In 2007 the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) surveyed presidential hopefuls on issues of concern to the “LGBT” (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender) community.  Questions on the HRC Survey covered fifteen controversial issues, including federal recognition of state-level same-sex unions, the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA), “hate crimes” (speech code) legislation, same-sex marriage and civil unions, tax, immigration, and insurance benefits for gay partners, adoption rights for same-sex couples, “comprehensive” sex education and, of course, repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The catch-phrase describes former President Bill Clinton’s expendable administrative policy to accommodate gays in the military, despite the 1993 law stating that they are not eligible to serve.   

Responses to the HRC Survey indicated that with the exception of some dissent on same-sex marriage (but not civil unions), the Democrats earned across-the-board high marks.  All issues on the HRC checklist are intensively divisive and controversial, but the campaign for professed homosexuals in the military is the most far-reaching and potentially harmful of all.  

If a given state legalizes same-sex marriage and mandates “LGBT studies” programs in the schools, voters can object, mobilize for candidates in the next election, or move elsewhere.  Even if homosexualists successfully use government power to impose their agenda on civilian institutions, our military would remain unscathed.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly shown “deference” to the military in policy matters, recognizing that the armed forces defend individual rights, but they can and be governed by different rules.  

Forced cultural change in the military would be far more radical because the institution is a prime venue for social engineering.  If Congress orders the armed forces to accommodate professed homosexuals, servicemen and women in uniform will have no recourse.  From the Joint Chiefs on down, they will have to obey orders to make the program “work.”  Strategies for “success” would include equal housing and social status for same-sex couples, and “sensitivity training” to enforce acceptance of known homosexuals in the ranks.  But the consequences of mandatory social experimentation would not stop there.  

If our most respected government organization is forced to adopt and promote a San Francisco-style “civil rights” agenda, other institutions of American life eventually would have to do the same.  Schools, marriage license bureaus, churches, and private citizens would have difficulty explaining why their concerns are more compelling than objections stated previously by the military.  

To imagine how this would work, consider the ever-popular film “Miracle on 34^th Street.”  At the end of that Christmas classic, the U.S. Post Office delivered children’s letters to Kris Kringle as Santa Claus.  With that sign of recognition by a respected federal government agency, Kris Kringle became, officially, Santa Claus.  The LGBT Left, if allowed to impose its agenda on our military, would achieve similar official legitimacy.

In a recent interview with Time, a former Navy Captain turned gay activist predicted, “I believe if we get a Democratic president we’ll get rid of the ban.”  In interviews with the gay-oriented magazine The Advocate, candidates for the Democratic nomination went even further in describing how far they would go to force all personnel in the military to accept homosexuals and to promote their cultural agenda.

Oddly enough, the Associated Press reported on January 25 that some activists still are frustrated because Democratic presidential candidates are not stressing gay issues in their campaigns.  To the extent that the LGBT Left is dissatisfied, there are two explanations.  

Radical homosexualists will not be happy with anything less than extremism in the pursuit of “equality.”  The second reason is that liberal candidates are following the example of Bill Clinton in his first presidential campaign.  In 1992 activists were aware of Clinton’s intent to lift the ban on gays in the military, but then-President George H.W. Bush helped Clinton by ignoring the issue.  

In 1993 the newly elected president advanced the gay agenda half-way by administratively imposing enforcement regulations that are inconsistent with the law.  In a June 2007 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton described the convoluted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” concept as a “transitional policy” toward full acceptance of homosexuals in the military.     

Military social issues that affect good order and discipline are matters of national security, which are essential in sustaining not one but two legs of the conservative three-legged stool.  Regardless of which candidate wins the Republican nomination, he will need the help of social and national security conservatives to get elected.  The next president must confront the LGBT Left and prevent it from threatening national security by undermining the strength of the only military we have.