A Sad Comparison

After watching part of the debate between the Democratic Party presidential candidates, I realized I really ought to compare the stances of the popular candidates on several of the big Gay issues of today.

Not surprisingly, the results favor the Democratic candidates. Also, not surprisingly Republican candidates were less likely to have formulated positions on certain issues...except for Mitt Romney. Romney, it seems, has a consistent answer for everything these days. A few years ago, he was supportive of Gay rights, but no longer. Today, he is universally opposed to the "radical homosexual agenda."

On Ending DADT

McCain supports Don't Ask Don't Tell, lauding it as a solution to a difficult problem. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all oppose it. Giuliani wants it repealed. Romney wants to keep it.

On Gay Marriage

None of the six major candidates openly supports federal marriage equality. However, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards support the right of states to enact Gay marriage laws. Giuliani recently spoke against the New Hampshire plan to enact strong Civil Unions because they were too similar to marriage. Romney opposes Gay Marriage, universally.

On ENDA

ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation intended to ensure that Gay people are not discriminated against in the workplace. All three major Democratic candidates have voiced their support for the bill. McCain opposes the bill. Giuliani doesn't seem to have a position on it. Romney opposes ENDA.

On Hate Crimes Legislation

All three major Democratic Candidates support legislation that would include Sexual Orientation as a basis for hate crimes. McCain, Giuliani, and Romney oppose hate crime legislation.

On Civil Unions

McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all spoken frequently supporting the civil unions or domestic partnerships as an equivalent to Gay Marriage. Although such unions are not equal to marriage, they are preferable to no legal union at all. Romney opposes Civil Unions.

On HIV/AIDS Funding

HIV/AIDS is still a monumental concern in the Gay community. As a result support for AIDS and AIDS prevention is paramount.

McCain has long been a supporter of the Ryan White CARE Act to provide AIDS funding in the US. He, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have each demonstrated their willingness to expand this funding. Giuliani supported AIDS causes as Mayor but has not taken a clear stance on HIV/AIDS funding as a presidential issue. Romney opposes AIDS funding and attempted to reduce AIDS spending as Governor.

On Comprehensive Sex Ed

Giuliani hasn't expressed a position that I could find. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all support comprehensive sex education programs. McCain doesn't support funding such programs. However he has expressed that he is unsure that condoms are effective prevention against STDs. Romney supports abstinence only sex education which, by its very nature, is not comprehensive.

In conclusion, the three main Dem candidates are fervently courting the Gay vote. Meanwhile, Guiliani and McCain have failed to take strong pro-Gay Rights stances where it really matters. No major candidate from either party is willing to allow Gay Americans to have full, equal rights.

And Mitt Romney opposes Gay Rights.

We Need a Hero

I hate that I am posting a liberal, anti-war, get-out-of-Iraq post on Memorial Day, but it does seem to be the most fitting time. Before people start to characterize me as a military-hating, anti-war, delusion peacenik liberal, hear me out for a moment.

I am in full support of all branches of the US Military. I think the work they have done and continue to do worldwide has been essential to world stability and America's strength and superiority. But I also think the time has come where their presence in Iraq no longer adds to American security and does seriously jeopardize the security of our boys (and girls and bois) in uniform.

I may sound callous when I suggest that American lives are more important than other lives. In the eyes of the US Government, at least, they should be. Americans both civilian and military, at home and abroad must be protected. The original premise of the war in Iraq was to ensure our safety at home. It is not the job of American forces to unilaterally solve the political problems of other nations. Our primary objective was to remove from power forces with the ability to put Americans in danger in the United States.

The mission succeeded in some ways and failed in others.

Clearly, Saddam Hussein is dead. Osama bin Laden has gone into hiding and has been unable to successfully orchestrate a large-scale attack on US soil since 9/11. Many other terrorist leaders have been killed or captured.

Unfortunately, every day, we lose more young people, primarily men of my own age, to a war that has had very little positive effect on American life.

In the months following September 11, 2001, America was in absolute fear of another attack. We were so fearful that we were willing to relinquish some of our most sacred liberties to the government to ensure our protection. While we now must live with a greater government intrusion in our personal lives than ever before, we feel only slightly more safe. This is evidenced by the paranoia that still surrounds us in public transportation, parks, and other public places. Unattended packages, groups of Arabs, and any whisper of a bomb has the potential to ground a flight. Even a bottle of shave gel or cologne can set the airlines in a panic.

The truth is, we were careless before 9/11. We, the American people, and our government should have been paying more attention and enacting policies to prevent terrorism. Now we are in a war to prevent further acts of violence. Unfortunately, our war has ceased to provide a net gain in terror prevention and is instead training guerillas that are well prepared to fight, and kill, Americans.

The best that can be done now is to reduce the situation. Our government has no other suitable option than to begin a withdrawal of troops and enact domestic policies that will prevent the war from reaching our soil.

On this Memorial Day, I want to applaud our armed services for their hard work and sacrifices, and honor those that have fallen. Their work and sacrifices have not been in vain. Their work might, however, be better suited toward other ends than a fruitless war in Iraq.

I Love a Man in Uniform

I've blogged on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act before the Pelosi Reich began. Of course, we all knew the bill that would end Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't get passed by a Republican, lame duck congress.

But, the bill is back with new support under the Democratic congress. Unfortunately, I have not found the new bill number for the legislation (last year's bill number was H.R. 1059).

Bringing an end to DADT is one of the most important issues facing Gay rights at the moment. From the Gay rights perspective, it is a government field which Gay men and women are explicitly banned from serving in openly. From a military perspective, DADT diminishes the pool of qualified candidates that the military may recruit. Further, it has been shown that many of those removed from the military for being Gay are the all-important Arabic translators that our military currently has a shortage of.

Never has there been a shortage of Gay and Lesbians serving in any branch of the United States military. Rarely does a week go by that I don't meet a guy from the Marines or Air Force out at the local Gay bars. While these men and women are usually not "out" at work (and, in fact, might not come out if DADT were reversed), they deserve the opportunity to serve without fear that they might be removed from their chosen profession because of their sexual orientation.

Hopefully, this year's version of the bill will fare better than HR 1059 did.

Retired Chair of Joint Chiefs asks for end to DADT

Now that President Bush is trying to find another 20,000+ troops to send to Iraq in a hurry, he may finally be thinking in terms of how to reduce the limits on who can serve in the military. Specifically, the administration should look toward lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

I have posted a few times about DADT. Any regular readers know that I think that reversing DADT is a more pressing concern than the right to marry. From a Gay rights standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be able to participate openly in any career in the United States for which they are otherwise qualified-especially those jobs provided by government. From a national security standpoint, Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to serve openly because it allows a greater pool of qualified candidates to serve our nation proudly. This larger pool allows for a larger, stronger, more effective, and better military.

A recent editorial in the New York Times written by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, John M. Shalikashvili, criticized DADT and declared that it may be time to reverse the policy. What is remarkable is that Shalikashvili was instrumental in establishing the policy during the Clinton years. The retired general has fully changed his mind in light of the 24 other nations that currently allow Gays to serve openly in the military and the recent polls showing that the men and women currently serving would not have a significant problem if Gays and Lesbians were allowed to serve alongside.

Supporters of DADT have argued for years that allowing Gays to serve would undermine unit cohesion, harm recruitment, and lower morale. Shalikashvili has unequivocally stated that while he believes that DADT was necessary in 1993, the time has come when the United States no longer needs to consider homosexuality incompatible with military service. This may come as the greatest strike against DADT yet!

The Bush administration needs at least 20,000 more soldiers on the ground, by their own count. While the military has never actually been very successful at preventing all Gay people from serving, DADT has very effectively prevented openly Gay men and women from entering military service. While it is unlikely that 20,000 qualified, young Gay and Lesbians would immediately enlist, the Bush administration would certainly have an easier time meeting recruitment needs.

More on Here's What We'll Say

A reader (Leland Frances) recently made a substantial comment regarding my review of Reichen Lehmkuhl's new book, "Here's What We'll Say." While there were certainly varied opinions of the book left in the comments section, I promised to respond to Leland's particularly thoughtful comments.

I'm sorry guys. I know you mean well, and that is exactly why my anger toward this poser is so strong—playing upon the gullibility of people with exaggerated, tearjerking accounts of his life. Never has research demonstrating that "pretty people" tend to be automatically assumed to be truthful and good been so well illustrated.

But while desperation to get it on shelves before the spotlight on him as Lance's lover went out easily explains its shoddy editing, factual errors, lack of an index, etc., and whatever one thinks of him, there is less excuse for sloppy reading than there is for his sloppy writing.

I agree that the overall quality of the writing was less than excellent and would have preferred the memoir had it been given better editting. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. The quality of writing, however, has little to do with the content of the book, which was fantastic.

Certainly time considerations may have played a great role in the lackluster editting. In order to achieve the greatest distribution of this book, it makes good business sense to distribute the book while Lehmkuhl is still a newsworthy item. But I do not fault Lehmkuhl or the publishers for this. In fact, I will go so far as to credit them for making the decision because this will lead to a more widespread readership. The book does have an important message regarding Gay men and women serving in the military and we all benefit from a wider understanding of these issues.

Consider:
1. Out of his many claims, some believable, some not, he does NOT claim that his "rape" was in any way CAUSED by DADT.

On page 221, Lehmkuhl implies that the anti-Gay policies of the military are what made rape a choice, therefore causing his rape. He also states that he has forgiven his rapists

2. "gay cadet": Lehmkuhl was NOT forced to give anyone else a blow job. HE was blown by one of his "attackers;" admits to loving it, having a blazing orgasm, imagining, in retrospect, that he gave the fellator a hickey as he [Reichen] pressed his mouth so forceably against the guy as he [Reichen] shot off, and repeatedly fantasized about experiencing it again for days afterwards. What does the law say about that? HIS penetrating the other person? If I forced you at gunpoint to take a thousand dollars cash from me, could you have me arrested? I don't care what the legal definitions are--no one with any common sense, except someone wanting to get a mountain of publicity, even among mainstream media, which he has beyond probably his wildest dreams, would call that an antigay assault. The alleged punch in the stomach would have been "assault and battery," but it is an insult to those who actually have been violently attacked and sodomized or forced to fellate someone else.

I am unfamiliar with Colorado laws and cannot speak to the legal terms of that state. However, forced sexual acts are always reprehensible in our society. Whether we call it sexual assault or rape, the acts committed that night are illegal both under state laws and military codes whether or not they were performed with homosexual or heterosexual partners.

It is not uncommon for rape/sexual assault victims to partially or fully enjoy parts of their experience. The point is that he was forced unwillingly into the sexual acts. And even more importantly, he is almost certainly not the only man to be raped in the military. Given that Gay men and women are often unable to report these incidents because of anti-Gay policies, it is good that Lehmkuhl used his celebrity status to bring light to an issue most Americans would not have thought much about.

3. What is so "important" about this book? Many much more interesting, let alone better written coming out stories have appeared. While very little of the book actually discusses DADT, had either of you never heard of DADT before? Is anything he describes something that you could not have imagined on your own? The book confirms what "anonymous" wrote. Lehmkuhl was not outed at the Academy; never investigated; not even asked by anyone antigay if he was gay. He simply endured no more than millions of other closeted gays have throughout the history of our antigay military [which long precedes DADT], and, unlike others such as Leonard Matlovich all the way back to 1975 and Margarete Cammermeyer and Tracy Thorne and others more recently he did NOTHING to protest DADT while he was still active duty. Now, four years after his resigning the USAF because he wanted to "go Hollywood," he's applying for some kind of retroactive hero status and people, mesmerized by his looks, are buying it AND this shoddily edited [whatever happened to his first true love "Ben Silverman"?], factually incorrect [Matthew Shepard was not murdered three years before Lehmkuhl's junior Academy year as he writes, but two years after he graduated], vanity project. What child of divorce hasn't been traumatized? Who among those who've experienced it haven't hated boot camp?

This book is important because it brings a celebrity light to issues that still affect many in the military. It is irrelevant how well he was or wasn't able to maintain his closet while serving in the military. I think we can agree that he shouldn't have needed to maintain a closet at all.

I have already discussed that the book could have used better editting and could have been better written. Not to discredit other books on the topic of DADT, but few if any were penned by a person with celebrity status that is as sweeping as Reichen Lehmkuhl's. People will read or hear about this book that wouldn't otherwise care much about DADT or wouldn't otherwise hear about the experiences Gay people have in the military.

4. WHY did he feel the need to claim that things which happened to others happened to him? His "to protect them" doesn't wash given that he could have simply used the method authors have used forever: changing their names and enough other details to "protect them." My theory: because it makes him look like more of a martyr than he actually was. [And, despite his identifying himself as Reichen while at the Academy, he did not change his name to that until years later. He was Richard/Rick/Ricky then.]

Addressing the second part of your point first, had he referred to himself as Rick throughout the book it would have confused the reader. He is popularly known as Reichen now and must draw upon his own celebrity if he intends to sell books.

While you may be correct in your assessment regarding the need for Lehmkuhl to claim that things which happened to others actually happened to him, it could very well be that he was aware that saying they occured to him made both for better story telling and would have a greater impact if they occured to the hero of the story. Given that I do no know which incidents he "borrowed" from other people, I will give theoretical examples. For instance, supposing that Reichen was not the unofficial leader of the "Underground," it makes a better story to make him the leader than it would if he weren't.

Further, changing the names of individuals in a book may very well not have been enough to shield the identity of some individuals who might still be serving in the Air Force or have other circumstances that may prevent them from wanting to be identified. It may also serve to prevent lawsuits from those individuals.

5. What about the twisting of facts in the very first two sentences of the book, appearing on the inside dust jacket, claiming that he and he alone won "The Amazing Race" and its million dollar prize? As he finally admits in the afterword, he AND former partner Chip Arndt won as a team and split the prize. But adding insult to injury he doesn't even include Arndt in his acknowledgements, even though without their joint win there is no reason to believe we would have ever heard from him again, which until he actually DOES something other than writing self-aggrandizing books, would be a good idea. He also should have included his remarkable plastic surgeon in his thank yous.

The writing on dust jackets is usually not prepared by the author of the book but by the publisher. Also, his acknowledgements are his time to thank who he chooses to thank. Generally, neither the acknowledgements or dust jacket are considered of any real literary importance.

I get your point though--you are saying that people will only buy this book because he is a pretty face that won the Amazing Race and now dates Lance Bass. That will definitely sell the books. However, I believe that the story related inside provides the reader with a better understanding of what it is like to be Gay inside a military academy.

Here's What We'll Say

I finished reading Reichen Lehmkuhl's new book today about his experience coming out while attending the US Air Force Academy. "Here's What We'll Say" is a surprisingly interesting read that was unexpectedly easy to relate to.

Lehmkuhl is certainly not an experienced writer, which is evident throughout his memoirs. He might have been well-served to have hired a ghost writer to better articulate the thoughts conveyed his his memoirs. However, I recommend not allowing the mediocre writing dissuade you from picking up a copy of this important book.

As we all know, Reichen Lehmkuhl is an Air Force Officer turned Reality TV Star turned Model. After winning the Amazing Race with his then-partner, he went on to be pushed down the throats of many in the Gay community as the new posterboy for GLBT rights. Unfortunately, at first glance it is difficult to relate to a pretty-boy model trained by the US Military to be a rugged machine and made famous on national television. This book, however, helps to show a vision of Reichen Lehmkuhl that is more realistic.

His memoirs provide a sometimes entertaining glance at his humble beginnings as a skinny, awkward kid living in a trailer park near a polluted "lake." Just like the rest of us, he was teased by bullies during his middle school years. Like some of us, he had an unusually difficult time making friends during those years, as well, because of his differences with the other children.

Through his account of his teen years, we witness Reichen first starting to recognize his own sexual identity. He hides from himself behind a long-distance girlfriend who gives him the idea to apply to the Air Force Academy and gives him the moral support to do so. We also watch as he develops an unusually close friendship with "Ben Silverman" that evolves into Reichen's first love. However, when he realized that he had fallen in love with another man, it was too late to act upon it, nor was he ready to recognize or accept his own homosexuality.

His account of the US Air Force Academy is astounding. The challenges that cadets must face in order to succeed at the academy are remarkable. Beyond the rules, strict living environment, rigorous coursework, and general hazing of underclassmen, the training that cadets must endure is simply unbelieveable. Most Americans know that military men and women must complete a difficult basic training filled with hazing from superiors, hard tasks, filthy conditions, and other varied forms of strife. However, most are unaware of the continued training that cadets must face including how to survive as a Prisoner of War in an unfriendly territory.

As a Gay man, Lehmkuhl had to face much more than the ordinary cadet. He had to discover his own identity with little help from others and then learn to cope in an environment where homosexual activity is treated as a crime.

In the midst of his own personal struggles, Lehmkuhl was raped by two unknown men. He explains that it was the policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that caused his rapists to victimize him and it was the same policy that made it impossible for him to report the incident. Had he reported the crime, he would have likely been investigated for homosexuality as a part of the DADT witchhunt.

As the book goes on, Reichen finally acknowledges his sexuality, has relationships with other men both military and civilian, learns to live a double life without losing his own identity, and meets other gay and lesbians in the Academy. Eventually, he and a few friends (out of necessity) develop a tightknit underground network of Gays to provide themselves with alibies and protect themselves from DADT policies.

Though Lehmkuhl admits that some of the accounts in the final chapters of his book did not actually occur to him but were stories that happened to people close to him, this book gives a strong portrayal of what it must be like to be a gay man in a military academy. In general, however, the read is believeable, if sometimes a little fantastic.

The reality is that many people I know, including myself, some of whom are gay, considered seeking an appointment to a military academy. When I was 18 I was not prepared to declare whether I was Gay, Straight, or otherwise and neither are most high school seniors, including those entering the military. Those young people should not be forced into a position where they may serve with honor only if they deny their own identity while their heterosexual peers have no similar requirement. Meanwhile, a misguided policy initially aimed at protecting Gays serving in the armed forces not only causes gay people to live in fear but actually allows harm to come to them both physically and emotionally.

Here's What We'll Say gives a strong account of the inequities in US military academies. All Gays should be free to come out of the closet to live openly without fear. This book goes a long way to expose the problems caused by DADT and to draw public attention to them.

Military Equality Alliance

Today, I discovered an organization of Gay men and women working for an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policies of the US Military. Most, if not all, of those involved with the organization are former servicemen and women themselves and have lived under DADT policies.

I have blogged before about my feelings regarding DADT. I believe the policy is causing harm to our military by unjustly reducing the number of individuals eligible to enlist and causing harm to the brave men and women serving in our military with the daily fear that they may eventually be “outted” and receive a Section 8 discharge.

The arguments against the full integration of Gays into the military are ridiculous. When several other countries, including Israel and England among many others, have integrated Gays, there was no noticeable difference in unit cohesion or morale. Women and ethnic minorities have served in an integrated US military with little negative incident.

In fact, Gays are already fully integrated into the military and usually fear the DADT policies more than their fellow servicemen and women.

The Military Equality Alliance has a blog that I highly recommend you all visit from time to time. Their current work is on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act which they (and I) believe will have a much more fair shake under the new congressional leadership. Look for it to receive a hearing in the 110th Congress.

In the Navy!

Gays serving in the military has long been a topic of discussion and debate. The former Democrat President, harolded by many misinformed people as "Gay-Friendly," established the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule. With friends like him, who needs enemies?

The truth is, Gay people have long served in the military. Just like every single other establishment on the planet, we have already infiltrated all branches of the military and served with distinction. Reichen Lehmkuhl is only the latest example of a successful man in uniform who served our nation with the highest of honors while hiding his sexuality from the world.

After attending the United States Air Force Academy, Lehmkuhl spent 5 highly successful years serving our country proudly. At the end of that time, he was honorably discharged with the rank of Captain.

Then he came out.

Had he been outted in high school, in the Academy, or during his service, he would have become ineligible for the military. Clearly, Captain Lehmkuhl was a good match for the US military and served his country well in peacetime and in battle. In order to do so, he was forced to keep something about himself hidden to the world, although he and his family had long known his sexual orientation.

It was once explained to me that it isn't that Gays are unfit for military service but because straight members of the military wouldn't accept them. As I remember from my history books, Black people segregated for the same reasons (read: Buffalo Soldiers). It was feared not that Blacks couldn't fight as well as Whites but that Blacks and Whites would fight amongst themselves. The rules were changed and Blacks serve right along side Whites in the US military without much incident.

But, you might ask, "Gays want to have sex with men and would make the straight men nervous or would be distracted by the other men?" Again, I remember a similar argument being made about women serving in the armed services. Women now serve in the military alongside their male counterparts. In fact, the only differences in their service are that they are ineligible to be drafted under current law and are unable to perform certain tasks because of their physical differences from men.

We may also look at other male dominated institutions to gain a better perspective of how the introduction of Gay people might affect the military. Social organizations such as men's clubs and college fraternities have both been integrated by Gay men. Notably, they have not been similarly integrated by women. College fraternities, in particular, have always been known as especially aggressive and heterocentric. Even with the addition of openly Gay men, they continue to be just as aggressive if slightly less heterocentric and certainly less homophobic. It should be noted that in most college fraternities, brothers, whether Gay or straight, cohabitate in a shared living environment including shared bedrooms, bathrooms, and showers. Athletic teams have similarly been integrated by those who are openly Gay. The result hasn't been earth shattering. While there is anecdotal evidence of physical violence or social rejection against Gays in these establishments, the results have been a far cry from the effects feared by those wishing to keep Gays out of the military.

Going back to Reichen Lehmkuhl, he has a new book that hit shelves earlier this week called "Here's What We'll Say." I haven't had the opportunity to pick up a copy yet, but I am very interested to see what Lehmkuhl wrote about his years in the military.

Given that the United States is currently in the middle of a war and has struggled to recruit enough qualified volunteers to serve, it makes sense to broaden military eligibility requirements to be inclusive of Gays. Already, the military has loosened its requirements regarding the age of an enlistee. While I don't think that allowing openly Gay people into the military is suddenly going to create a bevy of new recruits for the US military, it would be a fair thing to do.

On that note, I will leave you with a final thought. There is an old joke that essentially asks if "Homosexuality is a disease, then can I call in Gay to work?" Similarly, if there is a draft, can I respond and say, "Nope. I can't be drafted today. Still Gay."