...the fact that these indignities were heaped on a man risking his life to serve this country, a man ballsy enough to make that video, a man in the uniform of the United States ... well, it tells me a couple of things. It tells me that these Republicans don't actually deep down care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing military patriotism has its limits.
The shocking silence on the stage - the fact that no one challenged this outrage - also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. When it came to it, even Santorum couldn't sanction firing all those servicemembers who are now proudly out. But that's because he was forced to focus not on his own Thomist abstractions, but on an actual person. Throughout Republican debates, gays are discussed as if we are never in the audience, never actually part of the society, never fully part of families, never worthy of even a scintilla of respect. When you boo a servicemember solely because he's gay, you are saying he is beneath contempt, that nothing he does or has done can counterweigh the vileness of his sexual orientation.
Not really anything that I could add, but Santorum's posture that he was against "sexual" conduct by anyone in the military wrankled me with its abject dishonesty. DADT was about way more than sexual activity, as anyone with the slightest familiarity with the law could tell you. It was about having to conceal your identity down to the most minute details that straight people like me take for granted every day. Imagine not being able to put a picture of your spouse on your desk, for instance, let alone inviting him/her to the company holiday party. That was reality under DADT, for people Rick Santorum does not respect.
Comments