side. It’s a neat political sleight-of-hand that is a well-worn tool among Washington insiders — those who control policy implementation in a given area can position themselves to be the champions of a policy change that they know is coming rather than fighting it and being seen as defeated.”

“DADT will probably be repealed, but implementation will probably be delayed until the military makes a climactic endorsement of the policy change that’s coming anyway. The modern military is politically savvy enough to make itself the winner of the turf war in the process.”

Whatever their reasons, House Republicans are “preparing to mount a vigorous defense” of the policy; Sen. McCain is campaigning on threatening a filibuster, and righteous-wing Christian groups are pressuring conservative lawmakers to toe the party line.

And then the squadrons of flying monkeys arrive . . .

Tales from the Dark Side

If you are relatively sane and have no scientific or professional interest in exploring the “heart of darkness,” you may have very little knowledge of the more “imaginative” DADT policy positions I report on below – but that doesn’t mean they’re not out there in all of their irrational glory.  Also, be assured that this is only the best they could do on short-notice; given time to ponder the issue over a three-day-holiday-weekend (memorializing the military, no less), we should definitely be in for a madcap treat next week.

For now, though, we have these delirious statements from the usual suspects:

Bryan Fischer, who holds the impressive title of “Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy” with the American Family Association, did a radio retrospective on other gays, in other militaries and predicted that no good could come from allowing gays to serve openly.  Fischer cited the little known “fact” that the Third Reich was crawling with gays, (just not the effeminate ones; those were exterminated):

FISCHER: So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, were male homosexuals.

I’ll leave the “Hitler was gay” myth-busting to those who normally handle such topics  . . .

* * *

Not to be outdone, the Family Research Council, provided their own predictions about the collapse of our military if DADT is repealed.  Here’s what they anticipate, in a nutshell (appropriately enough):

Gay troops, emboldened by the repeal, will step up their customary practice of waiting for “lights out” and then tiptoeing through the barracks and fellating their unsuspecting straight comrades-in-arms while they sleep. Commanders, always sensitive to the acceptance and approval of their subordinates, will turn a blind eye to these midnight “panty raids” lest they be labeled homophobes. Eventually, straight service members will quit the military, out of fear and disgust, and nice straight boys, from good Christian homes, will be afraid to enlist.

Family Research Council is not just whistling Dixie, either.  They have a full-blown 60-page report (ever wonder why Christian Right reports are so often 60 pages long? must be some biblical numerology there – or maybe anything shorter lacks credibility?) prepared by their own in-house policy wonk, Peter Sprigg.  Sprigg, accompanied by a few good homophobes in uniform, carried his report, which he touts as “the first-ever study of ‘homosexual assault’ in the military” to Washington, DC and, before God and Congress warned that:

“the DADT repeal language currently under discussion with the agreement of the White House will turn the U.S. military into a terrifying free-rape zone where no heterosexual is safe.”

Spriggs’ credentials for carrying out such studies and arriving at such conclusions are (per his FRC bio):

“Mr. Sprigg has been quoted as a spokesman for FRC in many major newspapers, and he has been interviewed or participated in debates on all of the national television networks. He is the author of the book Outrage: How Gay Activists and Liberal Judges Are Trashing Democracy to Redefine Marriage (Regnery, 2004), and he was co-editor of the FRC book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Mr. Sprigg also edited FRCs agenda-setting booklet, 25 Pro-Family Policy Goals for the Nation.”

“Mr. Sprigg is an ordained Baptist minister. Before coming to FRC, he served as pastor of Clifton Park Center Baptist Church in Clifton Park, N.Y. Mr. Sprigg previously served for ten years as a professional actor and unit leader in Covenant Players, an international Christian drama ministry. Prior to his career in ministry, Mr. Sprigg worked in the government and non-profit sectors, including service as economic development assistant to the late Congressman Robert F. Drinan (D-Mass.).”

Quite the Renaissance Man . . .  but one need only read portions of Spriggs’ “study,” which reads, in part, like an issue of Penthouse Forum, to get a bead on how credible the study is.  Anyone who’s feeling particularly ambitious can read the official Department of Defense 2009 report entitled “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response” to understand just how far afield Sprigg strays from the facts to support his ”first-ever study of ‘homosexual assault’ in the military.”

* * *

I suppose that with all the usual horror stories alreadypicked over, Cliff Kincaid, Grand Wizard of America’s Survival, was forced to get into the blood and guts of the matter and play the AIDS card.  Kincaid’s entry consists of an absurd video catalog of every gay stereotype that ever was along with the requisite “written report” — 60 pages, I suspect – that warns that allowing “open and active homosexuals into the U.S. military could very well result in the spreading of deadly HIV-tainted blood throughout the ranks.”

Of course, all enlistees undergo mandatory HIV screening and are not allowed to serve if they are found to be positive.  But that doesn’t stop Kincaid from extrapolating that of the 19,000 soldiers that the Pentagon reports are HIV positive, “most came down with the deadly disease through prohibited gay sexual conduct.”  As we all know by now, there’s only ONE REAL way to contract AIDS . . .

 * * *

As is my custom I have saved the best for last.  Some might quibble that Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is much too mainstream to include in the forgoing “Cavalcade of Wingnuts.”  To those critics I say “au contraire.”  For years now, Sen. Inhofe has been my unerring barometer on political issues large and small.  When Sen. Inhofe makes his position known, I immediately move to the other side of the fence – no further questions asked.  Nothing if not consistent, Sen. Inhofe can be counted on to play “mad devil’s advocate” with typical Inhofe-ian panache.  Besides, on the occasion of this particular news event, Sen. Inhofe took himself off to “Focal Point,” the radio program hosted by the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer (see above)  – where, as a blogger on Queerty noted, “rational thought goes to die” —  to hold forth on the ramifications of DADT repeal in Inhofe-topia. 

Inhofe was right at home with Fischer, though, because as Steve Benen, of Washington Monthly, pointed out:

“INHOFE’S VILE RHETORIC KNOWS NO BOUNDS…. Most reasonable people, especially those in positions of authority, would steer clear of someone like the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer. Even within the religious right movement, Fischer is known for stomach-churning extremism.”

The Senator’s basic position on DADT, as broadcast to Fischer’s radio audience, is that U.S. troops are too bigoted to be willing to fight and die for a gay comrade which might interfere with their ability to follow orders.  As a result, gay soldiers would just be thrown to the Taliban for extermination.  Here’s how Inhofe put it:

“For those of us — and I’m one of them — who have gone through the military, gone through basic training, and you stop and think — it just doesn’t make any sense. Second of all, it’s just not working. You have women, men, then you have a third group to deal with, and they’re not equipped to do that.

“And you know — you hear the stories all the time. A military guy — I happen to be Army, and Army and Marines always feel that when we’re out there, we’re not doing it for the flag or the country; we’re doing it for the guy in the next foxhole. And that would dramatically change that.”

Now that statement is a tad deceptive since Sen. Inhofe’s first-hand knowledge of “life in the foxholes” is actually non-existent.  Inhofe’s service record consists of a “standard hitch” (1957-1958) in the Army, as a Private, during which he served (by his own account) as a court-reporter; he never left the States, let alone saw combat duty.  I’ll cede that perhaps it’s possible that Inhofe might have developed an extraordinary bond with his band of brother court reporters but still, it’s not really seemly for him to parade his personal “stars and stripe” to support his ignorant premise.  And then, of course, there is Inhofe’s clueless, but no less reprehensible, disrespect for the character of today’s military personnel inherent in his belief that “they’re not equipped to do that.”  I daresay that if anyone is “unequipped” for the job at hand, it’s not our soldiers.

I’m sure that Inhofe prides himself as being a man of conviction who does not mince words — his record, after all, is a public one and here are a few highlights:

• Inhofe outraged federal employees on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building by stating on National television that there probably weren’t very many casualties because federal employees wouldn’t be at their desks at 9:00 instead they would be off having coffee somewhere. AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) responded that maybe that was how Inhofe ran his office.
• In March 2002, Inhofe made a Senate speech which included the explicit suggestion that the 9/11 attacks were a form of divine retribution against the U.S. for failing to defend Israel. In his words: “One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.”
• Inhofe claims that “Global warming is ‘the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.’”  He didn’t hesitate to take himself off to Copenhagen for the Climate Change Summit, uninvited, where I suspect he believed his rhetorical (fact-free) denials would turn the tide of global opinion on the matter.  He was briefly ridiculed, then ignored.
• On the occasion of the Abu Ghraib hearings, Inhofe made a spectacular fool of himself, best described, at the time, by Andrew Cockburn of CounterPunch:

“But the remarks of Senator James M. Inhofe (R., Okla.) were transcendent. They were like the remarks of no other senator on that very large panel. His basic position seemed to be that since some Iraqis had done terrible things it was outrageous for anyone to be questioning Americans for having done anything terrible to anybody. If we have Iraqis locked up and if we are torturing them, they must deserve it, and it’s a shame and a scandal that we’re giving the Department of Defense a hard time over this trifle when they’re out there protecting the flag and whatever. The fact that we have those Iraqis locked up is all the proof we need of their guilt, so they are only receiving punishment they’ve earned. <Q.e.d>. It was straight out of the Inquisition Handbook.”

“Inhofe’s remarks were full of pomp and smugness; they were devoid of ethical sensibility. Listening to him was like listening to someone on his way home from a lynching 50 years ago: ‘They deserve what they get, whether or not they did what we said. They are what they are, aren’t they? If they weren’t, why would we have lynched them? Goddam right!’ If our enemies abroad were as interested in words as they are in photographs right now, Inhofe’s words would serve them as well as the Army reservists’ digital photographs from Abu Ghraib.”

Inhofe’s position on the torture investigations?

“I am outraged that we have so many humanitarian do- gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying.”

The world is very simple in Sen. Inhofe’s simple mind . . .

Technorati Tags: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Jim Inhofe, Ad. Mike Mullen, Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff