Gays in the military--the next battlefront

By Wes Vernon

First off, this is a column about national security — period.

It is not about homosexuality per se. I don't want to know about whatever lawful activity two civilians — in a civilian setting — conduct behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

At the same time, the lives of millions of Americans depend on a strong dedicated cohesive well-disciplined military, and that is everyone's business.

That is what this column is about — enabling those brave Americans sent into harm's way to do their job — protecting your security and mine. Our lives could very well depend on it.

Sabotaging our defenses

There is an effort underway to ease the path for open homosexuals to join the military. The gay lobby defines that as a "civil right." Anyone who has experienced the close quarters in which armed services personnel necessarily operate understands the sheer lack of common sense attached to this other-planet crusade.

The effort to integrate homosexuals into military service is being waged in the expectation that, with the current political cycle favoring increased liberal domination of Congress and the White House next year, the time will be right to make a final shove toward the ultimate goal.

The 1993 law

In a scholarly article prepared for Duke University, Elaine Donnelly — president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) — cites the plain English language of the current law, which states, "there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces." It is often seen as a duty or as a privilege — but never a "right."

The law, writes Mrs. Donnelly, affirms that military life is fundamentally different from civilian life. Further, military society — she notes — "is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society."

You wouldn't know it to hear the media describe the law, but here is the actual wording, just as straightforward as you could possibly expect: "[t]he prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service [Italics added]."

Or in Elaine Donnelly's words, "A common thread in the debates about social policy in the military center on the institution's unique character, culture, and mission. The armed services exist to defend the republic — a purpose that sets it apart from all other institutions in the civilian world."

What the law is not

In reading the above passages in the statute, it would be difficult to imagine anyone in a non-Orwellian world calling the measure a "Don't ask-Don't tell" law. Nonetheless, the media, in search of shorthand and catchy headlines, have — from the law's very inception — distorted the political discourse by calling it "Don't ask-Don't tell."

So how did that happen?

When Bill Clinton entered the White House in January of 1993, he immediately plunged headfirst into this sensitive thicket. He tried to reverse the policy of not allowing gays in the military.

Congress said (in so many words and deeds): not so fast — we need to study this. There were hearings in the House and Senate. Congress then rejected the Clinton proposal to allow gays in the military as long as they did not say they were gay. In fact, they actually wrote into the law what up until that time had been a Pentagon regulation — i.e., that "homosexuals are not eligible for military service." However, as recounted in an e-mail to this column by CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears, Congress did make one concession, in that henceforth the Pentagon would be allowed to stop questioning entering servicemembers as to whether they were homosexual.

President Clinton saw that as the loophole he needed to adopt the concept as an administrative policy. This is policy by the "wink-wink" syndrome, basically dishonest. And President Bush has just ignored it and let it stand. One can imagine the chaos that would ensue if every law was burdened by that kind of two-faced message.

Nonetheless, at the end of the day, the law (again) plainly says homosexuals are not eligible for military service. That is the law on the books — regardless of whatever subterfuge is used to circumvent it.

Enter the "Ninth Circus"

On May 21, the politicians in black robes who sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco, where else?) reinstated a lower court ruling that challenged the law of gay ineligibility for military service.

Said CMR's Donnelly, "Once again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has proven that federal judges are not competent to run the military." The Ninth Circuit (the most frequently overruled U.S. Court of Appeals in the country) did not invalidate the 1993 law which was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress. Rather, a three-judge panel reinstated a lawsuit connected with the issue.

On yet another front...

In the halls of Congress, the House Armed Services Committee has indicated it would hold hearings on the whole issue, perhaps next month — though the Military Times says they might be postponed until after the November election, perhaps so as to make life a little easier for liberal lawmakers from conservative states or districts to avoid taking a stand before facing the voters.

The repeal measure is sponsored primarily by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.). A supporter, Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) has given the legislation the misleading title (here comes Orwell again) of the "Military Readiness Enforcement Act."

Why we have a military

Let there be no mistake. Our military exists to defend this country. Sometimes, in that pursuit, it is necessary for our military men to do something they instinctively would rather not do — i.e., kill somebody. It's not something they enjoy, but they see it as a duty if it comes to that. And they need to be prepared to meet the ultimate danger to themselves, a risk born out of love of country.

Perhaps they could have spent their young years working their way toward six or seven-figure salaries from the comfort of a trial lawyer's office, while mapping grandiose plans aimed at persuading the courts to transform the military into a social engineering playpen, motivated by personal amusement and big money.

CMR's aim

Elaine Donnelly, who has fought battles of this sort for years, says if the current law is repealed, the military would be forced to follow the "civil rights" model to make the new policy "work." And she adds:

"That would mean mandatory 'sensitivity training' programs to enforce acceptance and equal housing and social status for same-sex couples. The desire for privacy in sexual matters would be violated in military conditions offering what the law describes as 'forced intimacy.' Good order, discipline, and morale would be compromised, but military personnel would have no recourse. Anyone who resists the program could be accused of 'harassment' and punished with denial of promotions — particularly to high rank."

Disaster

The bottom line is the policy would seriously cripple our military's ability to its job — defending you and me. But if you assume the people pushing this agenda are intelligent, one has to wonder if the motivation transcends the big dollars in lawsuits or whatever political points are to be gained from obeisance to the gay lobby, or the misguided "bleeding heart." Is it possible that some in this coalition for tearing down our defenses are people who — for whatever reason — hate this country and want the United States to "get what's coming to it."

You do have to wonder.

© Wes Vernon