Nobody asked, but young UNC ROTC student
felt she had to tell as a matter of conscience.
x
Sara Isaacson is in the hole for $80,000. Why? She received an ROTC scholarship paid by the US Army for her to attend the University of North Carolina with the intent to become an army doctor, a family tradition following in her grandfather’s footsteps. However, Sara had a personal issue to deal with. Sara is a Lesbian. She enrolled with the intent to follow through with the “don’t ask/don’t tell” pledge. However, over time, she felt that position was morally indefensible. Maintaining her silence she felt was being dishonest and in good conscience she had to be truthful.
The head of University of North Carolina’s ROTC program, noted in receipt of her letter declaring her orientation, that the Army would lose “a great young American.” He was able to offer Ms. Isaacson the opportunity to withdraw her letter since she wasn’t technically in the military.
The more we dive into the moral issues dealing with homosexuality, the more the eternal history of prejudice and exclusion of such individuals becomes morally reprehensible. While it is easy to make sweeping moral judgments that with little more than “that’s the way it’s always been” as a defense when we realize when we talk of homosexuals, we are talking about individual people who have their own aspirations and talents.
The fear and loathing of some members of “straight” society is not only indefensible, it is downright sick. What is more laughable and disgusting than a seemingly alpha male trashing a person for being “gay” as if it would somehow be threatening to him? How many of these he-men have ever been propositioned by someone of their own gender? What makes Mr. Macho Stud think he’d be appealing to a homosexual to begin with?
The bottom line is whose business is it what two adults do in private. While there is some logic, not much, to don’t ask don’t tell, openly sexual conduct of any kind is unacceptable in the heat of military engagement. It should be the military’s business to define what kind of behavior is unacceptable when servicemen and women are on duty rather than categorically eliminating people based on some behavioral preference they might have.
The case of Sara Isaacson is perhaps a perfect defining example of just how absurd our archaic thinking has been.
If this should offend some conservative readers, that’s too bad. Being conservative does not mean one must be bigoted against homosexuals. Instead, the libertarian aspect of conservative values should indicate that this is a matter of personal freedom and any kind of legal restriction of such behavior is excessive government intrusion into one’s private lives. The military can deal with setting proper codes of conduct.
There certainly are Biblical implications to this discussion especially focusing on the Third Book of Moses, in which Leviticus not only denounces homosexuality but prescribes death to those who offend the holy command. The New Testament is not as harsh in its rhetoric but clearly Corinthians makes it clear it is one of several no-no’s that keeps one from “inheriting the kingdom of heaven.”
There’s no winning an argument with someone who subscribes to certain literal interpretations of holy scripture no matter what faith one follows; however, for those who seek to use the Bible as authority of civil law, we must realize that the second amendment provides enough legal guidance that any prohibitions against homosexuality simply do not stand constitutional legal requirements. Clearly, engaging in homosexual behavior does not deprive other individuals of their ability to exercise their freedoms. Additionally, if one sought to use the Biblical concept as the basis of law it would have the effect of violating the establishment clause of the constitution by invoking a religious tenet as a legal restraint. Further, by making such a stance a matter of law, it denies the free expression of behavior that were it not for Biblical sanction established as law, would be permissible. We suspect that the fourth amendment would also come into play as it is the closest we have to a guarantee of privacy in stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…
While this writer is neither a Constitutional scholar or expert when it comes to scripture, while Mathew 7, is often used as the ultimate cop-out for opting out of acting decisively, when it comes to moralizing over a person’s private behavior, “judge not lest thee be judged” makes a heck of a lot of sense.
Sara Isaacson’s case brings forward all the hypocrisy of where our society stands on homosexual issues. Acting from the standpoint of her personal integrity, Ms. Isaacson refused to keep her true nature secret. Her personal integrity cost her $80,000. While in idealistic terms, that’s a small price to pay, but in the real world, this young lady owes a staggering debt, the high cost of higher education, with still much more to accomplish before completing her academic requirements for her career ambitions.
Does not her situation amplify the absurdity of where our culture stands today and show we still have much room to grow?
The head of University of North Carolina’s ROTC program, noted in receipt of her letter declaring her orientation, that the Army would lose “a great young American.” He was able to offer Ms. Isaacson the opportunity to withdraw her letter since she wasn’t technically in the military.
The more we dive into the moral issues dealing with homosexuality, the more the eternal history of prejudice and exclusion of such individuals becomes morally reprehensible. While it is easy to make sweeping moral judgments that with little more than “that’s the way it’s always been” as a defense when we realize when we talk of homosexuals, we are talking about individual people who have their own aspirations and talents.
The fear and loathing of some members of “straight” society is not only indefensible, it is downright sick. What is more laughable and disgusting than a seemingly alpha male trashing a person for being “gay” as if it would somehow be threatening to him? How many of these he-men have ever been propositioned by someone of their own gender? What makes Mr. Macho Stud think he’d be appealing to a homosexual to begin with?
The bottom line is whose business is it what two adults do in private. While there is some logic, not much, to don’t ask don’t tell, openly sexual conduct of any kind is unacceptable in the heat of military engagement. It should be the military’s business to define what kind of behavior is unacceptable when servicemen and women are on duty rather than categorically eliminating people based on some behavioral preference they might have.
The case of Sara Isaacson is perhaps a perfect defining example of just how absurd our archaic thinking has been.
If this should offend some conservative readers, that’s too bad. Being conservative does not mean one must be bigoted against homosexuals. Instead, the libertarian aspect of conservative values should indicate that this is a matter of personal freedom and any kind of legal restriction of such behavior is excessive government intrusion into one’s private lives. The military can deal with setting proper codes of conduct.
There certainly are Biblical implications to this discussion especially focusing on the Third Book of Moses, in which Leviticus not only denounces homosexuality but prescribes death to those who offend the holy command. The New Testament is not as harsh in its rhetoric but clearly Corinthians makes it clear it is one of several no-no’s that keeps one from “inheriting the kingdom of heaven.”
There’s no winning an argument with someone who subscribes to certain literal interpretations of holy scripture no matter what faith one follows; however, for those who seek to use the Bible as authority of civil law, we must realize that the second amendment provides enough legal guidance that any prohibitions against homosexuality simply do not stand constitutional legal requirements. Clearly, engaging in homosexual behavior does not deprive other individuals of their ability to exercise their freedoms. Additionally, if one sought to use the Biblical concept as the basis of law it would have the effect of violating the establishment clause of the constitution by invoking a religious tenet as a legal restraint. Further, by making such a stance a matter of law, it denies the free expression of behavior that were it not for Biblical sanction established as law, would be permissible. We suspect that the fourth amendment would also come into play as it is the closest we have to a guarantee of privacy in stating, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…
While this writer is neither a Constitutional scholar or expert when it comes to scripture, while Mathew 7, is often used as the ultimate cop-out for opting out of acting decisively, when it comes to moralizing over a person’s private behavior, “judge not lest thee be judged” makes a heck of a lot of sense.
Sara Isaacson’s case brings forward all the hypocrisy of where our society stands on homosexual issues. Acting from the standpoint of her personal integrity, Ms. Isaacson refused to keep her true nature secret. Her personal integrity cost her $80,000. While in idealistic terms, that’s a small price to pay, but in the real world, this young lady owes a staggering debt, the high cost of higher education, with still much more to accomplish before completing her academic requirements for her career ambitions.
Does not her situation amplify the absurdity of where our culture stands today and show we still have much room to grow?
No comments:
Post a Comment