Debating ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

It’s a heated debate: Should Congress go along with the request — recently made by President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that was adopted by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1993? Should men and women who are openly homosexual be allowed to serve in the U.S. military?

There are strong arguments to be made in favor of repealing the current policy, the strongest being the recommendation made by Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen. These are serious military men, and presumably they would not make such a recommendation if they feared that repealing the policy would harm the American armed forces.

That President Obama recommends a change in policy doesn’t carry as much weight as the Gates-Mullen recommendation. Obama is the nation’s chief military officer, but he is also the nation’s chief politician; it is almost certain that his recommendation is based more on a political judgment than on a military judgment. Acting as a politician — and, moreover, as a politician whose approval ratings are in trouble — he has to do something dramatic to appease his restive gay-rights supporters, as well as his restive leftwing supporters generally. Getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell” may be just the ticket.

Then there is the military’s need for the skills possessed by certain homosexual servicemen and women who have been expelled, especially language skills — for example, in Arabic and Farsi.

Thirdly, there is the argument that, as Americans, homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment with other Americans. If, when it comes to military service, people are not discriminated against because of race or religion, why should they be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation? Even if you believe that homosexual acts are sinful, we don’t require members of the military to be perfect. As long as they can do the job and work well with others, we don’t care much about their personal lives — why should homosexuality be different?

Finally, a point not often made by the pro-repeal side is that there have been great warriors in history who have been homosexual. There was Frederick the Great of Prussia, William III (William of Orange) of England, and Julius Caesar (on at least one occasion). Notwithstanding the premise of a very bad movie from a few years ago, it is doubtful that Alexander the Great was homosexual; but the Sacred Band of Thebes in the fourth century BC, an army unit made up of pairs of homosexual lovers, played a key role under Epaminondas in bringing to an end the hegemony of Sparta.

If there are weighty arguments in favor of getting rid of “dont ask, don’t tell,”of getting rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” there are also weighty arguments in favor of retaining it.

For one, while Gates and Mullen favor its repeal, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has pointed to a petition signed by more than a thousand high-ranking retired military officers calling for retention of the present policy. It makes sense to find out the real opinion of the military brass: Are Gates and Mullen representative of military opinion? Or is their pro-repeal view an aberration, perhaps influenced by their closeness to the commander in chief?

Second, the drive to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” has been advanced by the gay-rights movement and its fellow travelers of the cultural left. In other words, it has been forwarded by people promoting a morally liberal ideological agenda, not those whose primary concern is to make the military more effective. Ironically, many of the people who most strongly favor having open homosexuals in the military are the very same people who are generally unsympathetic to the military itself. They are people of the political left who typically take a semi-pacifist approach to international affairs — people who rarely encourage their sons or daughters to serve in the military.

Thirdly, what would the effect of repeal be on military recruiting? Will gays and lesbians be drawn disproportionately to the military? If so, families that are strongly patriotic and religiously or morally conservative may become far less likely to encourage their sons and daughters to enter the military. But such families are essential to armed-forces recruitment, especially in the age of an all-volunteer military.

Finally, permitting open homosexuals to serve in the military will be a great victory for the ongoing crusade to confer moral legitimacy on homosexuality — a victory that would be second in importance only to the establishment of same-sex marriage. But to the degree that moral legitimacy is conferred on homosexual behavior, traditional sexual morality is delegitimized. And since traditional sexual morality is based on orthodox Christianity, to delegitimize traditional morality is to delegitimize traditional Christianity. This won’t bother the theologically liberal, who vary little on moral issues from their secular political counterparts. But it will bother — and should bother — Evangelical Protestants and orthodox Catholics.

My own suggestion, if Congress were ever to ask me, is that the military should have a general rule that open homosexuals not be allowed to serve, with judicious exceptions made to the rule in the case of servicemen and women with particularly valuable skills. But half measures aren’t likely to satisfy either side in the debate.


David R. Carlin Jr. is a politician and sociologist who served as a Democratic majority leader of the Rhode Island Senate. His books include "Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?: How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion" and "The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America." Carlin is a current professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island at Newport.

  • Anatoly

    Someone willing to put his/her life on the line for the country shouldn’t lose their job simply for acknowledging their sexuality. There already are many homosexuals in the military and I haven’t heard of any problems with harassment or the like, plus it seems to work fine in the countries that do allow gays to serve openly in the military. If they do step over the line of sexual conduct they should be dismissed, if not they should not.

  • Stan Gwizdak

    We knew that this president would repeal the current policy. I am very surprised that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are as sanguine and and even enthusiastic as they appear to be.

    Active homosexuality is still a crime under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). As someone who has served for several years in the 70’s, late 80’s and 90’s, I am against it for both moral and practical reasons. However, I come from a different time and the Left’s inexorable, incremental march has had its effects.

    The military is not your usual modern office. Military missions require high morale and cohesion in order to be effective. Ancillary issues detract and cause a tension that may be deleterious to a mission. Many of those missions are life and death affairs.

    My other concern is that the desire to repeal the current policy is far more political than it is practical. In the midst of two wars, this will affect morale which is already tentative. Morale is one of those intangibles which becomes very tangible in the military and is absolutely essential for the successful execution of missions.

    Lastly, the Armed Forces is, perhaps, the last bastion of Honor and Duty to the Nation. Narcissism and self are actively subjugated to the mission and, ultimately, the defense of the Nation. I hate to see it become the latest poster child of the Left’s egalitarian zeal. I also see the invasion of Eric Holder’s Justice Department and their zealous lawyers prepared to conduct a pogrom and purge of Christian reactionaries who will not, repeat, not take this well.

    Many junior and senior officers – as well as NcO’s/Petty Officers will opt out leaving the military in a precarious state at one of the most critical junctures in our history.

    It’s another one of those immediately emotionally gratifying changes that the Left loves – and the consequences be damned.

    Is Obama’s placating of his Leftist Base worth it? I don’t think so.

  • Jim B

    Stan you nailed it – “Many junior and senior officers – as well as NCO’s/Petty Officers will opt out leaving the military in a precarious state at one of the most critical junctures in our history”

    If this is passed you will hear the same arguments you hear from the “gay marriage” crowd – “See the sun came up, the world didn’t end” yadda yadda. To a degree they are correct. It won’t be a cataclysmic event, just another few degrees of heat on the boiling frog.

    In the name of “tolerance” everyone from recruits to the top brass will be attending mandatory “sensitivity training” classes, another box to check off on the road to political correctness. For you see, for “progressives”, history began this morning, and it

  • DCH

    “Thirdly, there is the argument that, as Americans, homosexuals are entitled to equal treatment with other Americans.”

    And the arguments that any Americans are not entitled to equal treatment is what exactly?

  • Austin

    As a former Captain in the Marine Corps, I know a little bit about the military, and I think that while DADT was not perfect, it was a political compromise that appeared to work.
    Gays have served honorably for decades, albeit by keeping a low profile and staying in the closet. Unfair perhaps, but given the nature of the military, it may have been the only workable solution.

    The military is not your usual 8 to 5 office job, troops are often confined to close quarters in ships, submarines, barracks, etc. In the field, you are often put in situations where you have little of no privacy. In the “old Navy” of the 19th century, there was in fact quite a bit of homosexuality, and it was a problem. Fights between sailors over “boyfriends” etc. The regulations against homosexual behavior was not just a morality issue, but an issue of discipline and morale.

    Admiral Mullen is an active duty flag officer and an honorable man, but active duty flag officers are not always in a position to say what they really think due to political pressure {I have seen it firsthand]. McCain is trying to hold the line, but the big question is, will the other Republicans and “Blue Dog” Democrats join him?

    Obama has engaged in a lot of overreaching, with his Obama-Care nationalized health plan, monstrous budget defecits, etc. He may decide not to pursue this scraping of DADT due to politics, and leave it for another day. Also, Obama never served, ditto Clinton. For a President who never wore the uniform, it is difficult for him to dicatate something like this to military.
    It would be easier for say a “President Colin Powell” to push through a program where gays can serve openly, due to Powell having military credability. Obama has none, and has to tred somewhat carefully.

    My gut feel is that DADT will stand, but the military will stop aggressive enforcement of discharge of gay personnel. A perfect solution? No, but it may be the best political solution.

  • Peter Freeman

    Between headlines regarding the repeal of DADT policies and the establishment of wiccan prayer circles at Air Force facilities, I think that a job at the local Walmart is going to start looking more attractive than military service for a large proportion of potential recruits.

    Well, even if it affects recruitment, at least homosexual wizards will feel at home in the barracks.

  • Linda

    I totally agree with the man who has had some experience in the military. My husband served 20 years in the AF and two of my three sons have served 4 years each. The military is not an institution formed to promote the latest fad cause of the left. It is an institution charged with keeping our country safe. We need to give it all the tools it needs to discharge that duty. Homosexuals have served for many years in the military, and honorably. Why do they feel the need to let it all hang out and let everyone around them KNOW of their sexual identity? Is this necessary to their mission? Does it make our country stronger and more able to stand against our growing numbers of enemies? I think not. It is a naked move by those who want legitimacy for their sexual choices and this has NOT ONE THING to do with keeping our country safe. God Bless our troops. Our country is in real trouble when we spend time on such nonsense instead of looking for ways to keep our country free and safe.

  • Gary Keith Chesterton

    Admiral Mullen is a Catholic; I’ve seen him at Mass here at the Pentagon chapel from time to time.

  • Michael

    Fear a military that is commanded by homosexuals. Its leadership will not feel any organic kinship with the American people it will be their expected duty to protect. It could therefore be much more easily turned against the American people and since homosexuals have a deserved reputation for cruelty and mercilessness its utilization could have much more vicious results than otherwise possible. How is that for a politically incorrect thought? You don’t believe anyone could ever think along such lines? The leadership of the SA, Hitler’s personal shock troops who helped his rise to power, was homosexual.

  • Kate Wicker

    Let’s look at this through a secular lens, setting moral issues aside. Women are not allowed in the frontlines of combat for various reasons one being that men have an innate desire to protect women. Others would argue a man could fall in love with a woman and make decisions based on protecting her rather than the mission (we’re not all Jack Bauers, and even he’s been getting emotional lately). So here’s my argument: What if two gay men who have fallen in love are fighting together? Would this put the mission in harm’s way? Romantic love is often more powerful than the love for a comrade. I haven’t heard this argument from the high-ranking military officials, but I wonder if this comes into play.

  • Austin

    Michael, there are two problems with your “thesis” in your post:

    1. I have not heard that homosexuals are any more “cruel” than anyone else, perverted perhaps, but cruel, as in Attila the Hun, I don’t think so.

    2. The Nazi SA was led by Ernst Rohm, who was gay, but he was killed along with much of the SA leadership in 1934, the year after Hitler attained power, by Himmler and the SS, who supplanted the SA as the “enforcement arm” of the Nazi Party. The SA certainly helped Hitler attain power, but insofar as consolidating power, they were not the factor that the SS became. Himmler was not gay. Yes, there were gay Nazis, but most of them were straight, thus I don’t think we can blame the gays for the Nazis.

  • Mark

    Gates and Mullens should stick to combat issues.
    I served as an enlisted man in the military. There were
    problems with other people who were homosexuals. They
    could not, among other issues, keep to themselves.
    In the military, as elsewhere, sexual misconduct is not
    welcome: not heterosexual or homosexual, whether it is
    consensual or forced. Do Gates or Mullens, or the other
    jackals in politics, serve long times in combat or in close
    quarters with other sexually aggressive people? Do they
    really realize what in the hell they are doing? Would
    you serve, or would you like a loved one to serve with
    such people, maybe get used to being around them? Obama
    and Mullens and Gates don’t have to worry about that. They
    will let you worry about it though.
    Make the picture a little bigger….the Air Force Academy
    is also setting up a sort of chapel for Wiccans. Is there
    something wrong with this whole picture?

  • Rich

    Obama is NOT pushing this through. He asked that congress repeal it. Obama could make an executive order I think, and that woudl be pushing it through, but that would not necessarily have the same effect as giving this time to be discussed and aired out among those in the military who will be directly affected.

    You said above that it would be unfair for gays to stay in the closet. I agree. I think it would be much better for people to be able to state truths about who they are, rather than have to pretend or, even lie.

    As Mullen said, its about integrity.

  • Christine

    I think what many people don’t like to talk about is one of male hard-wiring. Please hang on with me here guys, okay?

    Throughout the animal kingdom, after fights and acts of aggression, you will find the male of the species tends to get sexually aroused. Why aggression and sex are related in the male mind is unknown to me, but we are foolish if we don’t acknowledge its relationship.

    The human being is blessed by God with the soul and the ability to judge right from wrong. This judgment allows a man to see through the cloud of hormones that are rushing so that he may control his actions regarding both aggression and sexuality.

    Notice that in war (it’s even in the Bible – and its description always curled my toes) rape plays a very unfortunate and destructive part.

    I don’t know about military training regarding the suppression of sexual urges in relationship to acts of aggression (war, war games, etc.) but from my limited experience (I have a childhood friend who was a Marine) it seems to me that getting sexual after acts of aggression was encouraged by the higher ups (not rape, however, Thank God).

    My friend would talk about how during training the trainers would talk about sex and encourage them to have sex when they left the base. These comments would make me sad. Over time, I saw a change in him and his Marine-friends. The way they spoke about “females” and sex was deplorable. I don’t know if my friend was exaggerating regarding the sex banter during training, but I also had my fair share of creeps come up to me at college parties (back in the day) and the things they would say to me (cads) would support my friend’s comments regarding his military training. The non-military guys would never be as crass as those who were in the military.

    I think that this is also the reason we see so many pregnancies in the military. Men and women are thrown together in close quarters during traumatic events, which play on both male and female drives for sex (women are hard wired to have sex for security and belonging). Added with the encouragement of off-duty sex, you have a volatile concoction.

    How wouldn’t the gay activists not hitch their wagon to this (sexual) star? They get more political clout by taking advantages of a human weakness and a poor unwritten policy of heightened sexuality in the military.

    I don’t think the problem lies with homosexuality in this case. I think it has to do with combat training that is not combined with the values of chivalry and human dignity.

  • Herman

    1050 generals and admirals are opposed to repealing this policy. And why do you think that is? Ideally a soldier ought to be a man of high moral integrity. He ought to be chivalrous and keep to a high code of conduct. I think they still teach that in the military. Active homosexuals are incapable of this. Are we forgetting, or just ignoring, what degenerate things these people do to each other behind closed doors, and publicly, too, nowadays, what with their satanic parades,and cruising city parks? Are we leaving God totally out of the equation? If we do, we are doomed.

  • georgie-ann

    whatever else one might say, much of this Political Un-Correctness is actually refreshing!,…

  • Kevin J Jones

    The lesson of Rohm and the SA is that gays are used by politically cynical manipulators to boost their power and to eliminate their enemies, but they can be discarded very quickly.

    There have probably been problems with blackmailing homosexuals in the military in the past. Mainstreaming homosexuality doesn’t end blackmail, but shifts it elsewhere. The military will become more “politically correct.” Bureaucrats will be as afraid to challenge militant homosexuals as they were to challenge the militant Islam of the Ft. Hood shooter.

    And the blackmailers will then target those with traditional morals.

  • Christine

    My issue is with what I perceive to be a wholesale, albeit unwritten approval and encouragement of sexual activity within the military.

    Over the years we have witnessed cases of sexual harassment, pregnancies and now active homosexuality within the military branch. My limited experience combined with the news over the past 30 years regarding sex in the military would reinforce my suspicions.

    I think that don’t ask don’t tell is a good policy. People should not go to work to have sex (except sex workers). The military should work harder to reinforce and strengthen committed relationships outside of work and work with Sergeants and other trainers to reinforce chivalry and human dignity. No sex while on the job or at the work place – NO EXCEPTIONS.

    This way you wouldn’t have to worry about sinful behavior, whether it is homosexuality, adultery or fornication.

  • Frank

    I do not think we (especially not the US military) should be in the business of enabling immoral/corrupt behavior. Our armed forces are challenged enough; we should not ask the military to participate in social experimentation.

  • Blake

    Here’s my perspective on this.

    First, a little about me. I’m an active duty Navy officer. I attended Naval ROTC and am now on the medical side of things for the Navy. I’m also straight, Catholic, pro-traditional marriage, and politically conservative.

    Hearing the news, you would think that everyone that is getting kicked out of the military for DADT is Farsi or Arabic speaking or fulfills some other indispensable role in our Armed Forces; this is simply not true.

    I think I have a pretty unique perspective on this. From the medical side, homosexuality and the current policy presents a thorny situation. While striving to provide the best medical care that we can, we sometimes find yourself dancing around certain issues that are medically relevant but are not legally allowed to be discussed. I found myself rotating through an infectious disease clinic and saw numerous active duty patients in clinic who were HIV positive. Many, if not most, of the men with HIV who I saw in clinic were homosexual. Still, we are forced to deal in vague generalities about risks, prevention, and “partners.” I don’t think this fosters the best doctor-patient relationship regardless of the military’s position on the issue. We often are told not to chart about these things because they can haunt the service members later on. Similarly, I’ve been told in discussions with military mental health officials, that this posses a barrier in providing the best care possible. Indeed, for some service members, keeping their sexuality a secret is a great source of mental anguish.

    I also see a policy that is selectively enforced. During one of my NROTC summer cruises, I remember hearing how one service member (who was openly gay) was being released from his commitment early because he made his orientation known though he was being separated honorably because the commander didn’t want the maelstrom that would ensue from pursuing a DADT separation. I know a few AD service members that are gay or lesbian and I know commands know about some of them and chose to do nothing. It is a selectively enforced rule that causes people to lurk in the shadows at times. Further, much money is invested in the training of these individuals (it costs something in the order of six-figures to train each new active duty service member).

    At least in the Navy/Marine Corps, there are already rules in place (via the Uniformed Code of Military Justice or UCMJ) regarding fraternization. People within commands are limited in who they can date and how they can interact in and out of the workplace. Similarly, there are sexual harassment laws in place that would (and do) apply to homosexual service members. I think these rules could be strictly enforced – which would alleviate much of the concern.

    Then comes the issue of the broader law. It seems appropriate to invoke the equal protection clause of the constitution here. I don’t see how any federal employee should be let go because of legal sexual behavior. People can argue whether homosexuality is immoral (I think it is), but that is irrelevant. So is divorce, excessive substance use, speeding, looking at pornography etc but people in the military (indeed many Catholics) do these things. Why do we spend so much time focusing on marginalizing certain sinners? We are all sinners. Again, one does not have to be accepting of other people’s behavior to treat them first as human beings (ie loved sinners). Many of the policies (and society’s attitudes) regarding homosexuality stem from a time when it was considered a mental disease (and not too long ago was considered a crime, as well).

    Many unanswered questions remain. Will recruitment hurt if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve? Will there be a mass exodus of more traditional, conservative people from the ranks (and will there be a subsequent deluge of liberals and/or homosexuals to fill in the ranks?) – doubtful to both, I think. Furthermore, will the military be required to provide partner benefits? These all need to be addressed and I believe they will as this policy will not be changed tomorrow.

    I think this issue can be addressed completely independent of the issues of homosexual marriage, adoption, etc (all things I oppose) nor do I think allowing homosexuals to openly serve will lead down some slippery slope to homosexual marriage. I agree that military service is an honorable profession but I don’t think engaging in homosexual behavior means you can’t serve honorably. I am of the mindset, like Gen Powell (ret), Adm Mullins, Secretary Gates, etc that this policy change is long overdue. I like the Barry Goldwater quote (as overused as it is) and I’ll end with it: “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

  • Bruce in Kansas

    ..and Catholics who support this are also ignoring the teachings of the Church.

    Our sin does not name us. We are not identified by our sin. One is not a thief, a drunk, or a homosexual; each is a human person who struggles with stealing, drinking to excess, or same sex attraction.

    I fornicated as a young man. I repented, and I do not fornicate now. It would be wrong to think of me as a fornicator.

    Unlike people who struggle with other sinful behaviors, many people with same-sex attraction insist that they ARE their sexual behavior; that their sexual behavior defines them. This is wrong.

  • Anne

    It seems everything Obama does is an attempt to undermine the United States. Now he’s after the military. What a surprise that President Barack Hussein Obama would want to undermine this fine institution and our judicial system and our economy and our morality (or what’s left of it) and our history and our…

    Wake up America and pray like you’ve never prayed before.[/b]

  • Richard

    As a former enlisted man in the US Army I can tell you that without a doubt there will be huge problems with open homosexuals serving in the military. First of all, barracks and showers are shared by male personnel, this will cause immediate problems between the men, and don’t give me nonsense about how gay soldiers will have to control themselves, if that’s the case let’s have the men and woman bunk and shower with each other and order them to keep out of each others arms. Another problem would be superiors who were homosexuals taking advantage of lower ranking men. Anyone who believes this won’t take place is beyond naive. Morale will be ruined and experienced soldiers will choose not to reenlist. And we would completely lose the grace of God with an immoral military.

  • Austin

    Blake, you seem to know what you are talking about. Thank you for your service to your country. While DADT has its problems, it did seem to be a workable, political compromise, which is what we so often end up with. the mission of the military is to defend our nation, it is not a laboratory for social engineering. That being said, the military, while not tolerating open homosexual behavior, should not conduct witch hunts and should treat all of its members with respect and dignity. I will leave the morality of this issue to others, as my primary concern is that the military be allowed to accomplish its primary mission, i.e. the defense of our nation in the most efficient manner.

    All that being said, I would keep DADT, but ease up on going after people, unless they become a problem to the “good order and discipline” of the unit.

  • Jen

    For starters, let’s not call Obama the top Military officer in the U.S. He may wear the title Commander-in-Chief by virtue of being the President, but he is no officer and he knows nothing at all about the military.

    Repealing DADT has many consequences not being talked about very much. Such as, will gay couples in the military be granted housing like married couples? Will military chaplains be required to perform gay “marriages?” Will the military be required to extend benefits to the partners of gay members or be required to consider them dependents?

    Once this door is opened, there is no going back and the ramifications will be staggering and destructive. This is simply a convenient weapon for the ultra-liberal, homosexual-rights crowd to use against Christians.

    May God help and protect us.

  • Frank

    I do not think we should accept the proposition that DADT is the desired policy, it’s not. Homosexuals should not be considered eligible to serve in the in the US military. The very nature of military serve is incompatible with homosexual behavior. This was the policy of the armed forces for two centuries. I suggest we re-frame the discussion.

  • Stephen M. O’Brien

    Professor David R. Carlin should be commended for the calm, Catholic way in which he approaches the possibly imminent repeal of the military

  • Damien

    As a former Air Force officer who has traveled and deployed, I come from a combat arms angle. I hadn

  • Sam

    I have many homosexual friends who say they don’t want the ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ policiy repealed,fearing it will open the door to radical left gays to pressure the military to perform gay marriages…another concern is whether or not there will be separate facilities for gays…just as there are for men and women…showers and barracks? Imagine if a man who is sexually attracted to other men becomes sexually aroused while showering with other men…there are concerns about this because this has already happened and has led to violence…so, let this be carefully thought out before changing the policy….

  • Thomas C. Coleman, Jr.

    You are right, Mr. Chesterton. ADM Mullen is a Catholic. He is also very politically correct person. When he spoke here recently he called Islam a “great religion.” I wanted to ask him if the thought that Mwxism was a great philosophy since since more that a billion people still live under Communism. I have read the Koran (I’not obliged to call it holy), and I can tell you that it is not religion of peace or tolerance. Yes, Muslims believe in one God, but they believe that we Christians are going to Hell because the Koran says that belief Trinity es polytheism and that calling Our Savior is the Son of God is blasphemy. “It unbecoming of God to beget children.” Islam has brought oppression and tyranny wherever it takes over, and no amount of kowtowing by the President or Chairman Mullen will soften the hearts of radical Muslims. If he believed what he said he is too ignorant to hold the job he does, and if he doesn’t believe it he is too disengenuous and cynical. As for the poor homosexuals, How CAN Mullen believe that flooding the ranks of our great military with people who suffer from a severe pathology will not put our nation at risk?

  • Thomas C. Coleman, Jr.
  • Dan

    The military refuses to allow men and women to live together. Reason? Each group is oriented toward the other. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize this would be bad for the military. Why then allow those who are orientated toward their own sex to live with others of that sex. There is a disconnect here. Reason is rejected for the sake of satisfying the requirements of doctrinaire political correctness. Military readiness suffers in order that we have a level playing field for everyone. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are now deemed equal. Homosexual activists can demand gay pride days, gay books and films are to be available, children in schools on base must be taught from gay-oriented materials, etc.
    Now that gays are free to tell everyone what they are many will be less inhibited in their actions. A study of the gay lifestyle would show that it is driven by lust to such an extent that it is rare that two gays can commit themselves to each other for any length of time. Less than two percent stay together for ten years or more and these relationships are marred by infidelity. Sex is the major force in the gay lifestyle. (Witness the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco.)It is only among gays that we find an organization devoted to having sex with children (NAMBLA). Much more could be said but the picture is clear – doing away with DADT is a politically correct decision which will do harm to our armed forces.

  • RK

    I can’t help but think that this issue is a distraction from the more important questions about our involvement in spurious conflicts abroad. By making the question of gays in the military the issue, the administration preempts any of the valid objections about American foreign policy. Once we start debating “don’t ask, don’t tell” we’ve implicitly granted our assent to whatever intreventionist wars our government chooses to participate in.

  • Stephen M. O’Brien

    I can’t help but think that this issue is a distraction from the more important questions about our involvement in spurious conflicts abroad. By making the question of gays in the military the issue, the administration preempts any of the valid objections about American foreign policy. Once we start debating “don’t ask, don’t tell” we’ve implicitly granted our assent to whatever interventionist wars our government chooses to participate in.

    RK has made a point worth contemplating. Even though I wish to see the

  • Stephen M. O’Brien

    On June 1, 2010, Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, issued a statement opposing repeal of the