Monday the Supreme Court rejected, without comment, a challenge to DADT, granting a request by the Obama administration, which praised the move, according to the AP, saying:  "'don't ask, don't tell' is 'rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.'"

Meanwhile, Stephen Colbert was in Iraq this week, broadcasting his Colbert Report from one of Saddam's old palaces, and had the balls to out the elephant in the room.  Tuesday he did a major segment on DADT, which, I have to admit, actually surprised me a little.  Not that it's not something the troops themselves don't joke about, I'm sure, but politicians, including the President, would like us to believe that the delicate sensibilities of our military personnel won't allow us to even utter the evil acronym in public. 

That's the whole premise of Don't Ask Don't Tell, after all.  It doesn't forbid gays to serve — fight and die — alongside straight soldiers — it only forbids them to reveal — or even arouse suspicion — that they are gay.  If we look at closeted homosexuality as a positive identity, which is how the military does, and not as an outright denial of identity, which is how many gays have grown to view it, we're tempted to ask why secrecy and a persecutorial atmosphere of suspicion reminiscent of the red scare are felt to be of value to troop cohesion.

Bringing it up, as Colbert did in a segment where he debated himself on the dubious merits of the policy, is dangerous for another reason: it immediately exposes the stupidity of it.  Like gay marriage, it's just one of those things that once it's out there, it becomes totally innocuous to all but hardcore bigots and busybodies, who are more of a danger to troop morale than gays, I can assure you.  

But the issue is only useful, politically, when it's taboo, and DADT makes sure it is.  The policy says that the real danger is simply talking about it.  But as most people learn when they come out these days, talking about it actually eliminates the malignancies that poison morale.  God forbid we ever get to the point where we're mature enough to joke about it all. 

I live with straight people, and I can tell you (a) I have no interest in them sexually, and (b) the feeling is mutual.  Some straight guys have this notion that gay guys are like vampires — it doesn't matter what you look like, as long as there's something to suck out of you.  Once you disabuse them of the notion that gays are all appetite and no taste — once they understand that their secret fantasy of having a gimp-like cock-slave in a cage in the closet isn't ever going to become reality, you can usually move on without event.

But again, the danger is that when people actually start to talk about gay rights, it becomes quickly apparent that those most vehemently opposed are usually talking out their asses.  Sometimes you get the feeling they're using fear as a substitute for a secret hope.  Sometimes their fevered fear starts seeming more perverse than the perversity they fear.  Keeping things secret allows them to experience the titillation of transgressive thoughts, and the complexes of guilt and remorse that surround them and give their fantasies the kick they need.

Once you out it all, to the point where it's positively mundane, the warped complexes surrounding sexuality lose their tang.  I understand the chagrin: we're taking away your taboos.  But when you come out you get to trade in all of that for a safe word, and the fun of dragging the hubby to Dungeon Depot to get fitted for matching slings!  Later you can go online and shop for a top for the two of you!  You can even pretend he's straight.  You really can have it all, trust me!

I know it's a cliché to say that the people all up in arms about gay rights are closet cases themselves, but what else can you conclude from the stridency of their protests coupled with the paucity of facts to back their positions?  I mean, look at the gay marriage debate.  What is "traditional marriage"? 

There have been a slew of great little videos that have shown up on youtube over the course of the Prop 8 debate that point out the absurdity of phrases like "traditional marriage" — from the hilarious "Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian, Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else"...


... to darker fare like "The Defenders" or the more ominous "The License".*

It's obvious the "arguments" against marriage equality are actually visceral reactions.  And as a recent study shows: "Conservatives Are More Easily Disgusted": 

People who squirm at the sight of bugs or are grossed out by blood and guts are more likely to be politically conservative, new studies find. In particular, the squeamish are more apt to have conservative attitudes about gays and lesbians.

But isn't it a shame we're forced to waste this kind of brain-power deciphering the inner feelings of people who seemingly lack any capacity for empathy themselves.  The whole thing's a bit of a snipe hunt.  But not a very fun one.  A rabid snipe hunt.  Especially considering the appalling viciousness of the public debate about whether other human beings deserve human rights. Friends or foes of gay rights tend to dehumanize gay people in the process of debating them, as if gays could not speak with dignity and humanity for themselves.

Needless to say, the visceral disgust some people apparently feel at the mention of homosexuality says more about their prurient imaginations and the limits of their own humanity by far than it does about gays themselves. We all have the same basic parts, and there is nothing gays can do sexually that straight people can't or don't do themselves. Gays just have bigger dicks.  But the deeds are no dirtier one way than another.

But like all debates with armchair bigots, nothing anyone could say can sway them, because their opinions are not based in fact and reason.  And by engaging, which we're forced to do by the cowardice and passivity of supposed allies (you know who you are), we simply lend legitimacy to a host of conspiracy theorists and hate groups.  It's naive to think that when we sanction one form of irrational hatred a whole host of others don't sneak in, too. 



Opponents of marriage have their talking points, of course, with their meaningless catch-phrases that stand in for debate, always the same, following one from another to form a not inelegant a chain of quaint, false premises: "There is something called 'traditional marriage.' Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation and raising a family. Gay people can't procreate.  Therefore gay people can't raise a family. Therefore, gay people can't marry.  Ha.  So there."

None of these points is even remotely factual.  And even if they were, as Mrs. Betty Bowers shows, the definition and value of "traditional" is certainly debatable.  The only reason we keep rehashing these talking points is that there is some political purpose in them.  Politics has no need of facts, after all.  If you've got an issue that gets a visceral reaction, that issue is a keeper. 

Disgust is a greater motivator than reason.  "Disgust" is always the final word for the bigot, who often uses the popular idiom and imagery of disease, contamination, infestation. The Right has been using the politics of disgust for political distraction for a generation, mostly in order to get poor white people to vote against their economic interests.  And as a bonus they've created a whole new class of paranoids in the process!

The idea of our straight allies seems to be that eventually the bigots will exhaust themselves and sputter out, and reasonable folk will realize they would rather be on the side of sanity (not to mention good taste and interior design), but there is no guarantee that by sitting passive that will come to pass.  

All I can say is: this "debate" is getting awfully stale.  And it's rigged against us, anyway.  Gays enter into it as something less than straight people.  Just like Jews, blacks and women before us, we are something less than wholly human in the eyes of the law.  But I guess I'd have to ask those who oppose equality: why is it that I'm constantly called on to prove my humanity to you, and you don't have to return the favor?
_______________________________________________
*Be warned: as clever as these videos are, it's been shown that watching too many debates about Prop 8 on youtube will cause you not only utter frustration at the lameness of the Prop 8 supporters' reliance on fear-mongering and their endless repetition of far right talking points, but will also cause you to lose IQ points (up to fifteen per video, in fact) trying to frame the issue in terms they can understand.