June 17, 2010
There is a raging debate about the Democratic Party’s push to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) and to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. This debate provides an interesting insight into the psyche of Democrats and Republicans.
DADT is a Clinton era policy that simply says gay people can serve in the military as long as they don’t make their sexual preferences known (notice I used the term preference, NOT orientation. Orientation is very passive and suggests that one had no say in the choice made, therefore the more appropriate term should be preference, since they prefer to be with the same sex). When you join the military, you sign a contract basically saying you agree to live by the rules of the military, this includes abiding by the DADT policy.
Similarly, illegals enter the U.S. with the full knowledge that they are breaking our laws, yet they want amnesty and citizenship because their motives were “pure.” They were looking for a better life for them and their family.
Herein lies the fault-line between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats believe that motives/intentions justifies the means (breaking the law is ok if I am doing it to make a better life for me and my family). Republicans believe that one’s action is the overriding factor—not the motivation behind the act.
So, according to the Democratic view, Hitler should be forgiven for the Holocaust because his motives were “pure.” If you study Hitler’s life, he actually thought he was fulfilling God’s will by seeking the perfect race. Now, everyone knows his actions were wrong, but you can make an argument for forgiveness if you look at his intentions!
A Republican view doesn’t even consider why Hitler did what he did. His acts were wrong—end of story.
When gays enlist in the military, they know the rules of engagement, just like illegals know they are breaking the law when they enter our country. If you don’t like the law, then change the law. But don’t join or engage in an activity and when the rules are enforced claim you are being discriminated against or treated unfairly.
If the rules of engagement had been changed in the middle of the game, I would be the first to fight for the fair treatment of gays in the military and illegals in this country. But, this is not the case.
If the laws are known upfront and you still decide to violate them, then I can’t support demands for redress. There is nothing to redress. Either the U.S. is going to be a nation of laws or we are going to be a nation of anarchy.
DADT and amnesty are not about “civil rights.” I am quite offended when people attempt to embrace these two movements on the grounds of “civil rights.” I am further embarrassed and quite angered that radical, leftist groups like the N.A.A.C.P. have allowed these movements to hijack the legacy of the “civil rights” movement.
Martin Luther King did not take a bullet in his head for gay rights or illegals; and for supposed civil rights groups to prostitute King’s legacy for these movements is an insult. King fought for rights based on one’s humanity and being an American citizen.
King never took a position on gay rights. Gay folks are protected already by virtue of being U.S. citizens not because of their sexual preferences. Illegals are protected in this country because they are humans, but this does not extend to the privilege of citizenship.
I challenge my gay and illegal friends to prove to me that they are not already protected based on their humanity. If I assault a gay or illegal person, I will be prosecuted because they are humans, not because they are gay or illegal.
I am really getting fed up with everyone wanting special rights based on their narrow interests. So, if the Congress repeals DADT, gay couples want to get housing benefits for their partners, even though gay marriage is not recognized in the U.S. So, will this benefit apply to me, as a straight person, if I want to live with a girlfriend?
In many states, illegals qualify for instate tuition for university, but an American citizen has to pay out of state fees. Is this fair?
So, to all my gay and illegal friends, it’s not that I don’t like you or that I believe in discrimination; I just want fairness.
Don’t ask me to accept a lifestyle I don’t agree with and I’m telling you that I don’t support amnesty for illegals.
Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a D.C.-public relations/government affairs firm. He is also a contributing editor for ExcellStyle Magazine (www.excellstyle.com).