Homosexuality and the Military

In God We Trust

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE MILITARY

By Maj. Gen. Jerry R. Curry (ret'd)
CurryforAmerica.com

During his recent State of the Union address, President Barack Obama told the nation that he wanted America’s armed forces to abolish the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which forbids gays and lesbians to openly practice homosexual lifestyles while on active military duty. This was a blatant attempt on Obama’s part to pay off his campaign debt to the homosexual community for having helped him get elected to the presidency last year.

A week later Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dutifully traipsed over to Capitol Hill to sing to the Senate a chorus from the Obama party line that the homosexual life style was perfectly acceptable and that adopting it as national policy would in no way undermine the morale and discipline of the U.S. military.

The purpose of America’s armed forces should be to win wars, not engage in social experiments. Troops I’ve talked to believe that open homosexual living is incompatible with military service and will undermine unit cohesion and ultimately marginalize the military effectiveness of our armed forces in battle. Should the troops refuse to volunteer for further military duty because Obama’s policy has been adopted, the President and the Joint Chiefs will have lost the loyalty, trust and respect of the military forces that have been entrusted to their command.

The military is about national defense and winning wars, it is not about cultural change. Furthermore, serving in the military is not a constitutional right and neither is being able to openly parade one’s homosexual lifestyle. Under today’s policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” any gay or lesbian can serve in the military; they just can’t flaunt their lifestyle. And there is no equivalence between the military’s restricting homosexual conduct and racial discrimination.

I agree with my old colleague Colin Powell who wrote Congresswoman Pat Schroeder that, “Skin color is a benign non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.” It’s easy to recommend sweeping social changes to barracks living when you don’t have to live in those barracks yourself.

Mullen says he favors open homosexuality in the military services although he has no idea how the rank and file will react to such a policy. He says that “I fully support the President’s decision.” That is, first you make the decision and then later on you investigate how it will affect those who have to live with and carry it out. It’s like listening in on an “Alice in Wonderland” conversation, “Let’s have the verdict first and the trial second.” Gates and Mullen are effectively saying that after the policy is changed, they will then worry about how the change will affect reenlistments and performance of the nation’s all volunteer force.

Gates has commissioned an eleven month “outside study” by the Rand Corporation of Obama’s proposal and a similar “in-service” review headed up by an Army four-Star and by the Pentagon’s chief lawyer. Having a lawyer co-lead the study is probably meant to ensure that Gates, Mullen and Obama’s backs are covered. But the three of them would do much better if they dropped the lawyer and replaced him with one of the uniformed service’s enlisted Sergeant Majors.

Additionally Gates – without inquiry – wants to reduce the number of homosexuals released from the military each year under the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But he has yet to answer the key question, “What effect will this reduction have on readiness, morale, and military unit effectiveness?”

The nation’s military should be focused on defending America and winning its wars. It shouldn’t be used to pay back Obama’s campaign debts or just to effect social change.