Former Sen. Sam Nunn, in a phone interview last week, seemed to offer his possible support to efforts to undo the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
“If they can mitigate the damage and make sure the military can properly administer (the repeal) in a fair way, but in a way that protects unit cohesion and the morale of our forces, then I would favor making whatever changes are necessary,” Nunn said.
Nunn was the demagogue who is partially responsible for the hideous Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy that is currently wrecking lives and making our nation less safe. In 1993, Nunn used his position as a U.S. Senator from Georgia to scare Americans about openly gay people serving in the military. He toured submarines to show the close quarters, invoking the irrational fear that the presence of gays would turn the ships into sodomy subs.
For this reason, I
vehemently opposed him when his name was floated as Barack Obama’s possible Secretary of Defense.
In terms of Nunn changing his mind, this would be a powerful blow to the discriminatory law. It follows Colin Powell also changing his mind, which adds weight and momentum to a potential policy change.
However, I still have to quibble with the idea that allowing openly gay people to serve would hurt morale in any way. The only people it might affect are emotionally stunted closet cases with sexual hang-ups. No normal, psychologically healthy, fully-functioning heterosexual male would ever give a damn about gays in the military. Thus, we must craft our military policy around mentally sound people, not to protect those who are unhealthy and might have a neurosis around sexual orientation issues.
We need to protect our country. Not the emotional frailty of insecure people who hide behind prejudice to mask their personal issues.
They were talking about this on OutQ radio this morning and apparently there is a quesionaire that 1000s of military personnel are taking (anonymously) on this issue. One of the questions is, ‘ would you be uncomfortable if you had to share quarters with someone you thought or knew was gay or lesbian’ and my first thought was the same as yours. If they can’t deal with it, get the hell out, you dont belong there. This is no different than asking white guys in the 40s or 50s how they would feel about sharing quarters with a ‘negro’. If you’re uncomfortable, get out.
Besides, from the looks of that picture on the submarine, I’d be more concerned about snoring and BO than someone’s sexual orientation.
If you read the 2008 book “Unfriendly Fire” by Dr. Nathanial Frank, it will illustrate the dynamics behind the 1993 Congressional Debate on gays-in-the miilitary. No surprise, it came down to politics, sound-bites and sensationalism over what was really best for our military. In that staged photo above, were the Senators REALLY concerned with protecting morale, unit cohesion and discipline or were they concerned with scoring political points? The answer is obvious!!! It was very disappointing to have Former Senator Sam Nunn lead the congressional opposition to gays in the military back in 1993. Lets hope he can listen to his conscience and endorse the repeal.
Nunn did not demagogue the issue, it was badly handled by the Clinton Administration, and the Congress exploded with opposition. Nunn’s position was less onerous than what would have passed the House of Representatives in a New York minute. The military is not civilian society, no matter how much people would like to project their own views onto it. Its the only profession in our nation where people are trained to kill for the national defense. Some in the community finally figured that out, and thus the debate has been less about gay rights and more about supporting the mission. Its great that Nunn is taking a different view, because society as a whole is in a much different place than when it was in ’83. Congress should still listen to the Pentagon’s report. And though Obama is Commander in Chief, it is Congress who “raises and supports” the army, and that is where the policy needs to change. Not from a wave of a hand by the President. That was Clinton’s (and advocates) big mistake, and the result was DADT.
Actually, Scott, I would say it was badly handled by the Clintons AND Nunn demagogued the issue. One doesn’t cancel out the other.
Sam Nunn and Colin Powell will go down in history for their incredible bigotry and ignorance when it comes to this issue. Both of them know that and have been slow walking away from the policy that they were so proud of crafting. No attempt to rewrite history is going to make either one of them look any better.
Nunn is no bigot, and at no time did you hear a disparaging word from him about the gay community or anyone in particular, even though there were plenty of people who demagogued the issue from the other point of view. There have been other Members of Congress who said awful things about the gay community or its leadership, but not Nunn. He just didn’t agree with the proposed policy and the political circumstances at the time were not ripe for the change. DOD deals with all sorts of issues, social, budget, political, etc., all the time, and some don’t work if the arguments expect the military to make a special case, as oppose to showing how the change would support the mission. There are plenty of dead defense systems that people thought were moral imperatives, but they didn’t support the mission, just a special interest. Finally, there are people in the gay community who are doing a much better job supporting the change by talking how this supports the mission of the military. And to call Powell a bigot, well that is just crazy. If people take that view, we’ll never get the policy changed.
Scott, it’s great that Nunn is supporting the repeal of this incredibly discriminatory law that he helped set in place but let’s not go overboard and try to pretend that he and Powell are just fair minded people with moonbeams and butterflies flying oout of their mouths. Nunn did fire 2 aides because they were gay.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/06/us/the-transition-nunn-under-fire-from-gay-groups.html?sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
It’s great that he’s doing the right thing now but let’s not pretend he was always on our side (same with Powell). And if you think these people will now do the wrong thing because someone on a website called them bigots I think you have a far worse opinion on them than anyone else.
This website says the truth wins out, and the truth is that Nunn and Powell are not bigots. They may not have agreed with the policy, but you did not see them pouring the bile onto the Senate and House floor like other Members of Congress did frequently. They are fair minded people, which doesn’t call for moonbeams and butterflies. The presumption that one has a civil right to serve in the military is wrong; people get denied service all the time. The focus should be on how the change in the policy supports the mission. Finally that argument has become more refined, society has moved forward, and progress is being made. I just don’t agree that if someone disagrees with you, they are a bigot. And if I recall correctly, though I don’t know all the facts, the government had a rule (which was finally dumped) that gays (or “avowed homosexuals” or whatever term was used back then) could not hold security clearances, and those individuals had jobs that required clearances. I do know that he had gay individuals on his personal staff. Should it have been handled differently? Perhaps. But the body of Nunn’s work, and Powell’s, is not filled with an emphasis on gay issues at all, compared to many other political leaders who rally against the community for their own political benefit all the time.
Finally, we should encourage the support of Nunn and Powell instead of trying to fight an old battle. Having them on our side is the best way to get the policy changed.
Scott, where does the original post call Nunn or Powell bigots?
Scott, do you work for Powell & Nunn? It’s great if they’re doing the right thing now but don’t rewrite history–we’re not Fox News.
Bigot was used by a responder, not in the original post, though the word was thrown around a lot during the debate, there were posters with Nunn’s picture and the word bigot up around dc. I don’t work for Nunn or powell, I just don’t like seeing the debate characterized in only one light, when there is more to it. That is the problem with DC these days, issues get painted black and white, and the truth is its not that simple. DADT was a compromise; the Congress, not Nunn, would have passed worse policy. The politics and the manner in which the issue was introduced were all wrong, and the message from the community was all wrong. The approach this time is more thoughtful, strategic, and correct. I also think we all benefit from discourse, not just a bunch of postings that agree with the original point of view.
Scott, the fact is that whatever his feelings actually were he had a lot to do with Clinton failing to allow gays to serve openly and with passing DADT. It’s great he’s come around–that says a lot for him, but don’t pretend that he was forced into his support of this. It’s true we benefit from discourse but it’s also true that we shouldn’t rewrite history. Also, to castigate the site for a poster using the word “bigot” isn’t reasonable.
I didn’t castigate the site, I simply used its title to challenge the words of others posted on this site. The word bigot was thrown around a great deal during the debate. Nunn wasn’t forced to take his position, his view was well known to the Clinton administration before it took office, that this would be an explosive issue and to go slow. The Administration didn’t do that (and you had White House staff quoted on the record in the New York Times pushing the issue), and the result was a conflicted mess. There is no rewriting of history here, but there is an attempt to provide more facts that have been discussed before, which I felt obligated after reading the original post on the page. Again, you will not find in the record the kind of negative language toward the community or gays from Nunn that you so often heard from many others in Congress; he just happened to be in the middle of a controversial issue. Even now its clear there are elements who oppose the change, but at least the Obama Administration is taking a more thoughtful approach, and members of the community have refined their rehetoric to be more alinged with what the mission of the military is, not what some interest group wants to achieve.
Clinton didn’t fail to allow gays to serve in the military. He never had the power to write an executive order to make that change. Promotions and other issues involving personel issues reside with Congress. One could argue that was Clinton’s mistake, but everyone in the community was pushing for it for their own reasons, and it was foolish for the Administration to allow that to be the first defining issue for Clinton. The history is pretty clear what happened, and it would have happened if Nunn was there or not.
The author of this site said: “The only people it (gays serving openly) might affect are emotionally stunted closet cases with sexual hang-ups. No normal, psychologically healthy, fully-functioning heterosexual male would ever give a damn about gays in the military. Thus, we must craft our military policy around mentally sound people, not to protect those who are unhealthy and might have a neurosis around sexual orientation issues.
I think that a crazy notion because the military draws from all elements of our society for a unique and distinctive purpose: killing the enemy. It is well proven that to have a successful fighting force you need to have people who work as a unit. There are people of faith who think being gay is morally wrong. I don’t agree with that. There are also gay people who believe in God, which is an act of faith. What if I don’t believe in God, or I believe in another God? Are others wrong or immoral? Nope. All these social elements are mixed into our military, and they have to be crafted into a united fighting force. Its not easy, but we do it better than anyone in the world. To just say one group has a neurosis because they have different views on gays is simply a point of view, but it isn’t grounds to change policy. The grounds to change the policy are that it will serve the national security interests of the United States and the mission of the military.
Scott said “I didn’t castigate the site, I simply used its title to challenge the words of others posted on this site.”.
Which is irresponsible on your part. The posters on this site aren’t bound by the words of the owners of the site and the owners of the site aren’t responsible for what the posters write yet you unjustifiably link the two. For all practical intents and purposes you were castigating this site for a poster using the word “bigot”.
The word bigot was used a lot in the debate, and it gets thrown around a lot in this country simply when people disagree with a point of view. Drawing from the title of this site, I told the truth. Nunn is not a bigot. I haven’t castigated this site in the least. It has allowed for a great deal of comment here. I have expressed my views, dispensing with the normal rule of order which is that people should simply agree with one point of view. I do not. And that is not irresponsible.