Washington — The top U.S. Marine [said yesterday that] most Marines would prefer not to share a room with gay comrades, despite plans by President Barack Obama to lift a ban on gays serving openly in the military.
General James Conway, who has made clear his opposition to ending the ban, said if the law is changed the Marine Corps might look for volunteers willing to share quarters with gays as some “very religious” members objected to rooming with homosexuals.
“I can tell you that an overwhelming majority would like not to be roomed with a person who is openly homosexual,” Conway told a Pentagon press conference.
“Some do not object. And perhaps, you know, perhaps a voluntary basis might be the best way to start without violating anybody’s sense of moral concern or a perception on the part of their mates,” he said.
He added that “in some instances we will have people that say that homosexuality is wrong and they simply do not want to room with a person of that persuasion because it would go against their religious beliefs.” …
Um, so what?
My federal tax dollars — which go to the U.S. military-industrial complex instead of to things that we Americans need, like health care, public education and public infrastructure — are used to support a military that caters to religious-based ignorance, bigotry and hatred?
What if a “Christian” Marine doesn’t want a Jewish or a Muslim or an atheist or another non-Christian roommate? Is he or she accommodated?
What if a white Marine doesn’t want a non-white roommate? Is white supremacism to be supported by my federal tax dollars?
Fact is, if you’re a straight guy, your assigned roommate could be gay or bisexual whether you can tell or not. Get over it. As long as your roommate (of either biological sex and of any sexual orientation) doesn’t sexually harass or sexually assualt you, what do you have to piss and moan about? That your sensibilities are offended? Oh, boo hoo! I thought that the Marines were tough.
I understand that the U.S. armed forces attract redneck dipshits who apparently think that Jesus was all about killing civilians in foreign lands who refuse to convert to “Christianity.” These “patriotic” crusaders for Christ apparently don’t perceive that they’re just cannon fodder for corporate global expansion; they apparently actually believe that they’re truly protecting freedom and liberty and puppies and kittens and butterflies in the names of God and Jesus.
But that’s the problem: God and Jesus.
I have a problem that our military is not secular, but that it is so highly “Christianized.” It’s wrong. It’s anti-American. It’s dangerous.
Dozens of soldiers at an Army base in Virginia apparently were punished recently for having refused to attend a “Christian” band’s concert at the base. That any branch of the U.S. armed forces would allow such religious-based propaganda on a taxpayer-funded military base anyway is questionable, but to punish soldiers for declining to attend? That’s the bullshit cramming of “Christianity” down soldiers’ throats, and I hope that some high-ranking “Christo”fascist heads roll for it.
I just can’t have confidence in my nation’s military knowing that it apparently is riddled with (in no certain order) xenophobes, homophobes, white supremacists, racists, “Christo”fascists, et. al. A chain is only as strong as is its weakest link, and there are a lot of weak links — and missing links — in the U.S. armed forces.
Placing roommates together, I am sure, can be difficult. Would it be a good idea to place a known gay soldier with a known homophobic solider? No, probably not.
But is it in society’s good to coddle the haters?
No. That’s why, to my knowledge, U.S. soldiers don’t get to object to their roommates’ race or religion.
If we want a stronger military, we should expel the haters. Period. They’re mentally unstable anyway.
And all Americans need to embrace diversity. It’s 2010, for fuck’s sake. I know that millions of Americans are still reeling over the fact that we have our first non-white U.S. president, but they need to get a grip and move forward.
A federal appeals court ruled last month that it violates caregiving staff’s civil rights for a caregiving facility to allow racist and/or white supremacist patients to be able to refuse to be cared for by them because of their race.
“I always felt like it was wrong,” said Brenda Chaney, a black certified nurse assistant who brought about the lawsuit, said of the fact that white patients at her workplace in Indiana were allowed to refuse to be cared for her because she is black.
Back in my nursing days in the 1990s in Arizona, I recall at least a few white patients who refused black caregivers — and that they often if not usually were accommodated. I always thought that it was wrong, too, but the alternative, it seemed to me, was to subject a black caregiver to race-based abuse by a patient.
(To be fair, I had some black patients who didn’t seem to be thrilled to have a white caregiver [I especially remember the one who once rather venomously referred to me as “white boy”], but to be fair, blacks always have been worse victims of racism at the hands of whites than vice versa.)
So while I wouldn’t want black (or other non-white) caregivers to be abused by white supremacist patients, is it good public policy to allow the haters to pick and choose with whom they get to associate in communal settings?
As a federal court just ruled that a patient can’t choose the race of his or her caregiver, how would a federal court rule on allowing a homophobic soldier to be able to pick the sexual orientation of his or her roommate or roommates?
You know, while it’s true that gay is the new black, black is a pretty good litmus test: If it wouldn’t be OK to do something to a black person (such as not allow him or her to marry the person of his or her choice), it probably wouldn’t be OK to do the same fucking thing to a non-heterosexual person.
It’s not rocket science.
But then, we’re not a nation of rocket scientists, are we?