'Gays' in military – a troop 'surge' liberals support

Liberals in Washington are very vocal in opposition to the president's planned deployment of additional troops to the Iraqi theater, but in the culture war on the home front, those same liberals are prepared to enthusiastically push for an "escalation" in troop enlistment by repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and permitting openly homosexual men and women to sign up. (Move over National Guard and Green Berets – make way for the avant-garde and Lavender Berets.)

"The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network," the "Human Rights Campaign" and a host of other powerful and extremely well-funded pro-homosexual activist groups are leading the charge. But it's the new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who's sounding the shrill bugle call.

According to the Washington Blade, a top "gay" publication, Pelosi has signed on to the homosexual lobby's top-10 "gay" wish list as a "co-sponsor for all 10 gay- and AIDS-related bills that are languishing in Congress." Of those 10 bills, the innocuously titled "Military Readiness Enhancement Act" – which would repeal "don't ask, don't tell" – is a top priority.

Other liberals are weighing in as well. On Jan. 2, the New York Times fired off a real opinion piece dud. "Second Thoughts on Gays in the Military" was penned by blast from the past John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Clinton administration. Needless to say, Shalikashvili's column sorely missed its target.

In the piece, Shalikashvili opines that "don't ask, don't tell" has outlived its usefulness and that it was only "a useful speed bump that allowed temperatures to cool for a period of time while the culture continued to evolve."

So, while admonishing us that "the debate must be conducted with sensitivity," Shalikashvili not so gingerly implies that those of us in the majority – those of us who still believe that it's ill-advised to engage in radical social experimentation within the ranks of a military immersed in the War on Terror – are a bunch of knuckle-dragging Neanderthals stuck in the primordial sludge of the "homophobic" 1990s.

Shalikashvili notes: "The concern among many in the military was that … letting people who were openly gay serve would lower morale, harm recruitment and undermine unit cohesion." Well sir, that's still the concern "among many in the military" today – most in fact – and those concerns are just as well-founded now as they were during the military's Paleolithic Clintonian era.

It's no secret that our current military leadership, as they've done throughout this liberally manufactured debate, continues to overwhelmingly oppose allowing openly homosexual men and women to enlist. And Shalikashvili fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that would support his pro-homosexual contention to the contrary (other than perhaps his own "evolving" moral compass). He offers no evidence that would indicate anything has changed or that it ever will change.

In fact, one of the scant few pieces of anecdotal evidence Shalikashvili offers up in attempt to bolster his argument has the unintended result of causing both hemispheres of your brain to abruptly and violently swap places.

While gathering support for his assertion that it's now time, and "equality" dictates that openly "gay" sailors be permitted to serve as effective members of, say, a nuclear submarine crew, Shalikashvili cheerfully informs us that he's had his opinion seconded by "an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew." He's asking for permission to eat that omelet – but already has an empty plate in front of him and egg on his face.

So, as Shalikashvili, Pelosi and other proponents of the "gays in the military" social experiment prepare to ramp up efforts to inject their San Francisco brand of moral relativism into a last sound vestige of a morally misguided and politically correct society, one can only hope that good old-fashioned common sense will prevail.

And while the 110th Congress gets revved up, and our fighting men and women face possible cutbacks in funding and other threatened roadblocks in their ability to execute the War on Terror, it would be shameful if they additionally had to brace themselves to absorb the destructive impact of leftist social experiments gone awry.

Regrettably, however, it looks like our armed services are going have to rely on their last line of defense on this one. When the "Military Readiness Enhancement Act" makes its way to the Oval Office, as it likely will in fairly short order, we can only hope that President Bush will bring us all back down to earth for a while by demonstrating once again that the veto pen is mightier than the PC sword.

Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

pnh102 wrote: "Why should they run the risk of being railroaded out of a job they can on account of what they do outside of the service?"

Because the military is a 24/7 job--there's no such thing as "outside of military service" because private behaviors can have an impact on job performance and the public's perception of the military. That's why a DUI can cost you a stripe on the job as well as a fine in court--arguments that no one was harmed notwithstanding.

For example, what if a Jew in the IDF says the Torah condemns homosexuality? Is that allowed? I'm curious.

It's certainly allowed with the obvious caveat that we can't have harassment affect overall readiness. The IDF is concerned with military readiness, not with soldiers' off-base sexual practices. If soldiers' want to express their own opinions and beliefs, that's welcome, again to the extent of affecting the integrity of the unit. When I served, I knew a lot of people I disliked -- and in some cases despised -- and I always found it easy to find a happy medium that allowed me to work alongside them while making my opinions of them clear.

Maybe I'm a Neanderthal, but I wouldn't want to be sleeping in a tent or showering with a guy who might be sexually attracted to me (not that I'm anything special).

I don't know what to say, other than that's not been an issue for us in Israel. Units work fine, and if a gay soldier has ever raped a straight soldier, I haven't heard about it.

you don't know anything about the military it is far more than just pointing a gun.

It is about integrity of command and the ability of the forces to be disciplined in the mind.

Homosexuality is only about sex. Homosxuals have no place in any military.

Soldiers and Sailors often have less space between each other than a coffin. Submariners have too little space for privacy and the last thing needed is a sexual fetishist.

Prohibity homosexuals is no different than prohibiting pedophiles or those who have sex with animals.

all those who are homosexuals who are serving are NOT serving honorably. They are lying intentionally and posing a secrity risk based on their sexual fetish.

Mark Forley is a perfect example of a homosexual who was a demonostrable liability.

Homosexuals have selected to focus their lives on how they pop their orgasms. That has no place in military service.

We don't allow other sexual fetishes to serve in the military. Homosexuals are the same as pedophiles or animal sex fetishists. The second they are discovered they must be removed.

The fact you think it is only exposure to someone with hostile intent that makes them removable only proves how big a security risk homosexuals pose. There was a reason in 1992 there were a number of sailors who were accidentally falling overboard.

You've obviously never lived on a Navy ship.

So by your assertion, everyone in the military would have a problem with this? If this is the case, why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?

pnh102 wrote: "Why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?"

You're kidding, right? Barry Goldwater's military experience is a bit outdated, and Shalikashvili is a retired general, hardly one to understand life in the proverbial trenches. Being rather generous, let's say they are both credible experts. Even so, I could list other generals and politicians who DO have a problem with gays openly serving. It proves nothing.

So by your assertion, everyone in the military would have a problem with this?

I find it interesting that if one liberal is offended or upset by a policy, that is enough for the ACLU and their "progressive" allies in the press to come screaming in to change the policy. But conservatives are just supposed to suck it up if we're offended, no matter how many we may be.

...why would people like Barry Goldwater or John Shalikashvili, who did serve in the military, not have a problem with it?

I served 24 years in the Navy. Is my opinion any less valid than theirs? I propose to you that as a former enlisted man who lived in cramped shipboard berthing areas and in shoreside barracks my opinion is more valid than any officer's.

I propose to you that as a former enlisted man who lived in cramped shipboard berthing areas and in shoreside barracks my opinion is more valid than any officer's.

I'll respect that. Under the current policy though, there probably are closeted gays and lesbians serving in such conditions and they do not engage in provocative behavior. Surely if gays and lesbians were allowed to serve openly, such behavior in that kind of environment would continue to be unacceptable because of other factors, right?

I don't understand why gays and lesbians are disallowed from serving in the military. If they are physically and mentally qualified for the job, and they can work professionally in a military environment, just like everyone else who serves, why is their sexuality an issue?

There are plenty of gay and lesbian firefighters, cops, and paramedics and there doesn't seem to be any sort of systemic problem with them doing those sorts of jobs, even in the company of straight people, so why the military exemption?

I agree. There already is a code of conduct which says: The showers are no place to have sex, it's not OK for a superior officer to demand sexual favors and so forth. If can't live by the code, if you can't separate your professional vocation from your private life, you're out.

Why should there be an additional set of rules for gays? Why should anyone care what they do off duty?

Are those soldiers who are opposed to homosexuality allowed to speak out against it, or would that be considered discrimination?

Deeply religious jews are exempt from military service in Israel. That's why they're so popular amongst (mostly secular) IDF conscripts ;).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.