BY Richard Sisk
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Sunday, March 14th 2010, 4:00 AM
WASHINGTON - Eric Massa left behind several political gifts for Republicans in his loopy exit from the House, including a line of attack for opponents of gays serving openly in the military. Rep. Massa, an upstate Democrat, resigned his seat after admitting to "inappropriate" behavior with young male aides - groping and unwanted advances, the complaints alleged - that he described as a carry-over from his days as a career Navy officer. Then former shipmates emerged last week with stories that Massa tried to grope, "snorkel" and ogle those of lesser rank.
"It's a cautionary tale" of a superior officer allegedly seeking to prey upon subordinates that argues against repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, said Elaine Donnelly, head of the anti-repeal Center for Military Readiness. "That kind of abuse would become far more frequent" if gays were allowed to serve openly, Donnelly said....
You know ... it would be nice if people making arguments against DADT would give us credit for having SOME sense. And it would be nice if they made arguments that used some of that ... you know, what's it called? Oh, yes. Logic.
I mean, think on it: Massa sexually harrassed people while he was serving, and under a regime even more restrictive than DADT. Making it possible for gays to serve openly isn't gong to open straight guys up to more abuse. Apart from anything else, if recent military history is anything to go by, right before DADT falls -- assuming for the sake of argument that it does, and I don't think it will -- the military will embark on an antigay program the likes of which hasn't been seen in some time. It's more or less what happened when DADT itself was implemented, after all. For some time before and after, discharges of gay personnel actually increased. If the people opposed see this as their last chance to get these people out before they're stuck with them, they're going to take it.
Understand: I'm not saying that most military are opposed to having gays serve openly. I don't think most military personnel care all that much. However, judging from recent comments, many of the upper echelons of the military are fairly strongly opposed. The idea that they wouldn't take the opportunity is kind of laughable. And once that purge is done, there will be extremely few gay people left to come out, and those who are left will likely be intimidated into silence.
To be sure, while Massa was a particular gift to the people opposed to DADT repeal, it's an argument that they'd likely be making anyway. After all, they can point to the behavior of many of the military when women were allowed to serve -- the issues with rape that the academies have had, the issues with rape that they've had among serving personnel, etc. Which, honestly, actually makes the argument that perhaps straight men should not be allowed to serve, since they clearly can't be trusted to restrain themselves. ... what's that you say? It's only a small minority of straight men who seem to be criminally inclined? That most manage to serve with women and respect them, or at the very least simply leave them alone? Really?
My, imagine that.
Posted by iain at March 15, 2010 02:06 AM
