Rereading the transcript of last night’s debate, I am struck that Rick Santorum did not thank Stephen Hill, a gay soldier in the U.S. Army currently in Iraq, for his service. Nor did anyone else on that stage.
Whatever you think of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or homosexuality, Hill is risking his life on behalf of his country. It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum’s answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all.
Online this morning, there’s much discussion of whether the audience booed the soldier. The boos sound like several people, but nothing like the much louder, indistinct cheers or reactions to other answers. (Much of Santorum’s answer was applauded by much of the audience.)
Of the GOP field, only Ron Paul and Rick Perry have served in the military.
UPDATE: Sarah Rumpf, who was in attendance, writes:
The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates’ opinions on don’t ask don’t tell. There was audible booing after his question . . . however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.
I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here’s my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, “Shhhh!” “No!” “Shut up, you idiot!” etc.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Appearing on Fox News today, Santorum condemned the scattered boos and said, “I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country and I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job, I hope he’s safe and returns safely and does his mission well. I have to admit, I did not hear those boos . . . If I had, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that, that man is serving his country and we ought to thank him for his service.’”
I think that point you make is where I am with this, too.
It is un-Presidential for the candidates to NOT do what Geraghty implicitly suggests, and that is bad politics and we expect candidates to rise above etc. It was bad form.
Still, a problem conservatives have had is the use identity politics, and it is not wrong of conservatives to point out the problems with identity politics.
And I mean all identities -- I can thank a soldier for serving, but that doesn't mean I think highly of his political opinions or give him a pass on them (Wesley Clark if anyone needs an example).
I don't know, Jim. Seemed to me it was the soldier who defined himself as first gay, then a soldier.
Santorum answered in that context, and pretty well explained that he thought all those in the Army should be soldiers first and only - hetero- and homosexual alike.
The absence of the perfunctory "thank you for your service" was unusual, but, to me anyway, not glaring.
Jim, I think you are being unfair where you write "It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum’s answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all." I strongly disagree. The whole, err, thrust, of the soldier's question focused on his homosexuality. While it took Santorum a few moments to form his answer, the substance of it was spot-on; essentially, get your predilections out of the barracks. The soldier's sexual preferences are clearly as much a part of his self-identification as his military service, and Santorum was correct to engage him on that level.
Question: Should we care whether a heterosexual soldier has a sexual preference for people of other races, or overweight people, or older people, etc., etc., down the whole long and likely infinite list of amorous preferences? So why, then, should we care what this guy does with his genitalia (leaving aside criminal acts, of course).
No -- we shouldn't care. And forbidding them to talk about their personal life is caring very much. That is the point. The current policy is not caring - because it has no baring. DADT was about keeping only gay and not straight soldiers in the closet, and punishing them with dismissal if they didn't, or if someone else outed them. It's, and I'll point out here in a suit brought be a gay GOP group, been found unconstitutional. Judging from you and Santorum, there's a good reason not to moot that case now. And "whole err thrust". Really? Grow up.
Actually, the "whole, err, thrust" of the soldier's question focused on being allowed to continue to serve. His homosexuality is inextricably bound to this question not in his own mind, but in the minds of the GOP, which is why he was asking the candidates.
Most troubling is the fact that not one of the GOP candidates spoke out in defense of the soldier being booed. It's really shameful and reveals the entire group's lack of class and willingness to pander politically. Shame on every one of them. Along with the audience members who booed, the candidates were the true cowards in the room.
Precisely what was excellent about Santorum's answer was that he respectfully refused to pander when the homosexual soldier violated the DoD rule prohibiting soldiers from engaging in political speech while in uniform.
The soldier defined himself as a "gay man" because he is a gay man. I am a conservative, Republican and gay. I have many friends both straight and gay who served in the military. The straight ones could talk about their personal lives; the gay ones couldn't. The straight ones could carry pictures of their wives and partners; the gay ones couldn't. The straight ones could go out to single bars; the gay ones couldn't. The soldier was merely stating that he did not have to hide who he was. He did not have to live in fear that someone might see him walking out of a gay bar. He no longer had to pretend that he lived with his "friend" and set up two separate bedrooms as friends of mine have. Rick Santorum doesn't have half the courage as this young man who was willing to give up his life for a country he loves despite the fact that people like Rick Santorum believe his lifestyle is corruptive to our nation. If it doesn't affect his ability to fire a rifle, it shouldn't affect his ability to serve our great nation.
His and your morally corrupt lifestyle is detrimental to yourselves, your military unit and our nation. Don't tell me you just can't help yourselves! That is a lie. Corrupt character obviously does determine motives and does affect ability to serve. You are not a victim.
I for one, don't feel comfortable judging another's morals. Never have. Not that I'd condone all behaviors as being "whatever, dude" as the phrase is used today. But I can only govern my own conduct, not others.
This is a big wide world and excluding self professed homosexuals from it is ultimately myopic. Soldiers are supposed to keep their hands off each other, sexually speaking, and it's always been that way. Nothing about that should change. But let's get one thing straight. Gays are everywhere. No matter how you might like to try, you can't legislate them back into the closet, or off the planet.
"Soldiers are supposed to keep their hands off each other, sexually speaking, and it's always been that way."
You are wrong about that. Aside from DADT, male and female members of the military could have relationships and get married. It happened all the time and did not violate any regulations as long as there was no fraternization (leader/subordinate relationship).
Thanks? How about scorn? As a veteran, I can tell you the thing I was annoyed most about was the fact that nobody called this soldier what he is - a liar. The bedrock of military service is integrity. He self-identified as a liar before he self-identified as a homosexual.
Are we going to just say, "well, the policy was unfair, so wink-wink, lie all you want"? I personally don't think the policy was wrong. In fact, what Congress was too chicken %$$t to do (ie: change the actual UCMJ), means that the particular sexual behavior chosen by most homosexuals ( and many heterosexuals) remains technically illegal for military members... But "don't worry, you can ignore that reg, since we collectively think it's wrong".... Not the level of integrity I learned to aspire to as a military member....
Sir, you clearly did not understand the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, even when it was still in effect. That policy made it legal for gay people to serve in the military. He would not have had to lie about his sexual orientation to get in.
With regard to your reference to specific sexual acts, you don't know if he has ever been sexually active during his time in the military. He very well may have abstained from the activities you refer to.
If we are to take Santorum at his word, he believes that even mentioning a wife, husband, girlfriend or boyfriend should be grounds for discharge from service - whether that person is of the same sex or opposite sex - because we need to keep sex out of the military. But of course, that isn't what he means and everyone knows it.
The ingratitude of this man and those who booed the soldier serving his country in Iraq is utterly revolting.
Actually, the soldier identified the soldier as a gay man.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that point you make is where I am with this, too.
It is un-Presidential for the candidates to NOT do what Geraghty implicitly suggests, and that is bad politics and we expect candidates to rise above etc. It was bad form.
Still, a problem conservatives have had is the use identity politics, and it is not wrong of conservatives to point out the problems with identity politics.
And I mean all identities -- I can thank a soldier for serving, but that doesn't mean I think highly of his political opinions or give him a pass on them (Wesley Clark if anyone needs an example).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know, Jim. Seemed to me it was the soldier who defined himself as first gay, then a soldier.
Santorum answered in that context, and pretty well explained that he thought all those in the Army should be soldiers first and only - hetero- and homosexual alike.
The absence of the perfunctory "thank you for your service" was unusual, but, to me anyway, not glaring.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt was the soldier who defined himself as first gay, then a soldier.
Geraghty is way off base on this one; guess he's jumping on board the gay lobby?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim, I think you are being unfair where you write "It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum’s answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all." I strongly disagree. The whole, err, thrust, of the soldier's question focused on his homosexuality. While it took Santorum a few moments to form his answer, the substance of it was spot-on; essentially, get your predilections out of the barracks. The soldier's sexual preferences are clearly as much a part of his self-identification as his military service, and Santorum was correct to engage him on that level.
Question: Should we care whether a heterosexual soldier has a sexual preference for people of other races, or overweight people, or older people, etc., etc., down the whole long and likely infinite list of amorous preferences? So why, then, should we care what this guy does with his genitalia (leaving aside criminal acts, of course).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo -- we shouldn't care. And forbidding them to talk about their personal life is caring very much. That is the point. The current policy is not caring - because it has no baring. DADT was about keeping only gay and not straight soldiers in the closet, and punishing them with dismissal if they didn't, or if someone else outed them. It's, and I'll point out here in a suit brought be a gay GOP group, been found unconstitutional. Judging from you and Santorum, there's a good reason not to moot that case now. And "whole err thrust". Really? Grow up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the "whole, err, thrust" of the soldier's question focused on being allowed to continue to serve. His homosexuality is inextricably bound to this question not in his own mind, but in the minds of the GOP, which is why he was asking the candidates.
And, yeah: grow up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMost troubling is the fact that not one of the GOP candidates spoke out in defense of the soldier being booed. It's really shameful and reveals the entire group's lack of class and willingness to pander politically. Shame on every one of them. Along with the audience members who booed, the candidates were the true cowards in the room.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePrecisely what was excellent about Santorum's answer was that he respectfully refused to pander when the homosexual soldier violated the DoD rule prohibiting soldiers from engaging in political speech while in uniform.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe soldier defined himself as a "gay man" because he is a gay man. I am a conservative, Republican and gay. I have many friends both straight and gay who served in the military. The straight ones could talk about their personal lives; the gay ones couldn't. The straight ones could carry pictures of their wives and partners; the gay ones couldn't. The straight ones could go out to single bars; the gay ones couldn't. The soldier was merely stating that he did not have to hide who he was. He did not have to live in fear that someone might see him walking out of a gay bar. He no longer had to pretend that he lived with his "friend" and set up two separate bedrooms as friends of mine have. Rick Santorum doesn't have half the courage as this young man who was willing to give up his life for a country he loves despite the fact that people like Rick Santorum believe his lifestyle is corruptive to our nation. If it doesn't affect his ability to fire a rifle, it shouldn't affect his ability to serve our great nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis and your morally corrupt lifestyle is detrimental to yourselves, your military unit and our nation. Don't tell me you just can't help yourselves! That is a lie. Corrupt character obviously does determine motives and does affect ability to serve. You are not a victim.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI for one, don't feel comfortable judging another's morals. Never have. Not that I'd condone all behaviors as being "whatever, dude" as the phrase is used today. But I can only govern my own conduct, not others.
This is a big wide world and excluding self professed homosexuals from it is ultimately myopic. Soldiers are supposed to keep their hands off each other, sexually speaking, and it's always been that way. Nothing about that should change. But let's get one thing straight. Gays are everywhere. No matter how you might like to try, you can't legislate them back into the closet, or off the planet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Soldiers are supposed to keep their hands off each other, sexually speaking, and it's always been that way."
You are wrong about that. Aside from DADT, male and female members of the military could have relationships and get married. It happened all the time and did not violate any regulations as long as there was no fraternization (leader/subordinate relationship).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Don't tell me you just can't help yourselves! That is a lie"
Obviously, you are speaking from personal experience. How else would you know?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks? How about scorn? As a veteran, I can tell you the thing I was annoyed most about was the fact that nobody called this soldier what he is - a liar. The bedrock of military service is integrity. He self-identified as a liar before he self-identified as a homosexual.
Are we going to just say, "well, the policy was unfair, so wink-wink, lie all you want"? I personally don't think the policy was wrong. In fact, what Congress was too chicken %$$t to do (ie: change the actual UCMJ), means that the particular sexual behavior chosen by most homosexuals ( and many heterosexuals) remains technically illegal for military members... But "don't worry, you can ignore that reg, since we collectively think it's wrong".... Not the level of integrity I learned to aspire to as a military member....
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@contrarian
How is Stephen Hill a liar?
You're a dinosaur, dude. And you've got no business lecturing anyone about integrity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScores of young men lied about their age to get into the military before they were 18 to serve in WWII. Would you also call these heros liars?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSir, you clearly did not understand the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, even when it was still in effect. That policy made it legal for gay people to serve in the military. He would not have had to lie about his sexual orientation to get in.
With regard to your reference to specific sexual acts, you don't know if he has ever been sexually active during his time in the military. He very well may have abstained from the activities you refer to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDADT did not make it legal for homosexuals to serve; it merely provided that questions would not be asked.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf we are to take Santorum at his word, he believes that even mentioning a wife, husband, girlfriend or boyfriend should be grounds for discharge from service - whether that person is of the same sex or opposite sex - because we need to keep sex out of the military. But of course, that isn't what he means and everyone knows it.
The ingratitude of this man and those who booed the soldier serving his country in Iraq is utterly revolting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse