Ben KimuraWatercolor
Friday, October 23, 2009
"The Poet's Corner"
"I have now understood that though it seems to men that they live by care for themselves, in truth it is love alone by which they live. He who has love, is in God, and God is in him, for God is love. "
Leo Tolstoy in "What Men Live By" (1881)
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 150"
"Black, Out, Proud and In Love..."
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 149"
"His Kiss Brings Me Joy..."
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
Positive images of people like me... The truth of the matter is that we all need to see people like ourselves. So everyday, I'll post a photo, drawing or some other artwork that depicts Same Gender Loving People as what we are... Only Human.
"In The News Today..."
Gay Penguin Book Authors Welcome Their Own New Addition
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • October 5, 2009 - 18:25
And Tango Makes Three is one of the most challenged books
The authors of And Tango Makes Three, the controversial children's book about a pair of gay penguins, have welcomed their first child into the world.
Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell had their baby daughter Gemma in February but the new addition to their family has only just been revealed.
Baby Gemma was born to a surrogate mother after several years of unsuccessful IVF attempts. Sperm from both men was used, although it was left to chance as to who would be the biological father.
The couple wrote And Tango Makes Three after hearing the story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in Central Park Zoo who hatched an egg together.
The book is thought to be the most-challenged text in the past few years and libraries are asked not to stock it more than any other book.
It has been accused of being anti-family, anti-religion, unsuitable for children and pro-homosexuality.
In April, it topped an American Library Association's (ALA) list of the book most people want banned.
However, the ALA has been keen to defend literature from censorship and celebrates Banned Books Week every autumn.
And Tango Makes Three is one of the most challenged books
The authors of And Tango Makes Three, the controversial children's book about a pair of gay penguins, have welcomed their first child into the world.
Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell had their baby daughter Gemma in February but the new addition to their family has only just been revealed.
Baby Gemma was born to a surrogate mother after several years of unsuccessful IVF attempts. Sperm from both men was used, although it was left to chance as to who would be the biological father.
The couple wrote And Tango Makes Three after hearing the story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in Central Park Zoo who hatched an egg together.
The book is thought to be the most-challenged text in the past few years and libraries are asked not to stock it more than any other book.
It has been accused of being anti-family, anti-religion, unsuitable for children and pro-homosexuality.
In April, it topped an American Library Association's (ALA) list of the book most people want banned.
However, the ALA has been keen to defend literature from censorship and celebrates Banned Books Week every autumn.
Monday, October 19, 2009
"The Truth Is In The Scriptures"
Reversing Anti-Gay Christianist Talking Points...
Cross-posted from Queers United
Next time you hear anti-gay forces try to speak their "truth", let them know how hypocritical their philosophy of hate and misunderstanding really is.
Religion is a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is not.
The religious-right often says that homosexuality is a choice, when clearly the science and common sense is in that nobody would choose to feel ostracized, be a minority, or lead a life where they weren't given equal opportunities.
Judgment and hate are sinful, loving gay couples are not.
The people who use the Bible as a tool to preach anti-gay hate often point fingers accusing gay people of being sinners. What they fail to realize is that the Bible is not to be taken literally, homosexuality is no more a sin, than being left handed, it is natural and God given, it is people in the context of an ancient culture who misunderstood homosexuality that wrote these verses. For those who take a literal interpretation it is ironic that they rail against LGBT people while failing to remember the Bible says not to judge or to hate, but to love thy neighbor as thyself.
To walk in the way of Jesus is to reach out to LGBT people.
Jesus Christ made it his mission not to follow religious dogma and authority, he did not seek to reach out to the rich or those in power. He set out to befriend and assist the poor, the weak, the disabled, and disenfranchised. Jesus would clearly be reaching out to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
Religion seeks to recruit people into its lifestyle, LGBT people don't.
Right-wing elements within organized religion often claims that gays are trying to "recruit people into their lifestyle" but last I checked one cannot alter a straight persons orientation. We seek to educate, dialogue and gain equality not in an effort to turn people gay but turn peoples hearts and minds into seeing that we share the same hopes, and fears, and love that everyone else does. If anyone is on a mission to recruit people into their lifestyle it would be organized religion and their missionaries. These groups seek to convert people into their way of thinking, which they see as the only way. The beauty of this Earth is that there are many ways to find inner peace and spirituality, and that there is a diversity of thought and of culture and to find God or to have no Gods at all.
Religion is a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is not.
The religious-right often says that homosexuality is a choice, when clearly the science and common sense is in that nobody would choose to feel ostracized, be a minority, or lead a life where they weren't given equal opportunities.
Judgment and hate are sinful, loving gay couples are not.
The people who use the Bible as a tool to preach anti-gay hate often point fingers accusing gay people of being sinners. What they fail to realize is that the Bible is not to be taken literally, homosexuality is no more a sin, than being left handed, it is natural and God given, it is people in the context of an ancient culture who misunderstood homosexuality that wrote these verses. For those who take a literal interpretation it is ironic that they rail against LGBT people while failing to remember the Bible says not to judge or to hate, but to love thy neighbor as thyself.
To walk in the way of Jesus is to reach out to LGBT people.
Jesus Christ made it his mission not to follow religious dogma and authority, he did not seek to reach out to the rich or those in power. He set out to befriend and assist the poor, the weak, the disabled, and disenfranchised. Jesus would clearly be reaching out to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.
Religion seeks to recruit people into its lifestyle, LGBT people don't.
Right-wing elements within organized religion often claims that gays are trying to "recruit people into their lifestyle" but last I checked one cannot alter a straight persons orientation. We seek to educate, dialogue and gain equality not in an effort to turn people gay but turn peoples hearts and minds into seeing that we share the same hopes, and fears, and love that everyone else does. If anyone is on a mission to recruit people into their lifestyle it would be organized religion and their missionaries. These groups seek to convert people into their way of thinking, which they see as the only way. The beauty of this Earth is that there are many ways to find inner peace and spirituality, and that there is a diversity of thought and of culture and to find God or to have no Gods at all.
"In The News Today..."
Pentagon Airs Criticism Of ‘Don’t Ask’
Journal article backs gay troops; May signal brass open to debate
Journal article backs gay troops; May signal brass open to debate
By Bryan Bender
September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON - An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.
The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs’ “flagship’’ security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.
While decisions on which articles to publish are made by the journal’s editorial board, located at the defense university, a senior military official said yesterday that the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who is the nation’s top military officer, reviewed the article before it was published.
“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’
The article, an advance copy of which was provided to the Globe, is likely to increase pressure on President Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to work with Congress to overturn the 1993 law commonly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell.’’
The law stipulates that gays in the military must keep their sexual orientation secret. In the 16 years it has been in effect, more than 12,500 troops have been discharged because their sexual orientation was revealed, either by themselves or others.
But Obama has tread very carefully since taking office, declining to provide a timeline on when the White House will actively lobby Congress and repeatedly saying that he will consult his military advisers before taking any action. The White House did not respond yesterday to requests for comment. Gates’s office reiterated that until Congress changes the law, the Pentagon will follow it.
Obama’s reticence is based in part on the lessons of former president Bill Clinton, who sought to allow gays to serve openly early in his administration but was forced to agree to the 1993 compromise after a fierce backlash in Congress and the military.
Representative Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq war veteran, is lobbying for a hearing - possibly later this year or early next year - on legislation that he has proposed that would repeal the ban. The bill has 176 cosponsors; there is no similar legislation pending in the Senate.
Arguing that the law “has been costly both in personnel and treasure’’ - the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills - Prakash lays out a case in his article for why he believes the time has come for repeal.
While he acknowledges that allowing gays to serve openly would cause some disruptions in the ranks - including harassment and even violence - he asserts that the disruptions would be manageable and that the military would quickly accept the change. Moreover, he argues that a more equitable policy would actually strengthen unit cohesion.
“No doubt there will be cases where units will become dysfunctional, just as there are today among heterosexual leaders,’’ Prakash writes. “Intervention will be required; such units must be dealt with just as they are today - in a prompt and constructive fashion.’’
Ensuring a smooth transition will require education and leadership, he believes, but the record suggests that there will be no major fallout.
Prakash cites the examples of other militaries - including in Australia, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Canada - that allow gays to serve openly. “There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was no mass ‘coming out’ of homosexuals,’’ he said.
Prakash also points to recent examples of gay soldiers - including battlefield leaders such as a Marine Corps captain - whose sexual orientation has been known by others in their units, to no discernible effect.
But the crux of Prakash’s argument is that the military is now forcing thousands of soldiers to live a lie, directly undercutting the very fabric of their profession.
“The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity,’’ he writes. “Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.’’
He continues: “In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.’’
The article is likely to be applauded by gay rights groups that have been lobbying the Obama administration to take action to overturn the ban. But it is also likely to embolden supporters of the current law such as Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a Washington think tank.
She believes that allowing gays to serve openly in all ranks and units - as the Murphy bill stipulates - would severely damage unit cohesion. “It is tantamount to saying that men should share the same living spaces with women,’’ she said. “Society may have changed but the need for good order and discipline has not changed.’’
Donnelly also contends that the experiences of foreign militaries should not be a guide for the US armed forces, saying that some of them have conscript armies and do not allow gays to serve in elite combat units.
“These are not role models for the United States,’’ she said. “Congress is being asked to impose a risky military social experiment that is duplicated nowhere in the world.’’
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
September 30, 2009
WASHINGTON - An article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.
The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs’ “flagship’’ security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.
While decisions on which articles to publish are made by the journal’s editorial board, located at the defense university, a senior military official said yesterday that the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who is the nation’s top military officer, reviewed the article before it was published.
“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’
The article, an advance copy of which was provided to the Globe, is likely to increase pressure on President Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to work with Congress to overturn the 1993 law commonly referred to as “don’t ask, don’t tell.’’
The law stipulates that gays in the military must keep their sexual orientation secret. In the 16 years it has been in effect, more than 12,500 troops have been discharged because their sexual orientation was revealed, either by themselves or others.
But Obama has tread very carefully since taking office, declining to provide a timeline on when the White House will actively lobby Congress and repeatedly saying that he will consult his military advisers before taking any action. The White House did not respond yesterday to requests for comment. Gates’s office reiterated that until Congress changes the law, the Pentagon will follow it.
Obama’s reticence is based in part on the lessons of former president Bill Clinton, who sought to allow gays to serve openly early in his administration but was forced to agree to the 1993 compromise after a fierce backlash in Congress and the military.
Representative Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq war veteran, is lobbying for a hearing - possibly later this year or early next year - on legislation that he has proposed that would repeal the ban. The bill has 176 cosponsors; there is no similar legislation pending in the Senate.
Arguing that the law “has been costly both in personnel and treasure’’ - the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills - Prakash lays out a case in his article for why he believes the time has come for repeal.
While he acknowledges that allowing gays to serve openly would cause some disruptions in the ranks - including harassment and even violence - he asserts that the disruptions would be manageable and that the military would quickly accept the change. Moreover, he argues that a more equitable policy would actually strengthen unit cohesion.
“No doubt there will be cases where units will become dysfunctional, just as there are today among heterosexual leaders,’’ Prakash writes. “Intervention will be required; such units must be dealt with just as they are today - in a prompt and constructive fashion.’’
Ensuring a smooth transition will require education and leadership, he believes, but the record suggests that there will be no major fallout.
Prakash cites the examples of other militaries - including in Australia, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Canada - that allow gays to serve openly. “There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was no mass ‘coming out’ of homosexuals,’’ he said.
Prakash also points to recent examples of gay soldiers - including battlefield leaders such as a Marine Corps captain - whose sexual orientation has been known by others in their units, to no discernible effect.
But the crux of Prakash’s argument is that the military is now forcing thousands of soldiers to live a lie, directly undercutting the very fabric of their profession.
“The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity,’’ he writes. “Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.’’
He continues: “In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,’ places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.’’
The article is likely to be applauded by gay rights groups that have been lobbying the Obama administration to take action to overturn the ban. But it is also likely to embolden supporters of the current law such as Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a Washington think tank.
She believes that allowing gays to serve openly in all ranks and units - as the Murphy bill stipulates - would severely damage unit cohesion. “It is tantamount to saying that men should share the same living spaces with women,’’ she said. “Society may have changed but the need for good order and discipline has not changed.’’
Donnelly also contends that the experiences of foreign militaries should not be a guide for the US armed forces, saying that some of them have conscript armies and do not allow gays to serve in elite combat units.
“These are not role models for the United States,’’ she said. “Congress is being asked to impose a risky military social experiment that is duplicated nowhere in the world.’’
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
"In The News Today..."
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell... Don't ever slip up."
Frank, a recently retired gay sailor, went through years of worries that his secret life would be discovered. “I constantly felt like I had to watch what I did,” he said.
By Kate Wiltrout
The Virginian-Pilot
September 27, 2009
NORFOLK
Since 1993, a generation of gay sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen has learned to survive on the military's margins.
That year, President Bill Clinton prohibited the military from asking about individuals' sexual orientation - even as Congress mandated the discharge of anyone engaging in homosexual acts or identifying themselves as gay.
About 13,000 gays and lesbians have been discharged since the changes took place. Still, a far greater number of gay Americans are serving, or have served, in silence.
They walk a fine line, constantly recalculating how much of their personal lives to share with co-workers, learning which doctors and chaplains they can trust, and in the safest cases, finding bosses who subtly make clear that actions, not adjectives, are the best measure of a good sailor.
The Virginian-Pilot interviewed three gay members of the military about what it's like to serve without disclosing a key part of their identity.
Because naming them could jeopardize their careers, the newspaper agreed not to use their real names or include details that would allow them to be recognized.
Here are their stories.
Phoebe, who works on communications equipment on a Norfolk-based surface ship, is partway through her first hitch in the Navy.
Outspoken but not defensive, Phoebe said she didn't know she was gay when she enlisted. But after a few relationships with men, one of which resulted, unintentionally, in pregnancy, she realized she was a lesbian.
She laughs now about breaking two pieces of news to her surprised parents: First, she was pregnant. Second, she was gay.
It hasn't been easy, but she's managed to balance motherhood and the military. Her parents care for her child when her ship deploys.
She's a no-nonsense sailor, promoted three times in four years, and she doesn't think work and personal lives should mix too much. The bridge of a warship, she said, isn't an appropriate place to talk about intimate relationships - gay or straight.
But when you live together, and you're deployed together and you sleep in a small compartment, she said, it's hard to keep the most basic truth about yourself private.
She abides by the rules. But curse words fly when she talks about the current policy.
"I think it's bull that I could get kicked out for something that has nothing to do with the military. I can go die for my country, and I can't be gay?" she said, before letting loose with a choice expletive.
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibits the military from inquiring about individuals' sexual tendencies and pursuing rumors of homosexual conduct. Individuals cannot talk about their sexual orientation; nor can they be harassed over perceived sexual preferences.
But federal law offers no protection if credible evidence of gay behavior comes to a commanding officer's attention. The law clearly states that gay individuals create "an unacceptable risk" to "morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion."
Phoebe posed a theoretical question to those who think gay men and women have no place in the military. "What's worse?" she asked. "Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?"
Although she gets tired of always having to edit her speech around co-workers, Phoebe doesn't feel particularly vulnerable.
She's confident that the commanding officer of her ship knows she's gay.
The C.O. asked her once what she thought of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Her response was not suitable for publication.
Phoebe believes that most people in her division know her truth, but she's careful not to provide any proof.
"Everyone on my ship assumes, but I've never come out and said anything to anyone I didn't trust," she said.
She described an informal network of gay sailors on her ship.
Phoebe said she knows them all, and when asked roughly how many there are, proceeded to count them out on her fingers. About a dozen, she concluded, including officers, chiefs and enlisted sailors of both sexes.
With rare exceptions, gay sailors stationed on the same ship don't get involved in romantic relationships, she said. But it's nice to have friends who are dealing with the same issues.
When the ship pulled into a foreign port, Phoebe said, the gay sailors would often head off together to a hole-in-the-wall gay bar.
She takes some solace that under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," superiors are not supposed to inquire about her sexuality. So as long as she's careful, she isn't too worried about being investigated.
"I could hang out with the gayest guy in the world, wearing a dress, and it wouldn't matter," Phoebe said. "Unless there's proof, there's nothing they can do."
Phoebe said concerns about gay sailors hitting on straight shipmates are overblown: "That's why we have shower curtains! There are bathroom stalls, and you have a curtain on your rack."
She also mentioned that there's plenty of illicit interaction between men and women on her ship, even though Navy policy forbids sex while a boat is under way. On a recent deployment, she said, the captain put 10 people on the ship on restriction for having sex. One case involved a tryst between an officer and an enlisted sailor, she said - a type of fraternization verboten at sea or ashore.
Although angered by what she perceives as official discrimination against gays, Phoebe said no one has been rude or discriminatory toward her.
If Congress changed the law to allow gays to serve openly, "it wouldn't change much for me," she said.
Then she conceded that it would be a weight off her shoulders: "I could walk down the road with my girlfriend's hand in mine and not worry about someone from my ship seeing me."
Richard enlisted almost 20 years ago and, until recently, didn't give much thought to what it would be like to be a gay military man.
Then, a few years ago, he accepted a truth he'd fought to bury for years: He is gay.
The acknowledgment came as a great relief, even at home. He remains married to a woman he met in the military. They have school-age children.
In some ways, their marriage is stronger now. He and his wife are no longer lovers, but they're still best friends and partners committed to raising their kids in a loving home.
Because there's so much at stake - his job, his family's health insurance, his retirement - he worries about someone discovering the truth before he's eligible to retire in a few years.
Trained in multiple foreign languages for a job that requires travel and a security clearance, he knows his skills would fetch a handsome salary in the civilian world. He would happily stay in uniform if the law changed. If it doesn't, he's prepared to retire as soon as he can.
In a recent interview with Richard and his wife in the living room of their two-story house, in a typical Hampton Roads subdivision, the couple talked about their lives.
His wife finds support on the Internet from other women married to gay men. It's not as rare as you might think, they say.
Richard has turned to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to learn which actions do or don't violate the law.
For example, he explains, it's OK for a soldier to go to a gay bar - but it's not OK to dance with another man. It's OK to watch a movie with a same-sex partner - but not to kiss or hold that partner's hand. It's fine to march in a gay pride parade- but not to hold a placard identifying yourself as a lesbian sailor.
Having to stay attuned to those specific legalities has worn Richard down.
He takes seriously the American ideals of justice and equality. That his own government denies him both, he said, takes its toll.
"Is our military representative of the freedoms of our nation?" he asked rhetorically. "If I can't go to the movies and hold somebody's hand, am I free?"
Having to lie about tiny things gets tiresome, and eventually, Richard said, leads to a bigger problem:
"It's important people can be true to themselves. If you can't be true to yourselves, you can't be true to the people around you."
The current policy encourages lying, he said - and even small lies about where you spent the weekend or what you watched on TV turn into a bigger breach of trust.
"When, by law, you are compelling people to lie about their personal lives, you're driving a wedge between people and their unit," he said.
He is confident the military would accept the change without much trouble.
"Saying our military can't adapt to those challenges is really selling our military short," he said.
Like Richard, Frank didn't accept being gay until after he'd married and become a father.
He enlisted to get away from home.
"I was running away from home, and it was the best way to keep a roof over my head, food in my stomach, and a little bit of change in my pocket," he said during an interview at a Virginia Beach Starbucks.
When he joined up, a few years before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was adopted, enlistment forms asked if recruits had homosexual tendencies or experiences - and answering yes meant you couldn't serve.
Frank lied.
He didn't want to be gay. So he repressed it. He took his marriage vows seriously and stayed faithful to his wife, whom he met on duty.
His control lasted 10 years, until Frank realized he couldn't deny reality. The couple divorced. Their youngest child wasn't yet in school; the older one was in grade school.
Frank and his kids stayed together, and eventually his partner, Dave, joined them.
The arrangement was tested when Frank prepared to deploy a few years ago and Dave became the kids' guardian - taking them shopping, shuttling them to dentist and doctor appointments, overseeing their homework.
"It was rough. It was a little scary," Frank said. He knew his partner would be a good father figure, but he worried that the pressure of parenting might be too much for him.
It almost was. The couple came close to breaking up while Frank was gone, although Dave promised to take care of the kids regardless. They got through the rough patch and are still together.
Frank described years of nagging worries that his secret would be revealed. "I constantly felt like I had to watch what I did," he said.
He knows five gay sailors who were discharged or chose to leave the Navy because bearing their secret was too hard.
Occasionally, over drinks, away from the office, a fellow sailor would broach the topic.
"They'll start off saying, 'You don't have to answer me and I'm not supposed to ask, but I want to let you know that I don't care. I'm just curious,' " Frank recalled.
If he trusted the person, Frank would acknowledge being gay. But he didn't feel comfortable bringing his partner along to the command Christmas party - even though someone else did invite a same-sex date, introduced to everyone as a roommate.
The worries have subsided now. Frank recently retired.
Even on his last day in uniform, Frank was concerned about keeping up appearances.
Dave attended the ceremony, but stayed in the background.
Frank said he cut his remarks short when he started getting emotional.
"I didn't want anything to slip."
Frank, a recently retired gay sailor, went through years of worries that his secret life would be discovered. “I constantly felt like I had to watch what I did,” he said.
By Kate Wiltrout
The Virginian-Pilot
September 27, 2009
NORFOLK
Since 1993, a generation of gay sailors, Marines, soldiers and airmen has learned to survive on the military's margins.
That year, President Bill Clinton prohibited the military from asking about individuals' sexual orientation - even as Congress mandated the discharge of anyone engaging in homosexual acts or identifying themselves as gay.
About 13,000 gays and lesbians have been discharged since the changes took place. Still, a far greater number of gay Americans are serving, or have served, in silence.
They walk a fine line, constantly recalculating how much of their personal lives to share with co-workers, learning which doctors and chaplains they can trust, and in the safest cases, finding bosses who subtly make clear that actions, not adjectives, are the best measure of a good sailor.
The Virginian-Pilot interviewed three gay members of the military about what it's like to serve without disclosing a key part of their identity.
Because naming them could jeopardize their careers, the newspaper agreed not to use their real names or include details that would allow them to be recognized.
Here are their stories.
Phoebe, who works on communications equipment on a Norfolk-based surface ship, is partway through her first hitch in the Navy.
Outspoken but not defensive, Phoebe said she didn't know she was gay when she enlisted. But after a few relationships with men, one of which resulted, unintentionally, in pregnancy, she realized she was a lesbian.
She laughs now about breaking two pieces of news to her surprised parents: First, she was pregnant. Second, she was gay.
It hasn't been easy, but she's managed to balance motherhood and the military. Her parents care for her child when her ship deploys.
She's a no-nonsense sailor, promoted three times in four years, and she doesn't think work and personal lives should mix too much. The bridge of a warship, she said, isn't an appropriate place to talk about intimate relationships - gay or straight.
But when you live together, and you're deployed together and you sleep in a small compartment, she said, it's hard to keep the most basic truth about yourself private.
She abides by the rules. But curse words fly when she talks about the current policy.
"I think it's bull that I could get kicked out for something that has nothing to do with the military. I can go die for my country, and I can't be gay?" she said, before letting loose with a choice expletive.
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy prohibits the military from inquiring about individuals' sexual tendencies and pursuing rumors of homosexual conduct. Individuals cannot talk about their sexual orientation; nor can they be harassed over perceived sexual preferences.
But federal law offers no protection if credible evidence of gay behavior comes to a commanding officer's attention. The law clearly states that gay individuals create "an unacceptable risk" to "morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion."
Phoebe posed a theoretical question to those who think gay men and women have no place in the military. "What's worse?" she asked. "Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?"
Although she gets tired of always having to edit her speech around co-workers, Phoebe doesn't feel particularly vulnerable.
She's confident that the commanding officer of her ship knows she's gay.
The C.O. asked her once what she thought of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Her response was not suitable for publication.
Phoebe believes that most people in her division know her truth, but she's careful not to provide any proof.
"Everyone on my ship assumes, but I've never come out and said anything to anyone I didn't trust," she said.
She described an informal network of gay sailors on her ship.
Phoebe said she knows them all, and when asked roughly how many there are, proceeded to count them out on her fingers. About a dozen, she concluded, including officers, chiefs and enlisted sailors of both sexes.
With rare exceptions, gay sailors stationed on the same ship don't get involved in romantic relationships, she said. But it's nice to have friends who are dealing with the same issues.
When the ship pulled into a foreign port, Phoebe said, the gay sailors would often head off together to a hole-in-the-wall gay bar.
She takes some solace that under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," superiors are not supposed to inquire about her sexuality. So as long as she's careful, she isn't too worried about being investigated.
"I could hang out with the gayest guy in the world, wearing a dress, and it wouldn't matter," Phoebe said. "Unless there's proof, there's nothing they can do."
Phoebe said concerns about gay sailors hitting on straight shipmates are overblown: "That's why we have shower curtains! There are bathroom stalls, and you have a curtain on your rack."
She also mentioned that there's plenty of illicit interaction between men and women on her ship, even though Navy policy forbids sex while a boat is under way. On a recent deployment, she said, the captain put 10 people on the ship on restriction for having sex. One case involved a tryst between an officer and an enlisted sailor, she said - a type of fraternization verboten at sea or ashore.
Although angered by what she perceives as official discrimination against gays, Phoebe said no one has been rude or discriminatory toward her.
If Congress changed the law to allow gays to serve openly, "it wouldn't change much for me," she said.
Then she conceded that it would be a weight off her shoulders: "I could walk down the road with my girlfriend's hand in mine and not worry about someone from my ship seeing me."
Richard enlisted almost 20 years ago and, until recently, didn't give much thought to what it would be like to be a gay military man.
Then, a few years ago, he accepted a truth he'd fought to bury for years: He is gay.
The acknowledgment came as a great relief, even at home. He remains married to a woman he met in the military. They have school-age children.
In some ways, their marriage is stronger now. He and his wife are no longer lovers, but they're still best friends and partners committed to raising their kids in a loving home.
Because there's so much at stake - his job, his family's health insurance, his retirement - he worries about someone discovering the truth before he's eligible to retire in a few years.
Trained in multiple foreign languages for a job that requires travel and a security clearance, he knows his skills would fetch a handsome salary in the civilian world. He would happily stay in uniform if the law changed. If it doesn't, he's prepared to retire as soon as he can.
In a recent interview with Richard and his wife in the living room of their two-story house, in a typical Hampton Roads subdivision, the couple talked about their lives.
His wife finds support on the Internet from other women married to gay men. It's not as rare as you might think, they say.
Richard has turned to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to learn which actions do or don't violate the law.
For example, he explains, it's OK for a soldier to go to a gay bar - but it's not OK to dance with another man. It's OK to watch a movie with a same-sex partner - but not to kiss or hold that partner's hand. It's fine to march in a gay pride parade- but not to hold a placard identifying yourself as a lesbian sailor.
Having to stay attuned to those specific legalities has worn Richard down.
He takes seriously the American ideals of justice and equality. That his own government denies him both, he said, takes its toll.
"Is our military representative of the freedoms of our nation?" he asked rhetorically. "If I can't go to the movies and hold somebody's hand, am I free?"
Having to lie about tiny things gets tiresome, and eventually, Richard said, leads to a bigger problem:
"It's important people can be true to themselves. If you can't be true to yourselves, you can't be true to the people around you."
The current policy encourages lying, he said - and even small lies about where you spent the weekend or what you watched on TV turn into a bigger breach of trust.
"When, by law, you are compelling people to lie about their personal lives, you're driving a wedge between people and their unit," he said.
He is confident the military would accept the change without much trouble.
"Saying our military can't adapt to those challenges is really selling our military short," he said.
Like Richard, Frank didn't accept being gay until after he'd married and become a father.
He enlisted to get away from home.
"I was running away from home, and it was the best way to keep a roof over my head, food in my stomach, and a little bit of change in my pocket," he said during an interview at a Virginia Beach Starbucks.
When he joined up, a few years before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was adopted, enlistment forms asked if recruits had homosexual tendencies or experiences - and answering yes meant you couldn't serve.
Frank lied.
He didn't want to be gay. So he repressed it. He took his marriage vows seriously and stayed faithful to his wife, whom he met on duty.
His control lasted 10 years, until Frank realized he couldn't deny reality. The couple divorced. Their youngest child wasn't yet in school; the older one was in grade school.
Frank and his kids stayed together, and eventually his partner, Dave, joined them.
The arrangement was tested when Frank prepared to deploy a few years ago and Dave became the kids' guardian - taking them shopping, shuttling them to dentist and doctor appointments, overseeing their homework.
"It was rough. It was a little scary," Frank said. He knew his partner would be a good father figure, but he worried that the pressure of parenting might be too much for him.
It almost was. The couple came close to breaking up while Frank was gone, although Dave promised to take care of the kids regardless. They got through the rough patch and are still together.
Frank described years of nagging worries that his secret would be revealed. "I constantly felt like I had to watch what I did," he said.
He knows five gay sailors who were discharged or chose to leave the Navy because bearing their secret was too hard.
Occasionally, over drinks, away from the office, a fellow sailor would broach the topic.
"They'll start off saying, 'You don't have to answer me and I'm not supposed to ask, but I want to let you know that I don't care. I'm just curious,' " Frank recalled.
If he trusted the person, Frank would acknowledge being gay. But he didn't feel comfortable bringing his partner along to the command Christmas party - even though someone else did invite a same-sex date, introduced to everyone as a roommate.
The worries have subsided now. Frank recently retired.
Even on his last day in uniform, Frank was concerned about keeping up appearances.
Dave attended the ceremony, but stayed in the background.
Frank said he cut his remarks short when he started getting emotional.
"I didn't want anything to slip."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)