| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Clark Bends Over and Takes One for the Other Team |
| 2004-01-22 |
| HEFL It has been more than 10 years since a Democrat from Little Rock, Ark., first took on the militaryâs ban on gay service members, winding up with a compromise that was quickly dubbed âdonât ask, donât tell.â Now another Democrat from Little Rock is tackling that compromise, saying it clearly doesnât work and must be dismantled. As president, Gen. Wesley Clark is prepared to fix what his former commander in chief, Bill Clinton, left broken. Q. I know your son was married recently. If your son had been born gay, would you want him to have the same rights that he enjoys today?I personally donât have a problem with the idea of gay civil unions - so my apologies to any gay readers out there, but IMHO, this is a HUGE tactical mistake by Clark. While this issue will pull some of the centrists to the left, even gay readers will have to acknowledge that this idea is so unpopular with the general public, that the democrats will lose a huge chunk of their base over this issue. The Republicans are right, this is a hand grenade and Clark just committed suicide by pulling the pin and throwing it in the Democrats lap. How, you ask, does this relate to the war on terror? Clark just assured Bushâs reelection. |
| Posted by:B |
| #23 AMEN Super Hose! AMEN! |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-22 9:18:42 PM |
| #22 The civil union/ marrige issue is debatable, but the military issue is not. The US military is already an intergrated team of people who's number one priority is mission sucess. I never really appreciated learning anything about the sexual exploits of other military members -heterosexual, homosexual, a-sexual, autosexual, or bisexual. In fact, that has been a hold over for me in the civilian supervision work I have retired into. Any admission that causes me to think of an employee engaged in private intimate contact, is more information than I want or need. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-22 8:43:23 PM |
| #21 I do agree that the matter of marriage is societal, not one of personal choice -- and I also think that it's indeed societal value that makes it so that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. The advantage of marriage IMO isn't that of "more children", as JFM said, -- in that case polygamy and group marriages would also be allowed, I think. I think that the main value of marriage is in the recognition of family units as being more than sex-couplings, but rather lifelong promises of mutual aid and succour. Your wedded partner becomes the next-of-kin who lives with you, and has both authority and responsibility to take care of you when you are incapacitated, to have inheritance rights if you die... and yes, to take care of your children, if something bad happens to you. For tax purposes the concept of marriage seems likewise useful, when needing to explain the gains and losses of a single household where money earned and spent aren't cleanly divided between the two partners. All these show "societal value" in recognizing gay marriages, because all of the above can apply equally well to gay marriages. It's when people are limiting marriage's value to the purpose of procreation, that I feel they end up demeaning its worth and meaning. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-1-22 7:12:54 PM |
| #20 JFM's right! The issue here is not one of personal choice, but of societal value. Whether homosexuals marry is entirely their business. Whether they enjoy financial and legal benefits from being married is very much my business. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-1-22 6:45:18 PM |
| #19 Cow, sheep, they're all pink on the inside... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-1-22 6:27:48 PM |
| #18 Ooops. Becerra means an underaged cow, not a sheep. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-1-22 6:24:16 PM |
| #17 Ed Becerra You shouldnt post such comments about under-aged sheep. That is exactly what your name (Becerra) means in spanish. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-1-22 6:04:22 PM |
| #16 Marriage exists for ONE reason because the society find an adavantage in it. That advantage is that married couples have, on average, more children than unmarried ones, even stable ones. The legal protection given to the conjoint and the common child seems to be the main reason for this. The fact that marriage makes separation a bit more difficult (ie no separation on a moment of bad humor) also reduces somewhat the number of child who are raised by a single parent, a desirable thing since these are more prone to fall into crime (and in previous centuries to die from starvation or illness). Now homosexuals can live and have sex with whom they want. It is their problem. But marriage is society's problem. Why society should bother to upkeep a legal apparatus for a form of union who is intrinsically sterile and thus has no usefulness for it? Why people should have to pay taxes for funding the marriers, judges, record keeping and tax exemptions for married gay couples if that form of marriage has no social usefulness? Would the partisans of gay marriage accept the tax increase involved in financing it? Well I am not a partisan and I refuse to finance it on my taxes. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-1-22 6:01:55 PM |
| #15 and I've been married for 37 years) Shipman <------------- working the math. BzzzzzzzzzzzT It was a Gal! :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-22 5:14:41 PM |
| #14 Old Patriot, by your definition a brother and sister could be married but someone who was steralized for some reason or two old to propgate could not. I don't necessarily have a problem with the definition, just nitpicking. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-22 4:58:49 PM |
| #13 under-aged sheep??????????? Glad I never had that kind of a pervert in my duty section. Weasle Clark is proving to the entire world he lacks the one thing that sets apart truly successful military members from the rest of the crowd: self-discipline. The successful people I knew in the military, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, multi-sexual, or preferred little green aliens with pointy ears and no nose, all had it. No amount of politicking, boot-licking, sucking up, or pandering could replace it. Oh, it might get that kind of person promoted, but it never made them truly "successful" - i.e., one to emulate. IMHO, marriage (and I've been married for 37 years) is the union of one man and one woman to propagate the species in a successful, nurturing environment that will promote the overall success of the entire species. There is no way that any single-sex relationship can provide all the necessary ingredients for such a continuation. Man, like most life on this planet, is designed to function best in a bisexual relationship. Any other form of relationship, including single-parenthood, cannot match that ideal. There's always something missing, making the relationship somewhat less than ideal. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-1-22 4:09:55 PM |
| #12 CyberSarge - EXACTLY! On my first day in basic (over 20 years ago) my drill sergeant shouted "How many black people in this unit? Raise your hands!" Then he repeated the question with "white people". The next words out of his mouth were "WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! THERE ARE NO BLACKS IN MY ARMY. NO WHITES, BROWNS, OR YELLOWS! THERE IS ONLY ARMY GREEEEEEN!" (the last two words blasted at us loudly enough to make windows shake in the barracks in Ft. Dix...) He meant it, too. As far as he was concerned, the day you signed on the dotted line, your skin turned Olive Drab, and you joined a new racial group (by adoption), the race of "G.I." And you'd damn well better stay LOYAL to that race, or he'd kick your ass so hard, you could wave "Bye-bye" to the Voyager probe on your way out of the Solar System. What you used to be, didn't matter. What you liked to hump (be it girls, guys, or under-aged sheep), didn't matter. Just the ARMY. Heh. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2004-1-22 2:41:36 PM |
| #11 Oops, Article V. Or for those non-citizens of Rome, Article Five. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-22 2:38:39 PM |
| #10 ammendments to the constitution have to be ratified by all states Requires ratification by three fourths of the states. Article IV, U.S. Constitution. |
| Posted by: Steve 2004-1-22 2:31:32 PM |
| #9 Cybersarge, no arguement from me. But there might be some ex-military that aren't up on Clark and what he's about. Once this gets around he'll lose 'em all. Frank G, I agree that judicial fiat is a problem and I don't actually have a solution to it. I just think there are serious problems with a marriage ammendment. I could be wrong but I believe ammendments to the constitution have to be ratified by all states and its gonna be tough to get that one through all 50. That will really hurt the case. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-22 2:11:27 PM |
| #8 DADT wouldnt survive a draft. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-1-22 1:36:39 PM |
| #7 "Clark NEVER had the military vote. Maybe a few perfumed princes..." Interesting. Brings to mind something I read in a Hackworth column last year. (I used to read his stuff avidly years ago, but in recent years have realized that he makes no sense as often as he has a valid point.) Here is a case in point: Read this Hackworth column about Clark from Sept. 2003. This is David Hackworth, the guy who put the term "perfumed prince" into the lexicon, actually endorsing the best modern example of a perfumed prince. Gawd. |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2004-1-22 12:56:13 PM |
| #6 ruprecht, Clark NEVER had the military vote. Maybe a few perfumed princes but the rank and file donât follow his logic (or politics). Most could give rats ass about whose gay and who is not. I never wore a badge on my BDUs that identified me as a heterosexual and nether should they. What they want is not and even shake they want to drive the agenda in their direction. If the âgay communityâ had their way they would be gay soldier awards, gay promotion quotas, and gay night at the O club. All of these are COUNTER to the military culture. They reason we are sooo successful is we DO NOT divide into separate groups but act in the best interest of ALL. If you want to be gay, be gay OFF DUTY, never brought my sexuality to work. If Clark thinks the D.A.D.T. policy isnât working then there was a problem with HIS office and not the entire military. I served with many people whom I suspect (but I never asked) they were gay. The ones that were successful, did so on their own merit. I did have one troop discover his âgaynessâ when he was given a less that desirable assignment. He suddenly couldnât âLive a lie anymore.â He got his wish: A GDHC. (General Discharge under Honorable Conditions). I was not a fan of Clinton but this policy does work. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-1-22 10:53:23 AM |
| #5 ruprecht - the only reason anyone is discussing an amendment is that this is watershed moment in social institutions, and should be discussed and a consensus built among the people, not legislated from the bench by liberal judicial fiat. By usurping power from the legislature - the judges have asked for an appropriate bitch-slap back via the established process - a constitutional amendment, or a lessening of the "full faith" clause forcing all other states to recognize what one state has established as a right. - IMHO, of course |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-1-22 10:19:14 AM |
| #4 Couple thoughts: First I think a Marriage ammendment is stupid, it demeans the Constitution to start outlining what a marriage is or isn't and removes the ability of states to decide for themselves. Second, I think Clark just lost the majority of the military vote (if he had them at all) to secure the gay vote which is unlikely to have gone Republican to begin with. Tactically somewhat foolish. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-22 9:53:35 AM |
| #3 I think an even bigger mistake is his appearing on the cover of the magazine this article is from (hint: it's aimed at homosexuals). particularly dressed the way he is. Were he to get the nomination (HA!), or even the VP nomination, Republicans wouldn't have to say a word - just distribute copies of this magazine's cover with Clark's uh, shall we say less than executive-looking picture. Of course, what he said in the interview (pandering to the immediate audience, without thought for the larger picture) won't help either. Amateur. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2004-1-22 8:44:41 AM |
| #2 Hmmm, friend of Hillary and Bill, forced to "retire" early, problem with Hugh Shelton, wears Argyle? gives interview to Advocate, says nice things about being gay - I wonder if his closet is now peek-a-boo? |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2004-1-22 8:09:31 AM |
| #1 This move shows Clark's staggering inability to keep his eye on the end goal...no wonder he made such a mess in Bosnia and was forced to "retire early". |
| Posted by: B 2004-1-22 6:34:55 AM |