Options
Don't Ask, Tell or Legitimize
· Thursday, October 15, 2009
I am sympathetic to the story told by Joseph Rocha, who claims in a Washington Post opinion column that he was discharged from the Navy because he is gay, though he says he never told anyone. Rocha says his male colleagues concluded he was gay when he wouldn't laugh at their dirty jokes about women or visit prostitutes with them.
Gay service members have a point when they claim a double standard exists for heterosexuals and homosexuals regarding sexual behavior. Rocha also alleges cover-ups by higher-ups about male sexual assaults on lesbians and the pressure he says lesbians feel to keep quiet because by "telling" they could face discharge.
But we are beginning in the wrong place. The place to start is whether citizens of this country, through their elected representatives and the military leaders named by them, have a right to determine what type of service members best serve the interests, safety and security of the United States. I contend we do. The military should not be a test lab. Pressure is building to put female sailors on submarines, along with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people presumably. That many heterosexuals find homosexual behavior immoral and not conducive to unit cohesion is of no concern to the social wrecking crew.
What gay activists apparently don't care about is the effect reshaping the military in their image would have on our ability to fight and defend the country, which, after all, is the purpose of a military. If the armed services were open to all behaviors (as distinct from orientations), recruitment might become more difficult. Some of the services have recently struggled to meet their recruitment goals, though overall enlistment is up because of the economy.
At the Human Rights Campaign dinner last Saturday in Washington, President Obama said, "I will end 'don't ask, don't tell.'" He also pledged to bring an end to The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. Obama knows -- or should know -- that he does not have that power. He took an oath to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
If Congress wants to repeal DOMA and change the military's behavioral codes, it can do so through new legislation. But that would put "Blue Dog" Democrats at risk of re-election, since they serve mostly conservative districts. They know their political careers would be over if they voted in favor of either gay marriage or for gays in the military.
The gays in the military and gay marriage issues are part of a broader attempt by liberals to restructure society. Social activists despise biblical morality (which heterosexuals could use a little more of, too), traditional values that have been proven to work when tried and numerous other cultural mores. This is not an opinion. It is also not a secret. The more radical activists have written and spoken openly about their intentions. President Obama's language (whether action follows is another matter) gives lip service to their cause.
Opinion polls have shown the public shifting in favor of gays in the military, including a recent Gallup poll which found that "Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69 percent to 63 percent." That is mostly because there are few leaders who wish to give voice to opposing points of view. They fear being shouted down, or being accused of "homophobia."
What we tolerate we will get more of. Sexual behavior is an important cultural and moral issue. President Obama won the election with just 52 percent of the popular vote and a margin of 7 percent over Sen. John McCain. This should not be seen as a mandate for him and his administration to make over America in a secular and liberal image. Neither should it be seen as an invitation to give blanket approval to homosexuality, considered by some to be against the best interests of the people who practice it, as well as the nations that accept it.
(c) 2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Representative Duncan Hunter: "America was founded on core principles and traditions. The Patriot Post keeps those principles alive in the public debate, inspiring this and the next generation of conservative leaders." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Bud Dean
So you think our military alliance is better served by those countires that ban homosexuals or those that allow homosexuals to serve? Which side of histroy do we belong?
Countries that ban homosexuals from serving in the military: Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Venezuela, and Yemen.
Countries that allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military: Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Romania, United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
Posted October 19, 2009 at 12:15:16 PM
Nikoli
Let's look at this issue from a slightly different viewpoint: If a gay person was accused of a crime, our justice system would bend over backward to assure that man or woman their full civil rights under the law. Yet, gays who want to serve are turned down, or rejected, or discharged. How much does their lost training cost this country? And MY ARMY MP daughter was FAR safer if she had a gay male or female soldier next to her on guard, than she would have been with a hetero, macho sort of guy with her. The dirty little secret of the current situation in Iraq/Afghanistan is that female soldiers are being sexually harassed and/or
raped, and when they try to get justice, the military shoots them down. Many have left the service because of such problems. How much did THEIR lost training cost the US?
So, here's how it stands: We send our presumably best and brightest overseas to get their butts shot off, while gays stay at home with full civil rights and protections? I've worked with gay men and women in the aerospace industry. We knew. And I promise you, I was never sexually harassed by any gay. But as a young woman who was among the earliest female drafter/technical illustrators, I HAVE had to fight of God-fearin' hetero married men! I had to hit one of them over the head with a brass paper weight to get loose! And the harassment endured for my entire 40-year career! I'd rather have my hetero daughter safely in a foxhole with a gay person of either gender. The males wouldn't bother her, and the females took NO for an answer! Let them serve! If
the laws against fraternization were enforced, it would protect men and women of any persuasion, and
punish anyone of any persuasion if and when they stepped over the line. Also, we are having trouble meeting enlistment quotas, while some of the best-educated and most caring people around us are not permitted to serve! Other countries let gays serve. And I have not heard anything about it being a big deal!
Posted October 19, 2009 at 1:24:17 PM
Kent
Nikoli says: And I have not heard anything about it being a big deal! And I agree in the Air Force and Navy it appears NOT to be a big deal. Everything changes in combat. You haven't served with it.
Having been a Marine MP, I know what you are saying about sexual harrassment. Been there, seen that. I personally fully believe, contrary to the continuous badgering BS of feminists, that it is a genetic instinct in men to protect women. When a female is injured in combat, everyone falls to protect her. This can and has jeopardized the mission objective.
I have also observed overbearing 'macho men's behavior in the workplace. I have gone as far as to have a couple of scars from setting a couple of them straight. Observing from a Marine standpoint, it is also for the safety of the gays that they not be in the Corps.
Posted October 19, 2009 at 2:01:27 PM
Brian
If congress wants to experiment with gays in close quarters they should require themselves to sleep with and share showers with with gay interns. Lets run that experiment of power, sex, and close quarters and see how it goes before we tinker with natioal defense.
Posted October 19, 2009 at 10:57:23 PM
logic 500
Do you honestly believe Rocha's reason for being ousted??? "he wouldn't laugh at their dirty jokes about women or visit prostitutes with them." This type of behavior could mean he is a practicing Christian - which there are still some of in the military.
Think about it logistically, which litrene will those who practice homosexual behaviors go to? Who will they bunk down with for the night? All sexual behaviors in the military are moral destroying...
Posted October 20, 2009 at 9:27:10 AM