Patrick Murphy Does Not Disappoint.
In 2006, I campaigned for a friend and former law school classmate, Patrick Murphy, as he ran for Congress in the Pennsylvania 8th Congressional District. I have campaigned for many candidates over the years, and many times I have been disappointed. But with Murphy, I remain proud:
Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.) has taken up the mantle as the chief opponent of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in Congress, and he’s confident the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military will get its first full committee hearing in a decade and a half this session.
Murphy, a second-term Democrat, will be lead sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” — a policy first passed by Congress and signed into law under President Bill Clinton.
“It’s our job,” Murphy said of a repeal. “This was an act of Congress in 1993 and it will take an act of Congress” to reverse it.
Since Murphy has sponsored this repeal, the bill has gotten six new cosponsors. Murphy is the perfect Congressman to lead this fight. He is of the current generation of veterans. He has served in both the Kosovo and Iraq Wars. He was awarded the Bronze Star and his unit in Iraq earned the Presidential Unit Citation. He is also a former West Point professor and an ex-military attorney. Thus, Republicans and homophobes alike cannot say he does not understand the military or unit cohesion.
I am glad that your faith has been reaffirmed. I am not sold on the policy that he wishes to push. It is a mistake.
Hooray for Murphy! I’m glad this legislation is starting to move.
Why would it be a mistake, David? A homosexual wants to go out there and fight to protect your life and freedom, and you would deny him that because he is gay. Unbelievable.
As usual, no reasons… just belief.
Heck, even I agree with him on this one — and have for the last 30 years or so.
David, I get why you oppose homosexuality and gay marriage. But why would you want to deny our Army the ability to recruit and retain Arabic translators (and other skill positions in short supply) regardless of their sexual orientation? Do you feel that condemning homosexuality is more important than the safety of our troops?
Here we go again.
Does allowing open homosexuality in the military promote small unit order and discipline, the senior uniformed military does not think so and I will gladly take their views over Murphy.
As I have said many times there are many reasons why someone can’t serve. I ran a three state USMC recruiting station and we denied enlistment for many reasons.
Mike Protack
Funny, but that was the same reason folks gave against desegregating the military before Truman had the moral courage and integrity (and fidelity to the Constitution) to do the deed.
Those who could not suck it up and deal with other Americans as human beings and equals were quickly shown the door. The military became a better place for it — as did our country as a whole.
The same will be true WHEN this change happens.
Finally, RWR, we have found at least one issue on which we agree. You sound downright … progressive … on this issue.
Let me tell you a story.
I grew up on navy bases, since my father was a career officer.
At 16, I got a job in the base PX, like several of my buddies. We also had a couple of sailors who worked there part time to supplement their income (military pay was never good, but the Carter years were particularly bad).
Unbeknownst to his coworkers and fellow sailors, one of these guys was gay. He didn’t tell, and no one asked — and on Saturday night he would travel north to Milwaukee to one of the gay clubs there (an hour away from the base at Great Lakes).
Unfortunately, one weekend he made a mistake — he brought home a book of matches to his quarters, and flipped it into his desk drawer. One of the guys he shared quarters with in the barracks found it, and that weekend he and a couple of the other guys went to the club in Milwaukee — and were shocked by what they found.
So shocked that they came back to base drunk, and beat my co-worker (asleep in his bunk) so badly that he was ospitalized and needed surgery to repair a broken jaw and a couple of other injuries.
When the dust cleared, he was discharged as unfit for military service due to his sexual orientation. The guys who beat him half to death were given 30 days confinement to barracks and a temporary reduction in pay — and allowed to continue serving.
Any wonder I think the current policy is utterly asinine and fundamentally flawed?
Agree…those Bill Clinton policies are ridiculous! Who would ever vote for him?
RwR – Thanks for sharing that story.
So right RwR, why are we coddling people’s prejudices? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Frankly, there might once have been a time when the policy made sense from the blackmail standpoint — but given the general acceptance of homosexuality in our society today (few consequences — social or legal — to being out), it makes more sense. Today the issue is more one of institutional resistance to change (see Protack’s argument above).
The Dems have 60 in the Senate, so this will pass, right?
Wrong.
Hey RWR, ever been to the Safe House in Milwaukee? Really neat place back in 1980 (when I was stationed at the Lakes).
Yeah, I have — and even had a couple of old glasses from the place following me around until we got wiped out by Hurricane Ike last fall.