“We Throw Down the Gauntlet” by Franklin Kameny - Ethos

Dr. Franklin Kameny presented a speech in front of the United States Department of Defense Industrial Security Clearance Review Office called "We Throw Down the Gauntlet" on August 19, 1969 as an opening statement in defense of Benning Wentworth. This specific case became especially popular in the time because Wentworth was denied security clearance based on the ground of being a sexually active homosexual. First, and foremost, Dr. Kameny is automatically assumed to be a person of status and respect because of his occupation of a lawyer and activist, just as Hillary Clinton, in her 2011 speech, was automatically given respect, attention, and considered ethical because of her status, high class, and job as Secretary of State.

Dr. Kameny is very in tune with the perception of being "ethical, moral, decent, logical, and sensible", asking that the government give him the same decency as he is giving them in this case. He presents himself as a man who stands for what he believes in and does not believe in changing himself for the good of others. He stands for the rest of the people who are unable to speak up because they are not as highly respected, known, or believable. Dr. Kameny presents himself as a person who one would be able to depend on, he will continue believing what he does no matter what others say. Hillary Clinton also presents her speeches and points as ones that she believes in and will continue to believe in regardless of opposition. Both seem to understand that there is opposition to what they believe in but know that there is hope for change if there is effort put forward to make it happen.

He understands that to present his case and be believable he has to have a few facts and examples that would make the judge understand that the discrimination based on sexuality/sexual activity as a homosexual is a problem that is ongoing.

"In the security clearance case of an applicant of name unknown to us---the case was designated as OSD 66-44---the Department did issue a security clearance to a 25 year-old applicant who admitted to having engaged in numerous homosexual acts but who made a passionate averment at the hearing to the effect that he was a reformed man, and that if God had created anything more wonderful than heterosexual intercourse, he had kept it to himself."

He presents the direct example of a previous case where a known homosexual applicant was granted security clearance. The only difference from his own client was that this particular applicant declared that he was a changed man, therefore he was not a homosexual/sexually active homosexual anymore. By stating this previous case, he makes it clear that the only reason OSD 66-44 was cleared was because of his changing in status, which his client and anyone else denied because of this same cause will refuse to do. There is no reason why security clearance should relate to a persons sexual preference/activity. Not only does he present his personal reason for respectability, he shows his client as a person of respect, stating that his client "Mr. Wentworth served honorably in the Armed Services of this country."

However, while closing his opening statement he makes it obvious that he knows he has made his statement more emotionally appealing than logically clear.

"As any good teacher knows, dramatic, novel methods with personal impact, are often far superior as teaching techniques to bland, cold, factual presentations.  If we can manage to get through to you people by our use of language stronger than is customary in the course of usual lawyer’s amenities, then our purpose and the interests of a large number of good American citizens, and therefore the interests of our nation, will have been served."

Compared to Hillary Clinton's 2011 speech, his speech relied mainly on his emotional appeal to the judge and being so tied to the issue at hand. While his main goal was to make it clear the emotional impact that being discriminated against can have, he is able to present his case and ethically present his case because of his popularity and respectability that he has gained in the community. His known connection to the problem made him more ethically appealing because he would have no reason to lie about any facts or circumstances. Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, presented far more hard facts and examples as compared to Dr. Kameny's speech.

Dr. Franklin Kameny only wanted to help the cause of making Gay Rights a solidified thing with the government and his popularity and respectability helped in doing just that.


http://www.kamenypapers.org/gauntlet.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html