First proof:
The question only applies to women and children.
Upon reaching age 17, all males are required by law to sign up for military service (aka “selective service”), at which point the government exercises it’s legitimate power to organize the military as it sees fit (to wit: you do as you’re told; you don’t get to demand what job you’ll do when), which in turn renders the “right to military service” question moot. All of-age males ARE serving, most of which under the orders “go about your business, we’ll call you when we need you.”
That leaves women and children.
That children do not have the right to serve in the military should be plain.
That leaves women. To paraphrase Lazarus Long (quote eludes me): “any society which does not put women and children first is doomed.” Google will supply plenty of material on that notion and its relevance here.
Alternate proof:
The Second Amendment guarantees all citizens the right to bear arms for (among others) military purposes, and the First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. Should the government neglect its obligation to organize the militia, you have the inalienable right to acquire suitable military arms and organize with your fellow citizens to fill that void.
Upshot:
Yes you have the right to engage in military service.
The government, however, has the power to assign your service.
You do not have the unrestrained right to serve as you see fit.
Summary for the anti-DADT crowd:
Get an AR15 and start practicing. If you’re not going to go that far on your own initiative and dime, shut up.
The military is a lot more picky than they used to be...
One son tried to join the army;
they turned him down; he couldn’t pass the written tests.
My daughter in law tried to join the air force;
they turned her down for a small neck tattoo that would be visible above her uniform
(her name spelled in ancient Irish runes).
Another son tried to join the air force;
they turned him down for rather large tattoo on his leg
(a WWII Liberty Ship honoring his grandfather’s service in the merchant marines).
They may not be perfect, but they sure as hell ain’t faggots.
No, it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. As such, one serves or not in accordance with the needs of the service.
Back in the day {I did a tour in Recruiting between stints in Korea and Viet Nam], you had a civic DUTY to serve, if qualified. But you had no RIGHT to serve. Over 6’6”? Forget it [So much for Darth Vader]. Less than 4’ 11 [or was it 4’9”?] - ditto. Really bad acne, no go. Obscene tattoos, the same. If you scored mental category 4 on your tests, you could be drafted, but only enlisted in a 1 to 4 ratio with Cat 1s, 2s, and 3s.
Back in the day {I did a tour in Recruiting between stints in Korea and Viet Nam], you had a civic DUTY to serve, if qualified. But you had no RIGHT to serve. Over 6’6”? Forget it [So much for Darth Vader]. Less than 4’ 11 [or was it 4’9”?] - ditto. Really bad acne, no go. Obscene tattoos, the same. If you scored mental category 4 on your tests, you could be drafted, but only enlisted in a 1 to 4 ratio with Cat 1s, 2s, and 3s.
More to the point, since miltary service is government employment, when will they be “given” their Penumbrally Emminating Right to collectively bargain, and join SEIU?
Where do you find a Constitutional right to serve in the military?