Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: No lie too outrageous Previous entry: 15 seconds or your entire life

Elaine Donnelly whines about Congressman Patrick Murphy and DADT

The credibility of the homo-obsessed, perpetually frustrated Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness is shot. Not only is she wholly unqualified to speak about the military as any kind of authority (she does not have any military experience), she delivered jack*ssery testimony that drew laughter on Capitol Hill last year as she defended the discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Let’s hope she shows up for the Senate hearings.

In the current issue of Human Events, the doyenne of discrimination bleats:

Murphy has replaced former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) as the new lead sponsor of H.R. 1283, a bill that would repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.  That law, Section 654, Title 10, frequently is mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Murphy’s bill would replace the 1993 statute with a new law forbidding discrimination in the military “based on homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” 

The open-ended language in “Murphy’s New LGBT Law” would mandate accommodation of professed (not discrete) sexual minorities in all branches and communities of the military to include Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALs, and submarines.  This would be tantamount to ordering military women to live with men in close quarters offering little or no privacy on a constant basis.

Here we go, you know what’s coming—discussions of sexual tension, naughty bits being shaken around to entice horny service members who think with their genitals and not their brains—and yes, they handle guns and WMDs! ZOMG! If you didn’t catch Elaine’s sitcom-worthy testimony in defense of DADT, here’s Patrick Murphy and Elaine in action on video.

Men and women are human, and therefore imperfect.  Homosexuals are no more perfect than anyone else. Sound military personnel policies encourage discipline rather than indiscipline, but Murphy’s New LGBT Law would have the opposite effect. 

If Congress passes Murphy’s New LGBT Law, the armed forces would have to disregard the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters. Unprecedented male/male and female/female sexual tensions will ensue, but the military will try to override them with mandatory sensitivity training courses. Corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of military personnel who disagree for any reason.

Her interpretation of her appearance:

I tried to present comprehensive testimony on the history and purpose of the 1993 law and the consequences of repeal.  But Murphy and other committee members demonstrated little concern about predictable problems.  Instead, they diverted attention from serious issues by trying to bully me with derogatory comments or questions.  Their dismissive behavior proved my point about intolerance in the name of “tolerance.”

Yes, serious issues like this

Donnelly treated the panel to an extraordinary exhibition of rage. She warned of “transgenders in the military.” She warned that lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower. She spoke ominously of gays spreading “HIV positivity” through the ranks.

“We’re talking about real consequences for real people,” Donnelly proclaimed. Her written statement added warnings about “inappropriate passive/aggressive actions common in the homosexual community,” the prospects of “forcible sodomy” and “exotic forms of sexual expression,” and the case of “a group of black lesbians who decided to gang-assault” a fellow soldier.

...”Like a woman who is stared at, her breasts are stared at,” Donnelly explained. She further explained the “absolutely devastating” effect of homosexuals “introducing erotic factors” and made a comparison to Sen. Larry Craig’s adventure at the Minneapolis airport. She said admitting gays to the military would be “forced cohabitation” and a policy of “relax and enjoy it.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 01:27 PM • (43) Comments

I know it’s like pissing in the wind, but…
SERIOUSLY, HOW DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND QUEER PEOPLE ARE ALREADY SERVING THEIR COUNTRY EVERY DAY?!?  ARRRGH!

Comment #1: lonespark  on  08/04  at  01:52 PM

What are these “passive-aggressive tendencies common in the homosexual community” of which she speaks?  That’s one stereotype I’m not familiar with (i.e. had been spared until now).

Comment #2: Ranylt  on  08/04  at  01:53 PM

Is it me, or does this woman sound like she has some bizarre lesbian porn fantasies in her mind?

Comment #3: Tonybrown74  on  08/04  at  02:02 PM

I was going to take issue with you bashing Donnelly for not having any military experience (lots of military policy experts have no service record), but then I saw this:

If Congress passes Murphy’s New LGBT Law, the armed forces would have to disregard the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters.

Military service is incompatible with modesty and privacy.  Any actual expert would know this very, very basic truth.  Ten people all shitting together in a communal latrine is way more weird than communal showers (which most everyone experienced in high school).

Comment #4: BABH  on  08/04  at  02:08 PM

Thank god somebody is out there protecting the America Armed Forces from the horrifying reality of people who have a different sexual orientation!

Can you imagine the unbelievable holocaust that would result if gay people were allowed to openly serve in the military, just as they have been for the last 200+ years (but in the closet)?  It would no doubt bring about the end of the American Republic!

We must band together to prevent the Gaypocalypse!!!...

Comment #5: MikeEss  on  08/04  at  02:11 PM

Also, she’s clearly never met an American male aged 16-35.  Their conversation does not tend to “modesty and privacy in sexual matters.”

Comment #6: BABH  on  08/04  at  02:12 PM

“Is it me, or does this woman sound like she has some bizarre lesbian porn fantasies in her mind?”

I can state catagorically that I have absolutely no interest at all in imagining even for a nanosecond what kind of fantasies Elaine Donnelly might or might not have.  But it’s possible that other people might feel differently…

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  08/04  at  02:16 PM

But enough Donnelly.  On the sane side, how come a repeal bill hasn’t been introduced in the Senate?  We have enough co-sponsors lined up.  Wouldn’t Gillibrand’s Armed Services Committee hearing have more impact if there were actually a bill under consideration?  SLDN and others told us to expect a bill to be introduced in July.  It is now August.

Comment #8: BABH  on  08/04  at  02:19 PM

Ten people all shitting together in a communal latrine is way more weird than communal showers (which most everyone experienced in high school). - BABH

Indeed, unless there is something I, as a straight person, doesn’t understand about gay sexuality, generally most people don’t get turned on and start hitting on the person shitting next to them no matter how hot said person is.

Bizarre lesbian porn fantasies indeed.  With an emphasis on bizarre (apologies to any coprophiliacs at there).

Comment #9: DAS  on  08/04  at  02:24 PM

If Congress passes Murphy’s New LGBT Law, the armed forces would have to disregard the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters.

Has she ever even met anyone in the military? Modesty gets surgically removed in boot camp and just because they call them Privates, doesn’t mean they are all that concerned about privacy.

Comment #10: Keith  on  08/04  at  02:53 PM

Military service is incompatible with modesty and privacy.  Any actual expert would know this very, very basic truth.  Ten people all shitting together in a communal latrine is way more weird than communal showers (which most everyone experienced in high school).

When I was in the Forces, I trained with women, even shared a two-person tent with one on multiple occasions, and sexual tension simply wasn’t there.  There was even one time in training when we had an hour free and the sergeant supervising the exercise showed us a nice, secluded, spot in the river where you could strip off and dive in (we’d been two or three days without having had a shower, during a hot British Columbia summer) for a quick wash.  Everyone took a turn.  Now mind you, this is a mixed group of 18 to 20 year old young adults in good physical shape: if we were civilians (or off duty) you’d expect a bit of peeking on the part of both sexes, but in this case priorities were sleeping, eating, and cleaning equipment.  We didn’t have the time (or desire) to try and sneak a peak at some booty, let alone try to grab some nookie in the field.

Now, this isn’t to say that it would never happen: sex was officially prohibited at my military college, and there wasn’t a lot of free time or opportunities, but young people can get very creative.  The point is, however, that mixed-sex units do function in the field.  And if heterosexual men and women can operate in the same unit and do their job, throwing some gay troops into the mix won’t make a difference.

Comment #11: KeithM  on  08/04  at  03:03 PM

The thing that gets me the most is that there will be “real consequences for real people”. As opposed to consequences for fake people, since queers are obviously not human beings or anything crazy like that, so any consequences that would befall them are just perks to the real people.

Also, if the bill passes, it would be “Murphy’s Law”. /irrelevant.

Comment #12: Lenina  on  08/04  at  03:08 PM

I don’t think Donnelly has bizarre lesbian fantasies. I think she has pretty normal lesbian fantasies. The bizarre part comes in where she freaks out about them, tries to suppress them, and turns all her energy toward hurting other gays and lesbians.

Comment #13: Scott  on  08/04  at  03:20 PM

If she’s going to get her knickers into a Gordian-sized knot about sexual assault in the military, couldn’t she at least put the energy and lobbying toward addressing the actual, real, currently-existing problem with heterosexual rape?

Comment #14: preying mantis  on  08/04  at  03:22 PM

Well, implicit in all of her statements is this rock-solid premise - all gay men and women are by definition rapists, since non-Bible-issued sexualities are “deviant” and everyone with the “proper” education knows that “deviance” is equivalent to rape.

I mean, seriously, she’s not even talking about consensual relationships but gangs of molesters running around barracks like some sort of strange Cinemax late-night movie.

Which, of course, brings us back to the default Rightie paradigm of sex - people who want it are slobbering, evil monsters who chase after children and innocent girls or boys and if you show your ankles you were asking for it.

Comment #15: tannenburg  on  08/04  at  03:24 PM

Time to start asking why Elaine is practicing DADT. 

Schoolcraft College is really a two year community college - usually that means she wasn’t smart enough for a direct to university path.

Then her bio lists University of Detroit which is actually University of Detroit Mercy, a Catholic Institution.  Why is she editing out her link t ocatholicism? 

What degree, if any, does she hold?

Why/how did Cap Weinberger appoint her?

Who does/did she know?

Comment #16: phylosopher  on  08/04  at  03:39 PM

My guess would be that one part of Elaine’s huge problem with life in general is that she’s probably never had a sexual fantasy in her entire miserable life.  Seriously, from that picture does it look like she could even unscrew her mouth wide enough to give a blow-job?  Or french kiss a girl?

I watched in sick fascination on C-Span her congressional testimony last year.  What a horrifying performance.  What a horrifying excuse for a human.

Comment #17: kac90b  on  08/04  at  03:45 PM

Phylosopher, I take issue with slamming community colleges.  Many folks go to them as a cheaper alternative to fulfilling the basic and breadth courses, because they know they’re going to wind up with crippling student loan debt as it is.  If you can knock a couple of years off of that, good on ‘em.

I am in no way trying to exonerate the insane homophobic misogynist lady (having read a quote of hers on rape victims just recently), just saying… do not knock community colleges.

Comment #18: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/04  at  08:21 PM

Queers have been pointing out for 20-plus years that homophobic straight people just aren’t the gay sex icons they make themselves out to be, but a certain class of straight people seems unable to listen.

And yeah, it would be funnier if it weren’t so obviously a projection based on the high rate of stereotypically predatory heterosexual interactions in the military (not just the rapes but the harassment, the denigration of disliked men by comparing them to women, blah blah blah). All the energy that should get directed at protesting abusive het relations gets rechanneled to protesting something that doesn’t exist.

Comment #19: paul  on  08/04  at  08:57 PM

I got this wake-up call from my spouse this morning on her private lj,

While I was out with the flu, this came in my work mail-box:

hi $NAME,
Earlier this year, $COMPANY implemented a federally required change to some employee benefit contribution amounts. If an employee is covering a domestic partner (same or opposite sex) or a same sex spouse, any employee contributions made for the partner/spouse benefits must be deducted post-tax.

Additionally, any amounts that $COMPANY pays for the partner/spouse benefits must be attributed to the employee as taxable (imputed) income. Because your benefits are listed as employee plus spouse (vs employee plus domestic partner) this wasn’t caught earlier in the year. Below is more information about these IRS regulations. Please note: the information is directly from government websites. Unfortunately, the federal government doesn’t recognize same sex marriages so it only refers to domestic partners. However, the rules are the same for both.

.. (more legalize skipped, you get the gist. Now the punchline) ..

Amount payroll will reverse:
Pre-tax: $1453.50

This is a wonderful way to pay for our insurance, isn’t it? I mean, it’s not like we want special rights… No, another $3K or so a year isn’t special rights, is it?

Comment #20: Crissa  on  08/04  at  09:08 PM

ggr:

What I was trying to point out - obviously not successfully - is that Donnelly isn’t a genius who made it into academe on brains good enough to get a scholarship, and presumably no tenough family money either; she starts out at a community college.  And you’re right, in itself that isn’t a bad thing - but, in a bio or c.v. the community college wouldn’t even be mentioned (and if C.C. were in the name of the college, I doubt Schoolcraft would have been.  Usually it’s just the degree granting institution and the degree awarded as a transfer student. If she actually obtained an associates, then why no mention?  Ditto for not calling UDM by its full name.  ANd again, no mention of a degree, yet she’s had one “peer -reviewed” misogynist paper published.  I’m seeing red flags here and wondered if anyone else has checked further.

Comment #21: phylosopher  on  08/04  at  09:17 PM

Why doesn’t this bizarrely warped person put her vivid and florid imagination to work writing gay pirate erotica or something?  You know ... men ... living communally ... buggering the hell out of each other on the high seas while being manly men?  It would be a far more honest way to make money from such content and fact-free interest in the imaginary affairs of others!

Comment #22: Ms Kate  on  08/04  at  10:53 PM

Is it just me?  Or does she have some sort of bad nose job going on there ... sort of a pigwoman look?

Comment #23: Ms Kate  on  08/04  at  11:00 PM

Another piece of the puzzle - Ms. Donnelly lives in Livonia Michigan per her CMR website.  Livonia is “the whitest of the big cities,”  over 95% white, with an African AMerican population under 1%.  Yet one of its border is less than 2 miles from Detroit, and it is 22 miles from downtown Detroit. Livonia’s median income is $70K (Detroit’s is $35K and it is 81% black). There are quite a few references to Livonia being the recipient of Detroit white flight.  Perhaps this explains some of Ms. Dumbfuckenelly’s seige mentality.

Yes, I’m absolutely fascinated to decipher what type of environment creates and sustains such a despicable and stupid excuse for a human as Elaine Donnelly.  After all, it couldn’t be that she was born that way?

Comment #24: phylosopher  on  08/04  at  11:39 PM

“Relax and enjoy it” has been my policy for almost 20 years, and it’s worked out well for me.

Comment #25: pablo  on  08/04  at  11:54 PM

Ms. Kate- I think her nose looking like that is a result of the way she purses her lips.

Comment #26: pablo  on  08/04  at  11:55 PM

I am shocked, utterly shocked I say, that she felt the need to specifically warn about black lesbians.

It is almost as if a fear of black people and a belief in the sissyhood of gays went to war, and she compromised on black lesbians, as both dark and butch enough to be scary.

Might as well throw some unsubtle racism in with the homophobia.

Comment #27: Nora Bombay  on  08/05  at  12:26 AM

You people are going to be SOOOOOO screwed if your armed forces go up against the elite units of other nations.

Comment #28: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/05  at  01:31 AM

Clearly the military has changed mightily since I was in it. At the time, I was closeted, and I often felt a bit like Dian Fossey with the apes.

I remember once, for example, when we went on our first deployment, the Executive Officer sat all us junior officers down in an official meeting and explained that, whatever our personal feelings about adultery might be, it would go incredibly badly for anyone who had the bad taste to write home and rat out any of his colleagues regarding whatever they got up to with local girls, (whether pros or amateurs).

Modesty and privacy? Please. I recall some of the conversations I sat through, and believe me, these weren’t swapping quiche recipes.

What, sadly, doesn’t amaze me is the complete lack of discussion about how sharing communal showers is going to be for the out gay people. It is hardly going to be porn on the hoof - anyone gay who shared high school or gym showers knows that out, or not, you put your head down, shut up, and get out of there. Trust me, it won’t be the gay servicemembers getting playful in the showers, at least not in mixed orientation company.

And this overlooks the inevitable sexual harassment of gay servicemembers in all-male units when it’s been long enough away from home that a quick blow job starts to look attractive. It won’t all be gay people hitting on the straights. It hasn’t been when everyone was officially closeted, it sure as hell won’t be with openly gay servicemembers.

Donnelly obviously completely misunderstands how discipline works - a fundy failing most of the time. Discipline isn’t about eliminating the people and situations that might create tensions, it is about making sure people behave professionally in spite of them.

Comment #29: Lymis  on  08/05  at  08:10 AM

Perhaps she doesn’t realize that rape and sexual harassment are already illegal everywhere, including in the military.  Now if they would do a better job of enforcing those laws for all people, gay and straight, in the military, she would have nothing to worry about.  Gay people are just like straight people.  I’m a woman who likes men, but I don’t automatically want to have sex with every singly man I see.  Gay men feel the same way.  I’m also capable of working with a man or being friends with a man or even (gasp!) living with a man without being sexually attracted to him, or else controlling my behavior if the man does happen to be cute.  I’m sure that gay men have the same self-control that I do.  Of course, the same is true for lesbians.  I wouldn’t care if I had a lesbian roommate or friend or something.  I would have no reason to assume she would hit on me, the same way I would have no reason to assume that a straight man would hit on me.  Why is it so hard for Donnelly to understand this simple concept?  Clearly she does not believe that people have any self-control, including the people in our military who need to have it most.  Also, if someone is tough enough to go into combat, I think they can handle someone else seeing their genitals in the shower or toilet.  Let’s give them the credit they deserve.  If a guy freaks out because a gay man or a woman sees his penis, I would worry about the safety of our country when this guy has to face real threats.

Comment #30: bananacat  on  08/05  at  11:23 AM

Donnelly obviously completely misunderstands how discipline works - a fundy failing most of the time. Discipline isn’t about eliminating the people and situations that might create tensions, it is about making sure people behave professionally in spite of them.

Bingo.  I actually take this approach to raising my kids, too.  Selection and prohibition do not work, and never have.  Enlightened self discipline and judgement go much further toward eliminating the downsides of human behavior.  Other discipline results in the kind of idiots who think that it makes them a mature adult to break traffic laws and jaywalk.  They have no sense of civic duty or understanding of how their behavior fits into a greater whole because they have been alternately severly controlled or turned loose to their own devices.

Comment #31: Ms Kate  on  08/05  at  11:33 AM

Ms. Kate and I clearly belong to the same parenting school.

PiatoR - I rather liked the Amarillo song performed by a British military group in Basra a few years ago.  I lost the YouTube link though.

Comment #32: helen w. h.  on  08/05  at  11:46 AM

Funny, I tend to jaywalk out of a sense of civic duty.  Cities are more pleasant when drivers are trained to understand that pedestrians have the right of way at all times and in all places.  I remember how awful Boston traffic was just a few years ago.  Now, after a concerted campaign, Boston drivers are positively courteous.

Comment #33: BABH  on  08/05  at  12:02 PM

Could this be an opportunity to put some teeth into laws surrounding sexual harassment in the military? Rape and harassment of women, particularly in Iraq, is huge and horrible. I fear harassment OF gays and lesbians (not by) increasing with the repeal of DADT. Is there anything that could be written into the law as proposed that would help head this off?

Or, if it as I fear, the problem is the culture and it is going to take nothing more (or less) than top brass busting people down or out—if not jail—for such misconduct? Especially with the rise of rabid Christianist fundies in the officer corps, I think this is a huge risk that will come along with this change to the Code.

Comment #34: Vir Modestus  on  08/05  at  12:07 PM

Funny, I tend to jaywalk out of a sense of civic duty.  Cities are more pleasant when drivers are trained to understand that pedestrians have the right of way at all times and in all places.

Oh, that’s a wonderful idea.  Make drivers slam on their brakes unexpectedly and dangerously just to prove a point.  Make into a competition, too.  What you should do is just use the crosswalks correctly and expect the drivers to obey crosswalk laws.  I’ve had to both walk and drive very often in a crowded city, and it works best when both drivers and pedestrians follow the rules.

Comment #35: bananacat  on  08/05  at  12:48 PM

Unprecedented male/male and female/female sexual tensions will ensue, but the military will try to override them with mandatory sensitivity training courses. Corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions and end the careers of thousands of military personnel who disagree for any reason.

Should we be looking in on why male/female rape is prevelent in the military first?
Eliminating that should be a solid provide a solid frame work to deal with any “male/male and female/female sexual tensions”

Or, what Catgirl and Vir Modestus said.

Comment #36: cynickal  on  08/05  at  01:14 PM

I don’t think Donnelly has bizarre lesbian fantasies. I think she has pretty normal lesbian fantasies.

There is nothing normal about force, coercion and “lie back and take it”. Her descriptions sounds like something she’s seen in a (misogynistic) straight man’s version of lesbian porn. If her “fantasies” weren’t fucked up enough, she goes and sprinkles a bit a racism on top for good measure. Black lesbians ganging up on that poor (presumably white) girl (I use girl deliberately here)?

That said, she seems to be titillated by it, from what I can read from her statements.

Bizarre may be understating it.

Comment #37: Tonybrown74  on  08/05  at  01:47 PM

Feh.  I use the crosswalks most of the time, but if the street’s empty there’s no reason not to jaywalk.

Comment #38: stogoe  on  08/05  at  01:57 PM

Donnelly doesn’t believe women have any place in the military, either. Except maybe as nurses.

Comment #39: mythago  on  08/05  at  02:10 PM

Make drivers slam on their brakes unexpectedly and dangerously just to prove a point.

I do not advocate jaywalking dangerously, but I don’t see anything wrong with stepping into the street when a car is 100+ feet away (whether I am walking or driving).  In Boston, it is now customary for cars to stop when a pedestrian looks interested in crossing.  This leads to a happier citizenry all round than back when drivers and pedestrians (not to mention bicyclists) thought of each other as enemies (or competitors, as catgirl put it).

In the broader scheme of things, following rules just because they’re rules is not something I can condone.  Civil disobedience, prosecutorial discretion and jury nullification are all good things.  And in my experience rules against safe jaywalking are not just silly, but bad for social harmony.

/off-topic-rant

Comment #40: BABH  on  08/05  at  02:58 PM

“There is nothing normal about force, coercion and “lie back and take it”. Her descriptions sounds like something she’s seen in a (misogynistic) straight man’s version of lesbian porn.”

Given her religious bent, if she is a closet-case, it wouldn’t be as abnormal or lesbian-porn-for-het-dudes-derived as it seems at first blush.  If you want something very badly but firmly believe that God will smite your ass for pursuing it, fantasizing about a situation where you get what you want but cannot be blamed for it can be a way of reconciling what you perceive as mutually exclusive desires.

Comment #41: preying mantis  on  08/05  at  03:10 PM

Donnelly obviously completely misunderstands how discipline works - a fundy failing most of the time. Discipline isn’t about eliminating the people and situations that might create tensions, it is about making sure people behave professionally in spite of them.

cf. both book-banning and “Christian rock.”

Comment #42: Rebecca  on  08/05  at  03:17 PM

“Queers have been pointing out for 20-plus years that homophobic straight people just aren’t the gay sex icons they make themselves out to be”

now, now, musnt hurt thier feelings

Comment #43: jefft452  on  08/06  at  12:33 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.