tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14897874.post115552877022299930..comments2023-09-13T03:45:31.193-05:00Comments on On One Foot: a little more info...Thalassahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17988612323259096275noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14897874.post-1155660878372698542006-08-15T11:54:00.000-05:002006-08-15T11:54:00.000-05:00Good point regarding employment protection. Most ...Good point regarding employment protection. Most people could lose their jobs for being gay without any other cause. However, most employers don't have a policy prohibiting their employees from being gay so the risk is lower for civilians. Unless you go to work for "The Cracker Barrel" restaurant or Interstate Batteries or a sports team (for guys, lesbians in sport seem to be ok) or a church that's not gay-affirming, you're probably alright. Most employers, while they could fire you if they find out you're gay, don't do it. And if they would, you probably know it and live your life in a closeted way that doesn't harm your job prospects. Most importantly, few civilian employers would launch an investigation into the orientation of an employee over an anonymous and threatening e-mail "tip". So, while I agree that your point is a good one and some civilians are in the same danger of job loss over their orientation, I don't think the degree of danger is comparable. One final bit: if one is dismissed under DADT, one is given a dishonorable discharge, which is like having a felony conviction on one's arrest record. Simply being dismissed from a civilian job by a homophobic or righteously intolerant boss doesn't connote the same "dishonor" at all. So, tweaks to the DADT policy should include protection from vengeful tip-offs as well as protection from a "dishonorable" discharge. Agreed there?<BR/><BR/>If people were being fired (or discriminated against in employment practices) with any frequency for being gay, I believe there would be a bigger legal fight over it. I agree, it should be encoded in law nationally that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identification is illegal. I know that in many venues, the legislation of equal rights is still being pressed. For some reason, the marriage aspect has gotten a lot more press lately, but that's not because the other fronts are silent. Ironically, marriage 'rights' are another aspect of the same "equal protection and application of law" argument that would be used to fight employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. I don't see those as separate fights, for that reason. Equal application of the laws and protection thereunder for all persons regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identification would include employment equality, housing equality, and marriage equality.<BR/><BR/>I should note here that I think "marriage" and its copious baggage of religious associations should be left in the hands of churches. I think the government ought to get out of the marriage business and license domestic partnerships for straight and gay couples, so they can regulate all the tax and insurance and inheritance laws that are built around that legal partnership created when people marry. Let churches decide to whom they are willing to extend "holy matrimony" and get the government out of it.<BR/><BR/>A linguist would be "in the line of fire" if he was serving as a translator for a unit that served on the front lines. If he were an intelligence analyst, he'd probably sit at a desk translating intercepted communications. So, his proximity to the front would depend on his assignment.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting! I love 'talking' this stuff out with people. Please do stop in again!Thalassahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17988612323259096275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14897874.post-1155614821069961112006-08-14T23:07:00.000-05:002006-08-14T23:07:00.000-05:00As outraged as I am about the DADT policy of the m...As outraged as I am about the DADT policy of the military, I think that maybe we should all take a step back and realize that this could really happen to almost any of us. In most of this country, gay folks are not legally protected against discrimination. While many individual communities and a few progressive states have corrected this oversight, nationally, there is no such law. Perhaps, it would better serve the gay community (such as it is) to concentrate on this step towards equality instead of skipping ahead to demand marriage rights. In the meantime, I absolutely agree with you about the awfulness of a policy which would leave this group of people completely open to vicious, vengeful, anonymous and even unsubstantiated attacks. If we are forced to deal with this joke of a policy, it definitely needs tweaking. Thoughts? Also, a question: would a linguist really be "in the line of fire" as you were discussing in your earlier post on this subject?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com