This post deserves no opener, no segway, no introduction, because, frankly, I tried to write one and not only would none suffice, each consecutively horridly written paragraph drained exponentially from the stream of furry I was feeling. So I deleted everything I wrote, stopped to make this small explanation of circumstance- I have come upon a rare homework assignment that actually inspired me to do something not-required- and began my rant:
In a certain article found in this past week's newspaper I located an editorial by a grouchy, perpetually frowning, slightly asian, disconcerted man by the name of Cal Thomas: Columnist. He wrote about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and why it should not, under any circumstances, be repealed. This man has officially made my uber-naughty list for the Christmas season, and assuming that I am able to locate his address online, he may be getting a very very large lump of coal shoved somewhere very very uncomfortable in the very very near future.
It is not the subject or opinion of this guy that really tick me off so bad. It's the pure doucheyness of it all (a word which, but the way, I have become quite found of mutilating into different parts of speech when I can find no better words to describe someone of complete rotten guts). The subject matter could easily be handled, by a more mature and considerate man, in a way that could come off almost objectively. Instead, it seems this man went miles out of his way just to make a point about his pure hatred of homosexuality. I don't mean just a "side-trip-to-Starbucks-for-a-quick-soy-mocha-latte-break" out of your way. I mean a "side-trip-to-a-remote-Costa-Rican-coffee-plantation-for-an-authentic-strawberry-coffee-brewed-by-locals-on-my-way-to-the-grocery-store" out of your way. And while we're there, let's insult the Costa Ricans for not being a creamy white wrinkly Asian mix like me. But really. Here are just a few of the audacious quotes that flow through this man's conscious thought:
"Why are we witnessing so many challenges to what used to be considered a shared sense of what is right? It is because we no longer regard the Author of what is right."
"Perhaps Gate should re-read the Constitution..."
"The military is one of our primary national upbringings. So is marriage. No wonder the gay rights movement seek to undermine both. There are consequences when foundations are destroyed"
And my personal most-detestable:
"The Congress has a duty to save us from the pursuit of our lower nature if we won't listen to that other voice. If they care."
What is this man ON?! Oh yes, because all the people that don't shun homosexuals as a lower species, as a life form that has chosen a path of perversion out of their own desire for pleasure are disobeying God? Because we who allow human being to speak what they truely are and don't force them to contain their identities for the contentment of others are serving Satan. By George, Cal. You've just condemned quite a large, welcoming, and much more congenial than yourself chunk of society to Hell right there. I hope your blind submission to the multiple translations of people hundreds of years ago gets you a high chair in heaven, though you might lose a few points with the Big Guy over the section on "loving your neighbor" which you seem to have overlooked. But wait, maybe that's a translation error. Someone must have missed the assertion after that which states "unless he can design a mean sweater vest" (excuse my intense stereotyping).
And truly Cal, you're advising others to read the Constitution? What about a little piece of that document that guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If I'm not mistaken, liberty means freedom; having the right to be yourself. Would you ask a black man to deny his color to get into the military? A woman her sexuality? No. Would a black man in the military have angered men years ago, made the bond between soldiers difficult? Like hell. But how many of our soldiers are black today? How many of your "264,600 men and women" projected to leave early if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed would not have been there today if it weren't for African Americans in the military? And why must it always be that those who want to fight most, who are most loyal, are the ones that our soldiers are too ashamed to be fighting for? How can men be expected to go out and fight in honor of, to protect, to represent their nation, when they can't even learn to accept the people in it? Why should the freedom of individuality be a privilege that is decided upon by a count of the people who won't accept it? Why are the voices of those who cry out with 'why things shouldn't be' translated into laws, while the voices of those crying out with 'what could be' are quieted. Why do we inquire of the opposition "why not", but never of the advocates, "why?"?
This is truly a remarkable post. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy has been a serious issue to the Military at large. It is my understanding that the policy forced many to leave the Military with a "dishonorable discharge", we're talking people who fought, and bled for their country, just because of their very private opinions. The fact that many politicians are outraged by this, makes me sick to be considered a voter. These men preach the gospel but take it how they like. They like to believe the true meaning of the words as something that conveniently fits their moral fiber. Homosexuality is something that apparently is viewed as a problem. I only see it as another way of life, one I am not apart of, but can accept as just another group of people trying to find refuge in the United States, just like all of us started out as. Ms. "Rachel Marie", you are a truly remarkable young woman who seems to have a right head on her shoulders. You have the articulation of a seasoned writer and I hope one day to see this genius put to use. Good luck in the future.
ReplyDelete