What do you know, the Daily Times published my response to their June 19 editorial yesterday. And they managed not to butcher it, just changing a couple phrases around and reformatting paragraphs. Editor's discretion there, I write like I talk. The meaning is still there.
Interesting that my response comes in the same paper as a military-related editorial. Our Congressman (Wayne Gilchrest, Republican, MD-1) has decided to add his support to a bill allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. (Interestingly enough, I linked to the editorial rather than his website.)
Strange, the Daily Times makes a bigger deal of it than he does, probably for two reasons. Number one, he's likely aware that a majority of his constituents are against gays in the military, and number two, it's an instance where, to the editorial writer, a member of the GOP has "grown" and is an "independent thinker" because he doesn't hew to the party line. (Full disclosure: I haven't been down here long enough to see the DT's reaction to where a Democrat strays from the party's voting pattern on an issue. Maybe that's because it almost never happens!)
I'm just not comfortable with openly gay people in the military. In an environment where privacy is at a premium and most living circumstances are gender-only, it's likely to be somewhat of a distraction to have a situation where two guys (or ladies) are having a relationship. I know it happens between guys and girls in the military, but there's supposed to be rules against fraternization. (However, I've never served in the military, perhaps a reader can set me straight on regulations and how they're followed in reality.)
The military has its own set of regulations and separate justice system for a reason - it's a place where by necessity, the well-being of the group trumps individual rights. Discipline and rigid regulation are necessary for success on the battlefield. One has to know that all members of the team are pulling in the same direction. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "the military exists to kill people and break things."
It's no problem in civilian life for an "Adam and Steve" or "Annie and Eve" relationship to occur as the parties know the ramifications and generally those are brought only upon themselves. But gays and lesbians in the military create an unneeded distraction from the mission of a unit. While we may lose good soldiers from time to time, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a much better fallback position than letting soldiers serve openly.
As for my letter, no flames today in the Grapevine section or on anyone else's letter. However, I know these things run a few days behind, so I'll be looking for peacenik whining tomorrow or most likely next week. Maybe they're saving any of that for Tuesday, which is "independence day" in Iraq. June 28, 2004 was the date of the Iraqi government's birth, occurring two days early to foil any terrorist plans for disruption.
It will be intriguing to see reaction to what President Bush will have to say on Tuesday regarding this. He needs his "bully pulpit" now as much as ever.
