Don't tell me you agree with that?

So they repealed ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ today.

For any of those unfamiliar with the law(it’s American after all) ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is a piece of legislation passed during the Clinton administration in 1993 that allowed gay men and women to serve in the US military providing they didn’t tell anyone that they were gay. In the 17 years since the legislation was passed over 13,000 men and women have been fired from active service after their superior offices have discovered their true sexual orientation.

Gay men and women who have risked their lives on the front line defending their country have lost their jobs and their pensions all because of an indiscreet Facebook status or because of telephone calls made by scorned ex-lovers. And that’s true by the way. I mean, that shit really happened. In the 21^st century in the ‘land of the free’ the lives of brave men and women were ruined all because of something as irrelevant as their sexual preferences.

We in Britain with our far superior sense of social equality have allowed gay men and women to serve openly since 1999. Well today the States finally caught when President Obama signed the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

Now as clear cut as this issue would seem to most of us, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ has been a contentious issue in the states, with passionate arguments both for and against the legislation. That doesn’t shock me about America; their politics have always been muddled and filled with contradictions about personal freedoms. Since I don’t live there and their laws don’t apply to me I try (and often fail) to not get too wound up about it.

However, I wasn’t expecting ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ to be a contentious issue in my own home. So imagine my surprise when I inform my brother of the good news, only to find that he disagrees with the law’s repeal. In fact, he believes they should go one step further and out-and-out ban gay men and women from the army.

Now my brother’s not a homophobe. I wouldn’t say he’s entirely comfortable with the idea, but he’s got plenty of gay friends and loves hanging out with my gay roommate/s. So apart from his desire to sit on the Right of any political debate why does he believe gay men don’t have the right to serve?

From what I gather, here is his argument: The army relies on the recruitment of young, testosterone-filled men. These young testosterone-filled men have a sub-culture that revolves around all things manly. Apparently the addition of gay men to this sub-culture would not go down well. They would consider it, and I quote, ‘a distraction’.

So I counter with the usual argument; Isn’t it about human rights?

He replies: In what way? Since when is it a basic human right to serve in the army?

Me: Since it’s your right if you sleep with women, but not if you sleep with men.

He replies: It’s the army. It’s not ‘everyone gets a turn’. They’re doing dangerous work and we can’t sub-plant our moral norms onto such a highly-charged environment, where the outcome of their work is more important than the way it is conducted.

Oh fuck, I think, moral relativism. I so don’t want to go there.

So I bring up the big example: segregation. Back in yesteryear when racism was still the flavour of the day, the American army was segregated into white platoons and black platoons. In 1948 Harry Truman signed a law ordering the integration of black and white troops. Back then people made the same ‘distraction’ arguments. In fact the law was so unpopular Truman had to sign an Executive Order because he couldn’t get the law through congress. But desegregation was the right thing to do. Everybody knows that.

I put this to my brother. He then argues that desegregation was different.

How?

Because most people were racist then, whereas only army members are homophobic now.

He looks at me like this closes the matter. It doesn’t. If anything – it’s blown the whole thing wider open. What the hell does that mean?

He argues that it is precisely the homophobic, testosterone-filled man aggression that we rely on to win wars. Being racist has no positive outcome, but the outcome of a homophobic sub-culture is victory in battle. Butch aggression actively wins wars and if that comes with a side order of homophobia, so be it. He says it’s not pretty and it sure isn’t politically correct but it’s true.

At this I’m stumped; I don’t agree but I can’t counter. My only real argument will have him calling me a Guardian-reading nonsense-spouting happy-clappy imbecile again. So I’m going to tell you my argument instead: shouldn’t we be bigger than that? Aren’t there moral absolutes?

In the same way that segregation was institutionalised racism, isn’t the banning of openly gay men and women from serving institutionalised homophobia? It is. And there’s no way round it. You can rationalise it ‘til the cows come home but the US Government, or a small branch of it anyway, was supporting homophobia.

People have the right to think what they like. Racism isn’t illegal. Homophobia isn’t illegal. But the incitement of hatred is. Convincing others to be racist or homophobic is against US law, so why does the US army consider itself above it? How can any government expect to pass law with any sense of moral authority under such an ethical contradiction? Do as I say, not as I do.

There are moral absolutes and people should hold their governments accountable to them.

That of course is too simple for my brother who is convinced that I’m just a wishy-washy left winger that sees disenfranchisement everywhere I look. But it’s not a dogma, it’s not a left-wing agenda. It’s about rights pure and simple. And what you do with your private parts has never, and will never, be any of the government’s goddamn business.