Please login to continue
Forgot your password?
Recover it here.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up Now!

You are now logged into your account.

Sign Up for Free
Name
Email
Choose Password
Confirm Password

Menu
Posted on Aug 22, 2008 Print this Article

Homosexuals in the Military: Where Do the Candidates Stand?

The following Policy Analysis is provided for informational purposes only.  The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization.  

NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY PERSONNEL ISSUES

Homosexuals in the Military: Where Do the Candidates Stand

 ·         A draft of the 2008 Democratic National Platform, expected to be approved in Denver, advocates inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military.  Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) sports a rainbow-striped logo in the “People” section of his website celebrating Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) rights.  The Human Rights Campaign gave high marks to Obama’s answers on their 2008 Presidential Candidate Survey.

 ·        Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr advocated professed homosexuals in the military in a June 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed.  The 2008 Libertarian Platform opposes any interference in individual rights by the military services based on “sexual orientation.”  

  • Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) voted for the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military (Section 654, Title 10).  Congress passed the 1993 statute with bi-partisan, veto-proof majorities, and the federal courts have upheld it as constitutional several times, most recently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, June 2008.  In a June 24, 2008, letter, Sen. McCain confirmed his support for the 1993 law, which was supported in the Republican National Platforms of 2000 and 2004.   

Why the Law Deserves Continuing Support

      Homosexual activists and liberal groups such as the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) are pushing hard to repeal the 1993 law, which is frequently referred to as  “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  Repeal could do unprecedented harm to discipline, morale, recruiting,  and readiness in the volunteer force:

--  If Congress repeals the 1993 law (legislative moves are expected early in 2009), civilians will order and enforce a new policy: forced cohabitation with homosexuals in conditions of little or no privacy, 24/7, in all military units.  These would include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships and submarines. 

-- This would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men at all times, regardless of the impact on discipline and morale.  Stated in gender-neutral terms, in conditions of “forced intimacy,” a phrase used in current law, persons will be exposed to persons who may be sexually attracted to them.   

              -- Advocates for homosexuals in the military are trying to invoke the military’s proud history of mandating civil rights for racial minorities.  Taking the “civil rights” argument to its logical conclusion, officials will issue orders giving special, unprecedented rights to professed homosexuals, and enforce a corollary policy of “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees, for any reason.  Denial of promotions will end thousands of military careers.    

               -- To change attitudes, the military will implement “diversity training” programs designed by activists and “experts” favoring the homosexual cause.  Mandatory sessions will attempt to overcome the normal human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters ─ a quest that is inappropriate for the military and unlikely to succeed.   

                 --  Anyone who dares to complain about inappropriate actions conveying a sexual message or approach, short of physical touching and assault, will face career-killing presumptions and counter-accusations questioning their “intolerance.”  Commanders who take sides against homosexuals also could be accused of attitudes that violate the “zero tolerance” policy.  Having no recourse, thousands of people will leave or avoid the military all together.  Lower recruiting and retention rates will weaken the volunteer force. 

                 --  Various types of sexual misconduct occur because men and women are human and sexuality is a powerful force.  Some activists, however, seem to think that homosexuals are more perfect than everyone else.  Illusions aside, incidents of demoralizing misconduct are likely to increase three-fold, to include male/male and female/female issues.   

                  --  As in Britain, which capitulated to a European court order to accept gays in their military, same-sex couples will have access to family housing and other privileges.  Liberals will pressure all civilian institutions to follow the military’s lead—this time in the wrong direction.   

No one has explained how disruptive consequences such as these, none of which are necessary, would improve discipline, morale and readiness in the only military we have.  This should be the primary issue. 

Legislative Background: The Law and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” 

In 1993 then-President Bill Clinton proposed a plan to accommodate homosexuals in the military if they did not say they were homosexual. Congress considered Clinton’s concept, dubbed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” but rejected it as unworkable.  Instead, members chose to codify and confirm language nearly identical to Defense Department regulations in place since 1981.  

           --  The resulting law, Section 654, Title 10, provides fifteen findings and reasons why the armed forces are different from the civilian world, and why homosexuals are not eligible to serve.  The only “compromise” allowed the Clinton administration to drop “the question” about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms.  That question can (and should) be reinstated at any time—no new legislation required.  

            --  Clinton signed the law, but imposed inconsistent Defense Department enforcement regulations reflecting his own concept, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recognized disparities between the actual law and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Clinton’s administrative policy.   

             --  The number of discharges for homosexuality is small compared to personnel losses for other reasons, such as pregnancy or weight standard violations.  Personnel losses could be reduced to near-zero if Bill Clinton’s administrative policy were dropped and the law fully enforced.  

             The issue is not individual desires─it is discipline, morale, and the culture of the military, on which our national security depends.   

* * * * * * * *

Posted on Aug 22, 2008 Print this Article