Comments on: Observations on the End of DADT

By: Carroll

Carroll — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:22:39 +0000

I was stationed on Guam– decades ago. We undoubtedly had gays troops, although I didn’t know any. But I am glad you did what you did. You didn’t ask– and they didn’t tell.

What no one seems to differentiate is the distinction between orientation and activity. We all seem to assume everyone is sexually active, and we all have an absolute right to be. Of course, this is only a cultural norm, not a fact.As you well know there are fraternization rules in the UCMJ which still exist. No all activity is acceptable.(It happens… but it is not lawful.)

I agree with repealing the DADT rule, but I disagree with the assumption that everyone who can engage in active sex is doing so, and should doing so, by right, This is -again– a cultural norm, but not a moral rule or mandate, nor is it permanent and unchanging.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 20:34:55 +0000

I didn’t say religion has no part in how laws come about – that wasn’t addressed in my column – and it’s clearly not true.

I didn’t violate the UCMJ, because the two sailors weren’t having sex. I assumed they were a couple, but as Felix Unger explained in my favorite episode of the Odd Couple television show, assume means you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’.

That said, I would be fine with violating a law that I feel is unjust – I like your St. Thomas Aquinas quote. If I were alive in the abolitionist era, I like to think I would operate an underground railroad stop. If I had been an adult during the Civil Rights Era, I hope that I would have had the courage to run the law enforcement gauntlet with everyone in Birmingham. If I were alive during our Revolution, I would have violated the law by raising a regiment and fighting the British.

In 1998, Coretta Scott King stood solidly in defense of LGBT rights and reminded people that Dr. King said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Nicole

Nicole — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:49:53 +0000

Hello Luke,

I am a Civil Rights Investigator for a government entity located in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Often, I have to “energize” myself and stay focused on my purpose and mission as a Civil Rights Investigator. This can be a very daunting challenge! However, “movement-in-the-movement” will occur and then, I get excited! I am honored to send this message your way with what I hope is a “rousing” tone of GLEE (no pun intended) celebrating the end of DADT! As a heterosexual african-american woman, I often “DON’T HAVE TO ASK” and I certainly “CAN TELL” those environments which embrace me and those that don’t! Regardless, if I had to “live in fear” because of this designation and/or pretend that I am someone else—this would be a problem for me and my spouse. So, I want to enjoy my life as an ADULT without anymore classification than that!! I’m happy that those who “protect and serve,” are now protected and can serve in peace!

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:01:58 +0000

In the workplace, what I (or anyone) define as hate is relevant if it aligns with the values of the company. For example, if you worked for a company that has partner benefits, a non-discrimination policy and a 100% HRC rating, I think publicly writing that being gay is a ticket to eternal damnation is against company policy – and detrimental and damaging to people who feel differently. You may believe that your religious imprimatur transcends company values, but to the degree you make that known is the degree you should be told to leave the company. Your religious beliefs do not transcend the fiduciary responsibility of the corporate leadership to the shareholders. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:23:29 +0000

From your original post, I read your tone as assuming the moral high ground with your religious beliefs. I don’t believe that anyone’s soul is in danger if they’re gay. From your post, it’s clear that you feel otherwise. We can all go to our church/temple/synagogue of preference, where we are free to discuss our beliefs however we wish. However, in my opinion, it is hateful to deny someone their own orientation. In a workplace, evoking theocratic judgment creates an oppressive environment that destroys productivity. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:54:04 +0000

Luke, you tell the story of when you were in the Navy and ran into a gay sailor in town, and did what “needed to be done.” In this case, you ignored the UCMJ and the oath you swore to support and defend the constitution and the legal orders of your superiors … why? Because you determined that law you were asked to enforce was immoral. Ok, that’s actually laudable, to a degree. But by what basis did you determine what laws to follow and which ones to ignore? What makes a legal law immoral? One of the best explanations of this was penned by M.L King from a Birmingham jail …

“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

So secular society can change the laws, and in this case, they apparently changed one that vindicated your actions 25 years ago. But because society declares something legal, doesn’t make it “right” any more than slavery or segregation was “right” when it was legal. You can say “religion” has no part of how or why laws come about, but that’s just not true. If MLK were alive today, making the case that man’s law that was not in accord with God or natural law would eventually fall due to its injustice, would your response be to tell him to “get with the program?”

By: A

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:48:44 +0000

The last 3 paragraph was very interesting. But still companies are shy to talk about the issue.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:32:24 +0000

Thank you for constitution-10. But I was not asking for anyone to believe what I believe, nor to “rule over peoples free will,” that would be a greater injustice than “forcing the good” if it could even be defined. I just objected to your characterizing others beliefs as “hate” just because their characterization of love (for others) doesn’t align with your world view.

By: Luke Visconti

Luke Visconti — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:31:42 +0000

The value system of our country regarding religion is codified in the first amendment of our constitution. Americans are protected from a state religion and religion is protected from the state. Your concept of an eternal soul, and what defines caring for it, is your business and the business of your religion. Not all people believe what you believe and you do not have the imprimatur to rule over a people who believe they have free will as given by the creator. If you cause your religion to interfere with the rights of another American, then you have a problem with American values. Get with the program. Luke Visconti, CEO of DiversityInc

By: Kimiko Dennis

Kimiko Dennis — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 17:15:04 +0000

Luke thank you for your eloquent words of wisdom. Simply well put!!!