The Dream of Equality is for All, not “Almost All”
By Aubrey Sarvis
Cross-posted on Huffington Post
January 21, 2009
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the immense and immensely enthusiastic crowd that filled the Mall and beyond on this cold, bright morning, stretching from the Capitol, past the Washington Monument, around the Reflecting Pool, to the Lincoln Memorial and the Potomac. Estimates of its size range from 1.4 million people to two million and perhaps more if those lining Pennsylvania Avenue to watch the inaugural parade in the afternoon are included. Washington has never seen such numbers.
But it was not so much the numbers of the crowd as its mood, which was at once jubilant and serious, joyous and sober. And we have plenty to be sober about, but for the moment the country is full of hope as we continue the "ongoing journey of America to become America," as Queen Latifah put it at the concert Sunday that launched the inaugural festivities.
"We have chosen hope over fear," President Obama said in his inaugural address, "unity of purpose over conflict and discord... The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness."
Inspiring words indeed, but lest we bask in too much self-congratulation, we're not there yet. "All" may deserve a chance "to pursue their full measure of happiness," but all are not getting it. "All" includes men and women of every hue, of every opinion, of every rank and class. It should also include all men and women regardless of their sexual orientation. It does not. The law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that forbids gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces of the United States is still firmly on the books.
President Obama noted in his address that his father, born in Kenya to African parents, "less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant." His own father! Sixty years ago in Washington, DC, he would have been turned away at the door. The President might have added that little more than 60 years ago his father would not have been allowed to serve in the same military unit as a white man. (I say "man" because there were no women in the white men's units.) President Truman took care of that by executive order.
Now the military is integrated by race and by gender. Neither the president nor his father would have any trouble joining up. In the current situation, in fact, they would have been eagerly welcomed. It is only gays and lesbians who need not apply. It is one of the last official vestiges of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The President has vowed to change that, and let us hope the change comes sooner rather than later. Change needs the President's continued leadership. It needs the support of Defense Secretary Gates, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of their chairman, Admiral Mullen. It's already got the support of the American people and of any number of flag officers. Now it needs Congress to get behind it. Congress passed the law, Congress must repeal it -- and pass another law opening military service to all who are qualified, not almost all.
"Yes we can," as President Obama said many times in his campaign. And yes, the people did, and Barack Hussein Obama won. He is now the 44th President of the United States. Hopes are high. Not just Americans are counting on him. The world is counting on him. And here at home millions in the LGBT community, and thousands of gays and lesbians now serving their country but forced to serve in silence, they are counting on him too.
Bono, the lead singer of the band U2, said at Sunday's inaugural concert that the dream of which Obama spoke is not just an American dream. "It's also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream, an Israeli dream, and also a Palestinian dream."
It is a noble dream. And it is the dream of gays and lesbians in America. Now is the time to realize it.
01-21-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
2 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.James E. Pietrangelo, II in Ohio on January 22, 2009 at 09.46 am
Michael, well said.
We will see by February 4th, 2009 whether Barack Obama really is a “fierce advocate for LGBT rights” and whether he really opposes DADT. Major LGBT news outlets like the Advocate and Washington Blade and even SLDN will not tell the LGBT community this (even though they know about it), but my Petition for Certiorari in a DADT case is pending right now before the US Supreme Court. Obama’s Government has until February 4, 2009 to respond. I have written Barack Obama personally—I confirmed that the White House received my letter on January 20, 2009—and asked him to have the Solicitor General support the Petition on the grounds that DADT is unconstitutional, as is overall discrimination against LBGT. If the Government does not support the Petition, we will know Obama is as much a man of equality as George Wallace was.
Michael Bedwell on January 21, 2009 at 04.22 pm
As you so well express, the historic events of this week bring new pathos and passion to the need to repeal DADT. It seemed to be in every direction one looked, even when least expected. Last night, ABC showed an interview with Michelle Obama who is certainly likely to be one of our great First Ladies. But in her words about her mission of supporting “military families,” and in the images ABC chose to illustrate the issue, families only meant STRAIGHT. Thus the reality of gay servicemembers was doubly ignored, invisible.
Then there were those countless men and women in uniform, from all the branches, who were on display or parade during the many Inaugural events. I instantly wondered how many are gays being forced to serve in silence. Not just because of the numbers we’ve been aware of for so long, but from recalling the stories of David Mixner about the number of times individuals in uniform he encountered, guarding the President or assigned to the Pentagon, discretely whispered THANK YOU to him when he was fighting the pre-DADT ban.
More of our military were seen during Sunday’s “We Are One” concert at the Lincoln Memorial, and the appearance of the DC Gay Men’s chorus both moved and stung as organizers did not see fit to identify them even as their majestic voices rang out, “sweet land of liberty, of thee we sing”—the very song black contralto Marian Anderson was shown singing in the same place 60 years before after the D.A.R. found her not equal enough to sing at their Constitution Hall.
All those different angles met when the one choral group that was identified was the Naval Academy Glee Club. My immediate reaction was to shed another tear for Joe Steffan, and wonder if he was watching, and what he might be thinking. For those unfamiliar with him, within weeks of graduation and joining the US submarine service as a commissioned officer, Steffan was kicked out of Annapolis in 1987 solely for “being gay,” and, thus, also out of the Navy and that Glee Club. Before then he’d been asked to represent all three by twice singing, in uniform, the National Anthem at the annual televised and long-hallowed Army-Navy football games.
He was one of the top six in his class, but, just as the high performance ratings of my friend Leonard Matlovich were arbitrarily decimated once he came out to the USAF, Steffan’s “military performance” grade suddenly went from “A” to “F,” again simply because “A” Joe was assumed to be straight but “F” Joe was known to be gay. From exalted hero to untouchable homo in the blink of an eye. One superior even went so far as to needlessly humiliate him by ordering him to literally rip his Battalion Commander stripe from his uniform minutes before one of his hearings.
Thousands have been discharged simply for being gay since Leonard was the first to fight the ban in 1975 and Joe was discharged simply for also telling the truth twelve years later. Ironically, Steffan filed his legal challenge before DADT was conceived but the final legal verdict came after it was enacted. Whatever the ban is called, the words of the dissenting judge in that 1994 ruling are just as true today, and we look forward to the new Congress and our new President recognizing them and making what’s still wrong finally right.
“For the government to penalize a person for acknowledging his sexual orientation runs deeply against our constitutional grain. It has, we believe, no precedent or place in our national traditions, which spring from a profound respect for the freedom to think and to be what one chooses and to announce it to the world. The majority’s ingenious plays on presumptions and inferences cannot disguise the injustice that lies at the heart of this case. In years to come, we will look back with dismay at these unconstitutional attempts to enforce silence upon individuals of homosexual orientation, in the military and out. Pragmatism should not be allowed to trump principle or the soul of a nation will wither.”