Interview: Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Aug 3rd, 2009 | By Hahn at Home | Read more in: Feature, GLBTQAs a nearly 21-year-old-sergeant, I was working as an intelligence analyst in the cryptographic section of a large military site in Germany. My boss, a sergeant first class, was transferring to a new section. He wanted to take me with him. He lined up a temporary assignment for my last few months there running the consolidated intelligence library which was woefully in need of rehabilitation. Our officer in charge was a newly minted major named Claudia Kennedy.
Even then I felt Major Kennedy was someone to admire. Professional, polished, and with an air of someone who was 
going places. She had entered the military during the height of the Vietnam War and served as an intelligence officer in Germany and Korea when very few women had entrée into the field. In those days, there were very few women leaders in any service.
Oddly enough, one of my Facebook friends served in the US Air Force at the same location and time and he too remembers Kennedy. Bill Diamond stated, “I remember her because I was a very lonely and rather reclusive little zoomie boy (ed. Note: Airman). During one particularly morose mid(night shift), I remember a Captain Kennedy who came and sat down with me in the mess because she thought I needed someone to talk to. I’ve been loyal to her ever since and she’s the very model of what a leader is, should be and hopefully, one day, a President will be.”
Life would go on and little did I know that over 20 years later, Claudia Kennedy would retire from her last position as Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence having to that point achieved the highest rank of any women ever in the US Army – Lieutenant General, a 3-star general. The first woman 4-star in any service would not be nominated until eight years after Kennedy’s retirement.
Kennedy is an outspoken proponent of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a policy which while originally intended to stem the tide of the unnecessary discharge of GLB troops, in fact did not slow the discharges to any great degree. She is an active liberal, having been an advisor to presidential candidate John Kerry, and on the list of potential vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama. She is also the author of Generally Speaking, a memoir about her Army career.
I had a conversation with General Kennedy for the first time in 27 years this week.
Hahn: What is the difference between DADT and the previous policy of discharging gays in the military?
Kennedy: I need to qualify this by saying this is my personal opinion of the difference, but if I were in a casual conversation I’d say before DADT a commander or leader could ask and a soldier could tell and the military could pursue. It was my understanding as I watched DADT – and remember there’s a third part to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – Don’t Pursue – unfold in the 1990s it was an attempt to make a step forward without changing the policy in a comprehensive way but it would limit how much leadership would pursue into the life of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person.
I interpreted it initially as an attempt to find some middle ground that would permit change, but not so much change that military culture would have to accommodate a really big change. And what it turned into, when you look at the numbers, is a lot of people still were discharged.
Ed Note: According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), just since January 20th and the swearing in of President Obama and the 111th Congress, 326 servicemembers have been discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Hahn: I know a number of retired military officers have spoken out against DADT, but they are few. According to the Washington Post, over 1,000 flag and general officers signed an open letter to President Obama in 2009 supporting DADT.
Kennedy: I’m on a list of people who are against torture, against this anti-gay culture and a couple of other things and I do think there are several people working in a direction that says, “Let’s not try to impose our personal behavior on every single person in every instance.”
There is so much diversity in the military – why would this not be an area that would help us? Because generally diversity strengthens an organization. Why would this aspect of diversity not have a strengthening effect?
I think it’s part of the thinking of some people who say there’s also a very pragmatic thing here. Nevermind the aspect of social justice; think about what happens to the integrity of the force when on the one hand we say, “Tell the truth,” and on the other hand, we say, “But, not that truth. All truths but that one.” That’s very, very damaging to the cohesiveness and integrity of a big institution like the military.
Hahn: Which is ironic and counter-intuitive compared to what some military leadership is saying – that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would be damaging to military readiness and esprit de corps.
Kennedy: Remember, we heard that argument around race, around gender, and sexual orientation. It’s the last cry of a culture that says there is only one way to behave.
Hahn: I would definitely compare it to the integration of blacks into white units in the 1940s. What is it exactly the leadership is afraid will happen? Is it the logistics of it – the potential to have to provide separate sleeping and toileting facilities – or is it something like the ingrained prejudice and potential for violence against gay SM that they are worried about, or something else completely?
Kennedy: You mean why is there a dragging of feet about changing it?
Hahn: Exactly.
Kennedy: This is a complicated answer, and I don’t know how you’ll translate it to paper. But, I think it’s easier – and people get excited when you say this – I think it’s easier to deal with race and gender than sexual orientation. Because someone who wants to advocate for a minority race sitting as a member of the majority race can still kind of keep their life clear – they’re white advocating for (a minority). So they don’t have to deal with being brushed with the stigma of race while advocating for another race.
Same with gender. Nobody thinks this man who is a feminist is now going to become a woman, so he doesn’t have to be brushed with the stigma of being a woman.
So, then when you take a look at sexual orientation, when a member of a majority group of heterosexuals advocates for homosexuals, they need to be willing to be brushed with the, “Maybe you’re a homosexual” stigma. I think that’s much harder to do.
Step 1 is taking on your own beliefs.
Step 2 is being willing to speaking up for the group that is being unfairly treated and there’s this extra overlay of, “Well, maybe you’re really not a man, maybe you’re not really white, maybe you’re not really heterosexual.”
And part of the growth of the individual or society is to say, “And, let me ask again, why do you care, what makes that so important?” It’s the least important quality a soldier brings to the table – their race, their gender or their sexual orientation. I can’t think of any three things that are less relevant to their performance as soldiers.
Part of the reason this is a little more difficult is it’s the greatest minority – in other words the fewest number of people. The other part of it is that there is a huge misunderstanding by those who have not been exposed in any particular way to family members or friends to GLB people and the most primitive misunderstanding that homosexuals are pedophiles – no, completely separate things. The next misunderstanding, and there’s still debate around it and I don’t know how legitimate is or if it’s just political posturing, that homosexuality is a choice versus something you’re born to be. There is not a common understanding of the belief I have that this is not a choice someone makes but you are born that way and at some point you discover it.
The third would be willing to stand up and be counted as someone who believes this is not really important. That this is none of my business.
Hahn: There’s a view by some in my community that President Obama is not making the sweeping changes he indicated he’d make. What are the biggest challenges facing him in that regard?
Kennedy: He’s got to mop up after eight years of incompetent government. That government got hijacked by people who had many agendas, and none of those agendas had the best interests of our country or the people of our country at heart.
He’s only been in office for seven or eight months. I think he’s being criticized on two fronts, one he’s not doing enough and two, why he’s taking on all those things. I saw him respond in an interview, and he said something like, “You know, I don’t sit here and think about what I want to do, I look at what’s presented to me, I look at the state of our economy and our state of military readiness and education and healthcare and say we need to get to work.”
However ardently President Obama feels that homosexuals should be given the same respect we give heterosexuals, I don’t think he would be inclined, I’m just guessing, but I don’t see any evidence that his approach is to just declare by fiat that there will be this change. There’s this huge culture shift that has to take place. He doesn’t want to drive from ditch to ditch – he wants to find the road and find the speediest part of the road and go in the right direction. I trust he’s going to do the best he can and the pressure is not so much on him as it should be on ourselves, it’s sort of like that Pogo cartoon, “I have met the enemy and they is us.”
It’s very frustrating when people have waited for centuries. And really, our expectations about how we treat each other has been created in the way that it is now just in the last 50 years. I’m 62 and I know how people talked about this issue 10 years ago and 50 years ago. I remember. We have moved a long distance. And that doesn’t help if you have a Matthew Shepard being murdered or have people being hounded out of a profession that they have contributed to in the most honorable way and aren’t appreciated. I think all of that is very damaging and very much on the conscience of anyone who understands how unfair this is.
We have to say, “What am I doing every day, even if it’s small? What am I doing to make this situation better?” Part of it is we all need to get out there and shout from the rooftops that this is wrong. And, even if we’re heterosexual and afraid someone might be accused of the worst thing ever (laughs) we need to stop it. We need to stop being afraid. Speak what you know is the right thing. We need more voices to join the chorus. There are those who need a few more voices before they join the chorus.
Perhaps that super majority (in the Senate) will help.
Well, it’s the Gladwell Tipping Point thing.
Hahn: When you were a field commander and you had to discharge a gay soldier, what were your thoughts?
Kennedy: You know once you get to a certain point in your career you’re not the company commander or the battalion commander, so you’re far removed and don’t know the personal stories. But, I do remember once as a brigade commander of the 703rd Military Intelligence Brigade in Hawaii, I knew this very wonderful Chinese linguist. I thought the world of him. I spent a good deal of time with him because he would brief us on the content of what he was doing but also the Language Olympics he was the leader of one year.
He did a wonderful job with the Chinese linguists at the brigade and the Language Olympics sponsored by the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey. Part of that was a triumph of numbers because we had a large number of Chinese linguists. Part of it was he was a terrific leader and a great linguist and he knew how to get the most out of people.
It was some time after that someone told me about the preparatory movements that were taking place prior to a discharge. He himself had written a letter making those declarations about himself. My first reaction was to talk to his sergeant major (the highest enlisted leader in any Army unit) and have him tell the linguist to tear up the letter and be quiet! Shut up! I don’t care, no one cares, get back to work!
The sergeant major assured me he’d played that with him a couple rounds. The soldier was absolutely certain of what he wanted to do and we did as he asked. We discharged him. I didn’t like it one bit. I thought it was a waste of talent, I thought it was not healthy for him to quit, I don’t think he was being harassed – though I suppose on some level there may have been harassment it’s just part of the noise just like it is for women. I thought it was terrific loss for the Army and for our linguistic readiness.
I thought it was too bad younger soldiers saw him leaving the Army because it creates fear. Especially among those with a little less talent – they think these processes are so mysterious it makes something that is fairly straightforward even more frightening, I don’t think it’s necessary.
Hahn: I’m glad we have you out there advocating for such important causes – and not just this one.
Kennedy: I was glad to get your photo because I do remember you, but I had to laugh when I saw Bailey’s beanie on your head. (Ed Note: BG Mildred Bailey designed the most unattractive uniforms for women that were worn by women soldiers in the late 70s and early 80s.
Hahn: Ah, man…yes, that was so bad.
Lieutenant General Kennedy spoke at the SLDN National Dinner in 2006. A transcript of her speech is located at http://repealdadt.blogspot.com/.
Lori HahnAWOP contributing editor, GLBTQ
Author of Hahn at Home
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Thank you so much, Lori, for connecting all the dots and putting out the effort to produce this incisive, supportive, and inspiring interview.
Claudia Kennedy’s a terrific role model.
[Reply]
I love how she just lays it all out there. Her candor and the obvious thought and effort she’s put into this issue are more than I could have hoped for.
[Reply]
Sorry, Lori, but as a veteran who is a lesbian, I’m not at all impressed with General Kennedy’s willingness to deflect criticism of POTUS on this issue. Her words were not “incisive, supportive, and inspiring.” So she talked about talking about talking about the policy and the extreme harm it does to American citizens, and made yet another litany of excuses for the man who promised to lead on this issue. Um, hooah? I guess?
I saw him respond in an interview, and he said something like, ‘You know, I don’t sit here and think about what I want to do, I look at what’s presented to me”
For a former MI officer, the General’s analysis isn’t terribly astute, to put it politely. The “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” issue has been presented to POTUS numerous times in the last 195 days. It’s come in the form of a court challenge from Margaret Witt and James Petrangelo, which his White House told SCOTUS to refuse to hear. It’s come in the form of a call from Congress for executive action, which he has spurned (he couldn’t even be bothered to respond to a letter from 77 Representatives). It’s come in the form of two attempts at amendments to the Defense Authorization Act FY2010 to declare a moratorium on discharges, and a funding ban on investigations, both of which his White House has pressured to be killed. It’s come in the form of multiple protests, both outside the White House and outside dinners; and instead of acknowleding the citizens exercising their First Amendment rights, he made crass, tasteless jokes at their expense. It’s come in the form of questions at WH press briefings, news interviews with SECDEF, and media coverage, and each and every time this President has either refused to comment, or thrown some craptastic excuse into the wind, or flat-out attacked LGBT servicemembers and our families.
If General Kennedy follow up with you later, kindly pass on to her these two links:
After POTUS pressure Rep. Hastings to withdraw his funding ban amendment.
The other victims of DADT: The Silent Partners.
I would like to remind General Kennedy that in November 2007, candidate Obama said this about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” in response to a Human Rights Campaign question:
“I will work for a full repeal of Don’t Ask/ Don’t Tell. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the Don’t Ask/ Don’t Tell policy. All that is required is leadership.”
Funny, in my military leadership meant standing up, being an example, and getting the job done, not maintaining the status quo because it was comfortable. I guess “change you can believe in” translates to “more of the same bigoted crap.”
[Reply]
Well done, Lori.
[Reply]
I am so glad you wrote Keori. You share a view with many people. It’s a whole world of should-haves, but all we have to work with now is what is. And, despite all of your points – all of which are true, something is happening that we aren’t seeing. And, I don’t think LTG Kennedy is privy to them either. She is stating her belief that she has faith. She is stating her belief that sometimes things don’t move as quickly as we’d like (I know it’s not as quickly as I’d like), but change is constantly occurring. I think you may acknowledge that the military culture is a very tough cookie to crack. If I were to speculate, which isn’t my job in interviewing, I would guess that Obama has learned something since his swearing in that alters his timeline. Just as every president has had their timeline altered on key issues. I would also guess that though he may well feel this is an important issue, he has other issues more pressing. But, that’s merely speculation. The proof will be in the pudding as to whether his first term brings about the promised change. I believe the key will be in keeping it in front of him and maintaining our support of this administration – because the alternative will most assuredly not be favorable to us come 2012.
[Reply]
Keori, as another veteran who is also a lesbian, I respectfully ask you to consider your own words, “being an example, and getting the job done, not maintaining the status quo because it was comfortable,” and resist giving in to the broader status quo. The one where we, who are on the same side and who should be working together, turn on one another.
Believe me, I understand the itch to have this ridiculous policy gone YESTERDAY. But what on earth is productive or useful about dismissing the voice of such a strong supporter as General Kennedy? Surely you can’t doubt her earnest desire to get rid of DADT. Can’t we acknowledge a difference of opinion on Obama’s pace without alienating people who want the very same thing we do?
[Reply]
A word from the dirty miscreant hippie:
I, too, want everything done yesterday. And it pisses me off when a candidate who promises the moon (sorry Margo) won’t even give us the International Space Station. And I’m sure not afraid to say so, as many of you may remember from my “Fuck you, Mr. President” tirade over this same issue. But as pissed as I am about that, it behooves me to remember that my beef is with the president and his advisors rather than those who, like me, think that damned policy needs to be repealed.
My beef is also with Republicans and other conservatives who adamantly oppose the repeal of that damned policy because they make a lot of noise about it, generally lying through their teeth and spitting out total bullshit that their publicists on the radio and television gleefully dispense as if it really is true, and which an awful large number of people believe simply because some lying son-of-a-bitch said it on TV.
And as beefs go, I have more a beef with them, because I know damn well we wouldn’t even be having this conversation if John McCain were president. Or, by now, Sarah Palin since McCain’s heart may have given out from the strain of actually being president rather than appearing on Sunday morning television shows to trash the guy who is president.
And I know for damn sure I do not want whoever the GOP is gonna field in 2012 to take up residence in the Oval Office unless they manage to come up with a candidate who is night and day different from everybody else they have coming up.
That said, LTG Kennedy seems to me to pretty clear on her position, and willing, at least at this point, to go along with the president’s plan, whatever that is. That’s a different approach than mine, but it takes all kinds.
I’m glad to have someone of her position on our side, and I’m glad Lori reconnected and brought us some of her thoughts.
Now let’s keep working and get this thing changed.
[Reply]
No, Margo, I do not doubt LTG Kennedy’s desire, or that her heart is in the right place. I DO believe her faith in POTUS is both excessive and undeserved. I came to that conclusion after observing his own behavior towards the LGBT community in general throughout his entire campaign and the first 195 days of his Presidency, particularly towards LGBT servicemembers and our families. Read my chronology again. POTUS’s sweet words are a far cry from his deplorable actions on this issue – indeed, on EVERY issue affecting the lives of LGBT people in America. I am unwilling to sit back and put blind faith in an elected official, to believe that he is playing some 17-dimensional magical chess game while our lives hang in the balance, simply because he has a “D” after his name. Obama is not my Messiah. He’s just another politician who lies to LGBT people to garner votes and donations – both of which we gave him in spades – and then disavows us at the first opportunity.
Why is it that when presented with concrete, real-world examples of POTUS’s willingness to let our lives go to waste and our families be neglected, the only response I get from party-liners is “Give him time, he has a plan?” And then my patriotism/willingness to work/dedication to the movement is always questioned. Instead of focusing on a fantasy of Obama leading us all into a great inclusive Age of Aquarius, you might try looking at the reality he has perpetrated, one in which any attempt to do away with DADT has been killed at the insistence of his White House.
Filtering the voice of yet another Obama apologist reduces the clutter and gives a better signal-to-noise ratio. Does LTG Kennedy make public policy? Is there any evidence that her opinion has persuaded POTUS to change his behavior, or indication that it will do so in the future? No, no, and no.
Translation: Give him tiiiiiiime. Yes, he’s actively and publicly shot down efforts to repeal DADT on a dozen different occasions in the last 195 days, but really, he has a plan! Really!
What on earth makes LTG Kennedy believe POTUS actually DOES feel that way? The words he’s spoken? His behavior indicates the exact opposite. From pressuring withdrawal of minimal legislative efforts to repeal DADT, to requesting SCOTUS to not hear challenges to DADT and DOMA, to his lies about the nonexistent conversations within the Pentagon, to his promised and subsequently withdrawn leadership on repeal – all evidence points to his willingness to let us continue to be legally discriminated against once he got our votes.
At least we agree on something about this President. I don’t see any evidence that he is going to approach this at all except to maintain the status quo.
Well, I trust that one of these days I’ll find a leprechaun sitting on my doorstep with a pot of gold. And exactly what pressure should we put on ourselves? We’re not the ones sitting in the White House with a 70% majority of Americans approving repeal. That’s Obama’s job, to provide that leadership he promised, to take Congressionally-granted executive action within his power as CINC to halt investigations and discharges under “stop loss” policy, and to pressure Congress into legislating a change in Title 10 U.S.C. The pressure was on the electorate to get him into that position, and now that he’s there, it’s HIS job.
You and I do not have a difference of opinion on Obama’s pace; we seem to have different definitions of “action.” I define action on this issue as actually moving repeal forward, or at the very least, not actively opposing it. I am sick to death of Obama apologists insisting that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the man gives a damn what happens to LGBT civilians, servicemembers, or our families. Those of us who still live under DADT know better.
[Reply]
Keori, of course I cannot begin to answer your direct questions concerning General Kennedy’s beliefs or thoughts on the matter.
What I can say is that my disappointment in Obama (for whom I went door to door asking for votes) began the morning I arrived at work and read that he had chosen Rick Warren to participate in the inauguration. I just sat at my desk unable to stop crying.
I do stand by General Kennedy’s obvious intellect and her great ability to articulate the message that DADT is wrong. And I don’t think we can afford to throw away her support.
Having said that, I’d love to hear your story of living in the military under DADT. If you have time, we’d love for you to drop by our Facebook group (Do Ask, I’ll Tell) and share your personal experiences.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=104952299234
Thanks!
[Reply]
Margo, all the support in the world from an individual as distinguished as LTG Kennedy will not magically induce POTUS to change his mind and stop discriminating against us. That is my entire point. Politically, the WH is still living in 1993, pig-ignorant of the fact that there is a Democratic 3/5 majority in the Senate (minus the Blue Dogs), a Democratic majority in the House, with 70% of America favoring repeal, including a majority of REPUBLICANS, and still, no one will move out of the pants-wetting terror of being Clinton 2.0 (newsflash, we’re already well down that road).
Personally, Obama is religiously bigoted towards LGBT people. I realize that no one wants to hear that about him, but really, read the writing on the wall. Think about the pastors he’s taken as “spiritual advisers.” Joel Hunter? Kirbyjon Caldwell? T.D. Jakes? Jim Wallis? Otis Moss, JR? Let’s not even get into his BFF Rick Warren. That man is responsible for funding persecution and imprisonment of gay men in Uganda in the name of “christians.” Hunter, Caldwell, and Jakes are all virulently homophobic evangelical megachurch pastors (Jakes’ closeted gay son notwithstanding), and Wallis and Moss are black liberation pastors in a community where no one wants to actually admit there are gay men and lesbians in their midst. Come on. Again, I don’t know where LTG Kennedy got the idea that Obama actually believes LGBT people should be respected as human beings, let alone have rights. Show me a man’s church (and what he reads), and I’ll show you what he really believes. I was raised by mormons; I know what I’m talking about.
I appreciate the invite, but no, thank you. My partner is still on active duty, so I’m a Silent Partner. But if you want to click the link I provided above, it’s my story on the irreparable harm DADT does to military families. I’m a regular contributor at Pam’s House Blend, and have written on this issue multiple times. Feel free to share the story with your Facebook group. When meeting with legislators, have your folks schedule at least 45 minutes so they have time to show their Reps and Senators the following video:
http://www.intheirboots.com/itb/episodes/season-2/silent-partners.html
Have a great day.
[Reply]
“…Wallis and Moss are black liberation pastors in a community where no one wants to actually admit there are gay men and lesbians in their midst.”
Please define “Black Liberation Pastors”… and, at the last I heard, my sister (and her partner), who are as black as I am, and are in a committed lesbian relationship, are not subjected to being shunned by the community they live in. Oh, and my sister is an ordained minister a parish Pastor herself.
It’s so nice to see you paint with such a broad brush.
[Reply]
I guess what we have here is a disconnect between optimistic pragmatism and understandable, unapproachable rage.
I’ll certainly watch the video and read your story.
You probably won’t appreciate this, but I just can’t help laughing my butt off at something funny, even in the midst of a very serious discussion. Not once, but twice, I misread your sentence up there as: I was raised by morons; I know what I’m talking about. Swear to the Goddess I sat here thinking, WTF?
On the third read-through, the brain lights came back on and I had a good out-loud laugh.
Maybe I’ll look you up in 2012 at PHB and we’ll rehash the outcome of all this. I still think we’re on the same side.
[Reply]
I think differing points of view are not only informative, but critical to understanding that personal stories are involved in the outcome. As we know, I was enraged over the Prop 8 fight and absolutely devastated by the loss. I no longer serve, but if I did, this issue would, I’m sure, enrage me also. I feel blessed to be able to take a step back and look at it, as Margo said, more pragmatically. The absolute depth and breadth of entrenchment that the military culture has over this issue is so gargantuan – and for, I believe, reasons not fully shared or stated, I think it would behoove Obama to do what he does best – talk the talk – and fully explain exactly what the impediment is and what his plan is TODAY.
The mixed messages and silence is only going to further enflame the issue and further alienate people who might support his agenda. Rahm Emanuel – are you listening?
[Reply]
Gunfighter – Thanks for weighing in. I think whenever we wield a messy brush of generalization, there’s going to be an issue. I too know many fine churches with primarily African-American congregants who are open to accepting and loving the diversity of its community. They get lost sometimes amidst the outspoken diatribes by those who believe in their Christian hearts that we, the gays, are going to hell and bringing everyone else with them if we make any headway (add in the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and various entities such as the AFA – and by that, I mean the organizations, not all of the people who belong to those entities – except maybe the AFA!)
[Reply]
Gunfighter, I do not paint with a broad brush. (And no, I also do not accept the Fox Noise meme that “blacks passed Prop 8!”. That’s such horseshit.) I DO recognize that there are individuals within religious communities who are gay-accepting, that there gay POC such as your sister, and that there are gay-accepting congregations whose members are primarily black. What I am stating is that the voices of acceptance within the black christian community are largely drowned out by the shouting from the side of hate, the same as within the white christian community. Those voices are not quieting down, they are not going away, and as I have pointed out, they continue to be heard in the White House, and in fact are given an elevated platform there. The hate voice is louder than the love voice. Do you see what I mean? This is an issue we discuss repeatedly at Pam’s House Blend.
“Liberation theology” is a philosophical focus in christianity which emphasizes good works, charity, equality, social justice, and refusal to judge. There’s way more “love thy neighbor as thyself” and much less “those damn dirty name-your-target.” It started out as a Catholic teaching, largely in the Franciscan orders. It’s become more popular in various Protestant circles in response to the “prosperity gospel,” which states that God rewards the righteous by making them rich, and it is in direct opposition to megachurches and the pastors who fleece the gullible (Rick Warren, Caldwell, Jakes, Hunter). Remember the “Matthew 25″ network during the campaign? That is a “liberation theology” manifestation.
Margo, I’m glad you got a laugh out of it. My mother, no kidding, believes that dinosaur fossils got sucked (whole and intact) into the earth’s crust when god created the planet specifically to test her faith 6,000 years later. o_O So your assessment wasn’t too far off! My parents didn’t get really whacky until they moved from the East Coast to Utah (thankfully after I’d left home already). It was hell for my brother and sister, who are biracial. My little sister had the n-bomb dropped in her face every day of her adolescence living in suburban Mormonville. Love of Christ, indeed. I have no use for religion. “Walk with those who seek the truth; run from those who claim they’ve found it,” I believe the saying goes.
Yes, you and I are on the same side. The difference between us is that I simply refuse to swallow the lie that Obama is on our side, too, or that any voice of reason is going to change his mind.
[Reply]
Margo Moon
Reply:
August 4th, 20092009-08-04T21:44:00ZF jS, Y at 5:44 pm2009-08-04T21:44:00Zg:i a
Fair enough, Keori.
Of course, that puts you in the position of believing what you believe, yet having to wish with all your heart that what I believe turns out to be true. You seem strong enough to handle that.
2012.
[Reply]
Keori
Reply:
August 4th, 20092009-08-05T00:39:28ZF jS, Y at 8:39 pm2009-08-05T00:39:28Zg:i a
Hope for the best, plan for (and expect) the worst. One of the first things we learn in strategy and planning, am I right?
[Reply]
Personally, I think the General was very well spoken and well versed on the issue. As one who’s been there, the higher you go in government the harder it becomes to please all sides, even when they all desire the same result.
One hard lesson this 63 year old fellah had to learn, often the hard way, is that patience is needed when trying to change long-standing beliefs without driving possible supporters away from your cause. I’m still impatient, but my tongue is littered with bite marks.
Sometimes it’s possible to make more progress behind the scenes than openly. “Complete as much of your preparations in a hidden manner and only allow the enemy to see your plan after it’s too late for him to react effectively.” Sun Tzu. When dealing with high ego types such as politicos, much ’stroking’ is often needed in a way that they feel ’safe’ in going public with their support.
It took centuries of hatred & fear concerning the GLBT community being ingrained at an early age to get us here, and it’ll take not only effort, but patience, pressure, and time to effect major changes. The path we’re on is finally close to the ‘right’ one, but it’ll still have hills, bumps, detours, and pot holes along the way. In order for 100% change to occur, you have to keep exerting 100% of your ability to achieve that change, whatever the action is.
Old Injun go be quiet again.
[Reply]
Thanks, Mike for weighing in as well. Keori is passionate. There are plenty of us who are equally passionate about GLBT rights…and just like the other side all have a laundry list of reasons why we should not (fill in the blank) our community is no different. There was a younger Malcolm X at the same time there was a Martin Luther King, Jr. They both had followers with strong hearts who believed to their core their way was right. Ultimately, huge headway was made and most likely because there were people shouting out from all types of perspectives – every single voice counts.
[Reply]
Keori
Reply:
August 4th, 20092009-08-05T00:41:46ZF jS, Y at 8:41 pm2009-08-05T00:41:46Zg:i a
Glad you made that distinction, Lori! Every social justice movement had its more vocal and pushy components as well as the quieter, more “respectable” components. This was true of the abolitionist movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement, the Native Rights movement, to name a few. The LGBT rights movement is no different, and I strongly suspect future justice movements will have much the same dynamic. ‘Tis human nature.
I am passionate about this issue in particular because it is the unique hell I must live in. I feel for Lt.Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who was going to quietly resign his commission after being outed and investigated by the Air Force. Instead, he chose to stay and fight because he believed that Obama would fight for him as promised. Indeed, at the June gAyTM damage control cocktail hour at the White House, Obama himself reportedly told Lt.Col. Fehrenbach, “We’ll get this done.” Well, we’ve seen the fruits of THAT labor, and the result of THAT promise. I don’t know how Victor Fehrenbach feels knowing that he’s been stabbed in the back, his career allowed to go to waste, but I can imagine.
My partner was up for reenlistment, and the elections were the linchpin on which her decision swung. She promised me that if McCain/Palin won, she would not reenlist, and separate on schedule so we could live freely. However, because Obama promised that he would actively work to repeal DADT, she decided to reenlist, and I decided to support her. Now, instead of the pain easing a bit, it’s tripled. We’re not holding our breath watching the repeal gears slowly crank up to speed and move along. We’ve gasped with the sucker punches aimed in the gut as time and again, Obama has attacked and dishonored LGBT servicemembers and our families.
It’s not just impatience. It’s a sense of personal betrayal. I served ten years of my own life in uniform, in the closet. I’m still living in silence as a civilan, in the closet for the sake of my Beloved, whose boss promised her to stop perpetuating the bigotry that hovers over her daily. How else are we to feel? Are we to shrug and sit back and say, “Oh well, it didn’t really matter anyway, he has other things to do, it’s all okay, McCain would have been worse”?
[Reply]
News Writer
Reply:
August 4th, 20092009-08-05T01:30:05ZF jS, Y at 9:30 pm2009-08-05T01:30:05Zg:i a
Dirty miscreant hippie here again.
No shrugging, no sitting back. No “it didn’t really matter, it’s all ok.” Yeah, McCain woulda been worse. But that shouldn’t stop you from doing what you’re doing — fighting back as best you can. Shouldn’t stop any of us from fighting an unjust and bigoted policy as best we can, in our often individual and often contradictory ways. It takes all kinds, always.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for you and your partner, Keori, having all this emotion about this and being unable to openly express it. Good thing we have these blog things, eh?
This damned policy will go down. If I had my druthers, it woulda never been. But the politicos didn’t listen to me then any better than they do now. But after many, many years observing and writing about government, talking candidly with some in government, I have come to this conclusion. Changing entrenched policies is like turning the proverbial battleship. Takes a while.
That’s how I know it will happen, and, as it always is, not on my timetable. But it will go down. And in the not too distant future. The process is already underway. It’s the same process that will one day soon allow us to marry our partners. The same process that decriminalized sodomy. The same process that took homosexuality out of the book of disorders. The same process that killed laws requiring men and women to wear gender specific clothing.
Doesn’t mean any of us should sit back and wait. And even those of us who may look like we’re sitting back and waiting aren’t. We’re just workin a different track.
Yeah, takes all kinds. That’s how things happen, when all kinds are involved.
[Reply]
Keori….it’s because people like you find yourselves in that situation that many of us in a position to do so keep the pressure on. This can range from publicly and strenuously advocating for change to assisting quietly, where we try to change one or two minds at a time, hoping they’ll do the same.
It’s so frustrating to be on the receiving end of injustice, and infinitely harder when stifled by the very injustice you’re suffering. My message isn’t to ‘be more patient’ as much as to ‘do what you can in your position’ without placing yourself in a worse situation. Never give up, but at the same time, pick your battles by fighting only those where you have a good chance of triumphing. To act rashly can actually set back your cause(s).
Remember, many have been involved in this struggle for a very long time. The proof that we’re on the right path and justified in our convictions lies in the fact that so many more of us ‘hetero-normative’ types are willing to take up the fight alongside the GLBT and the discussion is now public and growing louder by the day.(Lori, hope I got your word correct)
[Reply]