Editors’ Note: Guest blogger Sean Cotter is a writer and activist from Manhattan, New York. His writing has appeared in the Washington Blade. Sean blogs at SeanRobertCotter.com.
The Washington Blade ran an op-ed this week by Philip Fornaci, calling Bradley Manning a hero for allegedly leaking sensitive information to Wikileaks, and saying that gay servicemembers should consider him a role model. His argument (along with the unhinged comments supporting it) is deeply offensive to gay servicemembers who have served honorably before and after the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Fornaci has a bizarre notion of the what the values and ethics of a “strong and proud gay soldier” should be. The quotes from the article speak for themselves:
If Manning did in fact leak information to Wikileaks as he is accused, he has displayed enormous courage. He is a role model for how gay and lesbian service members should behave in the face of violations of the U.S. Constitution by the government entrusted with defending it…
In the new era beyond “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” Manning is a model of what a strong and proud gay soldier should be, but he has yet to receive the support of the broader LGBT community he deserves.
Fornaci also presumes to have a better understanding of what being a role model as a soldier is than a servicemember who responded. He took to the comments himself, writing,
A “good soldier” is not one who blindly follows orders but is rather one who respects the U.S. constitution and the laws he is bound to protect… Blind obedience to authority if [sic] fascism.
Fornaci’s supporters in the comments, a large wave of whom seem to have taken to the board, elaborate on his views and demonstrate profound lack of respect for gay servicemembers. One person refers to other soldiers as “pussies” and “wimps.” Another person writes,
Bradley Manning is stronger and has more, “guts” than any of the, “I was just following orders” dupes in uniform.
These remarks are offensive on many different levels, and the following are just a few of the reasons why:
One, to get this out of the way, as far as anyone knows, Bradley Manning is not gay. He is believed by many to be transgender but as it has been pointed out, no one can really even say for sure that he identified this way. This hasn’t stopped some people from referring to him as ‘she’. Fornaci does not seem to understand the distinction.
Two, there is absolutely no reason to depict Manning’s treatment as a “hate crime,” as Fornaci claims, other than to try to stir up anger and depict him as somehow being a martyr for LGBT rights. There is nothing homophobic about pursuing justice against people who break the law and violate national security as Manning is alleged to have done.
Three, people who serve in the military do not get to pick and choose which orders they would like to follow. I’ve met gay people of varying ideologies who have or are currently serving in the military. Some, for example, were personally opposed to the arguments for going to war in Iraq. Others were for it from the beginning. This did not prevent any of them from doing their jobs, following orders and serving to the best of their abilities, because they knew that was what they had signed up for. They should be proud of having served.
Four, because Fornaci is saying that Manning and his actions, if he is indeed guilty, are a model that other gays should follow, his statements are effectively a call for sabotage.
Five, these types of statements play into the exact fears that opponents of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell had about letting gays serve openly – that gays are undisciplined. Fornaci is explicitly saying that BECAUSE these soldiers are gay, that should predispose them to violate their chain of command. He appears to consider this a positive remark, and does not realize how great of an insult it is to gay servicemembers.
Finally, I think these remarks are a window into the hate that veterans are often met with when they return home. Members of the public often have misconceptions about the structure of power within the military and misplace anger they have about military actions undertaken by U.S. Government onto individual soldiers when they return to civilian life. Fornaci and his supporters would have us believe that it is reasonable for people to blame a soldier as an individual for not standing up for the values that they themselves believe in. For the sake of servicemembers returning home (straight, as well as gay), we can hope that this is not a majority opinion.
7 thoughts on “Bradley Manning Is NOT A Gay Hero”
I am a gay man and I think his attempt to pull back the veil of secrecy was braver than all the soldiers marching in lockstep.
EDITORS NOTE: Please be advised that all individual posts and articles reflect the opinion of its author solely and does not represent the the official opinion of Back2Stonewall.com – Will Kohler
Politics aside, what does what Manning have to do with him being gay, bi, transgendered or a BLT sandwich? Either you support his politics (which clearly Mr Satterthwaite and Mr Fornaci do) or you don’t (which clearly the OP does not).
One of the first things you are taught when you learn the scientific method in high school is that correlation does not equal causation. These are two separate and individual things which should not be taken together.
Yes, Manning may have a sexuality other than hetero.
Yes, Manning may have done things which you consider heroic vis a vis your political views of the United States Military and/or the war in Iraq.
No, they do not have anything to do with each other other than Manning conveniently having a bunch of reliable liberals to froth up to support him with no basis of fact.
I happen to believe Manning’s behavior is likely to be found criminal and rightfully so. I believe that not because of some intangible quality (being gay, being patriotic, being a Democrat, being a Red Sox fan), but because I have read the arguments on both sides and can clearly see Manning is using sexuality as a flag of convenience to get intelligent, liberal gay women and men to forget their ability to reason and blindly support him.
Mr Fornaci’s post, and many of the comments therein, share little resemblance with reasoned, liberal thought, but rather are reminiscent of arguments made by people who condemn gays because their preacher/rabbi/imam/flying spaghetti monster told them to on Sunday/Saturday/Friday/any day of the week.
I do not know enough about the intricacies of this case to have an informed opinion, but thanks for expressing your views. I found your writing very helpful.
Should a blog have an official opinion?
If a newspaper and a media outlet can why not a blog?