Military and morality
While the furor over the anti-gay remarks by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has subsided, a fundamental injustice of the military policy known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' ( DADT ) , which he clumsily exposed, remains in full force. It is one of the most troubling aspects of DADT—the oppressive silence it enforces upon all LGBT service members. Perhaps that is what makes Gen. Pace's remarks especially outrageous. His personal ignorance and prejudice, though unbecoming the leader of our increasingly diverse military, are not so much at issue as is the fact that he could express his views and those he slurred cannot.
In his now-infamous interview with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Pace said: 'I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral …,' and linked an LGBT identity with the act of adultery. He went on to say that 'I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's okay to be immoral in any way.' Presumably, the general does not exclude bigotry from his personal moral code.
Though he insulted tens of thousands of service members under his command, many of whom are combat veterans of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has refused to apologize. He offered only vague regret and the acknowledgment that in the interview he should have focused 'less on my personal moral views.'
Being subject to such indignities, however, is nothing new for LGBT service members. Aside from the additional sacrifices uniquely required of them and their families, they must listen in silence daily while their service and humanity is officially debated and, by some like Gen. Pace, dismissed. In the post-civil rights era, no other service members can be similarly demeaned. And only LGBT service members are explicitly restricted in their freedom of speech by official military policy ( DADT ) beyond the normal and expected limitations required of military service.
The responses to a column I wrote for the Navy Times last year illustrate the disparity. I called upon the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association—the foremost organization of future, current and former navy and marine officers—to halt its obstruction of an LGBT alumni group, USNA OUT. With support for DADT's repeal steadily growing among the public; former Dept. of Defense officials; and within the ranks and Congress, I argued that the alumni association must provide an example of positive leadership on the integration of out LGBT members for the future welfare of the Navy. Privately, via e-mail, a number of navy personnel wrote in support; publicly, in a letter to the editor at the Navy Times, one sailor wrote to condemn my views. Like Gen. Pace, he was free to speak his mind. Any LGBT sailor or marine who openly expressed support would have instead faced involuntary discharge.
It is only because I am no longer in uniform that, as a gay man, I can challenge homophobic rhetoric and bias. I can express my views regarding DADT too: that it unfairly discriminates against LGBT service members, degrades the strength and readiness of our armed forces, and stains our nation's ideal of freedom and equality. But no matter what I say or how well I might hope to say it, my words are totally inadequate. Those we need to hear from, those who are the subject of this policy, cannot share their views or their stories or their families. They are shut out of the debate and must await justice. So in the meantime it falls to us, their allies in the LGBT and straight communities, to bring a semblance of balance to this debate.
Thank you,
Glenn LeCarl
Glenn A. LeCarl is a life-member of the Naval Academy Alumni Association and Disabled American Veterans, and was a founding member of USNA OUT. He can be reached at galecarl@earthlink.net .
Starbucks Brew-haha
Dear Editor:
I am writing to bring this story to the community in hopes that collectively we can do something about it. On Feb. 15, approximately two months ago, I went down to the Starbucks at 2 N. Riverside Plaza just before noon to get a coffee.
When I approached the counter to order my drink, an employee was sitting at a table, apparently on his break, talking to another employee who was making a drink for him. I walked up just as he was telling her that, because she is gay, she is no different from a serial killer or a child molester. The woman responded by saying that she was the way God made her and that certainly wasn't wrong in her opinion. At that point, he walked up to the counter to get his drink, looked at me, and said: 'I'm just sayin' it's evil.'
I am also a gay woman, so his remark affected me considerably. I addressed the woman who had made his drink and asked her if he really just said what he said. She smiled and said that he had been arguing with her all day after learning she was gay. I told her that what he said was unacceptable and that she had to say something.
I found out who the district manager was and called her. She assured me that Starbucks prides itself on being open and affirming of gay and lesbian people and she apologized to me for having that experience in one of her stores. She offered to buy me a coffee sometime to make up for it. I told her that I thought that the man should lose his job. She said she would address the matter and invited me to call her anytime if I had any other questions or concerns.
Weeks passed and I continued to see him in the Starbucks working every day when I walked by. He was always there. I called the district manager back and asked her if anything had been done. She told me that she had followed company procedure by sitting down with him and having a discussion and that she would not fire him. I replied that I was not happy with that and explained that I would certainly lose my job if I were to make a derogatory comment like that about a client to his or her face. She told me that the male employee had been talking to his co-worker, that she had spoken with both of them and that he would not be fired. I told her I would never go back to that Starbucks again. She apologized and again said that she had followed procedure.
The district manager told me that Starbucks prided itself on being open and affirming to gay and lesbian employees. She failed to back up that claim with action.
Elizabeth Earley
