Folks? Folks, folks, folks…

Folks!

Folks, Peter LaBarbera has taken to posting right wing e-mail forwards. In this case, it’s a letter, written by a Navy captain who served starting in 1947, when homosexuality was not understood, when knowledge wasn’t readily available, before gays started coming out…in other words, back in the days when pesky reality didn’t interfere with the biases of a man like Peter LaBarbera. Oh, for the world to be ignorant again! Anyway, the letter was written to Admiral Mike Mullen, by a man named Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis. Here are a few quotes, along with what emotional needs the quotes fulfill for Peter.

This quote allows Peter LaBarbera to continue believing that he’s a stronger man than the valiant gay and lesbian servicemembers who could, in actuality, overpower him physically with one hand tied behind their backs:

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.

This quote allows Peter LaBarbera to pretend that being gay is somehow a limiting factor, like lack of education or a criminal record, and keeps him from confronting the fact that gay and lesbian West Point graduates like Dan Choi not only could physically overpower him with one hand tied behind their backs, but also could intellectually overpower him in the first seconds after they wake up, before they’ve even had their coffee:

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?

This quote allows Peter LaBarbera to make the lazy, dishonest comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia. Strangely, the writer thinks that pedophiles would be better servicemembers than gays. That was a glance into the man’s psyche that I frankly did not need:

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.

This quote allows Peter LaBarbera to continue promoting strange right-wing myths that most or all gays actually want to change genders. I have never understood this bizarre myth. I suppose it’s just another way to scare their stupid sheep:

And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures? I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.

“A significant percentage”?! Ah yes, the famous transgender class of Hastings College, where 1 out of every 2 students was undergoing gender reassignment therapy.

WTF, Peter? Are you really willing to believe anything a right-wing nutjob tells you?

This quote allows chickenhawk Peter LaBarbera to believe he understands military stuff better than actual military leaders:

I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.

And finally, this quote allows Peter to gaze at the words “anal fixation” for hours on end without his wife questioning his “research”:

In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals. It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance? I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

Anal fixation, Peter. Anal Fixation. Anal fixation. Anus anus anus anus anus.

I think we all know that there is only one side in this argument that truly has an anal fixation.

Wow.

As many of you know, when something big happens in the news involving gays (or a number of other subjects), Pam Spaulding loves to hop over to Free Republic to see what sort of hilarious pout-rage and fear their commenters are hunting and pecking onto the internet through their AOL accounts.

Well, as you would imagine, they are feeling frightened, betrayed, outraged and confused by the fact that Admiral Mullen, Defense Secretary Gates, and now even Colin Powell have given full-throated endorsements to repealing the ridiculous policy. Pam collected a bunch of their comments, so you should click over to read them all, but I wanted to highlight one comment that really struck me as particularly funny:

If the ban is lifted homosexuals will flock to the military and overrun it and have the full force of military law behind them, the military will be theirs.

Oh. My. God.

Bear in mind, the commenters at Free Republic think of themselves as the tuffest of the tuff, the patriotest of the gun-totin’est patriots. You know, manly mens! And that’s why this is so funny, because in the space of just over 140 characters, this commenter, whoever he is, has revealed what a terrified scaredy-puss he really is. He’s actually frightened that gay people will take over the military. And do what? God only knows what ludicrous fantasies this poor thing has created in his little head. You see, wingnuts act like they’re the strongest guys on earth, but they’re all false bravado. This person, whoever he is, has concocted a world where gays are the ultimate boogeyman, and has endowed us with superpowers we can’t even imagine. (Really, we can’t, because hey, we’re actually just normal people living our lives.)

But this is the same weak-kneed fear that’s still keeping them up at night over the failed underpants bomber. They’re terrified of everything. “We want our country back!”, they scream. Jon Stewart was right when he said that the country they want back is the country they knew when they were children, whenever that was. These are people who have grown up into weak human beings who reach for their firearms every time they hear the house settle. The only time they can remember not being afraid is when they were children, when they had strong adult figures to shelter them from fear. They want that back. This also explains why they react so positively to empty bravado in presidents, movie characters (they worship Gladiator), and talk radio hosts. In their minds, George W. Bush, Russell Crowe, and Rush Limbaugh are protecting them. (And when they need the good old-fashioned commiseration of a shared night terror, there’s always Glenn Beck. He cries with them!) It’s also, conversely, why they feel threatened by liberals, because they see in us a silent self-confidence that doesn’t feel the need to prove itself. No, we’re really not broken up about the dumb underpants bomber. We want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and we want the government to do its job in fixing the holes that allowed him to slip through, but that’s about the extent of it. We’re just not losing sleep over it.

The real reason they’re threatened by gays and lesbians openly serving in the military isn’t their juvenile, prurient obsession with what goes on in military showers. That’s a factor, but it’s not primary, because most of these people have never served and will never serve in the military. No, the real reason is that if gays and lesbians are able to serve openly and honestly, then they, the Free Republic sort of wingnuts, will have to endure the reality of the fact that there are faggots out there who are stronger, faster, and braver than they ever will be. These types fetishize the military beyond belief. The first question they ask when they meet someone who’s recently come home from war is “Did you kill anybody?” Trust me, that is the last question returning troops want to answer. So for these types of people, the mere possibility that the man (and yes, it’s about their fear of gay men) who captured the terrorist they fear the most is a…faggot?…is simply a bridge too far. As long as DADT remains in effect, these Freepers can remain in blissful denial, in a magical land where all gay men are girly and weak, where they never have to consider the possibility that there are gay men and women actively protecting the freedoms they cherish the most.

The picture above is of a billboard put up by the Memphis Gay and Lesbian Community Center a few months back. It’s a simple, nonthreatening message, an acknowledgement of reality. A valiant uniformed Marine. The fact that he’s gay is just one piece of his reality. The billboard was, of course, vandalized within days.

For some, reality is simply too frightening.

I wasn’t able to watch the DADT hearing today, but from what I’ve read, Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates each made a strong case for repeal, framing the issue correctly as one of integrity. Admiral Mullen had this to say:

“It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” Mullen said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity — theirs as individuals, and ours as institutions,” Mullen added.

Precisely. LGBT people fight and die for the freedoms we hold dear, and under the current policy, they’re asked to lie or face discharge for revealing the same thing that heterosexuals reveal every time they mention their spouses or significant others.

For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this:

“I fully support the president’ decision,” Gates said. “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we … best prepare for it. We have received our orders from the commander in chief and we are moving out accordingly.”

Let’s all remember who appointed Robert Gates Secretary of Defense.

Well, guess who’s just cold losing it in his britches over this? If you read the headline, you know that it’s The Peter! Let’s see what kind of analysis he’s cooking up over there in Wingnuttia:

At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis, a two-front war and an ongoing national security threat from Islamic radicals who would just love to see a planeload of Americans be bombed into smithereens, I doubt that a top priority in the minds of most Americans is to promote open homosexuality in our military. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama — and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers — have chosen.

Yeah, see, because here’s the thing, Peter. If you support people keeping their jobs in a recession (which I assume we both do), it’s probably not a good idea to keep policies around that call for the firing of American citizens based on their sexuality. Especially when those people are fighting and dying for your freedom to write stupid words on the internet, as LGBT citizens are and will continue to. (Yes, Peter. Gays defend your freedom. Deal with it.) Also, since we’re fighting a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as fighting against terrorist networks at home and abroad, it’s probably a good idea to keep as many Arabic and Farsi translators around, and several dozen have been discharged under the policy. In fact, there’s a lot of evidence that DADT discharges disproportionately affect highly-skilled servicemen and women overall. (Hello, Daniel Choi!)

The problem for Obama ‚Äî and Gates ‚Äî and every liberal that celebrates the prospect of sexual perversion gaining a stronger foothold in the Armed Forces of the greatest nation on earth– is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation.

You’re right, Peter, the American people DO have a say. I’m not sure how that’s a problem though, since as many as 79% of Americans support DADT repeal. (For any who are unclear, 79% is most Americans.) Another poll puts the figure at 69%, including 58% of conservatives and Republicans. Any way you slice it, Peter, you are the minority here. I’m sorry you don’t like them apples, but that’s the only kind we grow.

Let’s look at Peter’s specific arguments (I obviously use the phrase “specific arguments” loosely). He says that allowing gays to openly serve would:

devastate morale in our Armed Forces;

Wrong. As of 2006, 73% of troops are personally comfortable with gays and lesbians. That number is only going up, because all numbers involving support for gays are going up, especially in younger generations.

lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers;

Right. Because our best, brightest and strongest troops are just as bedwettingly afraid of gay people as Peter is, I’m sure. But by the way, in case you missed that: If you support gay people and you’re a member of our Armed Forces, Peter LaBarbera thinks you’re a bad soldier. Or if a member of your family supported gay people before he/she died protecting us, Peter thinks your departed loved one was a bad soldier.

discourage moral-minded and religious men and women of high character from seeking military service;

Got that? If you are among the majority of troops who support gay people, you are not morally minded and are of low character, according to Peter LaBarbera.

violate the privacy concerns of sexually normal servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at U.S. bases the world over ‚Äî or will there just be special showering hours for men-who-are-sexually-attracted-to-other-men and lesbian-practicing women? And what about the bisexuals? (“Transgenders” have been left off the list for now ‚Äî as even giddy pro-homosexual activists realize that is going too far at this time.);

Actually, Peter, gays are ALREADY in the showers in the Military, and it’s no big deal. As Patrick Murphy said a couple of years ago when he embarrassed Elaine Donnelly up one side and down the other, it’s an insult to our brave troops to think that they can’t handle being around gay people, even in the showers. It’s also puerile that Peter believes that all gay people are somehow always trolling for sex with straight people. Grow up and get over your fears, Peter. Plus, NONE of us want you, so you can rest easy.

subject hundreds of thousands of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to Orwellian, government-run brainwashing “diversity” propaganda training, as the military becomes officially part of modern man’ effort to erase God’ law and wisdom on this issue. Such pro-homosexuality “diversity” training dulls the mind and corrupts the spirit ‚Äî two results that surely will not find their way onto retooled U.S. military recruitment brochures;

Oh, good lord, people who did not read/did not understand 1984 should not be using the term “Orwellian.” And if being accepting of gays and lesbians “dulls the mind,” why are there so few fundamentalist Christians in our best universities?

further alienate the United States of America from the Muslim world; believe it or not, Mr. Obama, but the celebration of homosexuality that is all too common between our shores is nothing to brag about.

Peter is essentially saying that we need to appease radical Muslims by making sure we don’t offend them.

God, all fundamentalists, whether Muslim, Jewish, or Christian, are exactly the same.

I think this quote from Glenn Greenwald sums up the LaBarberian opposition to gays in the military quite nicely. He’s talking about Bill Kristol, Michael O’Hanlon, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (wingnut-UT), and other heterosexual men who oppose gays being able to serve in the military, but Peter can be easily added to this quote. In fact, I’ll go ahead and add his name, in italics:

It should go without saying that debates over homosexuality, the military, warriors, masculinity and the like are suffuse with all sorts of complex psychological influences. But one thing is clear: in American culture, there has long been a group of men (typified by Kristol and O’Hanlon [and LaBarbera]) who equate toughness and masculinity with fighting wars, yet who also know that they lack the courage of their own convictions, and thus confine themselves to cheerleading for wars from afar and sending others off to fight but never fighting those wars themselves (Digby wrote the seminal post on that sorry faction back in 2005). It seems that individuals plagued by that affliction are eager to avoid having it rubbed in their faces that there are large numbers of homosexual warriors who possess the courage (the “testosterone-laden tough-guyness”) which the O’Hanlons and Kristols [and LaBarberas], deep down, know they lack. Banning gay people from serving openly in the military as warriors is an excellent way of being able to deny that reality to themselves.

The truth may burn, but it does, indeed, win out.