Virginia: Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Displeased that the Congress has just overturned the military's infamous "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy with regard to gays, the excreable Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) has suggested that he will propose a bill in the 2011 legislative session of the House of Delegates to ban gays from openly serving in the Virginia National Guard. The Washington Post's Virginia politics blog reports some of Marshall's incisive reasoning:

"It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me," he said.

Happily, according to the Post, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) says he would oppose such a bill:

"While I disagree with the actions of the Congress based on my own experience in the military, but more so the military commanders objections,'' [McDonnell] said. "We can't have two different systems in the federal and National Guard. ... Whatever the final guidelines of the Department of Defense I would expect the National Guard bureau in Virginia to adhere to those rules so we would have one set of rules for the entire military."

The Virginia chapter of the ACLU has sent a letter [PDF] urging Marshall not to introduce such bill, warning that...

...any attempt to exclude service members from the National Guard would be unconstitutional and ill-advised, and would certainly face a federal court challenge.

I long for that glad day when the voters of the 13th district wise up and spare us the bigoted natterings of Marshall.

Go here for my earlier comment on Marshall's bill to outlaw IVF for single women.

Disclosure: My wife and I are members of Equality Virginia and I am still a member of the ACLU.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • z||

    I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that when old Bob says "when he's on the battlefield" he is speaking in the abstract since he never has been and never will be on a battlefield.

  • Some Guy||

    I think that his story sounds plausible. Based on his stupid comments, he'd probably be a liability to the unit if he were ever on the battlefield, so he has to worry about being shot in the back by his own guys, which is distracting.

  • Sergeant/Principal Skinner||

    Is that why I got shot in the back?

  • Suki||

    Do his NRA awards count?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Seriously? Fuck that guy.

  • Suki||

    You are who he is worried about!

  • Fist of Bonhomie||

    He can't help it, he's like catnip for gays... on the battlefield!

  • Jerry||

    Is this one of a Larry Craig type of Republican?

  • Rrabbit||

    Based on recent history, it seems likely that Marshall is cheating on his wife. Hard to predict, though, whether he cheats on her with a man or with a woman.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    What was the law before DADT?

    That no GLTG people were allowed in the armed forces, right?

    DADT was a means by which these people could actually join rather than be turned away at the recruiting office doors.

    By overturning DADT, would that not be the reality to which we reset? Now we're back to "No GLTG in the military whatsoever.", aren't we?

    Wasn't this a massive step in the absolute wrong direction?

  • Some Guy||

    That is not what it is defaulting to. There's a bunch of stuff being rewritten as part of the bill.

  • Wind Rider||

    Ah, no. Actually this bill deletes the relevant section of Title 10 that lists homosexuality as a disqualification for military service.

  • Wind Rider||

    And the only things being 're-written' are internal DoD procedures. Despite that the act struck down a section of the federal code, the military beauracracy is a self licking ice cream cone that whips the pants off the Energizer Bunny. It keeps going, and going and . . .

  • Some Guy||

    Damn it all, stop using my name!

  • groucho||

    Great job! I am glad that you used a skeptical libertarian attitude to dismiss movements for minority rights. You started with the (correct) observation that most of government's conscious planned efforts to fix economic wrongs achieve the opposite of what is intended. You extrapolated this to a general idea: conscious government actions never achieve what they mean to.

    And so you concluded: the deliberate action of government to undo the wrong of DADT had to fail, given the nature of government action. So you made a claim which didn't even have any basis in the facts about DADT and its repeal. And you were wrong. You showed how that skeptical attitude serves to rationalize and perpetuate certain unjust social norms. This provides good evidence for the belief that the so-called 'free market' is a way for capital to hold on to its power by oppressing and dividing the other classes.

  • Yonemoto||

    couldn't that equally be true for "socialist-style redistribution"?

  • Apogee||

    I am glad that you used a skeptical libertarian attitude to dismiss movements for minority rights...You extrapolated this to a general idea ... the belief that the so-called 'free market' is a way for capital to hold on to its power by oppressing and dividing the other classes.

    Project much? You are remarkably self-unaware.

  • shelby||

    "DADT was a means by which these people could actually join rather than be turned away at the recruiting office doors."

    Actually, DADT was created as a face saving policy for Clinton. As you may remember, the second major thing that Clinton did when assuming office was to declare that he was issuing an executive order to let gays serve openly in the military. He then took a victory lap around the cheering national media just before he got kicked in his political teeth by vigorous, bipartisan opposition first voiced by Colin Powell and later led in the Senate by Democrat Sam Nunn.

    Expect a major future battle about gays serving openly in the military as the military indoctrination system is used to try to browbeat new recruits, most of whom come from the mainstream of American society which does not view homosexuality as acceptable behavior, into accepting a view of gays which is hostile to their values. Expect more tension as gay activists attempt to push the boundaries within the military by bringing cross dressing dates to military parties and demanding things like allowing male soldiers to adopt the dress and grooming code used by female soldiers.

    The comments of Bob Marshall are as stupid as the comments of those who claim that allowing gays to serve openly in the military is no big deal and will not have a profoundly negative effect on military functioning. Critics are right to point out that this change, if it is ever really implemented, does nothing to enhance the war fighting capability of the military. It will, however, further highlight the battle lines in the culture war.

  • ||

    It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me.

    What self-respecting homosexual would have his eyes on this turd?

    No homo.

  • ||

    He truly is an idiot. I've walked through P-Town in the peak of summer travel so many times it's not funny. Not once have I been hit on.

  • ||

    Yeah, but I bet plenty of guys "had eyes on you"...

    Seriously though, if you're in a foxhole worrying about the guy next to you possibly looking at your ass, there's something wrong with you. And if you think the guy next to you is more concerned with getting all worked up at your plumbers crack than he is with getting a bullet in the head, there's no hope for you.

  • ||

    That's because you're a pig.

  • ||

    You kidding? They had dates too.

  • sevo||

    "What self-respecting homosexual would have his eyes on this turd?
    No homo."
    Exactly! Click on the link; it'd take some real trailer-trash to presume he was attractive, male or female.
    Why is is that homely, insecure guys figure homos have such low standards?

  • ||

    Come on, everyone knows that homos have no aesthetic standards at all and will fuck anything that moves. I mean, Bob hopes so at least, because that would mean someone finds him attractive. (sad face)

  • Yonemoto||

    With all due respect to his political positions, Somehow Justin Raimondo gets laid (I presume).

  • ||

    He is a pretty ugly dude. Most of these homophobes worried about "getting hit on" never have to worry about it in the real world. And maybe some Larry Craig style denial going on here??

  • Dello||

    Looks like the Log Cabin folks were right from the beginning.

  • ||

    ... the excreable Del. Bob Marshall (R-Manassas)..."It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me," he said.

    Stay classy, Bob. Stay classy.

  • Gideon Darrow||

    Even better:

    "If I needed a blood transfusion and the guy next to me had committed sodomy 14 times in the last month, I'd be worried."

  • ||

    I'd be just as worried if it blood from a guy who screwed 14 female hookers on his last leave.

  • Wind Rider||

    I'd be MORE worried about the guy boinkin the hookers. Military folks are tested a lot more regularly for HIV (and a whole host of other nasty shit)

  • Axmie||

    No questions, please.

  • ||

    It is obvious to bartenders that drunks who express their homophobic views most loudly are innate homosexuals. Gay men`s room attendants impatiently wait until the drunken homophobe enters, that enlightening few minutes is when homophobia ends. The biggest migraine headaches are had by the homophobe that remembers his last nights encounter in the men`s room.

  • ||

    "You don't have to be straight to serve in the military. You just have to shoot straight." -- Barry Goldwater

  • Wind Rider||

    And to boot, if Goldwater had been elected instead of that dickhead Johnson, we likely wouldn't have gotten hit with Tricky Dick's "War on Drugs", because we wouldn't have had Nixon to kick around anymore, or something. Stupid fucking Daisy Ad.

  • LarryA||

    They told me if I voted for Goldwater we'd have war in Vietnam. They were right.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Hehe I had to think about that for a second. That was clever.

  • matt||

    The more control that the states exert over their National Guard units the better.

    Maybe if today they can set their own personnel requirements without Federal intrusion, then tomorrow they can respectfully decline to attend the next stupid-ass war of foreign adventurism.

    Admittedly, that's a longshot bet, but I'm willing to bet a lot of hurt feelings on it, and since that's what's primarily at issue when we talk about DADT, let's have at it.

  • groucho||

    Are you fucking serious?

    Seriously? Do you really think any of the states would refuse to participate in a war? Do you really think whether or not the federal government does something to end homophobia will change the answer to that question?

    If you do, then you just use libertarianism as a way to rationalize a broken social order. You are a patsy for capital.

  • Yonemoto||

    certainly, not if congress declares war and asserts the authority to mobilize the national guard. But for an illegal war?

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/06/23/970/66956

    http://www.truth-out.org/021109J

  • Apogee||

    broken social order. . . patsy for capital.

    That is some tired horseshit.

  • ||

    You must be done with Freshman finals, and have some time on your hands...

  • Fiscal Meth||

    The repeal of DADT is good news but it does not do anything to end homophobia.

  • counter pt.||

    Nothing will ever end homophobia because homos will never want to give up their victimhood. Evidence: "racism".

  • ||

    Totally! I remember being so excited when racism was vanquished in 1983. And here we are, in 2010, still talking about it...

  • sevo||

    "It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me," he said."
    1) If you are really concerned with an enemy at 600 yards, you really don't have brain-space left for whether or not a male or female compatriot is ogling your butt. You're not doing your job; your flattering yourself.
    2) WIH makes you think you're so attractive that they're looking at you?

  • ||

    Furthermore, if he can identify an enemy at 600 yards, why the heck isn't he lighting the bastard up?

  • Wind Rider||

    I'm thinking Bob Marshall has pretty well self identified as a good candidate for getting slipped a roofie, dressed in a toga, and having "slave" written on his forehead, before being dropped off in the middle of the Folsom Street Fair. That's probably be pretty fucking hilarious. For the first few minutes, at any rate.

  • The Mossy Spaniard ||

    "execrable"

  • Poppin' Caps lock||

    Yep. Virginia's a pretty embarrassing state in which to live. At least McDonnell knows when to shelve his apprehensions.

  • Ted S.||

    What would you expect from the representative from Man Asses?

  • smz||

    Sorry, but Bob's better than what the D's put up, so we'll just cancel each others vote. Sure as shit ain't getting a Libertarian in the seat, so I'll take Bob versus the rest. He may be bad on some of the social issues, but he's great on the economic front. The D's are just shitty all around, since they don't seem to have the spine to really take the stand socially (DADT now seemingly an exception).

  • Virginia||

    Yeah, Bob is either really right or really wrong on everything.

    Disclosure: I've donated $$ to Bob

  • Kristen||

    Virginia has some of the most draconian anti-gay laws in the country. This is no surprise to me at all.

  • RAH||

    I just went to Equality Virginia's website and they have a petition for a statewide anti-discrimination law which applies to the private sector.

    Is that what Bailey supports? If so let me know so I can cancel my subscription.

  • ||

    Problems w/behavior occur when soldiers are off the front line, not when they are in combat. And breakdowns--such as those feared by proponents of the gay ban--occur when morale is low -- say in a losing fight or a quagmire. That's where we should watch when making these sorts of changes.

    The french at Verdun or the french experience in Algeria are two examples of low morale and scapegoating created huge problems. Fragging in Vietnam might be another example.

    If the military believes they can field an effective fighting force in absence of a gay ban then there is no good reason to continue. If mil needs to expand the pool of recruits and officers to field an effective fighting force than we damn well should allow gays to serve! National security demands then accommodation should be the order of the process.

  • Paul||

    "It's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me," he said.

    Mr. Marshall, perhaps you need to spend a little less time "worrying" about another member of your team who might (or might not have eyes on you) and a little more time worrying about the enemy 600 yards away.

    The solution is simple you cretin.

    You know what I think about guys who doth protest too much about the gay...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement