Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Surely, Ed, you are aware that showing any of teh GAY on the teevee, where young, impressionable (or older, delusional) viewers might see it is fraught with peril. Why, looking at a single GAY person--no matter that he might NOT be wearing a sequined bustier and chaps, a bouffant wig and approximately four pounds of make-up--can turn good, GODfearing Haterosexuals into Homozombies. Imagine what seeing as many as 75,000 of them in full GAYgalia would do--the horror, the inhumanity!! I can see it now, it would be like that movie, "The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers" where the GAYfected would turn towards those who are still chaste and pure UnGAYS and point at them while screaming like Ethel Mermen. Excuse me, I have to go look for something in my closet.

Posted by: democommie | October 18, 2009 9:43 AM

I once heard Bill O'Reilly argue his right to take his kids to the movies and not have them exposed to homosexual displays of affection as innocuous as leaving the theater holding hands or having their arms around one another was greater than homosexuals' right to display the very affection acceptable in such venues for heterosexuals. Aka, the persecution complex which is an inherent part of Christianism.

So while democommie's point emphasized the comedic aspect, the basis for such humor is rooted in reality.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 18, 2009 10:20 AM

I am actually surprised Fox didn't cover it, edited of course, for use to support christian amerika.

Posted by: MikeMa | October 18, 2009 10:43 AM

Dan Choi is no longer on active duty. He was kicked out, remember? So he can wear whatever he wants, unless you think anyone will believe that the Army "supports or sponsors" Choi's position. And I expect Choi would love the Army to try to go after him on this, regardless.

Posted by: The Ridger | October 18, 2009 11:20 AM

DJ, it might be a no-no for someone still *in* the military, but once you've been discharged from the military, it's not as if the military can tell you what to do or what to wear.

Posted by: Drew Smith | October 18, 2009 11:24 AM

Piling on to BobApril's point . . . I'm not sure how one defends Lt. Choi's decision to speak in uniform; as a matter of principle I find it equally reprehensible to Klingenschmitt appearing in uniform.

It's also idiotic, when one has a winning argument, it's unwise to provide ammunition to your enemies that provides them cover to avoid dealing with your central argument. Why hand your opponents a red herring? That is exactly what Lt. Choi is doing in this case.

Lt. Choi is a young man who remains idealistic - a trait I find attractive as I fight to maintain my own as I get older. However it also provides evidence he either needs to surround himself with wiser counsel or if he has, take their advice.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 18, 2009 11:45 AM

he's by far the best newsman on cable television

Now if we could just get him away from the CAM crowd.

Posted by: Shay | October 18, 2009 12:30 PM

Now if we could just get him away from the CAM crowd.

Wait, John Stewart is into alternative medicine? Links please, since that's the first time I've heard of it.

Posted by: joz | October 18, 2009 1:13 PM

Choi is wearing his uniform because it's a protest. While officially protesting should be done by the book, a speaker at a protest would typically be the first to flaunt the law.

In his position, would you not feel it was a minor risk? The man is outraged because he spent most of his young life working hard to serve his country. The enemy hasn't denied his dignity or his life, his own nation has. I imagine Choi would be happy to do a lot more than wear a uniform at an inappropriate time if he thought it might help those like him. I imagine anyone stupid enough to not see that is stupid enough to actually believe he chose to be gay or there is something wrong with him because of it.

Even if you *hate* gay people, the fact remains they are *born* gay. This nation is supposed to be free, and not discriminate.

Posted by: bkman | October 18, 2009 1:31 PM

bkman - your argument is equal in its quality to Klingenschmitt's rationale. If you are going to take a position you believe distinguishes it as the moral high ground, than don't yield such for a trifle.

I'll stand by my original argument that Choi doesn't help himself by wearing his uniform while also providing fodder to his opponents. A man of honor always acts with honor, no exceptions - that is a defining attribute of honor. In this case Choi brings dishonor to the uniform in spite of the fact his service brought great honor to the country and our Congress brings shame and dishonor on itself by legislating the discharge of Lt. Choi.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 18, 2009 2:05 PM

SaintBastard @ 22:

So when the VFW shows up at a parade in full dress uniform, they should be rounded up and arrested for "impersonating an officer"? . . . I do believe that he does have the right to wear his uniform to public functions.

Trepkos @ 16 already distinguished the difference:

Army Regulation 670-1 covers wear of the uniform by veterans. In short, he is allowed to wear his service or dress uniform to ceremonies. The rally does not count as an acceptable ceremony. He is not impersonating an officer, but he is in violation of army regs. (see 30-1 and 30-4 specifically)

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 18, 2009 2:20 PM

SaintBastard, it is illegal to impersonate an officer. But in general it's not enforced unless you're impersonating an officer for personal gain. It's not like they arrest kids for dressing up like soldiers for Halloween. So Dan Choi did not have the legal right to wear his uniform, but I doubt anybody really cared. The Army could use this as ammunition if DADT is repealed and he tries to get back in, though.

And yeah, DADT usually grants honorable discharges unless the soldier is also guilty of perjury by lying about it.

Posted by: Brandon | October 18, 2009 2:28 PM

Real Americans? Liberals and Gays are not Real Americans? Is it because some of them also dont have blonde hair and blue eyes? Thats a great "inclusive" view of America. Thank you for being a part of the country, douche.

Posted by: Marcus | October 18, 2009 2:30 PM

I see Mad Pighead is still either Poeing or insane.

Posted by: Katharine | October 18, 2009 2:56 PM

Whenever I read anything regarding Klingenschmitt these days, the clothes he's wearing are far down on the list of reasons I despise him.

Posted by: Taz | October 18, 2009 3:46 PM

How did he in any way bring "dishonor to the uniform"? Because he wore it in the presence of too much gayness?

I find it pretty absurd when people give so much reverence to a symbol like a flag, uniform, etc. But if he can use a symbol to give his speech more power, why shouldn't he? He didn't make any over the top alterations or anything, so I can't see why anyone would say his simply wearing the uniform "dishonors" it.

Posted by: havoc | October 18, 2009 5:15 PM

I wonder, if one analyzes the 3:42 that Faux News spent on the National Equality March, how "fair and balanced" their coverage was. I'm sure that the network respected LGBT veterans, congratulated married same-sex couples, and commented positively on the supportive straights who are in favor of civil equality.

Posted by: cognitive dissident | October 18, 2009 6:00 PM

The west lawn of the Capital seats 80,000 in folding chairs or 120,000 standing. I was in charge of several sections of handicapped seating for the 1989 Inauguration, so I have seen the seating plans.

The teabaggers had it about half full but were spread out. 50,000 seems like a good estimate. The pro-rights rally was certainly in the same range. They did a good job of not letting the press that did cover the event from getting overhead shots from the front, which is the easiest way to estimate a crowd. That allowed the promotors to claim that their pre-rally estimates of 150-200,000 were accurate, although just knowing the geography of the west front rules this out.

Almost all the photos I have seen were looking up to the podium, rather than from the podium panning the crowd. From what I've seen, 35-50,000 seems about right, though.

Seeing the ratio by which Imbecile-Americans outnumber gays and their supporters, the size of the rally is encouraging. Pity I don't travel well.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 18, 2009 6:43 PM

cognitive dissident I'm sure that the network...commented positively on the supportive straights who are in favor of civil equality."
"Civil equality"? Pah! "All men are created equal"…but what happens after that is up to the popular majority. That "Constitution" thing is just a liberal sham. Except for the last part of the 2nd Amendment. And that bit in the 1st about how America is a Christian Nation.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 18, 2009 7:09 PM

Oh, please. If you sent reporters out every time some whiny liberals held a protest march, you wouldn't have any time or resources left to cover important stories like six-year-olds in balloons.

When real Americans protest, it's news. Liberals and gays? Not so much.

Well, I suppose it's news because after decades of shooting people and blowing up buildings, the right-wingers decided to finally try non-violent protest. Congratulations on catching up to the very early 20th century.

Posted by: Oh, enough already. | October 18, 2009 7:34 PM

JS1785 "When they tried to overturn the vote on prop 8 in california I lost all respect for the movement. If your willing to fight for your cause, whatever that may be, i'm all for it. But if your going to try and overturn the vote you're a scumbag, it's simple."
...says a member of the Popular Majority. Kudos on not believing in anyone's civil rights but your own.

"go ahead and call me a racist or a bigot..."
You're not the boss of me!

"i could care less what you think(i'm using the term loosely)."
Your honey-coated words have no effect on me!

Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 18, 2009 8:06 PM

Havoc - "But if he can use a symbol to give his speech more power, why shouldn't he? ...I can't see why anyone would say his simply wearing the uniform "dishonors" it."

I wouldn't go that far, either. But I repeat that I think his appearance at this function in uniform will cause a strong reaction, obscuring his message, among the people who most need to hear it - the senior active and retired members of the U.S. military. They're the ones that are providing the biggest stumbling block to change, by providing the right-wingers with scare quotes about "massive drop in reenlistments," "harmful to good order and discipline," and "damaging the force during a time of war." The youngsters in uniform mostly don't care, but the old fogies do, they're actively against change, and they're the ones most likely to notice and care about Choi's choice of this particular clothing.

It gives his speech more power among those who agree with him already. It weakens his message for the rest. I'd encourage him to wear something else to identify his service - the traditional (among retirees) ballcap with his service ribbons would do nicely, though it is a bit informal.

Posted by: BobApril | October 18, 2009 8:27 PM

JS1785 - "they were offered civil unions with the same bennies as marriage without calling it marriage, but that wasn't good enough for them..."

"Separate but equal" never really is. As soon as you create two categories, the people who want to discriminate will write their policies in such a way as to do so. If we call it marriage, then it is EXACTLY the same as hetero marriage, and must be treated as such.

Posted by: BobApril | October 18, 2009 8:31 PM

I'm assuming that you're against affirmative action too. you can't have it both ways. What if they just decided to call it gay marriage? that wouldn't work either because it points out the gay part so we can't have that. hmm... what to do, what to do? and just to stay on topic, who cares how many teabaggers or gaybaggers or million mom marchbaggers storm the capitol? certainly none of our "representatives".

Posted by: JS1785 | October 18, 2009 8:49 PM

JS1785 "I'm assuming that you're against affirmative action too."
Giving a historically (and currently) oppressed minority a leg up? Brown people are still waiting for their acres & mule. Until they get that, this will do.

"What if they just decided to call it gay marriage?"
It's not gay marriage, no more than black/white is "mixed marriage". It's just marriage.

"Believe it or not some people still go to church(i'm not one of them but..)and truly believe in the sanctity of marriage, are these people evil for believing in their own version of god?"
No. Just ignorant. Your same passage, by the way, worked just as well back before Loving v Virginia. The current arguments against expanding the current limits will age just as poorly, I suspect.

"There is no compromise to be found from either side of this debate."
Compromise on civil rights? So, what's the correct amount of oppression?

"everyone in life will be picked on or ridiculed for something should we write anti-bully laws?"
"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

"no because thats life."
No, that's uncivilized life. The difference is crucial. Adult society is not a bunch of amoral kids (stumbling towards moral adults) on a playground. At least, it's not supposed to be.

"why should gay people be held above the rest of us?"
Them getting married doesn't raise them above us. It makes them equal.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 18, 2009 9:29 PM

JS1785 - "are these people evil for believing in their own version of god?"

Nope. They're evil for trying to force others to live by the tenets of their own beliefs. No one is requiring them to enter into same-sex marriages. Why are they trying to require gays to NOT do so? Gays are not asking for special privileges because they are victims - they're asking for equal rights because they're people.

Posted by: BobApril | October 18, 2009 9:41 PM

they were offered civil unions with the same bennies as marriage without calling it marriage, but that wasn't good enough for them...

Keep in mind that in many places they can't even have civil unions. A number of states prohibit any such unions, and here in Washington State voters will have to re-authorize an everything-but-marriage law put on the ballot by people claiming to "defend" marraige.

Posted by: lharris | October 18, 2009 9:55 PM

What if they just decided to call it gay marriage? that wouldn't work either because it points out the gay part so we can't have that.

You make it sound like that would be an unreasonable reaction. If my marriage certificate said something like, Certificate of Interracial Marriage, I'd be irritated. I don't think that most Americans would disagree with me. Why should I expect other people to react differently?

There is no compromise to be found from either side of this debate.

Compromise is often a nice thing, but willingness to compromise really isn't an indicator of whether your position is right or not.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | October 18, 2009 10:37 PM

Joz@17 and Paul@18 are correct. This is what I get for posting before coffee.

So when the VFW shows up at a parade in full dress uniform, they should be rounded up and arrested for "impersonating an officer?"

Well...most of us can't fit in our dress uniforms anymore so we generally show up in dark suits and that (ill-fitting and uncomfortable) overseas cap. I can't remember the last time I saw anybody in anything else.

Although I believe that Lt Choi's dismissal was an outragous injustice, as Ed and others have pointed out, he does more harm than good by appearing in uniform.

Posted by: Shay | October 18, 2009 10:44 PM

everyone in life will be picked on or ridiculed for something should we write anti-bully laws? or how about an anti-kids will be kids bill. no because thats life. why should gay people be held above the rest of us?

Or perhaps you're having a hard time hitting the shift key, what with your mom making you wear mittens all the time.

Posted by: James Hanley | October 18, 2009 11:25 PM

Unfortunately, equality is about politics in the US, though it shouldn't be it.

And for not being born gay: There's nothing that indicates it's a choice or that it could be determined through education.

Posted by: ChrisE | October 18, 2009 11:59 PM

tell me how you really feel.

Posted by: JS1785 | October 19, 2009 12:10 AM

Apologies for thread-jacking (unintentionally), it's just that I was shocked to see Dan Choi in his uniform because I thought it wasn't allowed, that's all.
JS1785 - It's not about labels, politics or special privileges; it's about equality under the law. Unless there is some compelling reason to disallow something (such as making political or religious statements whilst clothed in the authority of a military uniform), then there is no reason for the state to prevent it.
If you object to same-sex marriages you're going to have to come up with a more compelling arguement than "ewww - that's yucky". - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | October 19, 2009 1:04 AM

I view his wearing the uniform as an act of civil disobedience. I think there's is some precedent in this country for such actions.

Posted by: Equisetum | October 19, 2009 2:20 AM

MO - You forgot the Xtian classic, argumentum ad tantrum - "I'm an 'oppressed minority' who finds 'The Gayness' offensive, therefore I can make the majority do what I want them to do, 'cause I said so. If not, then you're all big bullies; I'm gonna take my bat & ball and go home to tell Daddy on you, so there. You're all poo poo bum-holes.." :)
Equisetum - attending a protest meeting in uniform, (against military rules) is hardly polite, besides, in this case, wouldn't it be military disobedience? (I'm sure military types have a word for this kind of behaviour... ) :) - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | October 19, 2009 3:01 AM

If someone says people are isn't born gay...

For clarity.

Posted by: chrisD | October 19, 2009 3:14 AM

I still love being lumped into "those people" and think it's cute when he wonders if "they choose" to be that way. To be judged as a mental masturbation exercise is awesome.

There is no compromise to be found from either side of this debate.

I'm 100% with you on that one, fucker. And as long as people like you make my government treat us as immoral, sinning dangers to traditional society, it will always be thus.

Posted by: paul | October 19, 2009 3:40 AM

I do wish you would stop posting videos that aren't available outside N. America.

...Anyone know of an alternative source for this clip?

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | October 19, 2009 7:00 AM

@Vince Whirlwind - Yeah, I bet the right wing would love to see a gay rights march on the UN. Just imagine the field day Fox "News" and Glenn Beck would have with that! "Zomg, gay rights advocates are trying to subvert the US government! They want foreign peacekeepers on American soil!"

Posted by: Imrryr | October 19, 2009 9:03 AM

Woody Tanaka:

I don't know if you're correct, on legal grounds, but I'm with ya!

Posted by: democommie | October 19, 2009 9:49 AM

Michael Heath @ # 11 (& others making similar points): ... as a matter of principle I find it equally reprehensible to Klingenschmitt appearing in uniform.

This overlooks a contextual difference: Klingenschmitt was an active-duty Army officer intentionally disobeying a direct order by a superior officer.

Unless you consider military discipline totally insignificant, the reprehensibility (well, it's a word now, iznit?) of the two actions is not equal.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 19, 2009 11:07 AM

Vicki:

How is it not establishment of religion for the members of one church (such as the Southern Baptists) to say that a marriage performed by another church (such as the Unitarians) shouldn't have legal recognition?

Did the state act here? I seem to be missing that link. If the state doesn't act it's just an opinion.

Posted by: kehrsam | October 19, 2009 3:19 PM

Jon Stewart made an adequate point to explain the uniform. Stewart asserted that Choi was a good soldier, absent being gay. In my mind, the context itself is appropriate and to the point. If you do not recognize being gay as a reason to say a soldier is bad, then Choi has every right to wear that uniform with pride. The same pride as any one whom as ever donned it with pride.

If you don't see the connection, I'd say he wasn't speaking to you.

Posted by: jay | October 19, 2009 8:19 PM