It should not come as a surprise that almost across the board, Republicans oppose this policy change. From the article:

Republicans, who voted overwhelmingly against it, cited statements by some military leaders that they need more time to study how a change in the law could affect the lives and readiness of service members.

Here’s what I haven’t heard anyone say in response to this: why do we care what the brass thinks about the “readiness” of service members to have out gays serving with them? How does that take precedence over eliminating blatant discrimination in military policy? Some things are more important than appeasing some homophobic bigots in the military.

The case against repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” is usually put this way (to quote John McCain):

I think it’s really going to be very harmful to the morale and effectiveness of our military.

The interesting part is that this argument is not new. As is pointed out by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer in the article, the objection about “morale” is the same that was made by the people who opposed racial integration in the military 60 years ago. This was a cowardly and disingenuous argument then, and it remains so today.

The argument is cowardly because it implies that it is asking too much of the men and women in the military to serve honorably regardless of the sexual orientation of the people with whom they work. There are no evidence that the military will encounter huge problems when they abandon “don’t ask, don’t tell.” On the other hand, there are examples to show that letting gays serve is not a problem; one is the IDF. It is a sad coincidence that Israel abolished the last of their restrictions on gays in the military in 1993, the same year that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was adopted.

The argument is disingenuous because it’s really a more politically correct way of expressing an ugly, bigoted sentiment. In 1948, when Members of Congress suggested that allowing people of different races to serve together in the military would undermine morale, I contend that this primarily sprung not from a concern about tensions in the armed forces, but from the strong racist tendencies of the day. Politicians couldn’t come out and say that they just didn’t want blacks serving alongside whites, so they had to frame it in anxiety for the effects on morale. The same thing is happening with respect to gays in the military today, and when the Republicans trot out this flimsy assertion it is the same shiny wrapping on the same rotten core.

(Somewhat related aside.) A long time ago, it was Mormon doctrine that the mark God made on Cain was, to quote Brigham Young, “the flat nose and black skin.” Henceforth Cain’s descendants were cursed with this mark, and people who are born this way are so cursed because they were less valiant in the pre-existence. This was why blacks were prohibited from the priesthood in the LDS church (in which essentially all the males become priests). In 1978, the leaders of the LDS church said that they had received a revelation that all worthy males could be ordained, regardless of race. (Presumably, this was almost as humorous as God revealing that polygamy should no longer be practiced in 1890, just when the outside pressure on Utah was the strongest.) Nowadays the conventional Mormon explanation for the denial of the priesthood to blacks is that the white members of the church weren’t ready for it.  Sound familiar?

In all these instances, the real anti-minority sentiment has been hidden by a veneer of concern for the feelings of the majority. This is invalid. Blacks and gays don’t get their rights when the majority stop feeling squeamish. They are born equal, and the majority don’t grow to accept that until they are forced to confront it.

I saw something today, though, that was the proverbial last straw. It may be surprising, but what upset me was actually an attack on Palin. I read it in this Huffington Post article. Under the heading On Abortion, the author explains Palin’s (quaint, yet terrifying) views on abortion. She doesn’t believe in abortions even for rape victims, AND, writes Mr. Walls, (you can practically hear a scandalized whisper) she makes no exceptions, even for her OWN DAUGHTER.

It’s not just Mr. Walls and the Huffington Post, though. I’ve seen this played as some sort of trump card by many liberal blog sites and in many of the political stories I’ve read. In only the past few days I’ve seen at least five references to this fact.

It’s certainly true that this is Mrs. Palin’s position. She stated this in a response to a question during a debate in the 2006 gubernatorial race. It’s clearly on the record, and I feel confident that she would still back that statement completely.

Guess what? It doesn’t matter. It’s completely irrelevant.

It doesn’t mean anything if she opposes her own daughter getting an abortion if she were a rape victim if that’s her official political stance. It’s not draconian. It’s called having integrity.

In fact, I take issue with the person who asks such a question. There is absolutely nothing of political relevance that can be gleaned from her answer that couldn’t have been revealed by asking a question such as “Do you think that a teenager who has been raped should be permitted to get an abortion?”. The only difference in these questions is in the emotionality and sentimental weight they place upon her response.

This is a problem because emotion and sentiment are precisely what this country’s election system needs less of right now. We have reached a point where logic and level-headed reasoning plays almost no role in voters’ decisions, and each time non-issues like this one are paraded around it adds to the problem.

Interestingly, this is certainly not the first time this kind of thing has reared its ugly head in our elections. In 1988 Dukakis lost 7 precious poll points in a single night following a debate in which he was asked if he would support the death penalty for a person who raped and murdered his wife. His response? No. He wouldn’t support the death penalty in this case because he’d always been an opponent of the death penalty. This was an utterly useless question, yet it was one that probably cost Dukakis the presidency. All subsequent presidential nominees by the major parties have supported the death penalty in at least some cases.

What can we do about it? Don’t propogate irrelevant stories like this. Focus on the issues. Don’t vote without having logical reasons for your choice.

In the end, I hope Palin keeps sticking to her guns. When politicians are honest and give us straight talk (think McCain, but 10 years ago), we don’t have to analyze the nuances of their speeches and engage in endless political punditry. They’ll tell us what we need to know about them, we’ll be able to compare that to our own ideas, and then we’ll make informed decisions.

Like not voting for a right-wing nut job.