I think what really struck me about the original article was the idea that a gay person should be against a career choice that is often seen as “oppressive” or just wrong simply because they are a gay person and should be held to a “higher standard” (and a subjective standard at that).

I am not always a fan of the military or its actions, but like mischiefmanager, in my work I tend to see other sides to military life and the people who have chosen it (being deliberately vague here). My job has changed the way I view the military, in that I no longer see it as a monolith, but as very complex system. Often the faces of the military that we see in the media are those of privilege, but the “boots on the ground” people are often quite different.

I don’t agree with a lot of the political rhetoric that surrounds the military, or many of the conservative views that military people often support. But getting back to some of the original questions, such as “should this be at the forefront of gay rights?” I think that part of what makes it seem that this issue is at the forefront is the media, since this story generates a lot of discussion and news coverage. And as Sara said, the symbolic import of a repealing DADT is important because the military is so often portrayed as a bastion of conservatism.

I would love it if the military was not the only or best option for poor people, but until that is something we can remedy (and I strongly believe it should be, in a myriad of ways – don’t get me started on education reform), it is unfair for people of condemn it as a career choice by assuming that people have the privilege of other options. I’d like to think that repealing DADT is a better solution, even if it can’t be the best one. I have some thoughts percolating about the folks (gay and not) that choose to join the military and are not in the “poor subset.” But 1) I haven’t met (m)any and 2) my thoughts aren’t fully formed quite yet. Though I did have some vague ideas about the concept of “discipline” and how those of us who thrive within the confines of academic discipline are often unaware of how difficult it can sometimes be to find elsewhere, if you’re not academically inclined (…and how some alternatives have faded in popularity – the military, religious orders?).

I especially like BeckySharper’s point regarding the demographic of military personnel – it was something I wanted to say, but could not have said it so well or succinctly.

For starters, if you are in the Navy or Air Force—and even the Army or Marines, depending on your assignment—it’s highly unlikely that you will ever touch a firearm or weapon of any kind after basic training. The intelligence, logistics, chaplaincy, medical, clerical, and support groups within the US military are not committing acts of violence or oppression. Hell, there are even full-time musicians in the military who do nothing but play music at official events.

People who see every person in the military as armed oppressors are hardcore ideologues pushing a specific agenda (or just poorly informed). A closer look at the reality of who works for the military and what they actually do would not support their dogma.

Military abroad are often treated with hostility by locals, who resent the policy that puts foreign troops in their homelands. That’s understandable, but if you don’t like the policy, complain to your government. In those countries with whom we have active hostilities, I wouldn’t say that US troops are always the ones wielding the most power. Since Vietnam, we’ve learned that relatively poor countries can be extremely effective in war.

However, when any troops commit atrocities, rape, or acts of brutality against civilians, it’s wrong and inexcusable. That’s not the kind of behavior I’m talking about here.

Here is a lengthier explanation of this point and others which I (re)wrote in the context of marriage for a university publication last year.

http://seburke.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/marriage-is-still-not-assimilation/

To Cimorene’s point, I believe that gays should not be accused of becoming oppressors simply for insisting that they are entitled to the same rights as straights. Although Patriarchy is oppressive to me as a woman, I’m not automatically becoming an oppressor when I insist on having the same social, political, and economic rights as men. I think Anna put it very well when she said that even if we don’t approve of the military as a career choice, that doesn’t mean they should be denied their rights in order to prevent them from making it.

There is a reason why the bulk of the military ranks are made up of people of the working class and the poor, typically from the poorer states. Ignoring that these people may also be LGBT would be very shortsighted.

I’m with you on that Cimorene … I think what we’re talking about here is the gap between what we might ideally be aiming for (no armed forces? as a believer in nonviolence, that might be my ultimate goal) and what we’re living with in the moment: a United States military that is the way-less-than-perfect alternative to (even worse) poverty for many people.

And given that non-straight folks are found in all segments of society, they’re found in the military. And I don’t think they should be denied human rights just because we believe they made poor career choices.

I was thinking about the question of why it’s one of the most prominent issues in LGBT activism right now. I think it is a useful civil rights issue (like gay marriage) that is translatable to the broader public, and has useful analogies to desegregation of the armed forces and overturning anti-miscegenation laws. It’s about equal treatment under the law, equal treatment as U.S. citizens. Changing the culture of citizenship is then another (equally if not more important) strategy entirely.

I agree that working-class gays should have the same rights and opportunities as working-class straights. I just don’t think the military should be the only opportunity for so many people.

I work for the VA and, believe me, the people we see are anything but privileged. Although in our area, the vets are still predominantly white, they tend to be older, poorer, less educated, and have less access to computers than the kind of people Danika and Cimorene are talking about. And some of those people are gay. I don’t see the choice of a military career as one usually made out of privilege. Our people aren’t officer class and didn’t go to one of the academies. People like them still make up the bulk of the military-people who want a job, want to go to college, want to learn a skill, maybe even see the world. Making sure that working-class gays have the same rights and opportunities as straight working class people sounds pretty important to me.