From the
Editor:
New York, July 18, 2006
Sgt
Denny's Rant:
Marriage and Military
Imagine
post-apocalypse Baghdad, in the basement of a
former presidential palace where Hussein had his
harem and now filled with soldiers phoning their
partners. At one table sits a British
officer, Lieutenant Lawrence Lyons, cheerfully
chatting with his beloved Brian. Next to him
sits Sgt. John Q. American (not his real name)
nervously pretending to speak with 'Alice' instead
of his lover Alex. Being only 21 years old,
he's unaware that he's replicating a ritual that
was more common to gay people who lived in 1953
when keeping the secret by switching gender was
second nature. Poor John Q isn't used to
this kind of shit of having to hide who he is in
2006.
Straight
soldiers take for granted the right to telephone
their spouses. Wives and husbands of those
service members serving overseas receive
paychecks, support, benefits and entitlements such
as access to low priced commissaries. Their
children get military financed medical care,
counseling, and education. And when a
service member is killed in combat far from home,
the spouse is respectfully informed, often by
uniformed officers. The list of essential
rights, sustenance, and privileges is nearly
endless for married soldiers. Yet Gay and
Lesbian partners are without protection from the
financial and emotional absence of their lovers
who are faithfully and patriotically serving our
country. Even death in battle is realized
only from hearing nothing, from suddenly receiving
no further word from the person they love.
The
Military Readiness Enhancement Act would allow
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual soldiers to serve
openly. But the act excludes same sex
partner benefits presumably in an attempt to
appease ignorant bigoted conservative legislators
zealously protecting the despicable
'Defense
of Marriage Act.'
I believe its a mistake that the act that would
repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law makes the same
sort of discriminatory compromise by denying human
dignity to patriotic volunteers serving their
country.
Imagine
if Truman would have had the temerity to tell
Black soldiers, in 1948, that their families would
get no benefits. Truman did not operate that
way then; and I think we should be following his courageous
example now. It does not reflect American
values of equality and fairness to propose to tell
lesbian and gay patriotic volunteers that while
their sacrificial service would be welcome, their
families are forbidden from receiving any
benefits.
Now,
seriously, professional pragmatists will point out
that including partner benefits in a law that
would allow queers to serve in America's armed
forces would 'trigger' the marriage-issue
opposition to reject any possibility of passage.
They say that the only way to pass the act is to
have the cooperation of 'moderate conservatives.'
Would those opposed to our rights go along with
partner benefits only for gay
white Christians?
Is a moderate conservative someone who hates only
a little bit as compared to absolute moral
fascists?
Those
sixty five thousand Lesbian and Gay patriotic
volunteers serving in silence today do so with no
expectation of any rights. Those one million
living Lesbian and Gay veterans who have served
our country since World War II, did our patriotic
duty with no expectation of rights. Those
volunteers serving now and those of us who served
before know and knew that we could be booted out
and loose all benefits if we were found out to be
queer. But nevertheless, we served because
we wanted to, just as those who serve today do.
Are we willing to accept that as we depart for war
and openly kiss our loved ones goodbye we will
still have to say, "listen, if I die, don't
expect anything."
The
Military Readiness Enhancement Act will not come
anywhere near the possibility of a vote in this
session of Congress. It will have to be
resubmitted next year. I urge that the
section excluding the requirement to provide
dependant benefits, in accordance with the 'Defense
of Marriage Act,'
be omitted in
the new version. What I am suggesting here
is that the bill 'not say anything,' one way or
the other, about partner benefits. That way, there wont be
a reason for yet another years long battle for
benefits. Without legal federal marriage
recognition, the military will not have to provide
partner benefits anyway, if openly out volunteers
are allowed to serve. What they will have to
do is simply recognize someone 'designated' to at
least be notified in the event of death in battle;
there will no longer be a reason to have to keep a
same sex partner a secret. Whenever
marriage, as a separate issue, is finally
recognized, then benefits will simply fall into
place.
All
names used in this article are contrived, any
similarity to the names of actual people is purely
coincidental.
|