!

[ciroccoj]

Wow. I really didn't think they'd do it. Let alone do it with a 65-31 majority. Well done!

Congress votes to end ban on gays in the military


... and now I wonder how long till American soldiers can also march in gay pride parades in full uniform. It took us 16 years. Do better than that, guys. Please?

Comments

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure - there are some fairly strict regulations about the uniform and where soldiers are allowed to wear them. Active duty soldiers wouldn't be allowed to appear in uniform in a Shriner's parade without clearing it ahead of time. Since a pride parade is usually specifically linked to particular political viewpoints, active duty personnel would not be allowed to march in uniform, much like they wouldn't be allowed to march in uniform in a tea party parade.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Hm. Good point. Although I know there are strict regulations about where soldiers are allowed to wear their uniforms here too. Does a gay pride parade have to be linked to a political point of view? I can understand not being allowed to wear the uniform at a tea party parade - or Ralph Nader for President parade, for that matter - but IMHO gay pride parades should be as politically aligned as St. Patrick's Day parades.

Yeah, I know - "should" and reality can be two very different things ;)

Also, Shriner's? Aren't they supposed to be about hanging out and making good things happen, like funding hospital stuff? Would there be a reason for them not to appear at a Shriner's parade? ::feels ignorant::

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

Active duty personnel are not allowed to wear the uniform at any event that could conceivably give the impression that the service endorses what they are personally marching in favor of. Unless it's a parade with a patriotic theme in which the service has specifically agreed to participate, marching in uniform is a no-go without specific prior permission.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Well our guys had to get permission too - and it took them 16 years to get it! - but I think it's interesting, what is and what isn't considered "aligning" or "endorsing". I get the impression that here there's more of a "vive la difference" when it comes to endorsing stuff. Like, unless you shout out "this parade/event is in specific support of the Conservative Government/Muslim fundamentalism/Moldavian separatism!" people just assume it's a parade/event.

Reminds me a bit about the whole Scouts thing; here, it was considered unconstitutional for the Scouts to discriminate against gays or girls or atheists, because the Scouts are just an organization that's supposed to promote good citizenship and healthy childhood development. Apparently in the States it's supposed to promote good citizenship and adherence to certain traditional Judeo-Christian values.

I reserve the right to be totally talking out of my ass on all of this, btw. I have no hard facts & stats; anecdotal evidence only ;)

[mynuet.livejournal.com]

The service is fairly even-handed in that it won't let you use the uniform for any purpose other than one the brass specifically allows.

In terms of the Boy Scouts here, it's a private organization, with the stated purpose of teaching a set of values to boys. Although I don't think religion is specifically part of their mission, they did choose to say that homosexuals and homosexuality aren't part of the values they teach.

What gets me is that suing to try to force the BSA to allow gay scoutmasters ended up working against gay interests. Getting the scouts kicked out of any kind of federal facility ended up causing more than one person who had been ambivalent or unconcerned about gay issues to dig their heels in against gay causes. If they're going to sue the Boy Scouts, what's to stop them from suing the Baptists for not performing a marriage ceremony that's completely anathema to their religious beliefs?

Just before you posted this, actually, there was a discussion on a political group I belong to on the same general subject. Basically the theme that kept repeating is the fear that gays won't demand equal rights, they'll demand special rights. I want to marry, fine. I want to force a particular church to marry me or they're nothing but hideous homophobic racists who should be in jail for hate crimes, not so much. I'm gay and I want to serve my country, fine. I'm gay and I want to join the army but if the DI calls me a pansy I'm going to sue for sexual harassment and discrimination and just generally being worse than Hitler, kind of a problem.

It's my hope that things will calm down. The legislature actually made a law and things happened as they're supposed to. Gays in the military was not imposed by judicial fiat, and it's going to become the reality. Hopefully the fears of lawsuit frenzies will prove overblown, and that will be another step on the road to show that two guys or two girls can get married without lawsuits like the one that forced the Catholic Church to either help gays adopt in Massachusetts or stop helping anyone adopt.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Yeah I'm not entirely sure how the public/private Scouts thing was decided over here, because we have that too. There was a case that went to the Supremes about a Christian college that fired a gay prof and the Supremes basically (iirc) said the prof was out of luck because the school did not use government funds to any significant degree, so it could hire/fire whoever it wanted. Mind you, it was a while ago that I took Constitutional Law - or Civil Liberties - so it may have changed in the interim, but I believe the status quo is Government => Abide by the Constitution, Private => Do As Thou Wilt.

There was a case out in... BC? Damn, I can't remember. A lesbian couple wanted to be married in a hall that belonged to a church. They were booked, all was set to go - and then the church realized they were two women, and told them to go elsewhere. They sued. I think the couple eventually lost, but damned if I can remember any of the details now :(

I'm very glad DADT was struck down by government, not the courts. I think that's one thing both sides of the 49th parallel have in common: a judge telling you what to do, even if he's perfectly within his rights to tell you so, does not go down as easily as your elected officials telling you the exact same thing.

It's one of the few things I actually admire about Stephen Harper. He campaigned on the promise that if his party got in, he would do a free vote on the gay marriage thing. He got in, and they did. And gay marriage won. And now it's over, and done, and nobody with an ounce of political sense can say that "the people" did not get their fair say. Move along, nothing to see here ;)