Congresswoman Capps,
My name is Josh Davila, I am a Marine Corps Veteran residing in Santa Maria, California and I currently attend Allan Hancock College as a full-time student. Today, Senate republicans voted to block the repeal of the seventeen year old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It is with clear mind and heavy heart that I reach out to you as my congressional representative in hopes that my frustration with this matter will not go unheard. As a former military member and combat veteran, I feel a great connection to fellow service-members- past, present, and future. Regardless of my religious or political beliefs, being afforded the opportunity to serve our great nation both in wartime and in peacetime was undoubtedly the single greatest opportunity I have had to date. Serving my country not only changed my life, it quite possibly saved it. Thirteen years ago when I was seventeen, if you had met me on my way to boot camp and asked me how I felt about this polarizing issue, I probably would have mustered up an uneducated, egoist response. To be frank, if it didn’t have anything to do directly with me, I probably could not have cared less. I am not the boy I once was; and sometimes I wish that a person of your position would ask me how I feel about this and many other pressing issues of today. It’s with great degrees of frustration and despondency that I think about how many men and women of this great country will not get to enjoy the same tremendous opportunities and benefits which were afforded to me. To think that some of our nation’s sons and daughters may be denied these opportunities based on their sexual orientation only solidifies my disdain for this debate.
Congresswoman Capps, it is with great certainty I claim that the current policy which dictates the acceptable sexual orientation of service members is unjust and immoral. Furthermore, the refusal by some government officials to consider the revision of this bill is in direct opposition of the forward-type thinking that I feel our nation needs to possess in order to progress successfully. As a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all, negating the rights of select groups of individuals not only contradicts the ideology of our nation, it opens the door for future injustices and warrants implications of unknown degree. I have heard many arguments on both sides of this debate and I empathize with those who voice their concerns with strong personal conviction. For me, this debate is not about sexuality, it is not about homophobia, and it is not about the armed forces. Instead, this is clearly an issue of rights, equality, and justice. The fact that our elected Senate prefers to avoid seeking a “just” decision on this issue is disheartening to say the least. Through slavery and women’s suffrage, our history shows us how our perceptions and treatment of the “minority” have yet to be accurate. It is my great hope that collectively we can realize the truth that unfair treatment is simply not an ingredient in the recipe for a successful society. Mrs. Capps, I would like to ask what is your position on this issue? Furthermore I would like to know what it would take to get you, as the representative of California’s 23rd district, to advocate that this bill receive the fair and just consideration it deserves. I understand that change does not happen overnight, I can only hope that we can all agree that this issue deserves the attention of the highest degree. Please feel free to let me know how I can be of help as an advocate for this issue. Thank you for your time, and for your service to the people of your district.
Best Regards,
Josh Davila
United States Marine Corps 1998-2006
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Air Force Sergeant Discharged Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy
After nine years in the Air Force, Sergeant Jene Newsome was discharged after a local police officer notified Air Force officials that Newsome was a lesbian. Although the manner in which Newsome’s sexual orientation was discovered and subsequently reported is bothersome, I would like to use this opportunity to focus on the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
The “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” of The United States Code makes a clear point as to why homosexuality is forbidden in the armed forces. The underlying message is that homosexuality can impede on the high level of unit cohesion and combat effectiveness of military units. The policy gives fairly clear reasoning as to how homosexuality can impact the success and mission of the military; from my reading the policy does not in any way imply that homosexuality is “wrong” by god or immoral, simply not an acceptable fit for military life. Based on my reading, I feel a utilitarian approach has been taken when setting this particular set of rules. It’s fairly easy to see their point of view that regardless of whether the act of homosexuality can be deemed right or wrong, there is a strong concern that such acts (or lifestyle) would be a disruption to the masses. It is apparent to me, that in order to avoid overall dysfunction (and/or “pain”) the writers of this policy have opted to “please” the group as a whole, without regard to the individual.
I feel I have a firm grasp on why this rule is in place, now I would like to focus on other aspects of the argument. Still approaching this from a utilitarian point of view, it is hard for me (with the knowledge I have of the situation and rules) to assign blame or fault on Newsome. For the purposes of this argument, I am going to refer to Newsome as a Rule Utilitarian. Understanding that her homosexuality may be cause for concern and could potentially lead to the “pain” or unhappiness of the masses, Newsome opted to keep her sexual identity a secret and abide by the “Don’t Tell” guideline. To me, this is an obvious selfless act in which Newsome (perhaps) puts aside her own personal agenda in order to achieve the greater good. Someone might refer to the fact that she was breaking a rule by being homosexual and she was being selfish by keeping it a secret (alluding to the fact that her homosexuality would in fact be a disruption to the masses.) I would argue that Newsome in fact did not break any rule or guideline as the understanding is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” If the guideline is in fact to keep your sexual identity as a personal matter and to not let it interfere with or even become known by the masses, then I feel Newsome did nothing wrong; the guideline is not “Don’t be homosexual” it is “Don’t make your orientation a public matter.” Taking this one step further, one could argue that Newsome is not being punished for breaking any rule (remember she is not the one who informed the military of her sexual orientation,) but instead is actually be ostracized and punished for the mere fact that she is a homosexual.
This is a good example of my main concern with utilitarian theory. On paper it may be easy to digest the fact that we may need to make individual sacrifices to benefit the masses, however, when an individual is actually sacrificed to achieve this goal, it shines a different light on our priorities and humanity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)