Sorry is this 2010?
I heard the story today on the news about the failure to repeal the rule banning openly gay people from serving in the US military.
I was to shocked to say the least - when did we get rid of that nonsense in stuffy old Britain? About 10 years ago and that was long over due - I seem to recall it being a European directive that finally forced the govt hand. To be honest though now today in 2010 you'd think any such ban in any vocation / job as simply ridiculous and unfair.
I can't understand the reasoning against it - some general claims it would "disrupt unit morale" - sorry?! There are over 10,000 people who have been discharged from the forces in the last 10 years over this.
It makes you wonder doesn't it... here we are standing shoulder to shoulder fighting wars that supposedly are supposed to introduce our fantastic western freedom to them and those forces have a policy so openly discriminatory. Bizarre.
As my brother said about Obama's election - "Yep he is a black American but when they elect a full blood native American or an openly gay president then I'll be impressed". We're a long way from that aren't we?
I was to shocked to say the least - when did we get rid of that nonsense in stuffy old Britain? About 10 years ago and that was long over due - I seem to recall it being a European directive that finally forced the govt hand. To be honest though now today in 2010 you'd think any such ban in any vocation / job as simply ridiculous and unfair.
I can't understand the reasoning against it - some general claims it would "disrupt unit morale" - sorry?! There are over 10,000 people who have been discharged from the forces in the last 10 years over this.
It makes you wonder doesn't it... here we are standing shoulder to shoulder fighting wars that supposedly are supposed to introduce our fantastic western freedom to them and those forces have a policy so openly discriminatory. Bizarre.
As my brother said about Obama's election - "Yep he is a black American but when they elect a full blood native American or an openly gay president then I'll be impressed". We're a long way from that aren't we?
Obviously, I have an opinion :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that DADT was an attempt by the Clintons to push 'the right thing' forwards by at least allowing gay people to serve their country. It's turned around and bitten the left on the behind, though. It's one of the problems with not granting 100% equality. Someone will always find a way to exploit the system and use it to push their agenda.
It's also one of the problems with being gay. Unlike being of a certain ethnicity, etc, you can hide your sexuality if you choose to. That fact makes it easy for society to coerce you into hiding as it's easier for other people (why?) if you just keep quiet and don't make waves.
The problem is that you can't force acceptance, you can only lay down the rules and let people get on with it and get used to things over time. Some would label that social engineering and say that it's not the government's job to interfere that way. That's one of the reasons that I believe it's unfair for minority issues to be decided by the majority.
There are still inequalities across the board in most countries. Luckily, I feel that the UK is ahead of the curve. Having said that, when Tim and I met, he only had an American passport and Civil Partnerships hadn't even been conceived. That meant that we had to country hop to document two years cohabiting to earn him Entry Clearance into the UK under the Unmarried Partners act. Two more years and he earned Indefinite Leave to Remain. About a month after that, Civil Partnership legislation was introduced. I think that was 2004. Not that long ago!!!!
The funny thing is that his family, on the whole, still don't really understand that it's not easy for us to live together in the US. I can't qualify for a green card and, whilst it's now 'legal' to marry in certain states, those marriages are not federally recognised and hence are irrelevant when it comes to immigration. There has been a movement for a long time, now branded something like "Uniting American Families", to allow couples in a long-term relationship to gain entry to the US, but it's not something that's important enough to most people for it to be pushed.
Anyway! I'm rambling now!
I guess the point is that DADT was a pretty major mis-step in my opinion. It was an attempt to do the right thing, but it backfired.
'Disrupt unit morale'...I find those kind of jokes that the phobe and ism crusaders hide behind equally as offensive as the dark nature behind them!
ReplyDeleteDADT is such an antiquated idea. I don't care who marries whom, or serves in the military.Yeah DADT was instituted by Clinton, but only to distract from the problems he was having at the time. I don't think he cared one way or the other and neither does the current chump. He is the one that claimed that he would rescind that law but like most things that are actually needed, he just talks, but doesn't do.
ReplyDeleteI bet your girl loves her new boots, too. I have those and pink Doc Martins also.