At Home, Every Man is the King of His Castle

First of all, let me put forth my personal position on gay relationships. As the title of this post indicates, I believe that every man (or woman) is the king (or queen) of their castle, and what they do in their castle is their business.

 

I have no personal hatred towards someone because they are gay. However, if I don’t know you’re a queer guy, and you don’t act gay around me I won’t have a problem with you and it will equally be easy for you to gain my friendship as someone who is not gay. If later I find out you’re gay, nothing in the friendship will change as long as you don’t act gay around me. If you act gay around me I will feel uncomfortable and possibly offended, and will not want to be around you. I would not go out of my way to insult or offend you.

 

With all that being said, I also want to address the controversial issue of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the military, aka DADT.

 

As a former service member, I had the honor and privilege to serve with a couple of gay guys that I had no problems with. At work, you would never know they were gay and they revealed their orientation only to people they trusted. In uniform, they were soldiers, at home or in the club, they were themselves.

 

I mention these friends, because I believe they are the model in which gay members of the military should follow; they were able to serve honorably, stay under the DADT radar, act like soldiers, go home and be themselves every night. There’s nothing that says you’re not allowed to be in the military if you’re gay, they just ask that you keep it to yourselves, and I don’t believe this is too much to ask.

 

I don’t know how basic training is anymore, but I know when I went through basic training, it was Hell. I also know that if someone was gay in our platoon, all hell would break loose. The Army claims that your safety is their first priority, it isn’t. Drill Sergeants fostered blanket parties and fights; they informed us that all we have to say is that so-and-so fell down the stairs to explain a black eye, while the victim of a fight feels so disgraced that they got beat up, they are ashamed to report the actual situation to the drill sergeant. Not to mention that a drill sergeant would laugh in your face if you told him you got beat up because you’re gay. DADT not only maintains a sexually comfortable level in an open-bay barracks among soldiers, it also protects gay recruits.

 

In the rest of the Army to be gay is a little more accepted, as long as you don’t bring it to work. Any good commander or sergeant, that is in charge of you, knows if you’re gay or not. As long as you fall in the ranks, dress-right-dress, talk, and carry yourself like a soldier, then there shouldn’t be any problems.

 

I don’t know the details of the discharges, regarding DADT, that took place since the beginning of the war, and I’m not saying the Army-way is perfect. There are definitely guidelines that need to be established when dealing with DADT in the army. I don’t think it’s appropriate to discharge someone on a black-and-white basis of “we know you’re gay, you violated the DADT policy, you are now dishonorably discharged.” It’s completely irrational. There must be good reason behind a discharge, and I don’t think this is established. Some commanders may have a very strict view on the topic and may automatically put a soldier in for discharge when he finds out.

 

Instead what needs to happen is a scope of reason needs to be enforced. I can understand that a soldier gets discharged for not standing at attention/parade rest properly, or doesn’t march properly, talk properly, or carry themselves properly and it all boils down to the fact that the soldier is bringing is sexual orientation to work. Whether a soldier is gay or not, you can still be discharged for these infractions for disrespect, missing movement, lack of military bearing, etc.

 

I believe DADT has its place in the military, however I don’t believe commanders should be able to freely and irrationally discharge soldiers for nothing more than finding out they are gay.

Presidential Campaigns Need Reform

As far as election related expenditures and funding, I believe the entire system needs to be reformed. I believe congress should set a fair, standard campaign allowance for the candidates they appoint to run for presidency. It's no secret that campaigning costs a lot of money, but as a taxpayer and a registered voter, I'm interested in what the candidates have to say, rather than their backers putting words in their mouths, and having them commit to promises that I'm unaware of and probably wouldn't approve. It basically solves these two issues that I think, most taxpayers are concerned with. Besides, the constitution allows the congress to collect income tax to run the government, elections are required to take place, after a certain number of years, depending on the type of election is at hand.

 

Now, with a reform such as that, if corporations and unions wanted to use their general funds to help influence the public, that is their right. However, if the corporation or union was to take such action, certain provisions should apply; such as clearly stating the name of the corporations or unions involved in every message that is publicly broadcast.

 

A system like this, would help prevent money laundering, quid pro quo, and help reduce the amount of impact personal finances of a particular candidate would have on becoming elected. Citizens would also maintain their right in expressing their thoughts and ideas freely.

 

The system that we currently have in place has many problems, one being the amount of energy and resources required to fund campaigns, and the countless loop-holes that lead to scandals, and tie our leaders into commitments they weren't otherwise interested in, for the sake of funding. The current system also detracts our politicians focus from the issues at hand and deteriorates our democracy. It is both unconstitutional to limit the amount unions and corporations can contribute to electoral expenses, however, it is also unconstitutional for unions and corporations to “buy” the votes needed for their choice candidate to win.