Openly homosexual troops would destroy the military: Mass resignations if gay activists meet goals

Concord Monitor ^ | April 16, 2009 | Jerome Lindsay

[DesertRenegade]

With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the "don't ask, don't tell" regulations issued by President Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a "specialized society" that is "fundamentally different from civilian life." It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands "extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense." The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often "characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy."

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not re-enlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people - more than the total of today's active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates "nondiscrimination" against "homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived." Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

We don't need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. "Zero tolerance" of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations.

There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America's armed forces are models for our allies' militaries and the envy of our adversaries - not the other way around.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America's elected leaders: "We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force."

Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.

[Albion Wilde]

I served 12 years in the US Navy and over the years I have met many gay males, all of them are constantly thinking about sex and nothing else.

[FTL]

So, who wants to attend a unit function or a military ball and your Sergeant Major has brought his man-wife, a commander from another unit, wearing a dress, makeup and high heels etc.

How about a Platoon leader who insists he’s a woman and he wears the female uniform and swishes around breaking the morale and confidence of the warriors.

THIS is what the Democrats are hell bent on doing to our military. One can only hope that the military finally has enough and does what should be done and enacts a mighty purge of the scourge that besets this great land.

[Steel Bill]

Actually this was before the Dont ask , dont tell policy. My son who just returned from Iraq, said there were a few problems over there but they did not have the issue of rank mixed in. For me the issue is about unit cohesiveness and the focus that is required to stay alive when you know what hits the fan. Like all manly men the thought of the behavior has a big time yuck factor involved but that is human nature. My personal belief is that the male,female relationship, with its ultimate expression being marriage should be the only relationship that our society and government support. If someone wants to partake in sexual relations that I and most of the worlds population consider to be adverse to human nature, then they should keep it to themselves as the majority of the world does.

[Albion Wilde]

... before the Clinton administration ordered a change in the way the data was presented in 1997 the FBI crime report for that year showed that in the cases of child abductions under the age of 12 not done by relatives of the child, 98% of those were done by homosexual males....

I was going through some old threads today, and this comment of yours caught my attention. Could you give me any more info about the Clinton Admin changing the the way data were presented? Something I could go on to research that point? Thank you so much.