NC Amendment 1

I currently reside in North Carolina and today I am furious with the people of this state. On Tuesday, elections were held. Mostly political primaries for various state and federal positions, but there was one other item nestled on the back of my ballot. It was a vote on a state constitutional amendment that was touted by its supporters as protecting traditional marriage. Primarily it was aimed as outlawing gay marriage, but that was not all it did.

The most prominent part of this amendment would ban gay marriage by using the now familiar blather about "defining marriage as between a man and a woman." This wasn't the only thing it did, but we'll get to that shortly. One of many things about this amendment that is idiotic, goes to the fact that gay marriage is already illegal by law in the state of NC. Which begs the question of why there needed to be an amendment to the state constitution to double secret probation ban it? Is that like installing a second deadbolt to give extra protection from the rampaging horde of homosexuals who are coming to make you marry them?

I will never understand this. Oh, I get why homosexuality makes some uncomfortable. That's a no-brainer! It's different and doesn't fit our Hollywood spun fantasies of romance and marriage. But so what? A lot of things weren't 'normal' until they were. And at the end of the day, this had very little to do with heterosexual couples. The gay community isn't trying to force straight people to be gay! Allowing gay marriage will have no effect on your straight relationship at all. This isn't really about preserving the so called "tradition of marriage". A tradition that at times, not so far in the past, was as much about property, alliances and preserving the family name as any modern idea of romance. That's right, this noble tradition also brings with it a history of female subjugation too. But we prefer to forget those inconvenient facts, don't we?

This whole issue has less to do with preserving some fantasy ideal of marriage and more to do with ostracizing people you don't like or that make you feel uncomfortable. I understand that homosexuality can be uncomfortable to some and even offensive. But so frelling what?! There are all sorts of things that offend me, including that sanctimonious, glassy eyed, smiling blonde bobblehead who I watched babble gleefully about the passage of Amendment 1 Tuesday night. But, while the idea of administering therapeutic shock therapy did flit through my mind, I never thought that I should fight to outlaw her right to stand there and spout idiotic statements. You see I have this crazy idea that all Americans are created equal and that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Radical, I know. Come to think of it, I must have read that somewhere.

But, as I hinted at earlier, this amendment was more far reaching than just continuing to treat gay Americans as less worthy. It also contained language that I doubt many who voted for it even looked at. They just heard that it banned gay marriage and in their rush to limit the rights of their fellow citizens they failed to notice what else its passage would do.  But don't listen to me. Here's an excerpt from a paper on the potential legal impact of this amendment written by four professors from the UNC School of Law. Emphasis is mine.

"Taken as a whole, the bill’s language is sufficiently vague, and its scope significantly unclear, that it would enmesh our courts in years of litigation to untangle its appropriate meaning. Moreover the eventual result of judicial interpretation of the Amendment would be uncertain. It could, however, be interpreted to upend completely the very minimal legal rights, obligations, and protections now available to unmarried couples, whether same-sex or opposite-sex."

Such as . . .

"The Amendment could prevent courts from enforcing private agreements between unmarried couples, and end-of-life arrangements, such as wills, trusts and powers of attorney executed by unmarried couples; unsettle current custody law; invalidate rights and protections currently provided to unmarried couples under North Carolina’s domestic violence laws; undercut municipalities’ decisions to recognize domestic partnerships and undermine private employers’ efforts to attract top employees to North Carolina by providing employee benefits to domestic partners. It certainly will spur litigation, discourage same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples from living and working in North Carolina"

So congratulations North Carolina! Not only have you redundantly banned gay marriage, but you have likely stripped the legal rights and protections from heterosexual unmarried couples as well! Do you feel proud and more complete as a human being now that you have not just kept in place restrictions on those icky gay people but also removed protections from ALL unmarried couples? What other group can you think of to strip of rights? Anyone . . . Anyone?

Self Evident

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As you no doubt know, the preceding quote is from the Declaration of Independence. Our resignation letter from the British Empire, you might say. It speaks of what the American colonies believed were the rights of every citizen. This belief, that "all men are created equal" sits at the heart of the US Constitution. A document that attempts to codify the principles of fairness and equality for all Americans.

So why is it that, after 235 years, we are still struggling to live up to the ideals Thomas Jefferson put to paper all those years ago? In 2011 we are still debating whether particular Americans deserve the same rights as the rest. Should they be treated differently by the law? Do they have the right to do what their neighbors have always been free to do? Should you be payed the same wage as the person sitting next to you who does the same job? These questions, to me at least, are astonishing in that we are even asking them. I'm sure someone reading this is already trying to determine who I'm referring to in each question. But why? Does it matter? I don't recall the Constitution or it's amendments having any asterisks tucked away in the text.

Does it change the answer if I'm referring to an America who is gay as opposed to straight? Does it matter if it's an American man or woman? Does it matter if the American is lighter or darker skinned than me? The Constitution certainly wasn't written to only apply to certain Americans and not others. Each of us can point to someone we know who will eagerly agree that America is the land of equality and that everyone has the right to reach any level of society if they work for it. But if you mention homosexual or muslim, how many of them will get nervous and start looking for the right way to explain how that's different.

Personally I can't even grasp the idea of paying a qualified woman less than a man for the same job. It wouldn't even be an option to weigh! She's qualified, she has X years experience, so let's offer her X salary, based on that criteria. I don't get how someone can actually go out of their way and fight to prevent two gay Americans from marrying. I understand that some would have personal issues with it, perhaps, but to campaign to stop it? It has zero effect on them, so why do they spend their time and money trying to stop two people who love each other from formalizing their relationship as everyone else is allowed to do? Something every OTHER American is allowed to do.

America was built to be a meritocracy. A level playing field. The founders wanted to escape a world where the circumstances of your birth would be the prime determining factor in what you could do or become. They wanted to do away with the aristocracy and a class system that dictated who could do what and who deserved which rights. So they created a government built on these principles of equality and fair play. You can see it in the painstaking way the Constitution lays out the United States government, with careful checks and balances to spread the power. It's inefficient, but it's about as fair as any single document could manage. But leave it to us to screw it up!

How many years after we declared those "self evident" truths till we stopped the practice of owning other people? How long till we gave roughly half our population the right to vote? How long till we finally admitted that the color of your skin did not limit your Constitutional rights? And how much longer before we stop pretending that who a person is intimately attracted to has any bearing whatsoever on their worth or rights? How much longer till, as a nation, we finally stop dictating what makes a 'proper' marriage or a proper American?

Me & Senator McCain

At least a month ago I sent Senator John McCain (R-AZ) an email via his web site about my belief that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should be repealed. I sent this to Senator McCain because of his position as Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I was particularly irritated at how he had seemed to reverse his own previous position on the subject. The heart of my email came out of my earlier post on the subject.

Below is the response, complete and unedited, I received today from Senator McCain's office.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mr. Erik Prince

Dear Mr. Prince:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I appreciate hearing your views on this controversial issue.

Recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and the Service Secretaries on the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, echoing the desire of President Obama to have it repealed by Congress. The committee also heard the personal views of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, several of the combatant commanders, and most recently, the Service Chiefs, who have responsibility for the organization, training, and overall readiness of their forces and for providing their best military advice to the President on matters that might affect their ability to ensure sufficiently trained and ready forces.

Each of the military's Service Chiefs has expressed his support for the comprehensive, ten-month policy review of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that Secretary Gates has directed. However, each has indicated that he is not prepared to support a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at this time. Based on their expert testimony, I am urging Congress to await the completion of the Pentagon's policy review in order to give the Service Chiefs the information they have asked for before any attempt is made to change law. I will strongly oppose any attempt to change the current law based on an incomplete and inadequate review of this policy, and I hope that my fellow Senators will also take this approach in the interest of national security.

With respect to the review itself, I have expressed my concerns about its focus and scope. Unfortunately, in his testimony earlier this year to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Gates described the mandate as "a review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy."The guiding question, as Secretary Gates put it, should be "not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it." This is consistent with President Obama's goals, but it seems to get things backwards: The current Pentagon review should be an objective study of the relevant military issues, not an implementation plan.

The issue that Congress must decide, and the issue the Service Chiefs should be asked to give their best military advice about, is whether the "Don't Ask Don't' Tell" policy should be repealed. We should ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate.Clearly, there are many policy and logistical challenges that would have to be overcome if the law is repealed, but that should not be the primary focus of the ongoing policy review. I will continue to insist that we use the coming months to study not only how to implement a change to the current policy, but also whether and why the men and women of the Armed Forces - the generals, the officers, the NCOs, and the privates - support or oppose such a change. I would then expect the views of the Service Chiefs to incorporate this critically important information.

I am proud of, and thankful for, every American who chooses to put on the uniform of our nation and serve their country, particularly in this time of war. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not perfect, but it reflects a compromise achieved with great difficulty that has effectively supported military readiness. However imperfect, the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them. But we should not change the current policy until we are confident - from a military standpoint, with the informed advice of the Service Chiefs - that such a change is consistent with military effectiveness.

Again, thank you again for writing me on this issue. Feel free to contact me in the future on this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

John McCain
United States Senator

JM/mf

- - - - - - - - - -

Below you will find my response, which I sent via the website earlier today.

- - - - - - - - - -

Senator McCain,

I appreciate your reply. I also appreciate that many feel an assessment is needed before any repeal is begun. But I fully agree with Secretary Gates that it's not 'if' it is 'when' the repeal is implemented. I completely disagree with your suggestion that we need to "ask that question to our service personnel and their families at all levels and genuinely consider their views in our debate." At what time in our history has the government of the United States ever polled service members and their families before implementing a necessary change in military policy?That strikes me as a very strange statement. The government decides, the SecDef directs and the Joint Chiefs inform their subordinates what changes are being made. In my 8 years as an Air Force Boom Operator I do not recall a single instance when I was asked what my opinion was of a policy change. My squadron commander informed us of the change along with how it would be implemented and when it would be completed by and it happened. It's called orders.

You say that "the policy has allowed many gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country. I honor their service, I honor their sacrifices, and I honor them." With all due respect Senator, forcing them to hide a significant portion of their lives in a dark corner so that you and a few of their comrades won't be made uncomfortable is hardly what I would term 'Honoring' them. It's more like 'using' them without having to actually give them the same rights as their fellow soldiers.

Here's what it all comes down to, as far as I'm concerned. It is Wrong to make loyal soldiers who are placing their lives on the line every day, live a secret life for no better reason than for the convenience of others. These men and women are American Soldiers, sir, and if you truly honor them and their sacrifice you would step up and do the right thing. Grant them the rights of every other America Soldier. The right to love who they want, within the bounds of military regulations and decorum. For just one moment, Senator, imagine you were unable to let anyone else know who you Loved or wanted to have a relationship with while all around you your comrades could not only date who they wanted but brag about it on a regular basis.

It's a matter of right and wrong. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is and has always been Wrong. It's that simple.

Erik Prince
US Air Force 1988 - 1996
Boom Operator

American Soldier (Gay)

I am absolutely dismayed that in 2010 we are still arguing about whether or not homosexuals deserve to have the rights of American citizens. And that's really what it comes down to. The dreaded 'Homosexual Agenda' to which the Conservatives like to refer is simply that; to be treated like everyone else. They are not asking to be given special rights or free passes to the Super Bowl. Just to be accorded the rights of every other American. Pretty radical, eh?

Earlier this week a Congressional committee met to discuss the idea of ending the Clinton era 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' (DADT) policy about homosexuals in the military. The policy states that the military won't go looking for homosexuals or ask members if they are gay, but if they find out that a member is, in fact gay, they will discharge them. This was the best the Clinton Administration could do in the early 90's climate with the military leadership solidly against allowing openly gay members to serve. But things are a bit different now. Not only do we have the President behind ending the DADT policy, but also the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come on board to end the policy.

But, as you would expect, politics quickly reared its hypocritical head. One of the more prominent Senators at the meeting was John McCain (R). At least twice previously McCain commented that he would defer to the views of the military leadership on ending DADT. So you would naturally assume that when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the highest ranking military officer in uniform, and his boss the Secretary of Defense testify that the time has come to end the policy . . . well it must have been a done deal, right? Though you can't actually hear the squealing of McCain's tires as he makes his political U-turn, his words make things clear enough.

"Look, the policy is working. I talk to military all the time. I have a lot of contact with them. The policy is working and the president made a commitment in his campaign that he would reverse it and the president then made the announcement that wants it reversed. And it is a law. It has to be changed. So Admiral Mullen said, speaking for himself only, he thought it ought to be reversed and of course Secretary Gates said that. I do not. I do not know what the other military leadership wants. I know that I have a letter signed by over a thousand retired admirals and generals that said they don’t want it reversed. And so, I will be glad to listen to the views of military leaders. I always have. But I’m not changing my position in support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell unless there is the significant support for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And I would remind you that we’re in two wars. You know that and our listeners know that. And do we need, don’t we need a serious assessment of the effect on morale or battle and combat effectiveness before we go forward with a reversal in a campaigning, carrying out an Obama campaign."

So McCain thinks the policy is working, eh? How exactly is it "working"? We've kicked out thousands of military members, many with vital skills such as translators and interrogators. Thousands more cannot even tell their comrades who they went out with last weekend. If they have any relationship at all it must be illicit, as if they harbored some horrible secret rather than the simple fact that they fell in love with someone. How does this show the "policy is working?" These are our fellow Americans. They are just like you and me. The only thing that distinguishes them from the rest of us is who they love. These men and women volunteered to join the military and put their lives on the line every day for a nation that then demands they hide an important part of themselves away. To hide it so WE will feel comfortable. So WE won't be inconvenienced. Imagine yourself among a group of single coworkers, all talking about their recent dates. Then imagine you can't tell anyone about yours. If you do, you will be fired. Fired, even though you are a model employee. The only people for whom this policy is "working" are those who are made uncomfortable by proximity to a known homosexual. And to McCain and others who fall into this category I say, "Grow up"!

Now there are those who will make the case that a straight soldier, we'll call him George, doesn't need the distraction of knowing the guy next to him in the foxhole, we'll call him John, is gay. This is talking cross-eyed-badger-spit. If the two of them are in a foxhole they probably have more pressing issues than who's gay and who isn't. This line of reasoning is also highly insulting to both of our hypothetical soldiers. First you are implying that, just because John is gay that he's naturally a sexual predator and will jump George as soon as his back is turned. Homosexuals are no more predatory than anyone else. Just look at the thousands of sexual assaults carried out by straight soldiers every year. Predators are predators and the person's sexual orientation is hardly a factor. Secondly, you insult George by saying that he's such a bad soldier that he's more worried about his buddy's sexual habits than doing his job. Third, the increasing ratio of women in all branches of the military invalidates sexual tension as a uniquely homosexual issue.

Let me come clean on myself. I am NOT gay. I served over 8 years in the US Air Force as a 'Boom Operator' on KC-135 tankers performing inflight refueling. I was assigned to two squadrons during my tenure and deployed for the first Gulf War and numerous operations around the world during the first half of the 1990's. At no time did I worry that someone on my aircrew was gay. When bunking down in the compound outside King Khalid International airport during the first Gulf War, the thought that there might be gay service members among the thousand or so other soldiers and airmen stationed there never crossed the transom of my mind. Why? Because it wasn't important.

Here's one more thing to think about if you're still not convinced. There have been homosexuals in America's military since before there was a US of A and they have served honorably alongside their straight comrades in every battle America has ever fought. They undoubtedly crossed the Delaware with Washington to attack Trenton. They died in the snow of Valley Forge and on the fields of Yorktown. They fought and died on both sides at Bull Run, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Atlanta and Cold Harbor. They followed Teddy up San Juan Hill with his 'Rough Riders'. They fought through the slaughter of Belleau Wood on the Western Front. They were entombed forever when the Arizona rolled over. They were shot down over the Solomons. They died on the beaches of Normandy and in the air over the oil fields of Ploesti. They shivered through the Korean winter with their comrades at the Chosin Reservoir and sweated with them through the siege of Ka San. I for one think these men and women have more than earned the right to be treated like any other American citizen!