Yeah, I know, Hell will sooner freeze over. But why not press the issue?
The institutional bigotry that Senator Chambliss has promoted and defended in one form or another his entire career as a public servant, earning him a 0% rating on gay rights from the Human Rights Campaign, reinforces and perpetuates the attitude responsible for the "all faggots must die" comment delivered from his office, and sanctions the policy that relegates military gays to the status of second class citizens. An apology isn't nearly sufficient. Senator Chambliss owes gays much, much more. He owes them restitution for his part in habitually denying the human dignity, opportunity, and Constitutional rights they deserve as fully as any and all Americans.
The price? Chambliss should support the repeal of DADT and arm twist one or two other Republicans to stand with him. Anything less is unacceptable. Surely the Senator can find a colleague to go along with him. Heck, half of the Congressional proponents of DADT live at C-Street and share a bath. How gay is that?
It is time to end the free pass politicians get for codifying and licensing bigotry through public policy efforts.
The presence of gays should neither be a source of shame and embarrassment for the military, nor for the gays that serve. Bigotry, and this is directed especially at you, Senator McCain, is never a legitimate basis for legislation or military policy. President Truman didn't seek the approval of the troops when he integrated blacks into the military by way of executive order. No such approval is required or even appropriate in order to end DADT.
Consider where we now stand. A substantial majority of Americans think DADT should be repealed. A majority of self-identified Republicans support it's repeal. A majority of Congress voted for repeal. The President wants it repealed, as does Colin Powell and the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff. Two courts recently ruled the practice unconstitutional. What more is needed?
But what about the religious argument, you ask. Shouldn't we respect peoples beliefs? No. Not if they trample the rights of others. Biblical arguments don't hold up anyway. For every admonition of homosexuality in the Bible, there must be a dozen that decry rich people, greed, and the hoarding of wealth. The Biblical arguments are merely a manifestation of bigotry and homophobia. Imagine if there was a passage in the Bible that said it would be easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a homosexul to get to heaven. That would be the most quoted verse in the Bible. It would appear, with multiple misspellings, on signs at every single Tea Party rally, and would be held up as proof positive that God hates gays. As it stands, the passage reads "rich person", and therefor garners little attention. If anti-gay rights Christians are going to argue Biblical justification to deny equal opportunity for gays, they must necessarily find themselves equally vigilant about ending the practices of eating cloven hoofed animals, adultery, and a hundred other things, and they'd be stoning fat, drunk, rebellious adolescents in the streets.
What about the morale of the troops? Don't we have to support the troops? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if soldiers are capable of facing the horrors of combat, they can handle working side by side with known gays like everyone else in the free and civilized world. DADT doesn't just demean gays, it demeans the entirety of the Armed Forces. It presumes military personnel are so psychologically frail or immature that they need to be shielded from the reality that they are in fact serving with gays. They are professionals, they can handle it. Treat them as adults and end the charade. Besides, I suspect the morale among gays that would no longer have to live in fear of being outed might improve substantially.
Congress cannot, or rather should not, as a government of the people bound by the Constitution and guided by the principle that all men are created equal and entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, tacitly encourage or enable bigotry, then perpetually deny equal opportunity based on the unending persistence of that very bigotry. It is an affront to the ideals upon which our democracy is based.
Senator Chambliss may not be capable of connecting the dots between his prejudices, his public policy endeavors, and the oppression of gays. Bigots never think they are bigots. The person who posted that offensive message from the Senator's office would likely swear on his mother's grave that he's no bigot, just a devout biblical scholar. He would be oblivious to his circumstance of being a de-facto member of Kos's "American Taliban". Should he encounter a message by an equally confused Muslim that read "Death to all Americans", he would, without the foggiest awareness of irony, no doubt become insanely indignant. Ignorance does not absolve one of responsibility. If we don't hold Chambliss and his hypocritical, homophobic staff and colleagues accountable, who will?
When my children are my age, they will look back at the ancient policy of DADT, unable to comprehend why it was ever necessary. So what's it going to be, Senator Chambliss? How is history going to remember you? Are you going to be the guy who redeemed himself by breaking ranks and paving the way for equality and justice? Or do you prefer to go down in history as an unrepentant bigot?
It's a question that deserves to be asked, and answered.
Rachel?