From Family Policy Council:
An Open Letter to Hoppy Kercheval on Homosexual Conduct in the Military
with one comment
Image source: www.WVMetroNews.com.
They say never to pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. I would assume that the same is true for those who buy radio waves by the megawatt!
While I have no wish to fight with you, my friend, I do feel the need to disagree with you on an important issue of our day, an issue I fear you have not given your trademark thoroughness in thinking through.
Of course, I speak of repealing what is commonly called the, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy. According to the title of your commentary on Thursday, you believe it’s, “Time to allow gays to serve openly in the military.” For support, you point to the politically appointed joint chiefs of staff, secretary of defense, and an unsubstantiated data claim that 14,000 men and women have been discharged under DADT.
In general, I would encourage your careful reading of a well-prepared document by our friends at the Family Research Council which was written by Robert Maginnis.
First, it might be worth asking why were these individuals dismissed under DADT? We sometimes have the impression that a soldier blurts out, “I’m gay” and the MP’s appear out of nowhere, usher the soldier into a court martial proceeding, and he’s shipped home soon thereafter.
This misperception is largely because this debate has focused on sexual identity – a complex and often nebulous concept – when the military is largely looking to govern sexual conduct. In fact, DADT is a compromise position of policy issued by the Clinton administration that failed in its attempts to repeal an underlying law that says:
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts could create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability. See 10 U.S.C. 654(a)(15).
Repeal DADT and you still must deal with this underlying law. It is why many, if not most, of those discharged under DADT were so dismissed because they were men attempting to have unwanted sex with other men, or female soldiers likewise with soldiers of their gender.
The statistics bear this out. Analysis of a FY 2009 study found that, of all the sexual assaults in the military, 8.2% of them were same-sex in nature. Comparing that to the general, civilian population, we discover that homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults relative to their population. And, it should be noted, that most of these assaults were men fondling or attempting oral sex on other men while the victim slept or was intoxicated.
Thus, at the outset, we must keep in mind that many, though not all, of the discharges under DADT came about because sexual conduct was disciplined.
But we should also discuss that 14,000 estimate you give. Not knowing where you received your data, I looked up my own. The GAO says that, between the years 1994 and 2008, 12,785 soldiers were dismissed under DADT.
However, according to the Department of Defense, only 0.37% of military discharges were because of homosexual behavior. Why were others discharged? Well, according to the Center for Military Readiness, during that same time:
•90,302 were discharged because of drug use.
•55,790 failed to meet weight standards and were excused.
•39,454 soldiers received discharge papers because they were pregnant.
The military, understandably, has high standards, based on readiness and effectiveness. Ours is a voluntary force, one with no constitutional guarantee for military service. We ought not experiment with the greatest military on the earth.
You also point to the militaries from around the world who have opened the door to homosexual behavior in the military with, you suggest, little or no problems. I wonder if you overlooked some considerations.
First, did you consider that our culture is home to a very politically active and litigious homosexual movement? It is difficult to have an objective discussion on the topic – as those charged with national security must – when so much of the modern homosexual movement is one of forced acceptance, regardless of the consequences on military readiness.
Also, did you consider your references to Israel, Britain, and Canada a bit lacking in analogy? With over 2 million personnel, our military (active, reserve, and guard) dwarfs most of the world’s military. Of the 200 or so militaries in the world, only 25 have taken this drastic social step. Israel is 34th in size and Britain 26th. As for Canada, it implemented a significantly different policy altogether, one focused on conduct over identity – much like our current law does.
Beyond that, you must give some thought to the voluntary nature of our military. We do not have conscripted service (as Israel), nor do we have a service in which just anyone can join. Recruits must meet rigorous standards and abide by rules enforcing strict behavior and discipline. While the U.S. Constitution provides for the creation of a military, it does not guarantee that its citizens will be admitted. Their “fit” for the military is for the commanders to decide.
In addition, you suggest that military commanders are ready for the change and see no problem. However, I would note, first, those defense leaders endorsing this plan are, primarily, those owing their position and/or elevation to President Obama. Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen clearly fall within that category.
Beyond them, you have most of the Chiefs of Staff of the armed forces advising (strongly, in the case of Marine Commendant Gen. James Conway) against such a social shift. Their concerns, like mine, rest in what is best for the military – a different entity entirely than that of the civilian population.
Finally, consider some real-word, pragmatic pitfalls we might incur:
•Religious liberty – Requiring service members to embrace open homosexual behavior puts individual soldiers in a true quandary, more-so their chaplains. How does a chaplain counsel an open homosexual if the chaplain holds to the religious convictions of most religions today that homosexual behavior is immoral? Will their sermons be vetted to be sure they do not discuss the sinful behavior described in Romans 1 before they get to the Good News of Romans 6 and 7? What of the individual soldier espousing his convictions to his bunkmate? These are real problems that those pushing for repeal simply gloss over.
•Benefits – Housing will be a true issue, that may lead to accusations of increased stigmatization. Will homosexuals be required to be identified and segregated in their sleeping arrangements? What about spousal or domestic partner benefits? If such benefits are forwarded under Federal law, what does that mean for state Marriage Protection Amendments? Federal DOMA?
•Health – According to a September 2010, CDC fact sheet, men having sex with men account for 48% of all HIV cases in the United States. While men having sex with men account for only 4% of the entire population, they are 44 times more likely to be diagnosed with HIV. This is tragic! Our laws ought not encourage behavior known to increase such a wretched disease; they ought to oppose it. But, in setting public policy, we must also remember that these are blood-born diseases. What will we do with blood transfusions on the battlefield?
Certainly, more could be written. I know you to be a thoughtful man, one that spends a great deal of time reading and thinking on the subjects on which he speaks. And, while we might ultimately disagree on the final conclusion, I am thankful for your willingness to listen and your graciousness in disagreement.
While I believe that our military is no place to advance a radical, social agenda, I also realize that the feelings of homosexuality are real. While I must side with what I believe is the best course of action in terms of public policy for our nation and it’s military, I want my friends in the homosexual community – including those who have fought for our country – to know of my love and respect for them. I pray that they will find their satisfaction in Christ, not in behavior that is unhealthy, immoral, and unwise.
And there, I pray, we part as friends. Knowing of your great compassion for your fellow man, I ask you only to temper your compassion with discernment. To the extent I may prove helpful in elucidating that discernment, I remain,
Your faithful partner,
Jeremiah G. Dys, Esq.,
President and General Counsel,
The Family Policy Council of WV.
Also, from Family Policy Council:
DADT Creates Rift Among Joint Chiefs
without comments
Political? Adm. Mullen breaks with unified Joint Chiefs to support Gates, President.
Last week’s advance of a bill designed to normalize homosexual behavior in the military by repealing the, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been shown for what it is: a political step to pacify a small number of vocal same-sex activists upset with the administration’s delay.
Several stories have been written reporting the disagreement with the move by the Joint Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Retired officers, soldiers, and airmen of the various forces have all spoken out in record numbers against the move, citing concerns for unit cohesion and military readiness – concerns quickly dismissed by same-sex activists. Military Chaplains and their sponsoring denominations have all by pleaded with Congress not to advance a measure that will woefully undermine their effectiveness.
Even as the vote occurred last week, many throughout the country were scratching their heads at why Congress would order a study on the policy to conclude in December and then hold a vote on the same issue in May.
Sadly, the First Amendment, religious liberty, and even national security have been forced to take a back seat to this radical, same-sex agenda.
Why? Well, in a word: politics. That’s what the Washington Times reports, anyway:
Adm. Mike Mullen, Joint Chiefs chairman, in February first broke with the chiefs of the Navy, Air Force, Army and Marine Corps by endorsing President Obama’s campaign pledge to end the military’s ban on open homosexuals.
The gap widened last week. Adm. Mullen approved a White House deal for Congress to go ahead with a vote on repeal of the law barring openly gay members from the military, rather than waiting for completion in December of a Pentagon study that is seeking the views of troops. Adm. Mullen’s move brought an instant rebuttal from the four chiefs in the form of letters to Congress urging lawmakers not to hold the vote.
In fact, the service chiefs did not see the Pentagon-White House-congressional deal to rush a vote until after the administration announced it May 24, Pentagon officials said.
Retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner, who opposes lifting the ban, said he has never seen such a significant public split between the chiefs and the chairman.
“The chairman is deeply beholden to the secretary of defense and the president,” said the former four-star officer, who directed the 1991 air war against Iraq. “He is in a tougher position than the service chiefs. And also the service chiefs are more directly concerned with things like readiness and personnel policies. I can see where this split occurs, for understandable reasons.”
And, from Family Policy Council:
Catholic Military Archbishop on DADT
without comments
"Does the proposed change authorize these individuals to engage in activities considered immoral not only by the Catholic Church, but also by many other religious groups?"
On DADT from the Catholic Military Archbishop, a very thought provoking set of questions (H/T Howard Freiedman and Religion Clause):
Catholic chaplains must show compassion for persons with a homosexual orientation, but can never condone-even silently-homosexual behavior. A change might have a negative effect on the role of the chaplain not only in the pulpit, but also in the classroom, in the barracks, and in the office.
A more fundamental question, however, should be raised. What exactly is the meaning of a change? No one can deny that persons with a homosexual orientation are already in the military. Does the proposed change authorize these individuals to engage in activities considered immoral not only by the Catholic Church, but also by many other religious groups? Will there be changes in the living conditions, especially in the AOR?
There is no doubt that morality and the corresponding good moral decisions have an effect on unit cohesion and the overall morale of the troops and effectiveness of the mission. This Archdiocese exists to serve those who serve and it assists them by advocating moral behavior. The military must find ways to promote that behavior and develop strong prohibitions against any immoral activity that would jeopardize morale, good morals, unit cohesion and every other factor that weakens the mission. So also must a firm effort be made to avoid any injustices that may inadvertently develop because individuals or groups are put in living situations that are an affront to good common sense.
And, lastly, also from Family Policy Council:
Albert Mohler Explains DADT Consequences
without comments
By Nathan A. Cherry, 06/10/2010
Martinsburg, WV – Everything from unit cohesion to religious liberty is at stake in the case of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy currently under review. Make no mistake, if reversed, our military will become pointedly weaker, divided, and even hostile.
Below is commentary by Dr. Albert Mohler with his thoughts on the consequences of repealing DADT. His commentary is logical, insightful, and all too real. Americans need to wake up and begin screaming – politely of course – in the ears of their elected officials to let them know how opposed we are to repealing DADT. If you are unconvinced so far that far-reaching and detrimental consequences exist with the repeal of DADT, continue reading and see if your mind doesn’t change by the end of this article.
Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist ConventionCommentary: Homosexuality and the Military — What’s Really at Stake?
Get ready. Big changes are coming to the United States military. Congress seems poised to pass legislation that would call for the elimination of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy put in place in 1993. With the support of the Obama administration, and with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, it appears that the official normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. armed forces may take place sometime this summer, after the completion of a Pentagon review.
Last Thursday, the House of Representatives voted 234 to 194 to repeal the policy. That same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16 to 12 to change the policy. A full Senate vote is expected this month.
Discharges from the U.S. armed forces for homosexual activity date back to the Revolutionary War, and until 1993 the services operated under a policy that identified homosexuality as “incompatible with military service.”
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a compromise policy put into place after newly elected President Bill Clinton failed to persuade Congress and the military command to lift all restrictions on the service of homosexuals in the armed forces. According to the policy, service personnel would not be asked about their sexual orientation, but if a homosexual orientation became a known issue, the individual could be discharged from the armed forces. From 1993 onward, homosexual activists have seen the removal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as a major policy objective. Now, they are very close to seeing that objective realized.
Their efforts have been greatly assisted by a documented change in the public’s understanding of the issue. Within a very short span of years, a massive shift in public attitudes has taken place. Though responses to the issue depend greatly upon how the question is asked, public opposition to the service of homosexuals in the military has clearly lessened. This shift is part of the larger transformation of moral values on issues of sexuality that has occurred over the past decade.
So, now that the full normalization of homosexuality in the U.S. military looms before us, are we ready for all that this means? Almost surely not.
There are huge realities that frame the momentous nature of this policy change. The first is the centrality of sexual identity or orientation to human life. The second is the massive institutional and symbolic influence of the military in American life. The third is the threat to religious liberty posed by the normalization of homosexuality in the armed forces.
The Centrality of Sexual Orientation — “Out” Means “Out”
On this point, the prophets of the sexual revolution were right: Sexual identity and orientation are central to an individual’s sense of self and personhood, and to an individual’s public persona. Historically, armies have dealt with this by normalizing heterosexuality and by doing everything possible to meld individuals into a unified fighting force. In this process of forming unit cohesion, individuals are to a great degree stripped of their personal identities in order to take on the singular identity of the unit.
Writing at the onset of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, John Luddy, a former Marine infantry officer, explained how this process works:
Combat is a team endeavor. To win in combat, individuals must be trained to subjugate their individual instinct for self-preservation to the needs of their unit. Since most people are not naturally inclined to do this, military training must break down an individual and recast him as part of a team. This is why recruits give up their first names and why they look, act, dress, and train alike. To paraphrase an old drill instructor, the Marine Corps is not Burger King — you can’t have it your way.
The normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces does not merely mean the fact that persons found to have a homosexual orientation will no longer be discharged from the military, it also means that something as central to human experience and identity as sexuality now complicates the situation. The presence of openly homosexual persons in military units, military housing, and military culture changes the very nature of unit cohesion. Beyond this, it changes the nature of the military as an institution. To all the complexities of breaking down individual identity in order to build a common identity, an inevitable focus on sexual orientation now reverses the entire logic.
The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not in itself establish a comprehensive new policy. As James Dao of The New York Times reports, there are a host of “thorny issues” that must be decided:
Will openly gay service members be placed in separate housing, as the commandant of the Marine Corps has advocated? What benefits, if any, will partners or spouses of homosexual service members be accorded? Will all military units be required to treat homosexuals the same? And what training will heterosexual officers and enlisted troops receive to prepare them to serve with openly gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines?
These are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the “thorny issues” any new policy must regulate. The greatest challenge posed by the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces is not the fact that homosexual persons will serve in uniform. Given the distribution of homosexuality within the population, we can be assured that the courageous service of homosexual persons has been the case from the beginning. The greatest challenge will be posed by the fact that the homosexuality will now be open, with all that means in terms of identification with homosexual culture and relationships. How do you redefine unit cohesion after that moral revolution?
The U.S. Military and the Shape of American Culture
From the nation’s birth, the armed forces have held an established place as a culture-forming institution. Our national life is shaped by several institutional forces, but few hold the power held by the U.S. military. The public’s admiration of the armed forces is enhanced by the reality of civilian control over the military, and service in uniform has been an important means of establishing national identity and culture.
The results of this influence have been overwhelmingly positive. The successful racial integration of the military was indispensable to the civil rights movement. The military has preserved national values of honor, courage, and service. Few institutions can compare to the massive influence of the military in shaping national culture.
That is why the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces has been such a central goal of the homosexual movement. The three most significant institutional barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality in the society are the military, laws governing marriage, and the churches. For this reason, all three of these institutional forces have been directly targeted by those who would push for the full acceptance of homosexuality. A focus on these institutions is essential if homosexuality is to be recognized on an equal moral and cultural footing with heterosexuality. There is no surprise here.
It must be recognized that the normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. military will have effects far beyond the armed forces. The most immediate changes will appear closest to where the military is concentrated, both geographically and culturally. Businesses doing work for the armed forces, individuals offering housing and a host of services to military personnel, and others similarly connected to the armed services will be the first to be required to respond to these effects and to conform to the new military reality. From there, the circles of the military’s influence will extend to the rest of the society in one manner or another.
The rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is not just about the military — and that is why so much effort has been directed to its repeal.
Religious Liberty — Conviction Collides with the New Military Culture
Make no mistake: The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy will present a clear and present threat to the religious liberty of those who wear the American uniform, and especially to those who serve as chaplains.
The military serves under a clear set of rules and expectations. When homosexuality is normalized in the armed forces, an entire interconnected network of laws, regulations, directives, and policies will eventually shift as well. As those pushing for the normalization of homosexuality understand all too well, any policy that meets that objective will necessarily sanction personnel who do not conform to the new expectation. In other words, there will be an automatic reversal of the prevailing military logic on the question of homosexuality. At present, the armed forces operate under policies that identify open homosexuality as incompatible with military service. With a single stroke of legislation, that policy will not only be repealed, it will be reversed. Homosexuality will be transformed from something that is officially “incompatible with military service,” to a reality that must be protected by rules and regulations about discrimination, advancement, promotion, and military culture.
What will this mean for those in the armed forces who believe, based on their sincere religious convictions, that homosexuality is a sin? Advocating or articulating such a viewpoint will be contrary to the military’s official stance and policy. Already, employees of many corporations in the civilian world complain about discrimination in promotion and career advancement if they do not, for example, agree to put a gay pride flag on their desk for Gay Pride Month. It is not that they refuse to work cooperatively with homosexual colleagues, but they cannot celebrate homosexuality itself. Just wait until this logic hits the military.
And what about military chaplains? What will they be allowed to say and teach about homosexuality? What do they do when, for example, a Christian soldier comes for counsel about his struggles with homosexual temptation? How can a chaplain wearing the uniform of the armed forces counsel that what the military says is normal and without moral significance is what the Bible nonetheless declares to be sin?
The religious liberties of millions of uniformed Americans will be put at immediate risk by the normalization of homosexuality in the military — and these are the very people who are putting their lives on the line to preserve these liberties for others.
On the Precipice of a Vast Cultural Change
The repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy represents a huge cultural shift for the nation, and one that will come with a countless array of consequences. The repeal of the policy will not mean the end of the military, but it will mean a very different military. Given the unique circumstances and commitments of military life, it will mean an inevitable change in the profiles of persons who enlist and choose to re-enlist in the armed forces. It will mean that persons committed to a biblical view of human sexuality will be far less likely to enlist in the military, and especially to enlist in the chaplaincy corps. Do Americans recognize what this means? Are they ready for a military that has been evacuated by those who believe that homosexuality is not the moral equivalent of heterosexuality? Have they considered what this means for military recruitment?
Are they really ready to support a policy change that means that only theological liberals will be welcome as chaplains?
There is no precedent for such a massive change in the life of the military — none. For the first time, groups defined by sexual identity and sexual behavior will become protected classes within the U.S. armed forces. This is not merely a possibility; if homosexuality is normalized within the military, it is an inevitability.
Christians should take stock of all this represents, and recognize what is at stake. Few changes in military policy will affect so many people, and pose such direct challenges to Christian conviction and religious liberty. The military’s normalization of homosexuality will affect our entire field of ministry and mission.
Unless something alters the political context, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is about to become history, and the U.S. military is about to be changed forever. The summer of 2010 may well turn out to be a watershed season in this nation’s life and history. Is anyone paying attention?
This article reprinted with permission from http://www.albertmohler.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment