What Was All That Fuss About?

by

by Edward_

Hail Britannica!

Five years after being forced by EU law to lift its ban on gays in its military, Great Britain is now taking their policy one logical step further. They are about to begin actively encouraging gay and lesbian Brits to enlist in their Navy.

The navy announced today that it had asked Stonewall, a group that lobbies for gay rights, to help it develop better strategies for recruiting and retaining gay and lesbian sailors. It said, too, that one such strategy may well be to advertise for recruits in gay magazines and newspapers.

Commodore Paul Docherty, director of naval life management, said the service wanted to change the atmosphere in the navy so that gays would feel comfortable working there. The current situation, where gays are not prohibited but where some feel intimidated nonetheless, does not go far enough, he said.

"While some gays were confident to come out, others didn’t feel that the environment was necessarily accepting of them," Commodore Docherty said in an interview.

Much the way no one immediately turned into a pillar of salt when gay marriage was legalized in Massachussetts, the absence of catastrophe brought on by letting British gays and lesbians serve openly has demonstrated the traditional concerns were unfounded.

Far from effecting a cataclysmic change, the new policy appeared to be something of an anticlimax. Recently, gay men and women in the British services have lived and fought in Iraq alongside heterosexuals – and Americans – without problem, according to military officials.

"I would say that before the European court ruling, it was difficult to see this policy happening or working," said Lt. Cmdr. Craig Jones, a gay naval officer who often speaks publicly, with the navy’s approval, on gay-rights issues.

"People were quite hot under the collar about it; the admirals, generals and air marshals were really concerned," he added. "I’m quite sure that these folks look now and think, ‘What was all that fuss about?’ "

What indeed?

16 thoughts on “What Was All That Fuss About?”

  1. Cool. So HMN is going back to its hallowed roots, as Winston Churchill would say, of “rum, sodomy, and the lash.” :oP

  2. Juxtapose this with the latest Bush-Rove agitprop campaign, courtesy of USA Next, in the “Yep. That’s my granny. A troop-hating fag hag.” ad. (Props to poster uh oh at Atrios for the slogan.)
    Apparently, no one’s told the Brits that equal rights for gays is a) leading to the downfall of Wastern Civilization; and b) the only thing delaying the Rapturous Second Coming of the Lord.
    How lucky we are to live in the Greatest Nation on Earth, where the ‘gay agenda’ has its rightful place as the bete noir of decent Christian society.
    Every time I talk myself into not moving to New Zealand, some crap like this happens that makes me wonder why the hell not. Stay and fight? How do you fight diabolical garbage?

  8. I would like to see Edward and Sebastian (the rest of the Obsidians’ should join in, too) do some posts on this USA Next thing and its ads in the American Spectator rolling out the double-barreled crapola on AARP… that they are unpatriotically against the troops and want to make us all gay … funny, my AARP magazine hadn’t mentioned that part of the program.
    All to privatize, personalize, whatever, Social Security.
    See DKOS, Atrios, and Josh Marshall for some details. Marshall claims Rove has tapped William Bennett to take on the AARP on SS. Cool move, considering Bennett knows all about hitting the slots .. didn’t he blow a lot of money on his worthless, virtue-less habit which he could have given to his wife’s charity efforts on behalf of maintaining the hymen’s of teenaged girls. I wonder how many the wife missed because of sufficient funds. Not that the smug Bennett gave a crap.
    The smirking, compassionate one infesting the White House at the moment hasn’t made much headway selling his SS reform.
    Out comes the slime machine. It’s so fucking (that’s what it is; anyone got a problem with facts?) predictable.

  11. My “World Book Encyclopedia” says it’s “Brittania”, and my “Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” says, concisely, “Brittania”.
    But, I don’t know, “Brittanica” works here, somehow.
    And, by the way, my favorite quote here, in great Brit understated fashion, is:
    “People were quite hot under the collar about it; the admirals, generals and air marshalls were really concerned,”
    Basil Fawlty (John Cleese) couldn’t have put it better, just before barging in on some suspicious but insuspecting vacationers at the Towers in Torquy.

  14. Interesting to see what happens when our troops work beside openly gay British troops.
    From the article:

    Recently, gay men and women in the British services have lived and fought in Iraq alongside heterosexuals – and Americans – without problem, according to military officials.

    Britannica, Britannia…I give up. Let’s assume whether I know what I’m talking about or not, I can’t spell to save my life. I did look that one up actually, and found what I thought was evidence it was right. Problem is, I’m just not convinced the reference sources are accurate. 😉 This has become chronic though, so clearly I need to do something.

  15. What does the Encyclopedia Brittanica say? Because that’s got some potential for irony.
    Great story. The real dagger in the Heart of Sanctimonious Fear that keeps the religious right puffing against the ‘gay agenda’ will be a big, quiet nothing. Nothing when homosexuals get married. . nothing when homosexuals serve in the military. . nothing when homosexuals teach elementary school. Everything will go on as normal, except a larger segment of the population will have an opportunity for happiness. And the Sanctimonious Fearmongers will have to find something else to puff about. Probably vegetarians. I look forward to the bible parsing about whether Leviticus commands man to eat meat or not.

Comments are closed.