Frontlines: The Latest from OutServe-SLDN

Why I Love Larry Kramer

Earlier this week, a small energetic group of homosexuals converged on the recruiting station in Times Square to protest the comments made by Gen. Peter Pace. They surrounded the famous little building and began shouting slogans denouncing bigotry against the gay community. Soon after it began, a dignified older gentleman, with a full white beard stepped forward and tried to enter the station to sign up to serve his country and to express his extreme displeasure about Gen. Pace's comments, to someone in charge. That gentleman was Larry Kramer. When he tried to enter, he couldn't because the recruiters locked the door. The police came soon afterwards and arrested him and the other protesters. At 71, Larry Kramer is obviously not eligible to serve. He has, as far as I know, never served and quite frankly, he could fairly be characterized as a "radical leftie." Yet there he was, ready and willing, if not able. And man o' man was he fired up about General Pace! Go Larry go; give 'em hell! For those of you who have never heard of Larry Kramer, he is widely acknowledged as being a titan of gay history. He is the founder of ACT UP. ACT UP was the organization that forced the Reagan administration to deal with the nascent AIDS crisis during the 80's. President Reagan would rather have just ignored it or characterized it as merely a "gay" disease. Without Larry, there would have been no federal funding for research or public awareness of the issue. ACT UP was famous for doing things like throwing pigs blood in St. Patrick's cathedral in New York City or disrupting political events with raucous shouting. For a while, in the 80's I remember Larry and his compatriots making the news almost every other day being dragged off in handcuffs. Of course at that time I was so deep in the closet that I found his immoderate behavior to be distasteful; in other words, I was a clueless. Larry Kramer, through sheer force of will and fearless determination, made the world take notice of gay people and their issues. He was and is a potent catalyst for change, even if he is a lion with a grey mane now. Society is more accepting today of gay people because of men and women like Larry. I used to think that the "diplomatic" approach was the best way to achieve change, because by nature I am pretty reasonable. Like most people who served in the military, I like order, am pretty conservative and definitely polite. Over the past four or five years though, my view has changed substantially, particularly after I learned about people like Larry Kramer. I now believe that reasonable is not the right approach at all. What I'm trying to express here can be summed up in a simple question we must all ask ourselves everyday. "If not now, when?" Everybody loves Will and Grace, and the Queer Eye guys. The L Word is a hit, and not a night goes by without some talking head discussing gay rights. More and more people accept gay people. Straight society knows who we are and is influenced heavily by us, and yet we are still very much second class citizens. Sadly, many of our own community are falsely lulled into complacency by all the visibility, thinking that " well, you know, it will change eventually." NEWSFLASH: IT WON'T! IT WILL ONLY CHANGE IF WE SEE IT THROUGH WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY! Now, not some distant time in the future, should be our approach. Moreover, if that means that things have to get a little ugly, then so be it. We have to win and it would be nice to do so gracefully, but if not that's just fine by me. There are one million gay veterans in this country and 65,000 active duty servicemen who are putting their asses on line for America. There are more than enough of us to make an impact, but WE HAVE TO GET PISSED OFF! I am appealing to the war fighter in all of you. Tap into that instinct to grind your enemies into the dust! People who openly punk us and think they can get away with it, must be made to pay a terrible price. We should be out there creating change all the time. We should be angry even when there is not some newsworthy outrage like the chairman's remarks. The fact that one gay service member should have to face death or injury having to hide who they are is sickening AND CAUSE ENOUGH FOR OUR RAGE! I want victory now! I want our gay sons and daughters to be respected and honored for the sacrifice that they make on our behalf! I will stand up for them, and I don't care how ugly it has to get, so they will receive what they deserve! All of you should feel the same and do something. Thank you, Larry Kramer, for teaching me a valuable lesson- CHANGE HAPPENS THROUGH RIGHTEOUS ANGER. - Jeff McGowan -----

03-17-07 Comment (0)

Watch SLDN on PBS’s NewsHour . . . Tonight!

SLDN deputy director for policy (and former Army Captain) Sharon Alexander will appear on this evening's broadcast of The NewsHour on PBS. Sharon will be debating retired Lieutenant Colonel Robert Maginnis, a long-time foe of lifting the ban. Check out The NewsHour website for more details. And be sure to tune in tonight. - Steve Ralls

Labels: in the news

-----

03-16-07 Comment (0)

L Word Episode Review: Little Boy Blue

Ah, another week, another hour of exciting drama from the ladies of the L Word! Kit, upset by Angus’ cheating, falls off the wagon and, in doing so, highlights the less flattering features of Bette’s type-A personality. Jodi not only experiences Bette’s attempts to control everything around her first-hand, but also straight-up calls her out on it. This confrontation turns into an argument that seems to have the potential to rock the foundations of Jodi’s new found ability to sexually commit to a relationship. Tina brings the director of Jenny’s unborn film to Bette’s dinner party; Jenny, as usual, seems less than pleased to have the attention shifted away from her. Not to worry, though, she manages to return to the spotlight by declaring that little straight girls want horses, whereas the deepest desire of a wee lesbian is… a monkey? Although it is tempting to dwell on the random inner workings of Jenny’s oh-so-entertaining twisted little mind, it is within this episode that the audience gets a taste of the troubles that our heroine, Tasha, may face. The gang takes a trip to the race track (mostly, I suspect, to watch Helena’s gambling addiction in action with a sense of appalled fascination) which is where Tasha runs into a follow service member. Moments before the interaction, she gently reminds Alice that she can’t engage in PDA to which Alice responds by jokingly, dismissing Tasha’s concern. This attitude carries over when Tasha introduces her to the soldier; Alice is very flirtatious in her communications with and about her girlfriend, obviously not grasping the gravity of the situation. The two women come away with very different takes on the chance meeting- Alice is confident that the whole thing is “nothing to worry about,” whereas Tasha identifies the guy as a homophobe and does not share Alice’s assessment of the situation. - Charlotte D'Ooge

Labels: episode review, the l word

-----

03-16-07 Comment (0)

Another Veteran Speaks Out

Another veteran, Joe Barrows, shares his letter to General Peter Pace. Want to share your letter with SLDN? Email them to us at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

I am a former member of the armed forces who served with distinction in Vietnam, having received, among other acknowledgments of service, a bronze star. I am also a gay man who resents having the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declare that I have morals that are inconsistent with the standards of service to my country. If General Pace were to make such an outrageous statement as a senior executive in a large corporation, he would be instantly shown the door. The appropriate "moral" action within the armed services would be exactly the same. General Pace should be fired. Since there is little likelihood that this will happen under our current administration, I hope that General Pace, and those who serve under him, will use the uproar caused by his comments to open his mind and become more familiar with the reality of being gay generally, and the unnecessary strain to productivity and military service resulting from the Department of Defense's "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy. In my days of military service, I believe these were known as "after action reports." Such an assessment is clearly appropriate here. Following are some points that General Pace should consider: Many individuals who have been educated and live within a conservative environment such as that of a Marine commander have had little opportunity to interact with openly gay or lesbian individuals. Those who do are quite likely to discover that our daily lives are very similar to those of our heterosexual counterparts. I would encourage him to take the time to meet a gay civilian whose career has been similarly successful to the General's military career. In my experience, and in the overwhelming majority of my gay and lesbian friends, being gay is not a matter of choice. I grew up in a family where issues relating to gay civil rights were never discussed. As I matured and slowly came to acknowledge that I was gay, I realized that I would not follow the same paths as that of my parents and siblings, and it took a good deal of adaptation. Much has become possible that was not when I was younger, but being gay still creates sometimes seemingly insurmountable barriers to equal opportunities within the organizations for which I have been employed, including the US Army. The general should open his mind to some of those barriers. It has been my experience in discussing gay civil rights with those who have spent little time thinking about such issues but are open to learning, that they have a moment of recognition when they are asked when they first "discovered" they are heterosexual. Most heterosexual people I know never make that decision a conscience one. It just evolves as they mature. When asked, "When did you discover that you are straight?" most people have difficulty getting their thoughts around such a concept. Nearly all gay and lesbian people have gone through that process. The General should reflect on how much different a view that creates. Finally, the General should examine how much harm has been done by the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows the benefit of removing qualified servicemembers from military service. Much evidence exists, however, to the contrary. Why, for instance, should American taxpayers be called upon to recruit and train new servicemembers who are currently qualified and performing well in their military service specialty? The frequently cited example is the Arabic linguists. The truth is that examples can be found throughout the service. In addition to the losses resulting from mustering out of service those individuals who are highly qualified and performing well, there are the intangible losses that come from asking people to hide their personal lives or suppress their sexuality in the course of earning a living. The General's posted resume on the Joint Chief's web site shows that he is married and has two grown children. He should reflect on how many times during the course of a normal day he "asserts" his heterosexuality at work. He probably wears a wedding ring, talks about things he did at home over the weekend, antics of his grandchildren, etc. Imagine a world where all of that had to be sacrificed just to serve in the military. How can an individual focus on his or her job if one has to deny the natural instinct to develop family relationships, or, if they have formed a family, having carefully to deny that it exists? I hope that General Pace will reflect on the injury his unkind words have caused to so many people who are now serving and who have served with distinction in the past. He has not yet indicated that an apology is in order. Since an apology is not likely, I hope instead that he will use this event to learn. Sincerely, Joe Barrows

Labels: in the news, Pace, veterans, your letters

-----

03-16-07 Comment (0)

A Few More Questions

Okay, let’s start with the basics and work from there, shall we? What is the purpose of the military? Why exactly does a miltary exist? The first thing that may come to mind for you are statements like “to defend the nation,” or perhaps something more vague, like “defend freedom”. Close, but no cookie; that still doesn’t answer the question completely or correctly. “Defending the nation” or “defending freedom” are merely mission statements and those can be changed. So what exactly is the first principle of any military, around which is draped all the purple prose about heroism and patriotism? Every military in the world exists to kill people and break things. After that, it’s all spin. Now that we got that out of the way, let’s move on to the next question. Is killing people and breaking things “moral?" The short answer is, of course, no! Just like mommy and daddy taught you, it is not nice to hurt others or destroy their property. It is, however, lamentably necessary, because of the world that we live in and who we are as a species. We need a strong military in order to survive and protect our interests. This is not a unique idea by the way . . . every country in the world has “interests” and therefore needs a military. The rules that govern a military are in place to ensure that armed forces can perform their primary function. Unit cohesion is an important part of that and so is leadership. Like it or not, America is made up of many different types of people who have many different sets of values and ideas. Patriotism is not the preserve of only one segment of our society. To be effective, the leadership of the armed forces must be able meld a vast array of men and women into a cohesive fighting force. Contrary to popular belief, recruits do not lose their individual qualities. In fact, good leaders get their units to bond and perform by incorporating the uniqueness of every individual. Morality has nothing to do with any of this. It is purely a matter of cold hard pragmatism. Having rules against adultery is a good thing, particularly when the adulterer might find himself in a combat situation with the other guy holding a loaded weapon near by. The difference here is that adultery is an act, just like robbery or murder. Homosexuality is an innate quality, like being black or asian. It is fine to regulate acts to a point, it is not fine to regulate innate qualities. In fact, it is bigotry to go after someone just for who they are. Troops have sex all the time in and out of marriage, because it’s an innate drive and they aren't sanctioned for it, nor should they be. Sex is sex, gay or straight; it’s very hard to live without, precisely because it is an innate quality. It will not undermine unit cohesion if we let the troops just figure out their sex lives on their own. So to sum up my point with an example, when the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy goes away, I will happily live with restrictions on two married gay men not being able to cheat on each other with “questioning” straight boys in their unit. General Pace’s comments to The Chicago Tribune set a new low in stupidity and arrogance. I mean, he really just sounds like a self-righteous buffoon. His reasoning is the equivalent of Krusty the Clown debating string theory with Steven Hawking. I am amazed he was allowed to get off so easily. Had I been that reporter, I would have asked the following questions. Since the British allow gays to serve openly, are we immoral by association? Should we drop them as allies? Is the Vice President immoral because he sired a lesbian? Can you be around him knowing this? Having been raised in Brooklyn, possibly one of the most bohemian areas of New York, and arguably the planet, who do you think you are fooling when you act as though your childhood was right out of an episode of Little House on the Prairie? Is General Shallikashvilli immoral, and can you ever go golfing with him again? What about Senator Warner and the other 100 or so congressmen and women who want to revisit the policy? Will you be able to testify before the Armed Services Committee in the house and senate? We wouldn’t want you to sully yourself. now would we? Upon reflection, perhaps the reporter thought that engaging the Chairman in a substantive discussion would have been like asking a spider monkey to recite Henry V. If you want change, all of you better get angry as hell and then get involved. Ann Coulter, Gen. Pace, Elaine Donnelly and all the rest of the Bigot Brigade say this kind of crap because they think they can get away with it. Don’t make them right! - Major Jeff McGowan

Labels: Pace

-----

03-16-07 Comment (0)

More Calls to Apologize

The calls for an apology from General Peter Pace continue. This morning's New York Times editorial opines: "By refusing to apologize, General Pace compounded the injury and reminded the entire country of what happened the last time the top brass took on this subject. It was Gen. Colin Powell's public rebuke of a new president, Bill Clinton, for even entertaining the idea of allowing homosexuals to serve openly that led to the ''don't ask, don't tell'' policy." The Times goes on to say that, "General Pace is wrong in every way, and out of step. An increasing number of Americans in and out of the military now recognize that the current policy is indefensible. Those Americans include Gen. John Shalikashvili, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs when the benighted policy was adopted. In an Op-Ed article in this newspaper in January, General Shalikashvili wrote that conversations with gay soldiers and marines had showed him ''that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers." "General Pace should still apologize for his remarks, forthrightly," the editorial board says. "Then perhaps some good could come out of his bigoted remarks if they added to the growing movement on Capitol Hill to finally allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military." Washington Post editorial cartoonist Tom Toles also weighs in with a letter of his own (above). "I find it tasteless," Toles writes. General Pace: It is past time to apologize. - Steve Ralls

Labels: Pace

-----

03-15-07 Comment (0)

Senator Simpson, Talking Sense on DA, DT

Former Senator Alan K. Simpson, a life-long Republican who represented Wyoming in the United States Senate, and chaired the Veterans Affairs Committee, writes in this morning's Washington Post that the time has come to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Senator Simpson points out three reasons we should all support lifting the ban. "First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically." "Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service." "Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission." "Since 1993," the Senator writes, "I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that 'gay' is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end 'don't ask, don't tell.' This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history." Now that's compassionate conservatism. And Senator Simpson stays true to the traditional Republican ideals of limited government and a strong national defense. As he writes this morning, "Is there a 'straight' way to translate Arabic? Is there a 'gay' Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war." Thank you, Senator Simpson, for bringing a common-sense, conservative voice to the debate, and standing up for our men and women in uniform. Steve Ralls (Also check out The Post's editorial this morning, supporting repeal.) -----

03-14-07 Comment (0)

One Veteran’s Letter to General Pace

A statement from General Pace has been released by the Department of Defense. Check that out here. Below is a poignant letter one of SLDN's supporters sent along to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in response to his earlier comments about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Dear Sir, I must say that I am deeply troubled by your recent comments to the Chicago Tribune regarding homosexual service members and your opposition to the repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell law. I am also disturbed by your statement that homosexuality is immoral. Sir, your statements only cement the institutionalized discrimination that the Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) law represents. Considering that fact that several high ranking officer's (including your predecessor) have voiced there support of repeal and that several recent reports show growing support from the general population and servicemembers that the DADT law needs to be repealed. It is time do end DADT and let all Americans serve their country regardless of their sexual orientation or what they do behind closed doors. In a time of national crisis, such as the one we are in now with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on Terrorism the Department of Defense should be looking at ways to include all Americans who are willing to volunteer to be put in harms way. I do realize that the DOD is only upholding a law that was passed by Congress and signed by then President Clinton. However, Congressman Meehan of Massachusetts introduced HR 1059 - Military Readiness Act to change the law and to end the discrimination of servicemembers and potential servicemembers from being banned from service based solely on their sexual orientation. I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served with honor during Operations Desert Shield and Storm. I am the recipient of the Bronze Star for my service during that conflict. When I enlisted for military service near the end of my junior year of high school, I did so because of my sense of pride and duty to my country. Back then I was not concerned about whether I was gay or straight, I just knew I wanted to be a part of the military. I cherish my military history and I am a founding sponsor of the National Museum of the U.S. Army. I will always be an American Soldier! It is time to end this flawed policy and allow those who wish to serve in the military the opportunity to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. Being gay never interfered with my ability to do my job. I would love to continue my service to my country, but only with integrity, honor and pride. I served my country with honor; I wish my country, in turn, would honor all of its service members -- gay and straight. Regards, William E. Smith US Army Veteran

- Rebecca Sawyer

Labels: comments, in the news, Pace, your letters

03-13-07 Comment (7)

Tell Peter Pace:  Apologize.  Now.

Last night, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told The Chicago Tribune that he opposes repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because lesbians and gays are "immoral," and the military is not "well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." SLDN immediately condemned General Pace's comments, and called on the Chairman to apologize. “General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” said C. Dixon Osburn, our executive director. “Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace’s praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” General Pace's comments also show the real legs propping up the military's ban: homophobia, prejudice and discrimination. Unable to show a shred of evidence that gays and lesbians do anything but strengthen our military capability, General Pace and others have decided to resort to a 'morality' argument. Military readiness be damned; the small-mindedness of a few now directs our national policy. That's not the way it should be. So, join SLDN in standing up for LGBT military personnel. Tell Peter Pace: Apologize. Now. You can fill out the DoD comment form online, or call the Pentagon directly, at (703) 428-0711. (And join the debate about Pace's comments at Pam's House Blend.) Our men and women in uniform deserve General Pace's praise. They should not be the target of his homophobia. - Steve Ralls UPDATE: Raw Story has video footage of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, responding to Pace's comments. Olbermann calls Pace's remarks "tomorrow's administration scandal."

03-13-07 Comment (20)