By Tom Robotham

Over the years I’ve written a number of essays about gay rights. In each, I’ve reiterated this essential point: I have more respect for the arguments of forthright homophobes (at least they’re honest and consistent) than I do for people who say they “don’t care what other folks do in private; just don’t shove your private life in my face.”

With characteristically flawed logic, Kerry Dougherty has placed herself squarely in the latter camp. In her May 30 column in The Virginian-Pilot, she argued that Congress should hold off on efforts to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the controversial policy regarding gays in the military.

Why is her argument flawed? Let me count the ways.

First, she asserts that the policy is “being clubbed to death by a breathless Congress that wants homosexuals to be able to serve openly.”

Clubbed to death? It’s not a baby seal. It’s a discriminatory regulation, the injustice of which is on par with the Jim Crow laws of the early 20^th century. Moreover, as Dougherty notes, it’s 17 years old—a fact that makes her claim of “breathlessness” utterly ludicrous. If anything, we’re dealing with the opposite situation—a cowardly and lethargic Congress that is finally getting around to something it should have done when President Clinton, in an act of political cowardice, proposed the thing in the first place.

Dougherty thinks otherwise; at the very least, she argues, lawmakers should wait for results of a Defense Department study of the issue. She then goes on, however, to suggest that the policy makes a whole lot of sense to her.

“At the risk of sounding hopelessly old-fashioned,” she writes, “let me suggest that keeping your mouth shut about your sex life is a very civilized idea.

“Not just for gays. Not just for the military.”

How liberal of her to make it clear that she’s not discriminating against gays. Trouble is, that’s precisely what she’s doing.

The insidious implication is that were it not for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” gays in the military would walk around bases the world over, graphically describing their sexual escapades. Dougherty doesn’t want to hear about that sort of thing, even if you’re straight!

If we take a moment to clear the air of her breathless fantasies, of course, I think we can all agree that most people, gay and straight alike, have no interest in publicly documenting what happened last night in their bedrooms, blow by blow, as it were.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” however, prohibits all sorts of other freedoms that straight people take for granted. It prevents gays from openly accompanying significant others to public functions and from publicly showing affection in any way—a quick kiss hello or goodbye; a romantic dance; holding hands. It prevents them from having certain photographs on their desks and from talking honestly about their summer vacation or holiday plans. It forces them to think twice when asked by fellow military personnel, or anyone else who might “out” them, whether they are married or not.

Is Dougherty suggesting that all of these common social exchanges should be banned or at least discouraged for straights and gays alike. I doubt it. Chances are, she takes all of these revelations of sexuality for granted when it comes to straight people. Perhaps she thinks it’s unseemly for gay people to engage in similar behavior because watching gays holding hands would trigger a reel of repellent mental images in her mind; or perhaps she’s not thinking at all. Perhaps she’s just reflexively acting on the double standard that most of our society still embraces—the idea that straight people can be open about their very identities, which obviously includes talking about the people who are most important to them, and the roles that those people play in their lives, but that gay people should not enjoy the same freedoms. If she really wants to maintain her veneer of indiscrimination, she might as well suggest that straight people shouldn’t talk about their children in public. After all, when straight man and woman mention their kids, we’re immediately reminded that they’ve had sex! (Ewwwww.)

As I write all of this, I’m ambivalent about being so forcefully critical of Dougherty herself. As a rule, I don’t like ad hominem attacks. Then again, when the person in question supports a law or policy that can make life a living hell for a significant portion of the population, such attacks may be warranted.

If Dougherty wants to argue that homosexuality is a sin and that gays will surely burn in hell for their transgressions—or if she wants to take the more “compassionate” position that she hates the sin but not the sinner—so be it. Let her do so unabashedly. If she doesn’t care to do so, then I hope she’ll take a few moments to think about the ramifications of her hypocritical arguments. That’s all it takes—a few moments. It’s a simple matter: Either we decide, as a society, that homosexuals should be afforded the same legal and social freedoms as everyone else, or we decide that they should all be openly shunned. The middle ground on this issue is a cop out.