Gay Compromise for Military
‘Don’t Compromise, Don’t Capitulate” (Commentary, May 27), regarding the open acceptance of gays in the military, rings true. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” compromise suggested is a justification of prejudice. It is boldfaced and ugly prejudice. It is ironic a country such as Canada openly accepts gays in the military when the country priding itself on being the leader of the free world does not allow the open acceptance of gays in the military.
Sen. Sam Nunn is proving to be the icon of bias and prejudice in the Democratic Party. He is justifying an unjustifiable position.
Will things never change until the gay community becomes violent out of frustration? Does the history of this country show only violence brings about change? One would hope things will change. Gay individuals will be judged only on their actions, worth and merit as individuals, and this country will do the decent thing in a peaceful and orderly fashion by willingly accepting homosexuals in the military.
MICHAEL L. STEMPEL
West Hollywood
* Oh, I see . . . now that there is a threat of homosexuals “coming out” in the military, it’s suddenly become a “privilege” instead of a “right” to serve, according to Marine Col. Fred Peck (“Marine Still Backs Gay Ban but Says Son’s Case Changed Him,” May 26). I’ll keep that in mind when the next Vietnam crops up and the government decides it has a “right” to institute a draft and to jail those who take the “privilege” of burning their draft cards. By the way, since gays aren’t allowed to serve, can the military please refuse homosexual tax dollars as well?
DANIELA CASTA
Monrovia
* Don’t ask/don’t tell? Fine. And, in order to keep the code of conduct uniform, heterosexuals must be prevented from revealing their sexual orientation by keeping it to themselves while on duty. This would include: omitting spouses and children from health and life insurance benefits, removing wedding rings, taking down any pictures of the opposite sex (wives, girlfriends and pinups) or their children, and never mentioning their spouses or weekend conquests to name only a few prohibitions. Oh, and one more thing, it would be necessary to knock off the all-too-common practice of rape and sexual harassment of women in uniform. I’m confident that if heterosexual military personnel can live with these rules, then the homosexuals serving their country can do the same. Pretty ridiculous, eh?
MADELYNN RIGOPOULOS
Huntington Beach
* Whether gays should be allowed in the military is an important decision. However, I can sympathize with the heterosexual soldiers who do not wish that the gays be allowed to serve. Soldiers work very close together, which I do not view to be the problem. The problem arises in the living situation. Soldiers share not only the barracks, but also community showers. I believe it would be difficult for a soldier to live fearing that another soldier may be watching him. Allowing heterosexual and homosexual men to share the same living quarters would be no more sensible than asking men and women to share these quarters.
WILLIAM FANT
Valinda