Former Senator Alan K. Simpson, a Republican from Wyoming, has a startling opinion column in the Washington Post today.
Startling because the headline is more honest and blunt on the issue of anti-homosexual discrimination than any major Democratic candidate for President. And because the entire work speaks the plain truth about "don't ask don't tell" and the broader issue of rights for GLBT citizens.
Do we really need to look to retired Republicans for leadership on issue?
Apparently Hillary Clinton does.
The details below the fold.
The headline reads like something a Kossack would write:
Bigotry That Hurts Our Military
That's right.
Bigotry.
Not "issues of faith" or "differences on an important social issue."
B-I-G-O-T-R-Y.
Because that's, you know, what denying equal rights to a group of people is.
But the good Senator is just getting warmed up.
In today's perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.
First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.
Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.
Senator Simpson points out what should be a convenient truth for Democrats: Most Americans do not fear 'teh gay.' Mainstreaming the 'homosexual lifestyle' won't harm a single person.
Later he spanks General Pace. Hard.
In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?
Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.
Holy cow! Has he been reading George Lakoff? He's framing homophobia and anti-gay prejudice and discrimination as "completely out of the mainstream of American opinion" and something that "hurts our military."
See, Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, was that so hard? Is there a single thing in his column that's untrue or even controversial?
Why did it take Alan Simpson to write such a column?
This follows the efforts of Senator John Warner, another decent Republican, to repudiate Pace's homophobia.:
The ranking Republican of the Senate Armed Services Committee sharply rebuked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Tuesday, taking issue with General Peter Pace’s view that homosexual acts are immoral.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral. In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."
Thank you, Senators Warner and Simpson. And thank you in advance, Senators Clinton, Obama, and Edwards for learning from these two the next time someone asks you about gay marriage.
UPDATE:
No thanks go out to the cowardly Senator from New York.
But is it immoral?
"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.