URGENT UPDATE AND NOTICE Apparently I must make it clear once again that this website engages in satire! I am already getting apparently genuine hate mail from people who imagine that I am a supporter of the Orange Order! While it is ridiculous on its face that such a thing would happen, I think because I am a new and not well-known blogger, the situation calls for a disclaimer.

Ahem.

I, Eric Scheie, do not support the Orange Order in any way, shape or form. Whether William of Orange was gay (or homosexual, or whatever you might want to call him) is not relevant to the Orange Order or my opinions of that organization. My purpose here is to poke fun at hatred in general, and move the world towards tolerance. Satire is one tool I use, so please take that into account. If anyone was offended, I suggest you reread this piece, and, please, think.

Remember, please read the following with caution.... And try to keep an open mind.

Orange you glad today's your anniversary?

Poor croppies you know that your sentence has come, When you hear the dread sound of the Protestant drum! In memory of William we hoisted his flag, And soon the bright Orange put down the green rag!

Lie down, croppies, lie down!

-- Orange Order Marching song, memorializing July 12, 1690

I wonder whether I'll get to see the July 12 reenactors marching today. July 12 always makes me think about the rewriting of history -- a fascinating topic, because there is so much to rewrite, and in so many ways. (And that is without ever departing from the truth.)

It is natural for people to not want others to know about anything which makes them look bad, the Greeks being no exception. Let me contrast the attitude of two modern tour guides -- one Greek, one Turkish -- towards ancient history.

When I visited Corinth, the Greek guide there was not happy with my even mentioning the rampant sexuality of Corinth -- which no doubt played quite a role in Paul's dicta condemning it. (I'll respect your intelligence and my time, so I won't bother to cite Corinthians here.) But the Greek guide was not worried about Paul; rather she was concerned about anything being said which might make anyone -- in any way -- think less of the Greeks.

No such problem in Ephesus (an ancient city located in Turkey)! The Turkish guide was more than delighted, and in fact went out of his way to dwell at length upon such juicy topics as Hadrian's relationship with Antinous (which, as he took delight in stressing, was wholly in accord with Plato and Socrates' teachings).

If the Greeks ran Ephesus today, I have no doubt that the guides would tell a very different story.

These guides reminded me of a very conservative friend's outrage when I commented upon the modern-ness of regular bathing, and the simple yet unavoidable fact that some of our favorite founding fathers went for very long periods between baths. He immediately saw a plot to make them look bad, even though I made clear that I thought no less of any of them. Same thing with Benjamin Franklin's illegitimate kids; he said that was a lie.

Can we expect any less from the Greeks?

And to think that I am so naïve as to imagine that I can wave my magic wand and the entire establishment will correct Watergate history?

In this blog I have discussed religion, as well as antihomosexual bias in general, but there is something much deeper, a raw nerve rooted in our history and in our particular military tradition, geopolitical in nature.

Whenever there is a war, and one entity "wins" over another, there is always a deal to be made if the two sides are to live in peace. The subjugation of an enemy is never without costs to both sides. Where there are cultural divisions, both sides, like it or not, tend to be changed, sometimes willingly, and sometimes kicking and screaming, but never unaffected. We have seen this in countless contexts over the millenia. From Alexander the Great's aping of his conquered Greek subjects, to the Romans shameless cultural borrowing from the Etruscans, Greeks, and Egyptians, there is a pattern of endless repetition of this simple formula. It runs in my gene pool, and the argument could be made that it is evident in the style of my personal emotional, creative and destructive patterns. I am about one half Celtic (one fourth Scottish and one fourth Welsh) and one half Teutonic (Norwegian and German in roughly equal parts.) My ancestors pillaged, killed, plundered and conquered each other for a very long time, ultimately leading back to prehistory. I feel and sense the various aspects of these peoples, and I feel very fortunate to have genetic material rooted as it is in the conflicts between such gifted races. Ironically, tragically (in the truest sense of the word), all of this warfare combines to strengthen the races, much as the Nazi regime's defeat helped give birth to Israel, and the Viking occupation of Ireland gave rise to Brian Boru and Irish nationality.

One of the methods commonly used by a "conquering" people (I use the term in quotes for often the conquered become a Trojan horse, when the right opportunity arises, as the Romans found when their legions were filled with the "blue eyed devils"!) is the principle of co-opting the conquered. Anyone who has read Machiavelli will know that this is often in the best interest of everyone, but a little something is always lost, just as virginity, once lost, can never be regained. The Romans had a lot of trouble with the Celts, and the issue was still unresolved when the western empire fell to invading Germanic tribes. So the conflict persisted with the Church becoming a vestige of Roman rule (except in Ireland which escaped Roman rule and is thereby "purer") Yet paradoxically, the Celts tended to cling to the original conquering Church when it, in turn became threatened by Protestantism, an early Germanic "invasion". In England the issue became somewhat confused, and for a time in Scotland there was a three way split between the Catholic Church, and the British Church of England, and the Scots' own brand of Protestantism. The ultimate and ironic hyperextension of this principle was the introduction of Celtic (but Presbyterian) Scots into Ireland as Britain's proxy soldiers, so today we still have Celts fighting each other when both groups are victims of a long since forgotten divide and conquer shell game played by the British. One man, Wolfe Tone, saw through this (Rising of 1798) and the British put his movement down with ferocity exceeding that meted out to any other British colonial rebellion. (They selected just the right man for this vicious job -- General Cornwallis, still smarting from his humiliating defeat at the hands of our forefathers. The Irish paid dearly for our victory!) The interesting thing about the Scots is that since the British never fully subdued them culturally (they couldn't enforce even the ban on kilts, which carried the death penalty) they made a classic deal: Join our military and keep your cultural eccentricities (the Scottish regiments were strictly segregated) and we'll all be happy. It worked quite well, for it gave the Scots a legal outlet for their crazed brand of militarism, and they were an absolutely quintessential cornerstone of modern British military history. Today there is no longer much use for brave young Scots, and Scotland has (at least so I'm told) one of the highest rates of heroin addiction in the U.K.

A deal was also made to keep the Welsh quiet, drunk, and digging in the mines. They were incorporated into the Royal Family itself with the somewhat strained "Prince of Wales" concept. In Scotland this was also done by getting a Scottish king on the British throne, and then declaring Scotland part of this "union". Note that since 1296 every British monarch has been crowned whilst sitting on the "Stone of Scone", a.k.a. "Stone of Destiny". That very stone was stolen from the Scots who had also used it for coronations, but they had stolen it even earlier from the Picts! (The Scots were, of course, early IRISH, Christian invaders who conquered the Picts.) Aren't we a quarrelsome lot? As recently as 1950, the stone was recaptured by some kooky Scottish nationalists. Those Teutonic bastards haven't won yet, have they? Has anyone? Last I looked, the damned Teutonists had given the Stone of Scone back. I think that's as it should be.

This historical background will hopefully give a little insight into my point. We as a nation also fought a war and then made a deal with the conquered, similar to what England did with Scots, although the Civil War (or should I more tolerantly say the War Between The States?) was far more costly. The cornerstone of the deal we made as a new nation was the pedestalized enshrinement of Southern manhood (and all associated sacred cows) as the backbone of the U.S. military. This deal is not written, and it is not legally enforceable. It is simply the acknowledgment of a covenant collectively born in the blood, gratitude, and guilt of an entire nation, but it is still a deal. Southern men have more than lived up to (and died for) their side of the bargain! No examples are needed. A more controversial topic is whether the Scottish cross of Saint Andrew should be allowed to live on in the United States -- in the form of the Confederate Battle Flag.

I have spent a great deal of time in the South in my lifetime, and I know that old ways die hard. I remember that as recently as 1994, an interracial couple who sell at gun shows had a pretty bad time of it at a show in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and I understand why. They wouldn't draw a glance in most places these days. (On the subject of "old ways" I would venture that if the good citizens of Spartanburg studied their military history, they might have picked a different name for their fair city!)

There is a popular bumpersticker against gays in the military -- a cartoon depicting two little stick figures. One figure, smiling, is anally penetrating the other, bent over, frowning figure, and superimposed over the scene was a red no-smoking-style circle and slash. I hate to make light of this, but they've got the picture bass-ackwards if they think it's the homo who's smiling and the hetero who's frowning. Ask any homo who's been in the joint. But I think that we should be careful about the mixing of gays and straights in the military for this very reason. Ours is not a culture which can honestly understand facultative as opposed to instinctive homosexuality. Most people just don't get it, in particular the often self-serving gay rights movement. I disagree with the common notion that everyone who has a homosexual encounter is a homosexual, but the left and the right enjoy buying into it. Straight prison inmates can "choose" homosexuality. Their targets usually cannot. Just go next door to Mexico, and you will see homosexuals routinely used as a sexual outlet by young unmarried straight guys who have absolutely no concomitant loss of masculinity, because they would rather have a woman. What does it matter to them if the homosexual would not? (This is a phenomenon called "trade" in the United States, and, except for limited cases of street prostitution, for the most part it has fallen victim to mindless identity politics.)

So, for starters, there is a distorted view of homosexuals as rapists. To the extent that anyone applies this view to the issue of gays in the military such a view is utterly bogus. Further, rape is rape, and is unacceptable human behavior regardless of sexuality. I have seen no epidemic of rape in the military, even with women added to the picture, so the spectacle of homosexual rape is an utter red herring especially were homosexuals allowed to serve a segregated setting where all sexual conduct could be easily governed by an elaborate system of militarily logical rules, as was done in the past. (The latter is NOT a proposal to replace "DON'T ASK DON'T TELL," or to do anything else; it is merely a politically irresponsible remark.)

But that bumper sticker is evidence of a feeling of being raped -- at least, that's my thesis. The South was defeated, and had to swallow its pride, and more important, a consequent loss of manhood. The way they got it back was by becoming the closest thing we have to national soldier caste. Bear in mind also that until a couple of weeks ago homosexual relations were still illegal in almost all of the former Confederate states. To suddenly decree that homosexuals must be counted within their ranks amounts to an all-out, treasonous assault on the last bastion of Southern manhood: in this case (at least it is so perceived) SOUTHERN MANHOOD ITSELF!!

I care about this stumbling block, and that is why I am going to such great lengths to blog about it, because I think it will not go away easily. It has been my experience that the best way to deal with emotionally laden issues is with simple, fearless honesty.

There is the further issue of cultural shock. Homosexuals are perceived as Northern, urban, whiny, effeminate, and definitely UN-military from a Southern military caste perspective. Many homosexuals are just those things, and probably would not get through basic training, nor would they want to. They HATE actual gays in the military! And I can tell you, the feeling is mutual.

So, we have an unwritten gentlemen's agreement handed down by our forefathers without much relevance to the modern age. Traditions die hard. The only solution to all of this emotion is rational thought. It starts at the level of the very discussion of an issue which was not easily mentionable even twenty years ago, but which is now middle American table talk. My biggest question is, once the shock value recedes, why are real men so worried about the sexuality of others? Surely they don't really fear rape by homosexuals. If they do, they are being genuinely silly and childish. And if the fear is that others will think them homosexual if there are (and there are!) gays in the military, that fear is ludicrous. There are already many sneering people out there (gay and straight) who feel that those who most viscerally oppose gays in the military are themselves hiding something. I do not happen to be one of them. I simply feel that there has not been enough honesty, and that has led to a gigantic chasm of distrust on both sides.

Lastly, we come to the religious angle. As I said, I think the primary raw nerve involves sublimated Confederate rage, but religion is also a powerful factor. The problem is that it is not being applied evenhandedly. Fornicators, blasphemers, atheists, abortionists, Satanic cultists, even Nazis are all free to join the U.S. military. So the obsession with the homos is obviously much more than merely religious. Theologically, homosexuality simply doesn't rank as high on the sin list as where the shrill Savonarolists claim it belongs. And they had best remember well two things. One, this is a secular society, containing many religious variations, and it is not supposed to allow any one version to dictate governmental policy, especially military policy. Of all things in our country which must by their nature remain secular, it is most of all the military, for it asks people to die, and nothing is more deserving of utmost respect and acceptance than the particular religious views of a young person facing death in battle. From a military perspective (and from the Classical Values perspective) the virtue of patriotism trumps any particular religious dogma. Second, all people who can recognize reality must remember that each one of us is considered, by the majority of the people in the world, to be headed for hell for the very failure to follow the tenets of opposing religious doctrines. I don't care what (if any) religious views one has; the earth's other religions clearly earmark all nonbelievers as EXCLUDED!! The Ayatollah, the Pope, the Hindu Fakir, the Generic Reverend Sunday, Rabbi Schneerson, Reverend Farrakhan (partial list -- I hope readers will understand) by their own admission are not going to the same place, nor are their followers! Hell must be pretty full by now. Wait just a minute...

They can't keep the homos out of hell, can they? I demand inclusion!

Turning now from hell in the afterlife to those who prefer hell in the here and now, I would like to examine objections which I increasingly hear on the left, including the gay movement. I have had more occasion than most people to listen to views on gays in the military, but the more I tried to discuss workable military policies toward gays, the more I kept running into a visceral antipathy towards the military from the very people who were the most gung ho on the issue of gays in the military. I couldn't but suspect that many of them only wanted gays in the military as a way of hurting the military. They recoil in horror at the prospect of making it help the military. In another blog, I discussed my experience with "Gay Guns" in the 1982 San Francisco Lesbian Gay Parade. We were accused of "joining the enemy" by idiots who somehow feel that homosexuality equals pacifism. There is also a fear in some quarters that homosexuals -- armed or otherwise -- represent a throwback to Paganism, with all of its dangerous excesses. After all, look what armed, militaristic homosexuals did in Germany in the 20's and 30's. The wild energy which can be released scares people. My only response is to say that any link between homosexuals and Nazi Germany falls when we look at what Hitler did to them, beginning with Ernst Roehm. Just because some homosexuals helped put Hitler in does not make them any guiltier than the other, heterosexual 95%! Germany was Germany; this is America.

But the argument is often made that homosexuality is evocative of Paganism. Those Celts (and Romans, and Greeks) were pretty wild sexually, and homosexuality was definitely part of the picture. Saint Paul's strict Pharisaic background was very intolerant of sexuality in general, and his reaction to Pagan sexual practices led, in my opinion, to an improper grafting of his own beliefs onto the early Church. (The Galatians were early Celts living in Turkey.) That is another topic, but as to Celtic behavior, for alternative contemporary opinions to Saint Paul's horrified reactions, read Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and (even earlier) Aristotle on the Celts. That last one's a bit fuzzy, so here's an exact cite for the occasional pendant who might stumble into this blog:

… among the Kelts and other peoples among whom male homosexuality is openly approved.

(Politics – BkII.9 – Penguin translation, 1962, p.85

But even if homosexuality was a common Pagan practice, how is that an argument against gays in the military? If anything, it is an argument in favor, as history demonstrates.

Back to square Orange. It ain't about Anita Bryant anymore. And it isn't just about terrorism.

This pro-Orange essay cites with approval a letter from a woman who derides the double standard of allowing huge gay parades, but not "Protestant" (Orange) parades.

This newspaper article features a photo of a bloodied Iranian protester which continues to circulate in today's news items (even though the photograph was taken in 2000). But more interesting is that between the Iranian crackdown and another news announcement of a crackdown on Orange Parades, we find a curiously incongruous story of a big Gay march in Rome (between 70,000 and 400,000 marched past the ancient amphitheater and the Vatican).

I don't believe in rewriting history, but I did find this oddity about the oddly tolerant William of Orange. As I have warned in my blog before, there are serious problems in judging the past by modern standards, but when people get this silly about celebrating what occurred 313 years ago, why can't a little whimsical historical mischief be indulged?

Then there's this offhand remark, by a gay Dutchman:

Orange harks back to William of Orange, a good gay Hollander like myself. But it's also the color of the juice that anti-gay crusader Anita Bryant used to sell.

Some of these colors all run together after awhile….

But please, no rainbows! I'm with Judy Garland on that issue. Her daughter, Liza Minelli:

was in the ladies room with her mother when she was about 14 and this drunk lady came in and started saying: "Oh, Judy, whatever happens, never forget the rainbow." And Judy said, exiting grandly, "Madame, how could I forget the rainbow, I've got rainbows up my ass."