Our Gay Revolutionary War Hero
[Program Note: Work continues apace on the book proposal I am working on, but I'm going to try resuming the Tuesday and Thursday columns here in the meantime. These columns may be a bit briefer than the others, so I can continue to work on my other project. In any case, just wanted everyone to know that the full weekday schedule at ChrisWeigant.com will be resuming. Thanks for your understanding as I pursue writing projects which actually might pay me some money.]
Today marks the end of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of not allowing gay servicemembers to openly do their duty in the American military. There are plenty of other columns out there celebrating this fact, so instead of going into details, I'd like to offer an excerpt from a book I recently read. The book is One Nation Under Sex, by Larry Flynt and David Eisenbach, Ph.D. Whatever you may think of Flynt for his other activities, his books are always a good read and always exhaustively researched and annotated. Which is why his telling of this particular story is the best I've yet come across. Gay people have been in the United States military from the very beginning. They've always served, the only change now is that they'll be able to do so without having to hide who they are. Which is why this is such a good lesson to ponder on today of all days.
Two details before you read this, for clarification: the Prussian army, at the time, was seen as the most professional and best fighting force in the world; and the "Seven Years' War" was called the "French and Indian War" here in America.
Ben Franklin's freewheeling approach to sex proved to be a huge asset when Frederick von Steuben approached the American ambassador in Paris to offer his services to the rebel army in 1777. Von Steuben had served with distinction in Frederick the Great's Prussian army during the Seven Years' War (1756-1763). But after the war, he was relieved of his duties and summarily discharged. Von Steuben found work as grand marshal to the court of the prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen but had to flee after being accused of "having taken familiarities with young boys." He spent years trying to join other armies, including the French army, but no one would pay for his services. Broke and disgraced, the 46-year-old von Steuben turned to Franklin to help revive his fortunes.
While he was in France, Franklin had been desperately searching for an experienced military officer who could train General Washington's ragtag army of farmers. Although he heard rumors of von Steuben's fondness for young men, Old Ben didn't care. Franklin's favorite bathhouse in Paris, the Pot-de-Vin, was the city's premier gay pick-up joint. In addition, with Washington's army on the brink of collapse, it was no time to get hung up on moral judgments. Rumors about von Steuben had to be countered with a cover story. American officials back home were told that the baron was leaving behind vast wealth and an exalted position in Europe out of an idealistic commitment to liberty. It is not known if Franklin, the master storyteller, concocted this tale, but in a letter to General Washington he did exaggerate von Steuben's military rank -- promoting him to Frederick the Great's general staff. We will never know if Franklin openly discussed the gay rumors with von Steuben; the most likely scenario is that Franklin didn't asketh and von Steuben didn't telleth.
Von Steuben was assigned in late 1777 to the winter quarters at Valley Forge, where he was horrified by the sight of soldiers starving and freezing to death. But he realized that if he could train such dedicated fighters properly, they could become the best soldiers in the world. He forged various colonial militias into a national army and devised a drill program that remained the official U.S. military manual until 1812. By the end of the war, von Steuben was one of the most famous men in America, and in 1783 George Washington wrote him a letter thanking him for changing the course of the war. Rumors about von Steuben's sexual proclivities reached the Continental Congress, however, and while the government rewarded other war heroes with large tracts of land, von Steuben received a gold-hilted sword and less than 5 percent of the reward money he anticipated. Von Steuben bought a shabby little farm in the wilderness of upstate New York, where he lived the remainder of his life with a male companion.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I don't think there has every been any question regarding the bravery, competence or excellence of gay men and women as soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines....
I think the question has always been one of unit cohesion and capabilities and how they might be impacted by an openly gay member.
Whether it's a valid question or not is open to debate..
But, make no mistake. That IS the question that has (and will) be facing our military forces..
I would also take exception with the notion that being gay is "who they are"...
There is no firm evidence that supports the nature over nurture theory..
Being gay is not who they are. Being gay is what they do..
Other than that minor nit-pick, I found this commentary fascinating.
Who knew that Ben Franklin was such a hedonist!? :D
Michale.....
Gays have always served in the US military. When I was in the Marines, the estimate was that gays were upwards of 1 in 5 in certain units. Those units were usually Recon ... the single most cohesive units in the entire US military.
It isn't about cohesiveness, its about social unity in the political right. The exact same arguments were made about blacks in 1948. With exactly the same results.
Will anyone "leave" the military because they are forced to serve with gays? Maybe. So what? They don't deseve to be in the military if they can't follow legal orders.
There was a great interview on NPR the other day with a Major in the U.S. Marine Corps. My favorite quote:
"When they say, 'Well, you know, I couldn't share a fighting position with a Marine that's gay,' or anything like that, I say, 'Wow. So gay Marines have that much power that they can totally disarm you and defeat you just by their simple presence? And you call yourself a Marine? Come on, dude. What's your problem? Get over it.' "
- Major Darrel Choat
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140615384/dont-ask-dont-tell-is-done-what-now
DF,
Will anyone "leave" the military because they are forced to serve with gays? Maybe. So what? They don't deseve to be in the military if they can't follow legal orders.
Let's turn that around.
"Will anyone "leave" the military because they are forced to hide their sexual orientation? Maybe. So what? They don't deseve to be in the military if they can't follow legal orders."
Hmmmmmmmm
It works there too....
David,
Here's my favorite quote...
"When I joined the military it was illegal to be homosexual, then it became optional and now it's legal. I'm getting out before Obama makes it mandatory."
-GySgt Harry Berres, USMC
:D
Michale.....
GySgt Harry Berres, USMC
Does "GySgt" stand for Gay Sergeant?
I mean with a name like Harry Berres this has to be some kind of a joke ... :)
-David
Actually GySgt is Gunnery Sergeant..
Dunno if he's a real person or not, but he sure has a following.. :D
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=18&gs_id=5&xhr=t&q=GySgt+Harry+Berres+usmc&qe=R3lTZ3QgSGFycnkgQmVycmVz&qesig=QxMlCU91VJt6nEf-LTfxtw&pkc=AFgZ2tlNngruKUzYSjVi1m_wNXuPsOFr4NzKGycn__dyUZmOlX0vavP0RucTYg83R0lomPO0z0kp3y9hMIkwcRTgI0Vk0EVRxg&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=GySgt+Harry+Berres&aq=0&aqi=g2&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=3699235da491e68&biw=1680&bih=838
Michale.....
Michale [1] -
OK, let's turn that one around. If you argue for "nurture" then at some point, everyone chooses which gender they will be attracted towards sexually.
So, when did you choose to be attracted towards women? Such a momentous occasion would certainly be memorable, wouldn't it? So when did you make this momentous choice? Or were you just "born this way"? Perhaps gays are the same, eh?
-CW
Michale -
Oh, and Ben Franklin was a well-known horn dog even at age 70 and beyond... He also published a treatise titled "Fart Proudly" for good measure. Ol' Ben was a firecracker, that's for sure...
:-)
-CW
So, when did you choose to be attracted towards women? Such a momentous occasion would certainly be memorable, wouldn't it? So when did you make this momentous choice? Or were you just "born this way"? Perhaps gays are the same, eh?
Actually, such an argument supports the "nurture" over the "nature" argument...
When did I become interested in girls??
1968 I think it was November, but don't hold me to that...
The Left is always big on blaming parents for psycho serial killers or the like, right??
"Oh, it's not HIS fault he brutally murdered a hundred girls!! It's how he was raised!!"
So, why is it that psycho serial killer activity is "nurture" yet sexual preference is "nature"???
If a person can be "born" gay, why can't they be born a psychotic killer??
Which brings me to my second beef against the "nature" argument..
Basically the "nature" argument is the agnostics version of "the devil made me do it".. It excuses just about any anti-social activity by mitigating personal responsible...
The person's a alcoholic?? Oh, it's in the genes. He was born that way. So, it's not really his fault he went on a drinking binge and killed a family of five by drunk driving..
What?? The girl's a slut?? Oh, it's not really her fault because "scientists" have identified a "gene" that makes people sexually promiscuous... So, it's not her fault she has 20 kids and is a welfare-for-life person...
Where does it end?? When does a person become responsible for their own actions without the "the devil/genes made me do it" training bra??? Using the "nature" reasoning, a person could live their entire lives, free from ANY guilt whatsoever, no matter how heinous the transgression.. Because there will always be someone who will say, "Oh, it's not his fault. He/she was born that way.."
There is no REAL and convincing supportive evidence that shows people are born gay... There is a lot of innuendo, inference and wishful thinking by parents who think they have gone wrong...
But there is no real evidence...
Those who believe the "nature" argument are as religious as those who believe a god created the world in 6 days...
It's about faith.. Nothing more.....
Oh, and Ben Franklin was a well-known horn dog even at age 70 and beyond... He also published a treatise titled "Fart Proudly" for good measure. Ol' Ben was a firecracker, that's for sure...
Did you catch the JOHN ADAMS mini-series with Paul Giamatti as John Adams?? I loved it, but always wondered if Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of Ben Franklin was accurate..
Apparently, it was... :D
Michale.....
What I find so interesting about this whole thing is, it's an argument against bigotry that supports bigotry against those who are bigoted..
DerFarm's post above is a perfect example...
He doesn't see a problem with a person who has an issue with gay people being tossed out of the military.
That's the prevalent attitude amongst the pro gay people.
They spout off about all the "talent" and "great" soldiers that have been lost from the military because they are gay..
What about all the "talent" and "great" soldiers who have left and who will leave the military because of the integration??
Don't they matter at all??
"Of course not", the Left will say. "If they are bigoted against gay people, then screw 'em"
Which shows two things...
1. That those supposedly "enlightened" people are just as hateful, hurtful and bigoted as the people they castigate...
2. That they really don't care about any talent that the military loses. They only care if it's GAY talent that the military loses. This, in turn, indicates that they don't give a rip about the US Military. They simply only care about their own agenda, the country and the military be damned...
Michale.....
Michale,
I think the question has always been one of unit cohesion and capabilities and how they might be impacted by an openly gay member.
Being gay is not who they are. Being gay is what they do..
What do you think it means to be "openly gay" in the military? In other words, compare and contrast for us the differences and/or similarities between being openly gay and openly heterosexual in the military vis-a-vis unit cohesion.
And, no ... I'm not drunk. :)
Being "openly gay" to me, means that a gay man can talk about his husband the way a straight man can talk about his wife. Or a gay woman can talk about her wife the way a straight woman can talk about her husband.
And having straight soldiers being uncomfortable with that does not mean they are homophobic, despite what the radicals in the gay movement will say...
Michale
Basically the "nature" argument is the agnostics version of "the devil made me do it".. It excuses just about any anti-social activity by mitigating personal responsible...
Let me clarify this, as it bugged me all night.
I don't equate being gay with anti-social behavior.. For me, being gay is a personal choice, like being a WOB or getting a bunch of piercings or tattoos. A way to rebel against parents, teachers, friends, enemies, etc etc etc..
It's not a choice I would make for myself, but if others want to, more power to 'em..
But the fact is that, until relatively recently, being gay was not socially acceptable.
Now it's all the rage... :^/ But it hasn't always been like that.
That was the basis of and the mindset behind the "anti-social" comment..
Michale.....
And having straight soldiers being uncomfortable with that does not mean they are homophobic, despite what the radicals in the gay movement will say.
I wouldn't necessarily say they're homophobic. But if you can't do your job because someone you work with is gay, you're not much of a soldier.
"Man up 'ya limp dick f*ckups!" - Kirk Lazarus, Tropic Thunder
p.s. A good friend of my sister's came out as gay when he went to college. We suspected he was gay as soon as we knew what gay was- about 9th grade. He was in 7th. Thinking back further, he used to enjoy playing dolls with my sister when he was 5.
At 5, there's no way you even know what gay is. Yet he was gay. Having seen this it's hard for me to think that it's a choice. It's just something he is and always was. Even before he knew it.
But don't take my word for it. Ask someone who's gay.
I wouldn't necessarily say they're homophobic.
Of course you wouldn't. No logical or rational person would.. But, unfortunately, the radicals in the gay movement (or ANY movement for that matter) are long on hysteria but short on logic...
But if you can't do your job because someone you work with is gay, you're not much of a soldier.
I completely agree.... Just as if you can't do your job because you are afraid of heights or whatever would mean you're not much of a soldier.
Kudos on the movie quote. :D
At 5, there's no way you even know what gay is. Yet he was gay. Having seen this it's hard for me to think that it's a choice. It's just something he is and always was. Even before he knew it.
That's called projection..
There are many explanations for such activity.. I royally pissed my dad off when he was dropped off by his co-workers because I was decked out in a dress and high heels.. :D I was six...
I also liked to play with dolls when I was a kid.. I remember fondly a very fun christmas when I got a GI JOE with Kung Fu grip..
Doesn't mean I am gay...
But don't take my word for it. Ask someone who's gay.
Of course they will say they are born that way. Who wants to cop to a fad that was, at the time, was a social stigma..
Just like parents will say they were born that way. Who wants to think that they caused their kids to be gay??
As I said above, there is no factual evidence to support the idea that people are born gay. There is only innuendo, emotionalism and wishful thinking..
If people are born gay, then they can be born a serial killer. They can be born sexually promiscuous. They can be born a drunk.
What you are talking about is destiny. That people have no personal responsibility in their lives, that everything is pre-ordained.. And it's all based on faith..
Sounds like religion to me... :D
I prefer the "free will" idea more... :D
I have known many many people who are gay. Some became "not" gay.. Some are only gay when it suits them...
That's actual factual and physical evidence that indicates being gay is a choice. A lifestyle..
Not ordained destiny...
Michale
Let me ask you something, David (and anyone else)
Why is it soooo important to gay people and supporters of the gay agenda that it be nature and not nurture??
Why does it matter so much if it's a lifestyle choice and not genetics???
I know the answer, but I just want to see if you do.. :D
Michale.....
I know the answer, but I just want to see if you do.. :D
I'm not sure, Michale. You're the expert on Leftist agenda conspiracy theories :)
I just believe that it is.
-David
BTW- This jumped out as topical while perusing the morning news:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/09/22/having-a-stroke-made-me-gay-115875-23436853/
I'm not sure, Michale. You're the expert on Leftist agenda conspiracy theories :)
I'll give you a hint.. :D
"So it had to be poison. If you give a man a clean bill of health,and he later dies, you'd be in trouble, right?"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale.....
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/09/28/southwest-fires-back-passengers-not-removed-for-lesbian-kiss-but-for-loud/?test=faces
It's gay people like this that make it so much harder for the rest to gain acceptance...
Those who use their gayness as a club to beat people over the head with...
Michale.....
practically no aspect of human behavior is, has ever been, or ever will be just nature or just nurture. the ways people think and behave always stem from the combination and interaction of both, to varying degrees at different times.
homosexual attraction and behavior to my knowledge has always existed in every known human society, so it's extremely likely to have a strong biological component. there's no rule that says people can't make a conscious choice that goes against such a tendency, but that choice doesn't make the natural attraction cease to exist.
what we call gay or straight identity stems from the practice in western philosophy of categorizing everything into binary, polar opposite categories. unlike sexual behavior, sexual identity is basically all in our heads. it's how we as a society have chosen to order our patterns of behavior. however, since our identity partially controls our behavior and is in turn controlled by it, there's likely an interactive effect between biology and identity.
as to michale's question, the reason biology is so important is that a large portion of our society limits an individual's social status and legal rights based on the presumption that anything gay is "unnatural" or "against god's plan." i believe that the focus on the biological component is mainly just pushback against social pressure to conform behavior to a narrowly-defined identity, which doesn't fit every person's preferred behavior.
as to michale's question, the reason biology is so important is that a large portion of our society limits an individual's social status and legal rights based on the presumption that anything gay is "unnatural" or "against god's plan." i believe that the focus on the biological component is mainly just pushback against social pressure to conform behavior to a narrowly-defined identity, which doesn't fit every person's preferred behavior.
Ding, Ding, Ding!! We have a winner..
For the activist gay community, it HAS to be "nature". If it's not nature, if gay people weren't "born that way" then there would be no possibility that gay people could aspire to "protected" or "victim" status...
Under circumstances such as these one SHOULD operate under evidenced-based policy..
Unfortunately, the zealots in the gay community prefer to push the policy-based evidence instead...
Kinda like the old lawyer's mantra but with a twist...
When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts.
The twist:
"When both are against you, just make shit up.."
Michale.....