Sex and gender at work, in bed, and on the street

Bob Marshall, gays in the military, and unwanted sexual advances

December 22, 2010 - 12:30 PM
Text size Decrease Increase
Del. Bob Marshall (Photo: Associated Press)

Gays and lesbians will soon be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.  Virginia Del. Bob Marshall is one lawmaker who refuses to accept that inevitability—he has announced his intentions to maintain pure heterosexuality in the state's National Guard.

In an interview, Marshall clarified his stance on gays in the armed forces. "If I needed a blood transfusion and the guy that's going to give me the transfusion has committed sodomy 14 times in the last month, yeah I'm gonna be worried," he told WUSA. "It's a distraction while I'm on the battlefield and I have to concentrate on the guy 600 yards away, I'm worrying about this guy who's got eyes on me. . . . discipline does not mean sodomy."

Why is Marshall—and guys like Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert, who has testified publicly to the possibility of gay men sneaking into your bed—suddenly so worked up about the possibility of unwanted sexual advances in the armed forces?

After all, Don't Ask Don't Tell has done little to reduce the stunning numbers of sexual assault in the military. In fact, some servicewomen who have fended off assaults have actually been accused of being gay for refusing to submit to male assailants. And while men do assault other men in the military, they assault women at ten times that rate. A small number of cases also involve female assailants, who assault both men and other women.

Unwanted sexual advances affect thousands of military servicemen and women each year—and that's only counting completed sexual assaults, not cases of "this guy who's got eyes on me." Under Marshall's rationale, people of all genders and sexual orientations should be excluded from military service, lest they rape someone (or simply look at him sideways). But judging from the delegate's creative riffs on "sodomy" figures, it seems that the presence of gay men on the battlefield is more "distracting" to Marshall than are actual rapists.




  • View all

Sort by:

  1. phearlez phearlez

    Don Whiteside

    Dec 22, 2010 - 02:34:24 PM

    Based on how moronic and homophobic everything else he says is, my assumption is that he assumes the women being assaulted are just confused lesbians who are just getting the gay screwed out of them by good samaritan soldiers. Or he just doesn't care about the plight of women. I'm torn between believing he's stupid or callous.

    • report abuse
  2. Kim Conway Kim Conway

    Kim Conway

    Dec 22, 2010 - 01:47:10 PM

    Really? Bob Marshall is concerned about a blood transfusion from a person who "might" be homosexual who might have "committed" sodomy 14 times? Shouldn't Bob be concerned with all genders and sexual orientations who have and continue to have risky and unprotected sexual relations and often with numerous partners? Sexually transmitted disease is transmitted by all genders and orientations. Really, this is what Bob Marshall is concerned about. Well, maybe there needs to be a "readjustment" of where he is focusing his view.

    • report abuse
  3. Guliel Guliel

    Billy Madison

    Dec 22, 2010 - 01:19:20 PM

    "I'm worrying about this guy who's got eyes on me. . . . discipline does not mean sodomy." Well hell, if he's got eyes on me he should be watching my back, right? But of course, that might mean he isn't watching the enemy, which could actually be bad. If this guy is distracted by gays, then maybe he's more the problem than the gays. It would probably be best if the government didn't use blood from anyone in a high risk group, including promiscuity of any kind, then you won't have to ask if the donor is a sodomite. How about we just call it, don't worry, be happy. Don't worry about it, be happy you aren't in his shoes!

    • report abuse
By posting comments to content found on TBD, you agree to the terms of service.

Post a Comment

You must be signed in to post comments on TBD