It may come as a surprise to some but I'm in favor of repealing the military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they don't bring their sexual practices to the attention of military authorities.
I'm in favor of returning to following the law, something we haven't done since President Clinton forced this asinine policy on the military in 1993.
You see, the law which says homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service has never been repealed. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been an official policy to ignore the law.
Let me say that again: the President of the United States issued an official policy requiring that the law be ignored.
But those who currently seek to repeal the policy don't want to go back to following the law; they want to change the law and allow homosexuals to serve in the military openly.
Having served 10 years in the military, with some of that under field conditions, I understand first hand the close, intimate quarters in which military members are forced to live. These can range from small rooms with two or more soldiers, open-bay tents, bunkers, foxholes and Humvees for days on end.
The military doesn't quarter male and female soldiers together for the same reason homosexuals shouldn't be quartered with members of the same sex.
When you're living in close, cramped quarters with danger nearby, the last thing you need to worry about is sexual attention or advances from someone--especially from the same sex. This type of stress hurts morale and unit cohesion.
Homosexuality can also lead to security risks, specifically through blackmail and coercion. It is not unknown for enemy agents to blackmail a soldier to provide military secrets in order to keep their sexual proclivities secret.
One might say that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would do away with this threat, but this ignores the fact that while someone might feel at liberty to reveal their sexual preference to those serving with them, telling Mom and Dad back home in Kansas might be a different matter.
Homosexuals have health risks which are significantly higher than those faced by heterosexuals. In addition to a higher risk of AIDS (the CDC reports that that 72% of male AIDS cases spring from homosexual activity), homosexuals have higher rates of other STDs, higher rates of anxiety and depression, higher rates of substance abuse, and higher rates of suicide.
The job of the military is to defend the United States and kill bad guys as quickly and efficiently as possible. The ability of the military to do that should not be degraded by unnecessary increases in health problems among service members.
Military service is not a right, like freedom to say what we want or worship as we want; military service is a privilege reserved to those who meet a specific mental, physical, and moral standard. Despite the disparaging comments from some on the Left, military members are usually a cut above the average civilian. There's a good reason for that: their effectiveness can mean life and death for their fellow soldiers, and life and death for this country.
Unfortunately, homosexual activists are not only willing to risk military effectiveness, they are willing to attempt a revision of history to accomplish their goals.
According to the Family Research Council, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) tried to misrepresent history to further his homosexual advocacy.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) insisted, "We've had gays in the American military from the first unit that was ever formed." Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) echoed this astonishing claim, saying that "gays have served in every conflict, every war" this country has fought.
In fact, Shays was even more specific, noting a patriotic event in his district at which they read the names of "everyone who lost his life in the French and Indian War--some of whom were gay."
That may in fact be true.
Any military at any time will have people within the ranks who do not obey military laws and regulations (just as any society will have citizens who do not obey the laws). Such a fact in no way proves the behavior was approved of or even accepted. There are and always have been adulterers in the military, too, but like homosexuality, adultery is incompatible with military service.
But the worst historical revisionism was committed by Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who all but said that General George Washington would have condoned homosexuality in the military.
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) declared that allowing homosexuals to serve would be an expression of the high value Americans place on the principle of equal opportunity. He even claimed the father of our country, George Washington, as an ally who believed that "the way to the top should be open to everyone." In context, that referred to the respect Washington had for enlisted men in relation to officers--but Sestak apparently would have us believe that Washington felt the same way about equal opportunity for homosexuals.
As the FRC piece points out, this is flatly incorrect. We have records from that period, including military records.
One such record tells us of the court martial of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin "for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier."
It also says General Washington approved of the sentence, which would be what we call "Dishonorable Discharge" today.
"His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return..."
Washington was a committed Christian, a man of prayer and a man of the Bible who would not tolerate vice of any kind--not even profanity. This record is consistent with Washington's record and reputation.
Homosexual activists are determined to have what they want, without regard to the welfare of families or even national defense.
The American people must stand against this decay, both in our society and the bulwark which defends our society--even if our Congress is too spineless to do so.
8 comments:
I agree with you that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed. But that's where our agreement ends.
As for gays serving our country, we've argued about this before. I think you're wrong and there's nothing you can say to change my mind. You think I'm wrong and there's nothing I can say to change your mind. So I won't try to refute any of your "facts" since you'd probably dismiss everything I said. I mean, why bother?
But I did want to respond to something in this post I found hilarious:
"Let me say that again: the President of the United States issued an official policy requiring that the law be ignored."
Ha! So there's proof of one time Clinton did that compared to about 3,000 times President George W. Bush has done it. From laws to the Constitution, there's nothing Bush won't ignore. And don't get me started on his signing statements. If he was signing a bill claiming the sky was blue, he'd probably write a signing statement saying "From now on, White House policy is that the sky is purple."
Thanks for the laugh, Bob!
I hate to disappoint you, Haggs, but Clinton used more signing statements than Bush has. Bush didn't invent the signing statement; in fact, while I don't agree with their use, Bush has at least restricted his use of them to ones that he believes maintains the constitutional integrity of the executive office, i.e. he has used them to circumvent unconstitutional changes to the authority of the executive office.
Clinton's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" fiasco was a deliberate act to tell military authorities to ignore the law, law put in place to safeguard military readiness and national security.
If a soldier is so afraid that he'll be objectified by another man in the barracks, and if this fear actually affects his job performance, he's clearly not acting like a professional. You can have bullets fly past you with no problem, but the moment a man compliments your body or gives you a certain look, all of a sudden your morale is unstable?
Besides, what would a gay soldier hope to accomplish by propositioning a straight soldier for sex? You seem to think that activists want to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell just so gay soldiers can start flirting in the showers. Which is kind of insulting.
Bob, here's my problem with Bush's signing statements. If he thought a law would be unconstitutional, then why didn't he veto it? That's his consitutional responsibility.
But instead he signs the bill, holds a signing ceremony with the press and then secretly writes a statement saying he's going to ignore the bill he just signed. To me, that's lying to the American people and abusing presidential power. A lot of people were surprised it took six years before Bush vetoed anything, but in reality he was vetoing bills in secret.
Most signing statements are non-events. Clinton has more than Bush because he wrote a lot of statements that were basically "I support this bill." It's not the number of statesments Bush has written that matter, it's what those statements do.
I think you should read this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODliYjkwN2RkNWExMWE5OGQxMzA2ODNlZTc5NTRhYjY=.
Aside from the fact that the Army has been giving "morality waivers" to convicted felons, including rapists, child molesters, arsonists, and two people convicted of making bomb threats, the military seems to be wasting time on what amounts to little more than a witch hunt to round up gay soldiers and discharge them, because according to Gen. Peter Pace, the military does not condone immoral behavior.
Furthermore, the Pentagon reported in 2005 that "only 1 percent of gays were sacked for pursuing or achieving same-sex marriage. Just 16 percent were dismissed for seeking or performing gay sex. Fully 83 percent of those fired between 1994 and 2003 merely stated their gay or bisexual status." As you can see, the policy is not exclusive to behavior; gay soldiers are being discharged predominantly because of who they are.
As for the homosexual linguists that the military has been discharging on the grounds of their sexual orientation, I would like to hear a compelling argument for how decreasing the number of Arabic speakers we have in Iraq increases our chances of success there. And don't say it's because they chose to disobey the military's policy against homosexual behavior, because this example stands out:
"In March 2007, the Navy discharged Petty Officer Stephen Benjamin, an Arabic cryptologic interpreter. Supervisors investigated him when a message he transmitted said, “That was so gay — the good gay, not the bad one.” He also mentioned his social life, thus exposing his homosexuality."
Benjamin hadn't made sexual advances on anyone, hadn't been caught having gay sex in the barracks, and hadn't forced any of his colleagues to have sex with him.
Face it, this policy is grounded in homophobia, and the problem is with people like you, not homosexuals.
A heterosexual friend of mine did get propositioned by a homosexual when we were stationed overseas; apparently this homosexual airman saw something to be gained.
A professional wouldn't hinder morale, unit cohesion and mission effectiveness by putting their sexual desires ahead of national defense considerations.
Military service is a privilege, not a right. If someone isn't wiling to act in the best interest of military necessity, they shouldn't be in the U.S. military.
I take it you have nothing constructive to say about the article I posted. Oh well.
So you'd feel safer and more emotionally secure living in close quarters with a convicted felon than with a gay guy. Yup, you're not homophobic at all.
Post a Comment