Open Letter to Rep.Hunter (R) CA, re: your opposition to Don't ask Dont Tell

Dear Rep. Hunter,

On February 2, 2010 you did an interview with Melissa Block on National Public Radio (NPR.org). In the interview you voiced your opposition to repealing the 17 year old law "Don't Ask Don'T Tell" (DADT) regarding gays serving "openly" in the military. I have some questions and comments regarding your position on this subject. I would be happy to post your response in it's entirety on this blog should you care to respond.

In the interest of full disclosure and transparency let me first say that I am not a Republican, nor do I agree with your position and furthermore, I am not gay, bisexual, transgender or a hermaphrodite. Obviously I am not a lesbian.

That being said, I do believe in the opening line of the United States constitution which starts with "We the People" I firmly believe this means ALL the people, I believe ALL the people includes: transgenders, hermaphrodites, gays and lesbians.  All the people deserve equal rights under the law including their right to serve honerably in the United States military.

In my line of work I have to rely on verifiable data and reputable scientific studies in order to make informed decisions. By using this same logical thinking process I wanted to dissect your remarks point by point. My comments and questions will be in bold and italic so my comments will not be confused by readers as to who they are attributed to. Fair enough?

As I stated above, below is the un-edited transcript of your on-air interview with Melissa Block as aired on National Public Radio (www.npr.org) on February 2, 2010.

BLOCK: You are not in favor of a repeal of dont ask, dont tell. Why not?

Rep. HUNTER: No, because I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Ok, this is a pretty strong statement. Is there any studies to support your assertion that gays serving "openly" in the military would somehow undermine the cohesiveness and unity of military units? I was unable to find any sort of study that backs up this assertion. Or with all due respect Rep. Hunter is it possible that your statement is a manifestation of deep seated fears or prejudice of  transgenders, hermaphrodites, gays and lesbians? I ask you to look deep down into your thought processes before answering.

 Its not the time to do it. When would be the right time? how much longer should we deny some Americans their right to openly serve their country?  I think its - the military is not civilian life. And I think the folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians. Again how this is allowing gays to serve openly in the military somehow going to destroy this special bond? Do you have some sort of "secret" study that backs this up? I ask you to look at this from another perspective. I don't know about you personally, but I have several friends who are gay, bisexual or lesbians. We have developed a solid friendship or "special bond" because of similar interests e.g.- art, politics, common interests, etc. Do I feel threatened by their lifestyle? No. Do I feel differently towards my heterosexual friends? No. Do I feel uncomfortable around them? No. Would I protect, stand up for and defend them with the same intensity and fervor as my heterosexual friends? absolutely.  I don't see the validity of your point.

BLOCK: Transgenders and hermaphrodites. Seriously? is there some secret plot by transgenders and hermaphrodites to take over the United States Military? Thank God you've informed the rest of of this evil plot. Honestly do you really believe this?

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, thats going to be part of this whole thing. Its not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you're going to let anybody no matter what preference - what sexual preference they have that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the military. Hold on a minute, time out!! Whats wrong with civilian life? and the rich cross section of American society? Are you actually insinuating that if we let gays and lesbians serve "openly" in the United States Military that it is going open the flood gates to EVERYBODY being allowed into the military? are you serious? You're implying that this will allow convicted pedophiles, serial killers, rapists, bank robbers etc. into the United States Military? I'm sorry but I reject this argument on the grounds that people from all areas of "civilian life" serve our country in various ways e.g.- politics, civil servants, community organizers, and the United States Military. So I fail to see your point.

BLOCK: Was there anything in your experience with the military in Afghanistan and Iraq that made you think that unit cohesion would be a real issue if gays and lesbians who, I think we can acknowledge, are serving in the military now, just not openly, were to be open about their sexual orientation?

Rep. HUNTER: Yeah, I think that the majority of people in the military are they're young kids. They usually have more conservative families, more conservative backgrounds and I think that it would go against their principles and it would frankly make everybody a little bit uneasy to be in these close situations, Again, are you aware of a study or statistics that proves that military personnel are usually conservative or come from conservative backgrounds? I wasn't aware that the United States military kept this sort of data. I was always led to believe that military personnel took an oath to protect, and defend the United States of America. Is this only a conservative value? I believe that this is a UNIVERSAL value whether your a conservative, moderate or liberal. 

Furthermore, I am having a tough time with your assertion of a mostly "conservative" military. Lets just look at anyone who ever served in the United States military who has either run for public  office or been elected to the United States Congress, Senate, State Assembly, or whatever public office youy can think of including Democrats, Rebublicans, Conservatives or Moderates. There are individuals all over the political spectrum who have served in the United States Military. Many politicians from both sides of the aisle have served in the armed forces including prominent liberals e.g.- John F. Kennedy and John Kerry. Also, my personal experience and interaction with military personnel I have personally known have indicated a large cross section of military personnel have just as large cross section of political, religious and cultural beliefs as the rest of the country or 'civilian life' as you put it.  how you go into combat, you know, the shower situation, the bathroom situation, just, you know, very mundane details - things that we have men and women separated, you know, because we dont want to have that sexual distraction. That exists for the homosexual aspect of things, too. I fail to see the sexual distraction angle here. Every US soldier has a job to do and they take that responsibility very seriously. Do you really believe that homosexuals are interested in heterosexuals? Honestly, I believe that this is your personal prejudice or fear manifesting itself. In battle it seems to me that you would not be as concerned with an individuals sexual orientation  Vs. their ability to watch your back and be an important part of the team.

BLOCK: But Congressman Hunter, wouldnt you agree that there are gays and lesbians serving in the military right now, they just are not open about their orientation. So the problems that you raise presumably would be problems already. They are in the barracks already. They are in the showers already.

Rep. HUNTER: No, but they arent open about it, like you just said. Its like if you want to work for NPR, you dont go to work and on the first day say, hey, I want everybody to know that Im gay. You probably dont care one way or the other as long as they, you know, get their particular job done. I think the military is the same way. I fail to see your point here, who cares if your colleagues are gay as long as their talented and get the job done. So one way or another we don't care. Thats why dont ask, dont tell works.

BLOCK: Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said today in the Senate hearing that hes talked to counterparts in other countries where they do allow gays to serve openly in the military, and there has been no impact, he says, on military effectiveness. What do you think about that?

Rep. HUNTER: Let me answer with this too. Admiral Mullen is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a political appointee. And thats fine, he has his opinion.  Secretary of Defense Gates a Republican, and Colin Powell a Republican and principal architect of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy also believe and have testified before Congress that the law should be repealed.  Furthermore, the United States has a history of Military Generals publicly disagreeing with the Commander and Chief in regards to Military policy. President Obama's pick for Afghanistan Gen. Stanly McKrystal is a great example of this. But his opinion is not necessarily that of the chief of staff of the Army or the Marine Corp commandant. Isn't this a fundamental question of who's in charge here? But I would say in answer to your particular question, the U.S. is not Canada and were not Great Britain and I would argue that we have a superior military and a much larger military than any other country. Thats why were kind of the world's security force. I actually agree with this statement.

BLOCK: Congressman Hunter, I have been looking at some polling a Gallup poll that was done in May of this year - that shows more people in this country, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military than five years ago. Do you think the climate has really shifted on this since Congress took it up back in 1993 and that the times changed?

Rep. HUNTER: Maybe civilian-wise it has. But I can show you polls that are inter-military polls that show they havent changed. What polls?I Can I see them? in this study that Secretary Gates set up for one year, were going to find out what the Marine Corp commandant thinks. Once again who's in charge? Were going to see what General Casey and the Army thinks. Once again who's in charge? Were going to see what the, you know, from private first classes in Marine force recon to Army rangers, were going to see what they think about this and I think that will be quite telling. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, and as United Stated servicemen and women they will follow orders. I wasn't aware that the military was a democracy. If so would they have voted to go invade Iraq? or Vietnam?

BLOCK: Congressman Hunter, thank you for talking with us.

Rep. HUNTER: Hey, great to be with you. Thank you.

BLOCK: Duncan Hunter is a Republican congressman from California. And tomorrow, well hear the views of someone who believes gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

So to get back to my original logic thought process regarding reliable studies and verifiable data. In your interview with Melissa Block of on NPR you did not offer any sort of data to support the position you took in the interview. I believe that as a a United States Congressman you have the obligation not only to ALL of your constituents but to every American as a whole. I am absolutely certain that your home district constituancy includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and yes hermaphrodites. Do you not have the same obligations to these constituents as well as heterosexuals?

Another fundemental issue is the basic military code of conduct. All of our military service personnel are taught  not to lie, and furthurmore not to support or protect those who do. So by this code of conduct the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy is in fundemental conflict with the militaries most basic code of conduct. Isn't this point obvious?

Or is this position of your's just another calculated Republican political tactic designed to obstruct President Obama's agenda by any means? Below is an excerpt from todays Huffington Post (www.huffingtonpost.com) with previous statements from several of your Republican colleagues, essentially deferring to the wishes of the United States Military Command in regards to the subject of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Now the Military has spoken,Interesting I don't see a flood of Republican support for the repeal of this ridiculous law. Or was using the Military and their desires just a smoke screen to put off having to make the right decision for all Americans regardless of their: sexual orientation, sex, creed, politics or religion? We need politicians who will lead not just for the many, but also for the few.

Below are excerpts from prominent Republican's deferring to the Military leadership and "Buy-In" from the military leadership before receiving their support for repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. The Military has spoken, and as of today, February, 3, 2010 not one of the Republicans quoted below has voiced their support for the repeal of this ridiculous and discriminatory law. I will let you draw your own conclusions. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a "buy-in by the military."

"They should be included in this," said Graham. "I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I'm not going to make policy based on a campaign rally."

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to "a day when gays can serve openly in the military?"

"I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say," he replied.

In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.

"I probably would let the military make that decision," he said, when pressed. "One thing I don't think you need is a president who's trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to -- to those who run the military."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would "defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness."

In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not "sensed that the military is calling for a change."

It is now.

The conundrum facing all of these Republican leaders is simple: coming out against the repeal of the DADT policy now would represent a de facto admission that the opinions of the military brass never really mattered in the first place.

But that doesn't mean they'll suddenly support the repeal. In fact, in a widely observed reversalyesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that he was "disappointed" in Mullen's testimony, and expressed concerns that overturning DADT at a time of "immense hardship for our armed services" would be problematic.

This despite the fact that he once declared that: "the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it'.

Regards,

Tom