Gen. James F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, suggested in an interview yesterday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military could not only harm unit cohesion, but could actually increase casualties. Here are the opening paragraphs of the Washington Post report on the subject:

Marine general suggests repeal of ‘don’t ask’ could result in casualties

The Marine Corps’ top general suggested Tuesday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because their presence on the battlefield would pose “a distraction.”

“When your life hangs on the line,” said Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, “you don’t want anything distracting. . . . Mistakes and inattention or distractions cost Marines’ lives.”

In an interview with newspaper and wire service reporters at the Pentagon, Amos was vague when pressed to clarify how the presence of gays would distract Marines during a firefight. But he cited a recent Defense Department survey in which a large percentage of Marine combat veterans predicted that repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law would harm “unit cohesion” and their tight-knit training for war.

“So the Marines came back and they said, ‘Look, anything that’s going to break or potentially break that focus and cause any kind of distraction may have an effect on cohesion,’ ” he said. “I don’t want to permit that opportunity to happen. And I’ll tell you why. If you go up to Bethesda [Naval] Hospital . . . Marines are up there with no legs, none. We’ve got Marines at Walter Reed [Army Medical Center] with no limbs.”

Amos had said previously that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly could cause “distractions” and “risks” for combat units. But his remarks Tuesday were the first time that he or any other senior military leader has suggested that repealing the 17-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” law could directly endanger troops and cost lives.

Advocates for repeal of the current law against homosexuality in the military are scoffing at Gen. Amos’ remarks, insisting there is no conceivable scenario under which the presence of homosexual troops could lead to casualties.

However, retired Marine Gen. John J. Sheehan gave a specific example of how this could happen in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee last March—an example drawn from his own personal experience in combat in Vietnam. Here is his description of the incident, from the transcript of the March 18 hearing (bottom of p. 16 to p. 17 in the link):

General SHEEHAN. Senator, in my experience, homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield. Let me give you a case and point.

Early years of Vietnam, 9th Marines, West of Da Nang, rifle company on a ridgeline combat outpost, the intelligence was that the North Vietnamese were going to attack, that night. The unit was put on 50-percent alert, which meant one slept, one stood on watch. About 1 o’clock in the morning, a fight broke out in a foxhole because the young marine was being molested by his squad leader. To the right of that foxhole, there was a machinegun section that opened up and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the front.

Now, the natural question is, ‘‘Okay. Well, fine, don’t you have rules that deal with assault?’’ and the answer to that’s yes.

The real issue, though, was that, after we sorted this whole thing out, the sergeant—the squad leader essentially said, ‘‘Look, I was just adjusting his equipment, waking him up because the—I thought there was something out to the front.’’ He denied it happened. The young PFC, who was new to the organization, said, ‘‘Wait a minute. This really happened to me. He was molesting me.’’ The unit took sides, naturally. The squad leader was a popular person, been around for a while. The PFC was a new kid. For about 3 days, that unit divided down the middle—those that supported the popular squad leader, those that kind of thought the new kid might be believable.

The only reason we sorted the issue out was because the sergeant committed the offense about 3 days later. But, the real tragedy of this story is, the young PFC continually insisted, for a long period of time, that nobody in his organization believed it happened. He lost faith in his chain of command.

So, I would argue the case that, if you look at—and you can say that I’m some old guy that’s been around for a while, and been—probably been around for too long. But, I read——

Senator MCCAIN. You’re not the only one that——

General SHEEHAN. Well—but, I read the Defense Department’s recently released sexual assault report. And the thing that really bothers me about this issue is that the report says—and this is last year’s report—there’s been an overall 11-percent rise in sexual assaults in the military; 16-percent rise in Afghanistan and Iraq; 32—over 3200 cases of sexual—we’re not talking about sexual harassment, we’re talking about sexual assault. Seven percent of those— that’s about 226—male on male assaults, where rape and sodomy took place. And the Department of Defense will clearly indicate that that’s an underreporting.

I would stipulate that, from my days in Vietnam in the early ’60s, when I had this sergeant that almost got a combat patrol killed, that a—226 male soldiers and marines who are molested—that there’s something wrong with our sexual behavior policy.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuals, Military

Comments: - |

Tags: Brian Fleming, Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: - |

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council applauded Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senators John McCain and Jim Inhofe, along with Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who stood together to stop the Defense Authorization bill from being considered by the Senate.

The Defense Authorization bill, which is not required in order to fund the U.S. Armed Forces, and currently contains amendments that would overturn existing law on homosexuality in the military and also would turn U.S. military hospitals into abortion clinics worldwide.

Marine Corps veteran and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:

“This is the second time in 2010 that the U.S. Senate has rejected an insistent liberal social agenda and delivered a victory for the men and women of our Armed Forces. Despite continued attempts by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use the military to advance this agenda, a bi-partisan group of senators has soundly declared that they will side with the priorities of the American people.  First and foremost, Congress must address the impending tax increases and budget issues.

“Senator Reid should do his job, enable the Senate to fund critical government programs and ensure that the American people do not see one of the largest tax increases in history on January 1.   Instead, he is playing the role of a not-so-secret Santa and pandering to the liberal constituencies that helped get him reelected.

“This victory does not mean that the issues of homosexuality in the military or abortion in military hospitals will disappear, and so Family Research Council will continue, with its allies, to ensure that America’s military is used to first and foremost do its duty – to fight and win wars – and not advance radical social policy.

“Senator Susan Collins broke her pledge to first stop the looming tax hikes before moving to consider any other legislation.   Senator Collins hasn’t been listening to voters who sent a clear message on Election Day that they have had enough of politicians who break their word only to side with liberal special interests,” concluded Perkins.

-30-

Tags: Abortion, DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 1 |

On December 3, 2010, Military Service Chiefs from five branches of America’s Armed Forces testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the possible repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

For more, visit Mission Compromised.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Military, U.S. Senate

Comments: - |

When a journalist does not reveal the most important part of a news story until the middle of it, instead of opening with it, it’s known as “burying the lead.”

This appears to be what the Pentagon has done with the report of its Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the subject of homosexuality in the military.

The report, and most of the media coverage, emphasized the conclusion from a survey of Service members that “70% of Service members predicted it [repeal of the current law] would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.”

However, as we have already noted, interpreting the “mixed” category as being supportive of repeal is questionable at best. Advocates of repeal do not agree that it would affect the military “equally as positively as negatively,” which is what the “mixed” response refers to. We could just as easily note that “62% of respondents believed that repeal would have at least some negative effects.”

The even more revealing statement, however, does not appear in the report’s Executive Summary at all, but only shows up on page 49. Referring to responses in focus groups and other forums which were provided to allow feedback from the troops, the CRWG was forced to admit that “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy.”

Of course, the report hastily notes that these were not scientifically representative samples of the force as a whole, and the survey was. However, as we must repeatedly point out, the survey did not ask whether respondents were for or against overturning the current law. Hence these less formal media were the only way for the troops to express their views on the central issue.

Whenever you hear that vague and misleading “70%” figure, remember that buried lead on p. 49—that “the majority of views expressed were against repeal.”

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Pentagon Report

Comments: - |

In case you missed yesterday’s Mission Compromised webcast, below is the transcript [PDF version here].

Continue reading »

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Mission Compromised, Tony Perkins

Comments: - |

There are numerous arguments pro and con on the issue of homosexuality in the military, but the survey of Service members released by the Pentagon on Tuesday has decisively proved at least one argument against the current push to overturn existing law, and decisively refuted at least one argument in favor of that effort.

The Comprehensive Review Working Group report actually identified these arguments in their summary of “What We Heard” about the issue. One argument against repeal was described as: “Why now? We are at war.” Many have argued that with our armed forces stretched by the demands of two wars, this is not the time to impose further strain by implementing a radical change in personnel policy to appease a political interest group. (FRC does not believe there would ever be a “good” time for such a change—but the immediate circumstances are nevertheless a legitimate concern for lawmakers facing an immediate legislative vote).

It has been widely reported that soldiers and Marines in combat arms units were more likely to predict negative impacts from repeal of current law than were other Service members. While 62% of all Service members expected at least some negative results if current law were overturned, the same was true of 74% of all Marines and of Army combat arms soldiers, and 82% of Marines in combat arms units. An outright majority of the latter group, 57.5%, declared bluntly that it would affect their “task cohesion” either negatively or “very negatively,” while a minuscule 9% foresaw a positive impact.

The people on the front lines of our wars are the most concerned about repeal—a compelling argument against it.

On the other hand, the CRWG described the advocates of repeal as arguing, “We need everyone willing and able to serve.” In other words, the military simply cannot afford to lose the skills of existing or potential homosexual Service members. This is an issue of recruiting and retention—what policy will provide the military with the personnel that it needs.

Here again, the results are overwhelming. The surveys showed that the number who would be less willing to recommend a military career if open homosexuality is permitted is four times higher than the number who would be more willing to recommend it. In addition, the percentage who would themselves leave the military sooner than planned or consider doing so if current law is repealed, was more than six times higher than the number who would stay longer or consider doing so.

It’s clear—the personnel losses to the military as a result of repeal would vastly outnumber any gains from allowing homosexuals in the ranks.

These are two strong points against the effort to overturn current law, even in a report designed to support that effort.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Military

Comments: 1 |

The Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the issue of homosexuality in the military, which issued its report yesterday, was extremely selective in the way it crunched the numbers when reporting the results of a survey of Service members. By following the CRWG’s lead, the media has missed the biggest story—the fact that more Service members expect negative consequences than positive consequences if the current law is overturned, according to virtually every question that was asked.

You would not know that from the way the findings were reported. Speaking of the possibility of overturning the 1993 law which codified the military’s longstanding ban on open homosexuality in the ranks, they said

“70% of Service members predicted it [repeal] would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.”

Here is the question on which the “70 percent” figure is based:

“If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?” (this is a measure of what they refer to as “task cohesion”).

The choices for response were:

1) Positively or Very Positively

2) Equally positively and negatively

3) No effect

4) Negatively or Very Negatively

The responses were:

1) Positively or Very Positively:  18.4%

2) Equally positively and negatively: 32.1%

3) No effect: 19.9%

4) Negatively or Very Negatively: 29.6%

The CRWG arrived at the much-repeated “70%” figure by adding together the first three categories.

However, the homosexual activists who are pushing for repeal do not argue that there would be “equally positive and negative” effects. They argue that there would be no negative effects whatsoever, or at least that the positive effects would overwhelmingly outnumber the negative. Therefore, contrary to the way the CRWG and the media have presented it, the “equally positive and negative” answer should not be taken as supporting the case for overturning current law.

In fact, only answers 1 and 3 (positive or no effect) should be considered supportive of the case that is usually made for repeal. Answers 2 and 4 both indicate that repeal would have negative consequences. Viewed this way, we can argue that

• 62% of Service members predicted at least some negative effects from repeal, while only 38% predicted only positive or no effects.

However, I would go further and argue that the “no effect” response does not support the case for repeal, either. I realize that homosexual activists appeal to concepts like “justice” and “equality” to argue that if there is “no effect,” then the law should be changed. But there is no constitutional right to serve in the military, and the exclusion law is fundamentally based on behavior, not “identity,” so “justice” and “equality” are not at stake here.

The only legitimate argument for changing the status quo is if the change would improve the effectiveness of the military as a fighting force. And here, the results of the survey are dramatically clear—those who foresee a negative consequence from repeal outnumber those who foresee a positive consequence on virtually every question. (FRC’s analysis of the report is ongoing, but this statement is true of all 53 questions featuring some negative/positive breakdown that are described in Chapter VII of the CRWG report.)

Furthermore, in many cases the ratios of Negative or Very Negative responses to Positive or Very Positive ones were very dramatic. For example, repeal was:

• More than four times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your willingness to recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military” (27.3% negative to 6.3% positive).

• More than six times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your military career plans” (i.e., “intentions to remain in the military”)—23.7% negative to 3.5% positive.

• Nearly six times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your level of morale” (27.9% negative to 4.8% positive).

The report makes much of the fact that those who say they are already “working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian” give more positive responses. However, it is important to note that even among this group, negative responses outnumber positive ones on every question.

For example, even those currently serving with a “gay or lesbian” colleague say repeal is:

• Nearly two and a half (2.48) times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission in a field environment or out at sea (37.5% to 15.1%).

• More than two and a half times more likely to have a negative than a positive impact on “your unit’s ability to train well together” (26.5% to 10.0%).

To take these surveys as supporting the case for overturning the law is a grave misreading of their findings.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 5 |

Watch the archive webcast below:

WASHINGTON, D.C. –

WHAT: News Conference of organizational leaders and military experts in support of the current law on homosexuality in the military, commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The speakers will discuss the release of the report by the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) on the issue of open homosexuality in the military as well a new survey showing 63 percent of military families oppose overturning the current law. An amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that would turn military medical facilities into abortion clinics will also be discussed.

WHO:

* Tony Perkins, Marine Corps Veteran and President, Family Research Council
* Retired Colonel Dick Black
* Lt. Colonel Bob Maginnis, FRC’s Senior Fellow for National Security
* John Hagan, former Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
* Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
* Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness
* Rep. John Fleming, M.D. (R-La.), former Lieutenant Commander of the Navy
* Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO, Americans United for Life

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 1 |

One of the most striking things Defense Sec. Gates said during his remarks today regarding the military’s survey on homosexuality  related to what he called “feelings:”

Views towards gay and lesbian Americans have changed considerably during this period, and have grown more accepting since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was first enacted. But feelings on this matter can still run deep and divide, often starkly, along demographic, cultural and generational lines – not only in society as a whole, but in the uniformed ranks as well.

The objections many men and women in uniform, and their families, have toward allowing homosexuals to serve in the Armed Forces are not grounded in “feelings.” A feeling is an emotion, something that can change depending on one’s blood-sugar level.

What Sec. Gates seems to have tried to articulate, but not summoned the moral courage to state outright, is that people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong are poor (that would be demography), uneducated (there’s your lack of “cultural” maturity), and habituated to bigotry (“generational”).

He is as wrong as he is condescending: Homosexuality is described as a sin against God in both biblical Testaments. Those of us who believe the Bible’s commands transcend time and any society’s “growing acceptance” (Sec. Gates’ phrase) will remain opposed to the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality, period.

That’s a moral statement, Mr. Secretary. It’s not a feeling. It will not change until the Bible changes, which is, for the record, never.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 1 |

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Mission Compromised

Comments: - |

Mark Thompson has posted a piece on Time magazine’s “Swampland” blog regarding the possible overturning (which he considers “inevitable”) of the current law against homosexual conduct in the military.

Such a radical change in military policy is hardly “inevitable.” Legislation to repeal the law is on life support following last month’s Senate vote to block it, and Judge Virginia Phillips’ muddled ruling that the law is unconstitutional ignored so much existing precedent that it is unlikely to be upheld.

Thompson, however, has delved into the archives of military history and relates findings about how African Americans were integrated within the armed forces without major difficulty. He concludes that the “integration” of homosexuals would take place just as smoothly.

One key difference, of course, is that blacks had long been eligible to serve in the military, but had served in segregated units. In contrast, homosexuals have always been considered ineligible for military service at all. (The popular misnomer “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” misleads many into believing that active homosexuals are currently welcomed by the military as long as they stay in the closet. The truth is the opposite—the 1993 law mandates, with very limited exceptions, the discharge of any servicemember who “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts.”)

Furthermore, Thompson simply assumes the answer to two critical threshold questions:

1)      Is being “gay” like being black?

2)      Is sexual conduct relevant to military effectiveness?

The logical answer to #1 is no. Homosexuality is a behavioral characteristic; being black is a superficial matter of skin color. The racial integration of the military was successful precisely because it proved that the behavior of black soldiers did not differ from that of whites. But with homosexuality, a difference in behavior is what defines the issue. Do not be fooled by vague references to “sexual orientation” as though it were an innate characteristic—what homosexual activists now seek is the right to continue engaging in homosexual acts while in the military .

Homosexual activists compare “sexual orientation” to race in order to obscure the important differences between sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification. Only the attractions are, like race, involuntary; but none of these elements of “sexual orientation” are (like race) inborn, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution.  The 1993 law which homosexual activists seek to overturn is focused on homosexual conduct, and treats attractions or self-identification as relevant only because they are evidence of “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.”

So does the military have a legitimate interest in regulating the sexual conduct of its members? The answer has always been yes, with respect to heterosexual conduct as well as homosexual. Adultery, for instance, remains a crime in the military, at a time when the civil law has long since become indifferent to it. As Congress found in 1993, “high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion . . . are the essence of military capability,” and there is no doubt that sexual conduct can threaten those standards and harm that capability.

Sexual tension, sexual harassment, and sexual assault are problems that exist among heterosexuals in the military—but those problems would increase if homosexuals were allowed to serve, because it would be impossible to separate homosexuals the way that men and women are separated in their most intimate settings (showers, sleeping quarters, etc.). Increased health problems among homosexuals (in particular, dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV among men who have sex with men) would pose a direct challenge to military readiness.

The analogy to the racial integration of the military, even if it had any validity, would apply only to the concern that homosexuality in the military would damage recruiting and retention of personnel. But those are only two out of the nine likely negative consequences of repealing the current law that were identified by Col. Robert Maginnis in the FRC booklet Mission Compromised.  The others are:

• Damage to unit effectiveness.
• Health consequences with high cost.

• Threats to freedom of those who morally object to homosexuality.
• Special protections for homosexuals.
• Taxpayer-funded benefits to homosexual partners of servicemembers.
• Possibility of costly new living arrangements to protect privacy.
• Changes to military law and regulations regarding sexual offenses.

The argument that, as the “gay” newsmagazine The Advocate recently declared on its cover, “Gay is the New Black,” is one that most blacks resent, and that simply cannot stand up to serious scrutiny.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, Homosexuality, Mark Thompson, Military, Virginia Phillips

Comments: 1 |

Below is video of Bishop Harry Jackson’s press conference hosted yesterday (September 20, 2010) at FRC Headquarters in Washington, D.C.:

Participants:

Bishop Harry Jackson, Chairman, High Impact Leadership Coalition

Pastor Aubrey Shines, Tampa, FL

Pastor Christopher Brooks, Detroit, MI

Bishop Leon Benjamin, Richmond, VA

Reverend Dean Nelson, Washington, DC

Austin Nimocks, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: - |

Excerpts from a news conference to discuss how overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will seriously undermine the religious liberties of those serving in the all-volunteer force, most particularly military chaplains.

In attendance:
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council
Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA)
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Congressman Steve King (R-IA)
Congressman Todd Akin (R-MO)
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Congressman Todd Tihart (R-KS)
Douglas Lee, Chaplain (Brigadier General) USA (Ret)
Kevin Theriot, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
Pastors from Key States

May 27, 2010, Washington, DC.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 2 |

From the May 21, 2010 edition of Washington Watch Weekly:

TONY PERKINS: Since President Obama announced his plans to force open homosexuality in the military, liberal members in Congress have been chomping at the bit to force the change, even though the military is in the midst of a six month review of how to impellent this change without hurting military readiness, and which numerous studies have shown that it would. Well the study is to be presented to Congress the first of December, but a Michigan senator, Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, hopes to amend the Defense Authorization bill next week. Joining us from Capitol Hill is Senator John McCain who represents Arizona; he’s been representing Arizona since 1982. He’s a true American hero, having served twenty-two years as a naval aviator, a survivor of the North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp in Hanoi. I have to tell you his fighting spirit is well known and respected on Capitol Hill – Senator McCain, thanks for joining us on Washington Watch Radio.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you Tony, and again thanks for all you do for the men and women in the military, for our nation’s security and the values that we hold dear.

TONY PERKINS: Well thank you Senator and I didn’t mention that you’re also the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, so you’re right on the front lines of this fight over the military. Now we’re expecting Senator Levin the chairman to try and amend a military authorization bill which is a spending bill. This gives money to the military is that correct?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Yes, and it does authorize, it would be – if you thought it was appropriate – it would be a vehicle that would contain a policy change. But the fact is as you mention there is a study going on. The secretary of defense recently openly stated that they should allow the study to be completed before any congressional action should be taken. By the way I have a big problem with the study itself. The study should be on the impact on battle effectiveness on morale in the military if the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – the law, not the policy – the law of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” were repealed. Instead Secretary Gates, to my great disappointment, is conducting a study as to how best to implement it – in other words it’s a fait accompli because of no other reason than President Obama’s campaign promise. The military is at its highest level of effectiveness, morale, equipment, training, professionalism, and why we would want to disrupt that when we’re in the middle of two wars is something that I find very, very wrong.

TONY PERKINS: Yeah, it’s a very important distinction to make and you have made that both in committee and in correspondence to the Secretary of Defense, and I think the public needs to be aware that the review that is taking place is how to implement this change, not if the change should be made. However, in the process, and I know this from some meetings over at the Pentagon with those that are doing this review, that they’re uncovering some problems that they did not anticipate. Can not Congress when they come back with this review in December then explore more deeply into these issues that have come up and come to its own conclusion that this is not the best approach for the military?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well, obviously Congress plays a role, but I don’t think it should play a preemptive role. We should assess the impact of change in this law on battle effectiveness – we have a military for only one reason, and people join the military for only one reason and that is to fight. And it’s our obligation – and defend our nation’s security – and we have an obligation it seems to me to make sure that we don’t do anything that would disrupt or diminish that capability, especially when we are in two wars, in order to carry out a campaign promise of the President of the United States, not because there is any movement, any outcry, any request for the change to be made. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has come out flat out saying he opposes repeal – in fact the Commandant of the Marine Corps said that they would have to look at living arrangements that the Marine Corps has, so the implications of this change in law has to be assessed carefully. Instead apparently the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi who said today, it’s carried in the news today, that “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy will be nothing but a memory by year’s end, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Wednesday.” So I think it’s good that we review every policy no matter what it is from time to time and review of the policy is something that I know, Tony, you and I would agree on, but a preemptive repeal without any study, without any assessment on the impact of battle effectiveness is in my view putting our social agenda, or the liberal social agenda, ahead of national security.

TONY PERKINS: Well Senator McCain that brings up a question, or an observation: those that are really pushing this agenda to essentially use the military to advance their social agenda-

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: That’s it-

TONY PERKINS: How many of them have actually served in the military?

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: (laughter) I don’t know of any. There may be a few – Congressman Sestak has, I don’t know his position on the issue, I haven’t heard it yet – but the point is that the people that I talk to and know, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, have both come out strongly against the repeal, and certainly even more strongly against a process that would preemptively address an issue which, could, could, I emphasize could – we haven’t done the study – could adversely affect the morale and battle effectiveness of the United States military, the by far and head and shoulders above and better than any other in the world today.

TONY PERKINS: Absolutely, without question – I know a lot of people point to militaries that have allowed homosexuality within the ranks – there’s twenty-five of almost two hundred nations but the top militaries in the world do not allow homosexuality to be openly engaged in, in the military – I mean, if you want a military that just does parades and stuff like that then I guess that’s okay.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Could we also emphasize a point that’s lost in this debate sometime, particularly by the liberal media – we don’t, we do not tell someone who is homosexual that they can’t join the military – we don’t tell them that-

TONY PERKINS: Right.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: We, in fact, we appreciate the fact that all Americans would want to join the military. What we are saying is that that sexual orientation they’re kept quiet about, and they can have the whatever orientation they choose; because in 1993 we passed the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy because we thought that was the best way to maintain morale and battle effectiveness in the United States military.

TONY PERKINS: The focus-

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: So it’s not discriminatory and no one forces anyone to join the military and if they wanna have a sexual orientation we don’t keep them from having that orientation.

TONY PERKINS: Well it’s all focused on behavior and the same standards apply to heterosexuals who are-

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Right.

TONY PERKINS: Cannot engage in adultery – that’s a crime in the military – and people don’t realize that, that there is a higher standard for the military for the very purposes that you outlined, Senator.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Well I hope our listeners will take an interest in this issue. And I know that there’s a whole lot of other issues out there, the economy, joblessness, Iranian nuclear buildup, immigration, there’s a whole lot of other issues, but this issue has significant long-term implication for our ability to defend this nation. So I hope listeners of this show, Tony, will take an interest. Contact Family Research Council for more information, contact our office and weigh in on this issue because it really does have significant long-term implications.

TONY PERKINS: Senator I couldn’t, I could not agree with you more. Senator John McCain, thanks for joining us.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Thank you, Tony.

Listen to the audio:

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, John McCain

Comments: 2 |

Clip of Tony Perkins appearance today Fox News regarding the recent “dis-invitations” of both himself and Franklin Graham from speaking at military events:

[If you're reading the post through a feed reader, click through to watch.]

Tags: DADT, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Fox News, Franklin Graham, Tony Perkins

Comments: - |

Lt. Dan Choi is back training with his National Guard unit.

Conventionally, this would be about as newsworthy as saying that paint dries: officers serve with their units all the time. But Lt. Choi is, by his own definition, different – he is openly homosexual. He has been appearing in the media, actively calling for a reversal of the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy concerning homosexuality.

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, homosexuality is incompatible with military service. This is not a statement of preference, but a law. All members of the Armed Forces are required to take an oath to uphold it. Yet here we have a situation where an openly gay man, in violation of the law and, according to news accounts, with the support of his commanding officer, is wearing the uniform of our nation.

Let us say for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a moral good and that those who practice homosexual conduct should actively be recruited to serve in the country’s military (of course, Family Research Council and I personally disavow these arguments). I would still be calling for Lt. Choi’s dismissal from the service and his superior’s discipline. The military code is not a set of arcane rules that can be followed at the personal discretion of those serving. It is the ironclad law of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. It is enacted by the United States Congress and signed into effect by the Commander in Chief.

Lt. Choi is flaunting the law, showing contempt for it for the sake of his personal philosophical agenda. In doing so, he is demonstrating his unfitnes as “an officer and gentleman.” What if his peers choose to obey only those orders they want? “Well, sir – and by the way, I don’t like calling you sir – taking that hill right now seems like a bad idea to me. Think I’ll go take a nap.” Order, discipline, duty, respect, achievement of mission: all are, by virtue of Dan Choi’s continued role in the Army, placed at grave risk.

Men and women in uniform do not serve at their pleasure or under the human resources regulations of civilian life. Of necessity, for the sake of the life and death circumstances intrinsic to being part of the Armed Forces, they operate under a different, particularly crafted set of rules – rules that are the law.

No American, whether in the military or not, has the right to obey only those laws he or she wishes. This is the path to moral chaos and political anarchy. It is the road to collapse.

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 2 |

One thing I have noticed in the debate over homosexuals in the military is that roughly 99.5% of the American public, including 99.5% of long-time Washington political reporters and 99.5% of members of Congress, believe three key things about the issue.

1. The current policy regarding homosexuals in the military is governed by a law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
2. Under current law, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military as long as they are not open about their sexual orientation.
3. Doing away with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Each of these three statements is false.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is not the law of the land. It was a compromise policy announced by the Clinton Administration in July of 1993, after their original proposal to simply open the military to homosexuals was widely rejected.[i]

When Congress adopted legislation on this issue in November of 1993, they did not say that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the military. On the contrary, they declared, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”[ii]

Doing away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would only allow more consistent enforcement of the current law against homosexuality in the military, unless Congress were to also repeal the law that they adopted in 1993.

For the record, here are the findings that Congress made—and that President Clinton signed into law—in 1993. This is the current law regarding homosexuality in the military:

Congress makes the following findings:

`(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

`(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

`(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

`(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

`(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

`(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

`(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

`(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that–

`(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

`(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

`(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

`(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

`(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

`(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

`(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

`(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

`(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

---

[i] Susan Yoachum and Carolyn Lochhead, “Clinton Orders New Gay-GI Policy: He concedes few will like compromise,” The San Francisco Chronicle, July 20, 1993, p. A1.

[ii] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, Public Law 103-160, November 30, 1993, Title V, Subtitle G, Sec. 571, “Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” (10 U.S.C. 654); online at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:5:./temp/~c103HPMAIr:e399464:

Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell

Comments: 18 |