On August 10 the Center for Military Readiness and other leaders of the Military Culture Coalition (MCC), a network of influential groups and individuals that CMR organized in February, announced the results of a comprehensive nationwide poll of 1,000 likely voters that could change the game on the issue of gays in the military.

Unlike other surveys of civilians, the professionally designed and executed MCC Survey sought opinions on the actual law, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and asked likely voters about specific recommendations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) advocates that are extremely controversial but rarely discussed.  The survey also gauged public opinion on the issue of abortions in military hospitals, and the possible political consequences for members of Congress who vote for both controversial issues by approving the pending 2011 National Defense Authorization (not appropriations) bill.

This is a one-page summary of the MCC Survey’s major findings:

• Americans Prefer Retention of Gays-in-the-Military Law

• The full MCC Survey Report and TOPLINE DATA are posted on the new website, www.militaryculturecoalition.com. 

We are indebted to friends at WMTek.Inc, who volunteered professional expertise and generous time to construct the Military Culture Coalition website.  Please take a moment to browse the site—starting with the ABOUT section that provides a list of organization leaders and influential people who have personally signed the MCC Statement in support of the 1993 law.  We are honored that so many distinguished leaders have joined the 1,167 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military who signed a similar statement last year.

The comprehensive ISSUES section includes dozens of recent articles and analyses from our friends at the Family Research Center, the Alliance Defense Fund, and other organizations that have been working with CMR and the MCC for many months.  This section also includes excerpts from my book chapter “Defending the Culture of the Military,” which the Air  Force University Press published in May in a book titled  Attitudes Are Not Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the U.S. Armed Forces, sorted by topic. 

The MCC Survey indicates that we are on solid ground and legislators should feel free to do the right thing on behalf of our troops.  I hope that you will use the abundant information available on the MCC website when calling, writing, or talking with your member of Congress and U.S. Senators during the August break. 

Thank you for your help in defending the 1993 law and our men and women who volunteer to serve.  They should not have to pay the price for presidential politics and campaign promises to the LGBT Left.

Elaine

* * * * * * *

A.  Congressional Situation

Just before the August recess, Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) blocked an attempt by SASC Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-IL) to require a vote on the defense authorization bill, which contains legislation to repeal the 1993 law.  The Family Research Council’s  “The Cloakroom” page posted this video of Sen. John McCain successfully debating Sen. Levin:

• Sen. McCain Blocks First Attempt to File Cloture on Bill Turning Military Into Social Experiment

LGBT activist rights groups are pressuring Congress to take up the bill quickly—before the Pentagon’s review and survey of the troops are complete.  The main reason is political—they want legislative action before the mid-term elections, while Democrats still have majorities.  This is an irresponsible way to make policy affecting our military men and women, who deserve better.  Sen. McCain will need 41 votes to continue blocking efforts by Senators Harry Reid and Carl Levin to bring the defense policy (not appropriations) bill to the floor.  Information on how to reach your state’s U.S. senators during the August recess is here:

• Senators of the 111^th Congress

B.  DoD Attempts to “Engage” Some of the Troops

1.)  On August 15 the Defense Department concluded their massive survey of 400,000 military personnel, which did not meet the expectations of Congress for several reasons.  Most importantly, the survey did not ask the key question, “Do you favor retention or repeal of the law?”  Nor did it ask about the recommendations of gay activist groups promoting repeal of the 1993 law, such as mandatory training and education to ensure acceptance of the LGBT agenda, and career penalties to enforce “zero tolerance” against anyone who disagrees. 

Still, as I wrote in this article, the vehement attacks from the gay activist groups who didn’t want the Pentagon to “engage the force” at all have been stridently ridiculous:

• Big Peace:  Pentagon Survey Catches a Tiger by the Tail 

The Pentagon has signaled that it has already has taken sides and is not interested in hearing from personnel who support the current law.  It is not surprising, therefore, that Stars & Stripes reported that only 27% of the 400,000 troops receiving surveys via email have answered them.

2.)  This article describes the Pentagon’s quest for opinions from active-duty troops meeting in focus groups around the country.  Once again, Secretary Gates’ “Comprehensive Review Working Group” (CRWG) is showing a peculiar obsession with polling homosexuals who are not even eligible to be in the military:

• Stars & Stripes:  DADT Working Group Hosting Forums at Overseas Bases 

CMR has heard from several sources that the focus groups are not going well for advocates of repeal.  However, since the opinions of people who support the current law are not being sought or recorded, the results of these meetings will be whatever the DoD interprets them to be.  This comment, which followed the Stars & Stripes article, surely represents the views of thousands of active duty service members:

“Why exhaust scarce US tax dollars pretending and going through an elaborately orchestrated public motion cajoling the force?  [It is] actually rather insulting to solicit feedback from war weary troops in the field implying that our obviously derisory viewpoints on a major DoD organizational culture change could somehow count for something.  Marching in step to an unpopular party line is a military tradition, but being exploited so publicly to contribute so little to a final perfunctory PR ploy in this predetermined grand political pomp is a new low in US government politics.”

- Written by Spartacus Sam, 4 August 2010 17:17

Bob Maginnis has compared the DoD and MCC Surveys in an excellent article:

• Human Events: Pentagon Should Heed Polls on Gays in the Military

3.)  Now comes the Pentagon’s third effort, a survey of military family members being sent out this week. 

• Politico: Pentagon Surveys Military Families

Again, the LGBT activist groups are furious that the survey is even taking place, even though it omits many questions that the DoD should have asked.  For example, the survey asks about social events with same-sex couples, but not about “Diversity Day” events to celebrate lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders in the military.  The DoD survey question inquiring about the distribution of printed materials about homosexuality is less than serious.  But family members should have been asked about recommendations for mandatory LGBT instruction in military educations and training programs, and in DoD schools and child care centers run by the Department of Defense—the largest such systems in the world.   

The DoD survey of military families does not ask about “zero tolerance” policies that could end their spouse’s career; nor about retroactive admittance and promotions of homosexual personnel.   It asks about the number of times the spouse was deployed, but does not ask about the type of military unit or community he or she is in; i.e., infantry, Special Ops, submarines, combat service support, etc.  The connection between repeal and “family readiness” is very tenuous.  The DoD may be looking for narrow responses that will allow them to claim family members see “no problem.” 

As for opinions about controversial, problematic proposals that activist groups have recommended to implement repeal─we won’t get answers because the Pentagon did not ask. 

C.  Defining Discipline Down – Part Two – The Fehrenbach Case

The campaign for gays in the military has renewed its focus on Lt. Col.Victor Fehrenbach, an Air Force weapons systems officer whose discharge from the military has been pending for more than a year.  As I wrote in this article, Fehrenbach got himself in trouble when he went to a gay website to solicit a male partner for consensual sex in his home.  The guest shared a hot tub with Fehrenbach, but later charged the officer with sexual assault.  According to the local newspaper Idaho Statesman, Fehrenbach beat the rap by proving that the hot tub encounter was consensual, but his admission triggered discharge proceedings. 

Under the 1993 law, Fehrenbach is not eligible for military service.  Nevertheless, the gay activist Michael D. Palm Center, citing a rogue procedural ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that former Solicitor General Elena Kagan should have challenged with a petition to the Supreme Court, could result in the reinstatement of Fehrenbach.   

• New York Times: Officer Sues to Block His Discharge Under Gay Ban
  

• Washington Post: Air Force Officer Fights Discharge Under Military DADT Rule

Fehrenbach’s story of what military rules describe as “conduct unbecoming” an officer highlights a key question in the controversy about repeal of the 1993 law.  Should rules of personal misconduct in the military apply at all times—or only when on duty?  A male officer soliciting women for sex on Craigslist would be subject to discipline and career penalties.  By demanding a special standard for Fehrenbach, advocates of repeal are demonstrating how their agenda would lower standards for all and define military discipline down.

D.  Organization Activities:

1.)  On June 20 the Family Research Council hosted an hour-long webcast titled Mission Compromised, which was hosted by FRC President Tony Perkins and included experts from several organizations that support the current law and oppose repeal.  FRC extended the reach of the webcast by posting short video segments like this one on various aspects of the issue: 

• FRC Webcast Video, Frank Gaffney and Elaine Donnelly

In the same webcast, Cathy Ruse, Senior Fellow, Legal Studies, and Jeanne Monahan, Director, Center for Human Dignity, both of the Family Research Council, discuss legislation to authorize abortions in military hospitals, which is incorporated in the Defense Authorization Bill:

• FRC Webcast Video, June 20, 2010

• Christian Medical Association: Over 200 Military Physicians Protest Amendment to Use Military Facilities for Abortions

2.)  Many thanks to Liberty Central, headed by Virginia Thomas, which has included the May 27 House vote on legislation to repeal the 1993 law on their list of votes used for purposes of scoring incumbents.  Liberty Central has been making waves on a wide variety of issues of concern to Americans everywhere.  Scorecards on the issue of gays in the military (DADT) in the 111^th Congress are posted for both the House and the Senate.

3.)  The Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken a leading role in raising issues of religious freedom in the military, has taken on the case of a 24 year-old Augusta State University counseling student who has been faced with the same type of intolerance that chaplains in the military could face if the 1993 law is repealed:

• Washington Times:  Lawsuit Claims School Bias on Christian Views

• Daily Caller:  Augusta State University to Student – Accept Homosexuality or Leave School

E.  News of Note:

• Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times: “Survey Counters Backing of Gays in Military”
  

• New York Times: Pleas by Conscientious Objectors Evolve

• WorldNet Daily:  America Says Obama Playing Politics with Soldiers

• CNS News: Most Democrats Favor Punishing Soldiers Who Oppose Homosexuality, Survey Finds

• OneNewsNow: “Survey Shows Support for Maintaining Military Ban”

• Military.com: New Poll Finds Most Oppose DADT Repeal
  

• RUSE: Mainstreaming Abortion On-Base

F.  Commentaries of Note:

• Frank Gaffney: The “Bring Back the Draft” Act

• Daniel Blomberg – Daily Caller: Mounting Religious Liberty Concerns in DADT Attack Grow With New Revelations From Active-Duty Chaplains
  

• CMR SITREP: Libertarians Should Leave the Military Alone

• CMR SITREP: Gay Activist Groups “Protest Too Much”

• Jane Chastain, WorldNetDaily: Our Military Needs Your Help Now

G.  Support for the Peace Through Strength Platform

CMR was pleased to be on the ground floor of a project that is likely to influence public discussion of defense issues for years to come.

• Jim Pinkerton, Fox News – “If We Want Peace, We Must Prepare for War…Now”

Excerpt: 

“In 1987, Reagan spoke in front of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, standing in the shadow of Soviet concrete and barbed wire, declaring, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” And two years later, that’s what happened. Two years after that, the Soviet Union itself collapsed.

Peace through strength works. It requires patience and fortitude, but peace is better than war, and strength is better than weakness. 

“Today, one of the great leaders of the Reagan-era, Edwin Meese III, who loyally served Reagan for more than two decades--in California as a gubernatorial aide, then in Washington as White House Counselor and as Attorney General--is now spearheading an effort to revive those powerful Reaganite words: “peace through strength.  Meese is the lead signatory on the Peace Through Strength Platform, along with many others, including such Reagan defense officials as Frank Gaffney, of the Center for Security Policy, and Elaine Donnelly, of the Center for Military Readiness. Even more encouragingly, a growing number of incumbent politicians and political candidates, too, have signed on to the Peace Through Strength Platform.