Here's today's Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:
With a new congressional majority in Washington there are new priorities. One apparent priority shift is the military's mission from fighting war to becoming a battle ground of social experimentation. Congressman Martin Meehan from Massachusetts is attempting to repeal the military's ban on homosexuals openly serving in the military. President Bill Clinton attempted to remove the ban but settled for a compromise known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevents questions from being asked about military personnel's sexual orientation. Clinton's compromise policy was an act of accommodation for homosexuals. This week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, said he supports the current policy and would not recommend the change being entertained by congress. He said that homosexuality, like adultery, has a negative impact upon the mission of the military. Gen. Pace immediately came under fire for his comments and homosexual groups demanded his resignation. Gen. Pace is being criticized for failing to salute homosexuality. Foes of the current law don't want just service in the military--they have that. Their response makes it clear that they will not settle for accommodation, they want forced acceptance.
To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link. To subscribe to the Washington Watch Daily radio commentary, go here.
Comments (5)
Gay and lesbian people deserve nothing less than full acceptance.
March 15, 2007 1:28 PM | Comment Permalink
So many people claim homosexuality is immoral, but on what grounds do they make this claim? None at all. They have nothing. Absolutly nil. Their entire argument depends on a giant, unacknoweldged 'Because I Say So.'
I have yet to see a good argument for banning homosexuals from service, or for the current pseudo-ban. The best arguement ive seen is a claim that it would destroy unit cohesion if members were sexually attracted to each other. But this is not true: Women serve without problems after all, and the armies of many other countries allow homosexuals without problems. The British army certinly does. I think Israel might too, but I havn't checked that one. As far as I am aware, they have not had any problems as a result of their policy.
The origional post accuses people of meddling in the military, threatening its functioning in order to carry out a social experiment. But what if these proposed changes would actually benefit the army, and improve security? The 2005 government audit found that ten thousand members of the military had been discharged for being homosexuals since the introduction of DADT. Thats ten thousand men who are no longer fighting for the interests of America. Ten thousand who could by on the rota for Iraq, helping to surpress the insurgency. Or in Afganistan, keeping the Taliban from returning. There may be as many as 40,000 homosexuals in the US who would be willing to sign up, if they were permitted to do so without a need for secrecy and a significent chance of being dishonorably discharged if discovered.
The compairison of homosexuality to adultery is misleading - the former is an aspect of an individual, the latter a specific act. The fairest way to treat homosexuals would be just to alter the various regulations in such a way that homosexual and heterosexual sex acts were treated in completly identical ways - and so that homosexuals who do actually have sex with anyone are not punished merely for thinking of it.
March 16, 2007 6:51 AM | Comment Permalink
General Pace is right on.
If you're not willing to "play by the rules" to get into the military, don't bother applying.
Gays & lesbians ought to be treated civilly just as any other person, but they have no business in the military. That's the military's "rules".
Any soldier who lets anything get in the way of his military duty, be it sexual activity, carousing, or the like, is unfit to be a soldier.
March 16, 2007 9:00 AM | Comment Permalink
Soldiers should play by the rules, yes. Its the military - the rules *must* be obeyed.
But obedience does not imply agreement. The rules can and should be changed.
March 16, 2007 10:04 AM | Comment Permalink
I happen to know a gay couple. Both recently honorably discharged Marines. One was the only survivor of an IED attack in late 2003. His injuries led to his discharge. Those injuries would have been much less severe if it hadn't been for the fact that during the ensuing firefight following the IED explosion, he stood up from a safe position to deliberately draw fire so that others in his convoy could spot and suppress the enemy and send medics to his men, who unfortunately still did not survive.
He met his boyfriend, another Iraq vet through their mothers who went to the same support group for parents and friends of wounded servicemembers. His boyfriend lost both his legs to IED in 2004.
So Mr. Perkins, former Marine, do you have any message that you would like me to pass on to these young men? What kind of message do you think General Pace's words sent? Who owes Whom an apology do you think?
Both these men have sacrificed a lot for the freedoms you enjoy, such as the right to call them "immoral". But they don't regret their service. Only you do. I'm very proud of them, as Americans. You are not. You despise them, or act as if you do.
It is morally wrong for our country to accept the sacrifices of these young men only to tell them, "Gee, if we had known you were faggots, we would have kicked you out like last weeks garbage..."
But morality, Right and Wrong, are not something FRC and Mr. Perkins apparently worry much about, so long as their political objective of "get the faggots" is met, and they can fill their coffers with cash by appealing to the worst prejudices in human beings.
March 22, 2007 7:23 PM | Comment Permalink