With the news yesterday that the Marine Corps is ordering all spouse clubs on their bases to either accept gay spouses or take their business and operations off post, the service took a step in the direction of spouse equality that no other service or even the DoD itself has had the bravery to do — they redefined “discrimination” among their ranks to include sexual orientation.
That the Corps is the first to take this step is interesting for a few reasons. First, their leader, Gen. James F. Amos, was the only service chief to tell Congress that he considered the plan to lift the policy known as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which blocked gays from serving openly, was a bad idea. This article even goes so far as to call him “the face of opposition to lifting the ban.”
Gen. Amos was also among the first to publicly admit that the end of the policy was a “non-event.” Because just like with the end of almost all rules based on prejudice, when the wall of division was torn down, the fears weren’t realized. They weren’t even noticed.
But that no other service has bothered with this isn’t surprising, even though it has most certainly been a problem. Why? Because the DoD’s overall leaders haven’t either. From the story on Military.com:
“The Defense Department has not issued similar guidance covering all service branches, and for now is taking the stance that the Fort Bragg spouses club is conforming with the existing rules because the non-discrimination clause does not extend to sexual orientation.”
I realize we’re dealing with legal wrangling in the above paragraph. They are saying that, technically, sexual orientation is not included in that policy. Technically, they can’t enforce that as non-discrimination because it isn’t spelled-out.
Solution? Change the policy.
Which doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult. Except that it is. The DoD seems to always been so far behind the times that the issue in every other circle has left them in the dust. But gay rights is not one of those topics. According to this report, there are still 10 states that do not protect the rights of gay and transgender employees to be hired in private companies — they only protect them in public employment at varying levels.
Why? Because there are still fears of the unknown — of how gays will interact with the rest of society.
In the classic “The Nature of Prejudice,” author Gordon Allport talks about some of the cause of prejudice being fear of the unknown. And that is most certainly the case with the DoD’s non-discrimination policy. Rather than make the decision to pony-up and give it a try, it’s easier and less scary to just keep things as they always were.
Easier, but wrong.
About Amy Bushatz
Comments
"According to this report, there are still 10 states that do not protect the rights of gay and transgender employees to be hired in private companies — they only protect them in public employment at varying levels.
Why? Because there are still fears of the unknown — of how gays will interact with the rest of society."
You couldn't be more wrong. No one cares about how gays will interact with the rest of society. Labeling those 10 states as "bigots", which is the direction in which that was headed, is wrong. Maybe the citizens of those states voted that PRIVATE companies should be able to hire whomever they want and the government shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it.
As for the DoD, to belong to or get into (or even buy something) just about any place on post you MUST have an ID card. That is standard across the board. It's not discrimination, it's the RULES. You.must.have.an.ID.card. Period. So a spouses club following DoD regs isn't discriminating. The DoD needs to change their policy and recognize same sex marriage and give those spouses ID cards and benefits.
I don't know if you personally have any experience changing DoD policies, I'm guessing not. But in order to do that, it would probably take an act of Congress. (Not 100% sure about that, and I'm being slightly sarcastic) And since we can't get them to do their job as it is now, I'm guessing something like this will be on the back burner for a hot minute.
Changing DoD policies to reflect a change like this CANNOT happen overnight. It would take a lot of time and money to re-write EVERY SINGLE rule or regulation the policy change would touch or affect.
It's easy to say hey, let's pony up and give this a try, but in reality, it's not easy at all.
Marriage = One Man + One Woman…. PERIOD!!
Maybe AMOS is a "two-way" guy, and we don't know it as of now???
Dang dude, get over the one man one woman thing. DOMA will be found unconstitutional for sure and why should anyone be discriminated against?
If I form a spouses club and we do not use base facilities, but say meet in my home (on base housing) and we do not accept gay spouses, I don't think the military really has any authority to tell me what to do. They can not support me, but beyond that, as individual spouses they can't really do anything. I
You are correct. As a spouce the military has no real juristicion over you but your actions have direct impact on the Military member… Like in driving or bouncing checks. But you would have to ask your self what impact your actions would have on your spouce. As a military member they are not allowed to participate in, or knowingly support orginizations that are discriminatory. It would come down to a UCMJ discussion as well as (if in a position of leadership) creating a hostile work enviroment.
When will people get with the times? If a man and a man, or a woman and a woman love each other, how is it harming you? I WILL take the last step and call you bigots. Discrimination is discrimination.
In almost every case the people who call themselves gay are AC/DC and they are liars if they say otherwise. With this in mind we are forcing our spouses to cohabit on a social level with people who could and will take advantage of them particularly when you consider that most of these women are young, away from home and very impressionable. The women talk about very private things and concerns at their meetrings. You are forcing them to let people of questionable morals to participate in those private sessions. I doubt they want "men" listening in to these things.
What the hell are you talking about? Most women do not reveal everything about their private lives in groups of other women. Most women do this with very close friends. Also, lesbians and gays are not predators and they do not force others to participate in same sex relations with them. If someone is truly heterosexual, they will find the idea of same sex relations repulsive and will not cave in to pressure. Do you live under a rock?
Very hypercritical of the Marine Corps to require spouses clubs to accept gay spouses as members in good standing when none of the services do! Yes, you can now be openly gay and serve in the military and yes some states allow gay marriages, but NONE of the branches of military service recognize the gay spouse. Until the services recognize these spouses by granting them a military ID, the spouse clubs should not be required to do anything! Most clubs would not have a problem accepting a gay spouse. What they do have an issue with is accepting members who are not recognized by the military services. What''s next…. forcing clubs to accept live in girlfriends? Leave it to Gen Amos to lead the charge down this blind path!
What is wrong with accepting live-in girlfriends? They go through deployments and TDYs and training and school just as we wives do. If a soldiers dates 10 different women/men within a short period, I'd be wary of having each of them join the club, but live-ins tend to be a little more than just a date. Most of them support our military just as much – and some even more – as spouses. As for same-sex partners, why on earth shouldn't they be able to join? Same goes for them, if they support our service members and want to be part of a club, they should have the right to join.
Unfortunately, some day the DoD will be forced to recognize gay partners as military spouses by an outspoken, compassion-centric, and probably minority section of the population that does not have the cognitive ability to comprehend the larger impact to society of normalizing homosexual relations. I think the negative impacts of this change outweighs the positives, and many will disagree with me (hopefully with respect and without name-calling), but I guess it all depends on what you see as the main strength of the spouse's club.
Those who value strong families above all else as the ultimate measure of strength and success of a society will continue to promote societal structures that are designed to give every child the best chance at what they need – a loving, stable home with both a father and a mother. That doesn't make them bigots, and it doesn't mean that they don't care for homosexuals on an individual level any less than anyone else, it just means that they cannot accept the formal normalization of homosexuality in society.
Personally, I think that the admission of homosexual partners will be the beginning of the end of the spouses club. As with any close-knit club that stands the test of time, there is usually a very specific shared experience, belief, sacrifice or responsibility that binds its members together. The addition of homosexuals will not only water down that shared aspect, it will significantly reduce interest in the club. I am a military spouse, and even I have very little interest in being a formal part of a spouse's club, primarily because I'm a male spouse and I (and all other male spouses I've met) feel awkward about being part of a formal military spouses club. The reality is that it's a military wive's club that was basically forced to change its name to a 'spouse's' club for the sake of inclusivity, and realistically I only have a subset of attributes in common with these women compared to what the wives have in common with each other. I have no problems at all with that – I just don't feel the need for a support element such as that, but I have sincerely enjoyed a lot of social outings with wives when our spouses are deployed together, and there was definitely a sense of camaraderie due specifically to the circumstances we shared. For that, I never needed to be a formal part of any club, that was just a natural gathering of people bonded by a specific arrangement at that point in their life. That said, how many homosexual partners, male or female, really believe that the heterosexual spouses they will interact with in a formal military spouses club event will truly share the same type of bond, the same experience, the same type of sacrifice, or be able to be just as empathetic? There are absolutely some resemblances, but it's different enough that I don't truly think homosexual partners will feel normal in a military spouses club, just as I don't feel normal in a military spouses's club.
cont'd
(cont'd from previous)
Instead, I think the main agenda behind the attempt by homosexual partners to gain access to the current spouses clubs is to increase the appearance of normalization of their lifestyle. I think that's an uphill battle for all of eternity. Someone who has no homosexual tendencies simply cannot understand why someone who does can feel that way, no matter how much they're used to being around homosexuals or how much indoctrination they receive or how much they are 'shamed' by liberal activists. It's not bigotry or ignorance at its core, it's the basis of their understanding of the natural order of life and the strength of society, and that's simply not ever going to change for the vast majority of heterosexuals no matter how many generations we attempt to indoctrinate with the idea that homosexuality is normal, and no matter how much science can explain the cause for homosexuality. For example, dwarves (I hate to use labels, but I have to use some type of terminology, and this is the medically correct term) have existed for as long as anyone knows, yet we know it's not the natural, intended way that a normally healthy human develops. Nobody wants to be born a dwarf, and nobody wants to make a dwarf feel bad for how they were developed, but a dwarf obviously knows they are different and share a unique bond with others that were developed the same way. No matter how many other dwarves they meet in their life and no matter how normal other people treat them, they still feel different and no doubt experience special or strange treatment on a daily basis from people that don't normally encounter dwarves. My point is that there are all kinds of developmental problems that have been around for centuries that defy the normal, natural course of development, and there's nothing we can do to change that (with current medical technology) or force the general population to think that those differences don't exist. Normalization of homosexuality is NOT the answer. Simply, respect for differences and dignified treatment are the answer. That doesn't mean that a heterosexual has to either accept or condone or agree with homosexual behaviors, it just means they need to look beyond differences no matter how significant they may seem and respect a homosexual as a human being and treat them with dignity. Likewise, a homosexual has a responsibility to be reasonably discrete about their behavior in public and understand that many heterosexuals unavoidably feel disgust at the sight/presence of m-m or f-f affections and interactions.
Additionally, I don't think "marriage equality" is the answer – a homosexual partnership is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. Trying to call it the same thing and force others to accept that it is the same is intellectually and morally offensive, and it neuters the meaning of marriage (which is a problem because marriage is hard enough – especially for military families – and our society needs to have the greatest level of respect for marriage and place the highest possible value on stable man-woman marriages, because they are our future and when they break down as a whole in society, society breaks down).
Where homosexual activists are going wrong is the concept of forced acceptance – especially when it comes to violating a parent's values and parental rights, shaming and criminalizing those who don't agree, and redefining natural m-f concepts with unnatural accommodations for m-m and f-f relationships.
thank goodness not everyone in the military spouse community has bought into this social experiment. Makes me sad for our mil spouse clubs. They will go down hill.. and fast :(
I am a "gay military spouse" and I would not want to join ANY "spouse club" of women who back-stab each other and sleeping with other men while their husbands are away. I stand by my man and I don't need a club to help me do that. I may be a gay male but I have lots of fellow military spouses (women) who reached out to ME! They really are great people.
If you are afraid or hate gay people it is simply because a) you haven't opened your mind to befriend any of them and judge them before you get to know them or b) you just want to feel all high-and-mighty by being rude to someone else.
I will say this – in the almost 3 years I have dated a military man, I am VERY unimpressed with the US Army and don't want a SINGLE DOLLAR from them. Even if they did offer gay-spouse benefits, I would spit on it and walk away.