The Daily Caller published an article by a part-time magistrate, Joe Rehyansky, on Don't Ask Don't Tell. He's against repealing it for gay men but thinks that lesbian women should be allowed to join the military openly. His real reason for wanting this was deleted by The Daily Caller, but Raw Story saved it for posterity:
In the original article, Rehyansky concluded that his lesbians-only policy "would get the distaff part of our homosexual population off our collective 'Broke Back,' thus giving straight male GIs a fair shot at converting lesbians and bringing them into the mainstream."
That alarmed some LGBT activists, who note that much of the article before that comment argued that men are rapists by nature. Rehyansky's argument that gay men should continue to be banned from the military was based on this notion:
I disagree with Raw Story that Rehyansky said that gay men were rapists by nature - his article makes it clear that he believes that all men are rapists by nature. (Interesting that conservatives get all bent out of shape by the implication that all men are rapists when feminists advocate basic measures to reduce the incidence of rape but then someone like Rehyansky can just say it without people getting rankled....)
Consider his history of human sexuality, which I'm sure is based on decades of careful study of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and evolutionary biology:
Exceptions to every generalization I posit abound, but I don't think I'm enlightening many of you when I assert that men by nature are more promiscuous than women. (You've noticed that, too, huh?) This is overwhelmingly true whether those men and women are straight or gay. Our instincts were designed by Parent Nature at a time when early humans were not the predators, but the prey, and our remote ancestors were still trying to avoid extinction and establish a permanent presence on this planet. It fell to men to swing through the trees and scour the caves in search of as many women as possible to subdue and impregnate -- a tough job but someone had to do it. Women had to be more selective because, then as now, the principal consequences of copulation were theirs: pregnancy; childbirth; most of the responsibilities of childrearing whilst their baby-daddy hunter-gatherers were about hunting and gathering and finding other women to subdue; and the ruination of their pulchritudinous figures. How our ancient foremothers ever managed to establish any choice in the matter is utterly beyond me when one considers that they did not have access to Mace, police whistles, Lady Smith .38s, or domestic violence hotlines.
And his proof of that is...? It's a violent version of Rousseau: I want society to be like that, so I'll say that it was like that back before anyone can remember so that it's posited as humans' true nature.
It's hard to say that he meant anything else when he said he wants straight male soldier to start "converting lesbians" in the military. It's a loaded phrase that people generally understand to mean rape, and in the context of the rest of the column there aren't two ways around it.
So the question is really why he's still working in the criminal justice system at all. If his column had been about how corporations own too much and charge too much money for junk products and he said that people should just go and "borrow" what they need at big box department stores, he wouldn't still be a magistrate. It'd be hard to imagine him being a retired DA's office worker.
Also, no one would try to excuse his words and say he didn't really advocate stealing, just "borrowing," and The Daily Caller wouldn't try to just sweep his words under the rug by deleting them after people complained.
But this isn't shoplifting. It's rape, which is the crime that the law-and-order types have the most sympathy for. That's why it was worth reading this whole column: Rehyansky just lays out how these folks who believe in a punitive and authoritarian criminal justice system can also think that rape is one of those realities of human nature than has to accommodated.
It's insight of a sort and I would have liked for The Daily Caller to have left up the column as written if they were going to put it up in the first place. His entire article is sympathetic towards rape and people should know where those arguments lead. Those other arguments shouldn't be cleaned up for consumption by deleting the one time he actually advocates rape instead of just apologizing for it.
His thoughts on gay men obviously haven't matured much either. He says he would never have wanted to shower with a gay man because they would have raped him, since men just go around raping others and nothing can stop our violent natures and put a slow down on our rape-based lifestyles so we might as well just accept rape (of women), but then he mentions that he knew a gay soldier in Vietnam who (I'm assuming) didn't rape him. Add to that his belief that all gay men have AIDS, which to him still means instant death, so gay men will go around raping the US military to death. But only if DADT is repealed, since even though he mentions several gay people in the military back in the 70's, allowing them to come out would release the gay beast.
Folks concerned with DADT repeal are working against this mentality, and the folks concerned with rape are working against it as well. All these issues come together because some people have set views about how the world works - you can't really separate the issues when the same unquestioned assumptions and violent worldviews are motivating them both.
Anyway, I'm sure Rehyansky has gay friends and would be shocked to find that anyone would think he was pro-rape.