Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Should pacifists care about policy on gays in the military?

Blatant discrimination from a government institution is of course wrong and should be rectified. But as military values are antithetical to my own values, and as the military's function is to carry out policies that I find morally reprehensible, I ask myself how much I should care about the military's policy on openly gay soldiers. As a pacifist, how much should the military's internal policies really concern me?

I find, however, that it does matter. Whether the military allows openly gay soldiers to serve or not has little impact on the militarism inherent in American culture, has no impact on the United States' obscene defense budget, and has no impact on the violence of U.S. foreign policy. There may, however, be a domestic impact. When another American institution (and one revered by so many) no longer tolerates discrimination against gay people and insists on policies of equality, we move a step in a positive direction. We should strive toward full equality in our society, and eliminating barriers of inequality wherever they are is both an end and a means in that effort.

See Also:
"What's wrong with a radical gay agenda?" (Waging Nonviolence)

1 comment:

  1. I agree. I will never eat at KFC, because of their terrible policies and abuses of animals, but I would be livid if KFC refused to serve gay patrons. If any business had such a blatant discriminatory policy like that, people would be up in arms, even though technically private businesses can do what they want. And yet something most would not tolerate in the private sector is somehow allowed in a state-run agency like the military. It is beyond bigotry.