Skip to main content

There is a right-wing blog called that purports to support the troops.  In this blog  he laments that DOMA will somehow lead to "his" benefits being lessened.  I present to you my reaction which he was too cowardly to allow to appear on his blog:

Jonn Lilyea writes:

So, you didn’t really think that the Defense of Marriage Act would stand up under the scrutiny of this court, did you? The is the Supreme Court that gave us Obamacare, for Pete’s sake. But anyway, as soon as the decision was announced, Chuck Hagel rushed out a statement that would give benefits to same-sex couples, you know, because they’ve kept their promises so well to, well, regular couples. From Stars & Stripes;
Considering how much those on the right claim to love the Constitution, they do not understand it.  The Supreme Court did not "give" us the Affordable Care Act it was passed by a Supermajority in both houses of Congress.  While I realize that SCOTUS has done the bidding of the GOP in Bush V. Gore, Citizens United, and yesterday's awful ruling on voting rights, the right should not expect such subservience at all times.

But here is the crux of his argument:

Last year, they wanted to strike down the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy so they could openly serve. That’s all they wanted – to be able to serve without hiding who they are. So, the camel got his nose under the tent, and voila!
Honestly, I don’t care about gays serving in the military, I just don’t like being lied to about their intentions. Oh, just so you same-sex couples know, when it comes to those benefits that you get promised, they break their promises all of the time. They tell us that, as retirees, we’re unsustainable and then they pile a bunch new people into the system, so enjoy it while you can.
The fact is that Andrew Wilfahrt a gay soldier killed in Afghanistan earned his benefits:

And Eric Alva who lost his leg in Iraq earned his benefits:

The entire premise of your post- that gays our pulling some kind of misdirection- is a lie. One of the main points against DOMA and DADT has always been that it is unjust that gays are receiving less for doing the same work. If it comes as a surprise that we’re asking for the same benefits it’s because you didn’t bother to look up until we were eligible for those benefit.

And if you knew anything about the history of Civil Rights you’d know that economic matters have always been part of the demand for rights. It’s true that in the 1950s when Civil Rights began in earnest they wanted to integrate the schools and sit wherever they wanted to on busses. But they ALSO wanted to end employment discrimination and do something about the fact that over 90% of blacks were living  below the poverty line.

If you  read your history you'd also know that the standard reaction to minorities winning rights is “that if they get this, they’re going to demand that”. It was made in the 1860s when the argument was that if we end slavery they’re going to want “our” jobs. It was made again in the 1930s when they declared that if we let them ride wherever they want in the boxcar they’re going to want to go to “our” schools, It was made again in the 1950s when it was argued that if we let them go to “our” schools they’re going to teach in “our” schools. And it was argued in 1967 that if we let them vote they’ll want to run for office and may even want to become President of “our” country. And it was argued in 1972 that if we let “them” intermarry soon gays will want to marry too.

And you know what? They were right. Minorities DID want all those things. Not only did they want all those things they marched, they voted and they did all they could to get all those things. And they had every right to.

And history recognizes that ALL those people that were arguing encroachment were racist then. Just as history will someday- soon- acknowledge your bigotry.

If a black person can go to a “White” University, pass and get a degree he’s earned that degree. Just as he’s earned the right to live in a “white” neighborhood if he can afford the mortgage and he's earned the right to be President of the United States if he can get more votes than the other guy.

Because the school was never "yours" the job was never "yours" and the country was never "yours".  The right to have these things was always as much his as "yours".  It's just that the law finally got around to recognizing that they had these rights.

Likewise if a gay man serves his country honorably and is entitle to benefits, He's earned them. He’s not taking them from you. They merely received the blessings of liberty that they should of been entitled to since our countries founding.

I agree that it is horrible that service members- gay or straight- aren't getting their earned benefits.  However there our better solutions than discriminating against gay soldiers.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But if They Don't Get Less for Being Immoral (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that means liberals gave them special rights.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 07:50:30 PM PDT

    •  Not quite that, but close. (3+ / 0-)

      Well, his claim is that he was somehow lied to about the gays "intentions".  That the demand for equality was only about being allowed to serve openly and not benefits.

      While he might of felt that's what they were arguing, it's only because he wasn't paying attention.  Benefits has ALWAYS been part of the argument.

      Oh, thanks for reading and commenting!  I'm still kind of new to this so it's still a bit of a thrill.  

      Ok, how sad is that? :-)

      •  It's really stupid, too, when you think about it. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, grover, Tonedevil

        Why would gay people want to be able to serve openly, but not want the same benefits?

        •  So true (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil, The Dude 415

          It's like imagining that the Civil Rights movement was about sitting on a bus or lunch counter or drinking from a fountain.  The end desire was ALWAYS to make just as much and be able to advance just as far as any white man.  That seems like a perfectly fair and reasonable desire.  The fact that they had to start on that journey (which is by no means over) with a drinking fountain is a testament to how great the bigotry was.

      •  insipid - that's a skinny supermajority (0+ / 0-)

        The ACA passed the House 219-212, with 34 Dems and all the GOP members voting against. It only passed the Senate using reconciliation because there were not 60 votes in favor in the Senate.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 10:32:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't know it was that close in the house (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          But it's still inaccurate to say it "passed" by reconciliation.  The bill itself passed with 60 votes.  The fixes were passed through reconciliation

          Either way, it wasn't SCOTUS that brought the ACA.

          But thank you for the correction.

  •  Well done. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, JerryNA, insipid47

    It saddens me that it has to be said, but you said it well.  It's a never-ending battle in the quest for equality.  My grandmother was not legally able to vote until just before the birth of her fourth child (my father) because of her gender.  Rosa Parks was refused a seat on a bus because of her color.  Today, the group of "other" have been deprived of being able to marry and serve openly because of their orientation.  It's really all the same battle endlessly being fought, the battle for equality.  Those in power keep shifting the target, but it is still the same battle and it is a long way from being won. Those in power convince the weak-minded that if the "other" has an equal right, it will in some way diminish their right.  And so, the battle continues because none of us are truly equal until all of us are equal.

    You are my brother, my sister.

    by RoCali on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:35:39 PM PDT

    •  Very true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RoCali, JerryNA

      I think you've hit upon the ultimate truth of what is behind racism: Fear.

      It's not that they fear that black people will take "their" jobs, it's that they fear they can't compete.  They fear that gay soldiers will outperform them.

      They fear that gay marriages might be happier than theirs.

      It's why Mr. Lilyea wouldn't print my response, it's why they lash out violently.  Deep down bigots are just cowards.

      •  So many are wrought with fear (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JerryNA, insipid47

        hence the meme of the "takers."  Those in power wield this, holding their followers in thrall with insinuations that if the "other" take an equal right, an equal share, an equal respect, whatever, in some way that will take away respect, power, wealth, whatever, from their minions.  And those fearful, weak minds swallow it hook, line and sinker.  They hate the "other" because they fear it represents some type of loss for them personally.  That fear represents the single, largest dividing line in our society.  On one side, you have those who fear that if others get something, they lose something of their own. On the other side, you have those who realize when we are all strong, healthy, succeeding, with equal opportunity, we are all the better for it as a whole.  

        You are my brother, my sister.

        by RoCali on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:00:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Their fear is openly stated-it's just misdirected. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RoCali, insipid47

          They fear change.  They fear the fact that they are poorer now than 20 years ago, but can't figure out who is to blame.  They certainly refuse to blame the trickle-up policies they have supported since they voted for Ronnie "I don't recall" Reagan.  Introspection is not the strong suit of an average conservative, I believe.  

          They say they fear the "collapse of the institution of marriage".  What that means- who knows?  They certainly can't define it, but their preacher and their local politician makes it sound plausible.  How it will happen- again, who knows?  More married couples somehow breaking the institution of marriage is a contradiction.  Unless gay divorces will somehow do worse than celebrity 5 day marriages or RushL's 4 or 5 serial divorces or ...  My brain hurts just thinking about their insanity.

          •  "My brain hurts just thinking about their (0+ / 0-)

            insanity."  Absolutely. I've tried to understand how they feel and think, but contemplating the mental contortions and contradictions hurts my head. In some ways, despite my disgust for many of their policies, I pity them. I cannot imagine going through life so filled with fear, hate, and the constant struggle to explain and support those contradictions they are rife with, so often against their own best interests.  

            You are my brother, my sister.

            by RoCali on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:29:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "Others" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RoCali, grover

          Your use of the word "others' is right on.  What Mr. Lilyea doesn't seem to understand is that gay soldiers are just as much soldiers as he.  They took the same oath, they had the same training and they risk and lose their lives in the same way.  They're not "others" they're part of the same service.

          He cannot claim to be a champion of soldiers rights (something he does) without championing the rights of ALL soldiers even the gay ones.

          If he were a true champion of soldiers rights, he'd be angry that they were denied rights  this long, not that they're being granted now.

          •  They are soldiers, period. (0+ / 0-)

            His insistence on defining them as "other" based on a simple characteristic only defines himself,

            You are my brother, my sister.

            by RoCali on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 09:31:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Plus... (0+ / 0-)

              Can you think of ONE right-wing solution that DOESN'T involve making someone-of middle to lower income suffer?

              Their "solutions" are ALWAYS to end the social safety net, stop unemployment, end food stamps, privatize Medicare/Social Security/ deport "illegals" end health care reform, invade Iraq

              I know this statement is incendiary, but I do believe they're sadists.  They love guns because they kill people.  They hate government programs not because they fail to end poverty, but because they do ameliorate it.  They love war because it kills people.

              I really can't believe they get any votes at all.

  •  The rich and the powerful thrive best when we, (0+ / 0-)

    The middle class, working class and poor, fight among ourselves for the crumbs they toss us.

    It's classic divide and conquer.

    I always ask people like this why are we fighting each other when we there we are spending  (__insert wasted money program and amount __) making private companies and their CEOs rich.

    Even if that person doesn't agree with my values ( they're homophobic, don't like unions, whatever), they'll usually concede that for the trillions of dollars we've spent on needless wars, bailing out banks yet instituting no reform, building massive NSA data storage facilities, etc, we could be doing a lot of good for our brother and sister citizens.

    This is a good diary, but personally I really do try to avoid the divide and conquer trap that the 1% set to distract us.

    It's exactly what they want. All we have to do is look how hard they worked to crush Occupy. They don't want us working together. Ever.

    © grover

    So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

    by grover on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:39:51 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site