November 29, 2007

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Vote For These Guys

And now for the show...

Some background to the video:

It was reported after the debate that Kerr is a member of the LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee (Or for short, NAMBLA). You better believe that conservative bloggers and media were all over this. Just a couple of quick facts - those seem to be missing from the previous three articles I linked you to...

1) It still has not been confirmed that Brig. Gen. Kerr was actually a plant from Hillary Clinton. He is, however, and individual capable of making his own decisions. And, in full disclosure, a part of a large group of people who have thrown their lot in with Ms. Clinton. There are sixty-four (64) other names on the taboo list - including Billie Jean King. As of this posting, there have been no comments from the Clinton Camp.

2) Brig. Gen. Kerr has been gay for a long time. He did not come out of the closet conveniently for the CNN/ You Tube Debate. In a keen piece of research on my part, I found this link to a 2003 interview with Brig. Gen. Kerr on Talk Of The Nation (the whole interview is very interesting, but 50 minutes long. The first few minutes are worth the listen, however.). So Kerr has been openly gay for at least four years, back when Hillary was just an outrageously dressed Senator (pictured).

3) Regardless of his motives for being at the debate, the candidates believed (and very possibly correctly) that Brig. Gen. Kerr's comments came from a concerned citizen and a retired military officer only. Bloggers and News Networks will, I'm sure, continue to spin this as Clinton's fault. But the truth is that there is still a vicious prejudice and gross misunderstanding surrounding the topic of homosexuality.

4) This is the last one, and the most ironic in my eyes. The original Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation was signed into law by my fellow musician Bill Clinton. Brig. Gen. Kerr is an alleged plant of Will's wife, Hillary, but Kerr is condemning the bill. Does that sound like a good campaign strategy to you? For a more in-depth look at the law itself, and some analysis surrounding the conversation, check out Stanford's Law School project here.

Thanks for making it this far. I'm political in my daily life often, but I promise not to over-do it here. This video just hit me so strong. I would love to know what you have to say on the subject.

"To force [people in the military] to work in a small, tight unit with someone who is I think a disservice to [straight people]."
Congressman Duncan Hunter

Here is Congressman Hunter's contact information.
Just in case you want to let him know how much a disservice it would be.


Nicholas said...

Hey bud, just to start off, I want to say that I watched the entire debate in its entirety. This part of the debate seemed like a giant setup to me, either by CNN or by someone. Why else would they have the general there in person. It is one thing to have a video of him asking, but to let him go on a rant during the debates seemed a little silly to me. He isn't running for president. I would have liked to hear from all the other candidates their opinions on the matter, not just the select three that they targeted.

To me this was the only part of the debate that was just straight out awkward and you could tell that the candidates felt the same way.

This is not a real important issue in America today anyways. I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. Yes, it may be important to a select group of people, but if they went on and on debating the smaller issues the debate would last four days not just a couple hours. I say focus on the issues that will impact America the most and leave the smaller issues out of it.

By me stating my opinion on this matter, I am not saying I agree with how the candidates responded or disagree, I am just saying it was a weird thing to discuss on a national debate.

Samuel I. Richard said...

Thanks for the comment, Nick. I don't have cable, so I watched the debate via You Tube with small five (5) minute clips of the answers. The clip being out of context is a big possibility. However, "How many guns do you own?" isn't on the top of my issues list either...

Nicholas said...

You are damn right. Some of those questions were ridiculous and outright a waste of time. WWJD with the death penalty, interesting question, clever answers, but what relevance does that have to with being a president. How many guns do you have and what is your favorite weapon? LOL ! What are they running for NRA president ?

brittany said...

i think i was as annoyed as you were with this. i agree with nick that this may not be in the top 10 issues in the america currently faced with.

if there are people that want to serve, what does their orientation have to do with anything? i see no relevance.

Righteous said...

I struggle on issues like these because I am torn between respecting freedom of expression and morality.I'd like to hear what is your principle disagreement with the current policy.

Samuel I. Richard said...

Hey, Elliot! I will answer your question with all of my honesty, but I think it should be said that more of my frustration is with the candidates responses than anything else. Especially the quote that I used at the end of the post. Anyway, to your question. I will try to be concise, but that is difficult for me:

Of all the rights afforded to me as a citizen of this glorious country, the right to not be offended isn't one of them. It is my right to have a certain belief structure just as much as it is someone else's right to have their own belief structure. If those structures differ, it is not my right to tell another person they are wrong for believing them. Barring sanctity of life issues, this is more or less true across the board.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was created assuming offense as the basis for the legislation. In not so many words (for all the words, the link is in the post), the law says, "Because homosexuality is so misunderstood and stigmatized, we are going to avoid it altogether. Pretend it's not there. If it is there, get rid of it. It could make other soldiers uncomfortable."

In my mind, I cannot understand how a group of people can be immature enough to behave with such intolerance. Our Armed Forces got over the fact that there are minorities and women among the ranks, and both of those factions were greeted with similar hostility. Unfortunately, neither could be disguised enough to work with Don't Ask, Don't Tell... It would be sort of obvious.

Furthermore, being a Christian, the entire discussion surrounding homosexuality among Christians haunts me. This next statement might sound preposterous, but I stand by it:

As long as homosexuality remains a lifestyle or an identity, it is irrelevant that is a sin.

I am not defined or labeled by anger, greed, pride, or lust. I can't walk into a greed bar, or eat at an anger-friendly restaurant. And when is the last time you were teased for hanging out with your lustful friends, or for having a pride disease?

You might be saying that any bar could be filled with greed, and most of your friends are lustful. I understand that, and can relate. But you and your friends (me included) are not labeled by our sin. As no one should be. And as long as homosexuality is engrossed in distancing language (them, they, etc.), understanding will never happen.

So there is my concise answer. I feel that as long as misunderstanding and ignorance persist, the legislation a prime example, growth and forward movement will never happen.

Hope that helped explain my position a little :)

Somone said...

Hey Sam,

I just wanted you to know that I am truly impressed with your answer Elliot's comment. I have been trying to put into words my feelings on homosexuality for a long time and have never been able to take what was in my head and put it into something that wasn't garbled and incoherent. So thanks.

Anyways, I wanted you to know that I love your blog.... I can't believe how many issues we share the same view on!

We are both crazy I suppose.