The prospect of gay individuals being able to serve in our military openly, rather than having to stay closeted or being kicked out when discovered, has all sorts of folks up in (virtual) arms, escalating the rhetoric into a froth of calumny and craziness.
Let’s start with Tony Perkins’ “Washington Update” for the Family Research Council, under the lovely headline:
Marines: A Vote for Repeal Is a Vote to Sacrifice Soldiers
Of course, the story (at least quoting the Marines) doesn’t actually say that, but let’s not let that get in the way of a bit of inflammatory fearmongering.
Anyone who’s trying to pick a fight with the Marines over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should have to answer this question, which Gen. James Amos turned on a hostile reporter yesterday: “Have you been out with the Marines in an intense firefight, you personally?“
First off, let’s not conveniently elide this into “the Marines” as a whole. If you look at the actual Pentagon DADT survey results, what you find is:
- Marines were more likely to suggest there could be problems with integration, but they also tended to follow the pattern of respondents of being less likely to suggest there would be problems if they reported having knowingly served alongside a gay service member (p. 3). As with the rest of society, the more you know, the less scared you are.
- Service members who have been deployed in combat are more likely to see repeal as a negative in a field deployment, but overall for the military this was at 44%; for combat duty Marines it was 59%. (p. 6, 41)
- A minority (39%) of Marines said repeal would make it less likely they would recommend a military career to someone (overal 26% of the military). (p. 7, 63)
- More Marines said it would be difficult for leadership to make sure that all service members are treated with respect (65%), and that all would be treated equally regardless of orientation (62%) (vs. 50%/46% for service members as a whole). (p. 9, 74)
- More Marines said that repeal would have a negative effect on unit cohesion, though it was still a minority (40%, vs. overall 27% across all services). (p. 34)
- Interestingly, Marines are more likely to report that socialization with their units off-duty is important (54%), and that those Marines thought repeal would make this less likely (57%). (p. 37)
- Marines thought repeal would make training together more difficult (47%, vs 31%). (p. 51)
- Marines indicated they would be much more likely to consult with leadership to see if they had other options if they were in a situation where they had to share open bay showing facilities post-repeal (38% vs. 28% of the overall services). (p. 71)
- Marines were more likely (25%) to say they’d move off-base if there were gays living with partners in on-base housing than service members in general (18%). (p. 73)
- When it comes to unit cohesion in units where the respondent indicated that there already was someone they thought was gay, 68% of Marines said the unit worked well together, vs 76% for service members in general. (p. 77)
So, as a whole, Marines had more concerns over the effects of repeal than service-members as a whole. The numbers aren’t generally majorities, and were there were known (or suspected) gays in units, Marines, like the rest of the troops, had fewer concerns or reported that the unit operated well.
So the idea that the Marines are some stolid monolith of Demanding Teh Gayz Be Kept Out is hardly the case. Certainly it will be the most difficult in the Marines, but it’s hardly swimming against the tide.
The President certainly hasn’t. Nor has his Secretary of Defense.
True. Neither has John McCain nor Tony Perkins.
“I don’t want to lose any Marines to the distraction,” the Commandant warned yesterday. “I don’t want to have any Marines that I’m visiting at Bethesda [ Naval Medical Center ] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction…
I’m really confused about this “distraction” thing. What it calls to mind is either (a) straight Marines being distracted by gay Marines trying to seduce them while in a fire fight (not really what I suspect will be a frequent problem), or (b) straight Marines being distracted by gossiping about gay Marines (if that’s the case, the the Marines have a training problem).
Right now is a very intense period of time for a pretty healthy slice of the United States Marine Corps. This is not training. This is what I call the real deal. And the forces that wear this uniform… came back and told their commandant of the Marine Corps that they have concerns. That’s all I need. I don’t need a staff study. I don’t need to hire three PhDs to tell me [how] to interpret it… [I]f they have concerns, I do too. It’s as simple as that.”
They have “concerns.” I suspect they have “concerns” over being deployed to a combat zone, too. I suspect “their commandant” is not very sympathetic to those concerns, and doesn’t plan military strategy, let alone obedience to orders, based on it.
That Gen. Amos is so quick to dismiss a survey/study, or analysis of same, in favor of his gut feeling based on some folks concerns, and that their concerns are his concerns, and his concerns should somehow trump everything else … seems an odd way to run a military.
In the end, Gen. Amos is going do what’s in the best interest of his Marines and the security of America .
Actually, in the end, Gen. Amos is going to obey orders. That’s what soldiers do after they express their concerns to their commanding officers.
If Congress wasn’t going to take his concerns seriously, why put him in the position in the first place?
Congress — and the President — should certainly take his concerns seriously. But his concerns aren’t the only factor to consider, and ultimately, his job is to obey orders and execute same to the best of his ability.
Gen. Amos doesn’t get veto power. No military commander does. Suggesting he does is silly.
(Or perhaps Tony would be okay with allowing gays to serve openly in those services where the service chief thinks it’s okay. No? Hmmmm.)
“When your life hangs on the line,” he told the press, “Mistakes… or distractions cost Marines’ lives.“
Certainly. And where the command staff sees a particular policy as a problem or mistake, and makes that publicly known, that’s likely to be distracting to everyone up and down the line.
Indeed, consider this scenario: The US is debating whether or not to invade Iran. This is something that will directly, clearly, explicitly put service members, including the Marines, into danger. It will, inevitably, cost lives.
Would we perform a survey of service members to see how they think it will help or hurt their service, careers, etc.?
Would we be polling the individual service heads as to whether they had concerns over the action (as a public, widely-covered) debate?
Would we pull the plug on the operation because one of the service chief has concerns … because it will “cost lives”?
Of course not. The military would be consulted, would plan, would offer their opinions. And, ultimately, the decision would be made at a political level, and the services would march (or not), obeying their orders.
And service heads that publicly dragged their feet would (or would be asked to) resign.
This isn’t just hyperbole. In his Senate testimony last March, Gen. John Sheehan (USMC-Ret.), Supreme Allied Commander for NATO, told a shocking story of how one gay soldier almost took out an entire combat patrol (page 16 of the congressional record). “Homosexual marines create problems on the battlefield… [In the] 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 [fire] and almost killed a combat patrol that was out in the front [because they thought the unit was under attack].”
A horrifying story, to be sure. And certainly indefensible.
But, really, just a single anecdote, dating back 40+ years? Really? And on that basis we should conclude that gays are all rapists who will try and molest their fellow soldiers? Really?
That happened under a strict military ban.
Correct. Maybe, if gays were allowed to serve openly, you would have a reduced rate (whatever it is) of this sort of behavior. Or maybe not, because molestation and rape are rarely acts of sexuality but of anger and power.
How many brave men and women are liberals willing to sacrifice so that homosexuals can flaunt their lifestyle?
Hence the headline for the post.
I just don’t get the whole “flaunt” obsession. Part of is, I suspect, an allusion to the “flamboyant gay” stereotype, the idea that, as soon as gays can serve openly, they’ll immediately change into leather straps and boas and mince about their bases, hand-in-hand with other guys, sticking out their pierced tongues at all the boring straights, “Nyah, can’t discharge me …”
Whereas most of the gays I know behave around their beaus similarly to how straights do. (Yes, we all know about flamboyant gay stereotypes and hijinx at gay pride parades. I’ll compare that behavior at, say, Mardi Gras, as well as the normal reaction when someone is legally and in a group flaunting a societal norm and out to shock the disapproving — see teen-agers.)
So I don’t expect a huge upsurge, post-repeal, of wild and crazy gay behavior on basis. But …
I do expect that gays will show affection for each other. Y’know … hold hands. Kiss. Hug. And they’ll talk about it with their friends. “Hey, I met this guy …” or “Yeah, my girlfriend is so hot …”
And there will be plenty of people who consider that “flaunting.” “I don’t mind if they’re gay, I just don’t want to have to know about all their sex preferences and stuff.”
But are straights “flaunting” their heterosexuality when they hold hands? Or kiss, or hug? Or mention the guy they just met, or their hot girlfriend? Is that forcing people to “know all about their sex preferences and stuff”? No, that’s considered “normal” and “okay” — but if someone else does it, that’s considered “pushy” and “flaunting.”
The only reason for changing the present policy is if it would help the military accomplish its mission. So far, no one has produced a single reason how it would.
Bullshit. The reasons for repeal have been shouted from the rafters. Here’s three off the top of my head.
- Repeal of DADT would stop the military from discouraging from enlistment, or discharging after training and investment, useful and willing service members. Think about that — at a time of war, we have people willing to serve in the military, people capable of serving, some in fact who have been serving for a long time, often with distinction. And because of who they choose to hold hands with, and the fact that someone finds out about it, they get kicked out or rejected. Repealing DADT will stop that waste of resources.
- Repeal of DADT would stop the lying. Right now, DADT is predicated on living a lie, staying closeted. You can serve, but you can’t be honest about it. But we encourage, even demand, honesty and a devotion to truth from our service members. The West Point Prayer says, in part, “Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” Telling people they can serve if only they hide a core truth about themselves is unfair, unjust, and can only weaken the bond of trust between soldiers. Repeal of DADT will make remove an institutional blot on the truth and honor in the military.
- Repeal of DADT would demonstrate that we believe in our principles, that forbidding discrimination and liberty and a chance for folks to show they can make it on their own abilities, are all core American values, as exemplified by our military forces. It will show that prejudice based on religion, or aesthetics, or unfamiliarity is not tolerated, but that each person is given a fair shot to prove themselves. Repeal of DADT will strengthen the mission of the military, not weaken it.
Numbers 1 and 3 are directly parallel to the racial integration of the military in the late 40s/early 50s … which also took place during a war. Major military figures predicted huge problems with unit cohesion. The Army called for segregation to continue for quite some time. Whites in the military were surveyed, and were highly opposed to integration. The number of people to be integrated was much greater than we’re talking about here with gays. And this all took place in an environment where, socially, segregation still was the law of the land.
And yet, once racial integration occurred, much of the opposition faded away. Units performed better. While there was tension and racially-motivated incidents, it was far less than anyone had expected. And the military became a model for society, rather than the other way around.
Is the FRC really saying that repealing DADT is going to be more disruptive, more alienating, more dangerous than racial integration of the military was?
Until then, the Senate has to ask itself: Do they want the blood of innocent soldiers on their hands just to appease the political base of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)?
That’s right — Reid and Pelosi are both looking to shed the blood of innocent soldiers for their own sick and perverted p0litical base. And they want the Senate to go along with it, bwah-ha-ha!
If they can live with that, then they’re unlike any human beings I’ve ever met.
It makes me wonder how many actual human beings Perkins has met.
The zaniness continues over at the FRC Prayer Team page. Now, the Prayer Team could settle for, y’know, just praying about the matter. But they have to editorialize as well. They can’t ask God to protect, or help, or make happen what they think is right. No, they have to preach to the readers, too.
Our nation is threatened today, within and without, by those who oppose Biblical truth, Biblical moral standards and freedom of speech among Bible believers.
Our nation is threatened today, mostly from within, by those who believe they have a lock on Biblical truth, who seek to impose their brand of Biblical standards on everyone, and who, when criticized, whine that their freedom of speech is being threatened.
We who pray must invoke the supernatural intervention of God so that those who seek to foist ungodly laws upon our nation will be confused, divided, and prevented from achieving their evil plans.
Well, luckily for them, they’re referring to the Democrats — we specialize in confusion and division.
On Monday, Tony Perkins sent an urgent alert to pastors across America, urging them to act immediately to thwart the Senate effort to overturn DADT. If enacted, all five branches of the Armed Forces will be forced to admit openly practicing homosexuals into their ranks.
Right. Because right now they admit closeted (but probably still practicing) homosexuals, and that’s worked out so well for everyone.
“Senator John McCain,” Tony wrote, “has repeatedly made two statements to me in our frequent conversations…
This is the Senator McCain who used to say that he’d listen if the military leadership said it was time to change. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and most of the service heads have done just that. Then Sen. McCain said he’d listen if a study and survey was done by the military. The survey was done (a survey criticized initially by pro-gay rights groups for focusing on “problems” not benefits), and it came back saying the military could handle repeal. Now he says he wants another survey, or more time, or the stars to align, or his term to run out, or something.
Yes, do tell what Se. McCain had to say, Tony.
First, he has said he has never seen anything like this. There is an obsession with trying to ram through a controversial social policy at the risk of so many other vital pieces of legislation [e.g., defense, taxes, government funding, etc.].
Well, gosh, why has DADT not been brought up before. Oh, right, it has, and been shunted off for a big long survey. And now that the GOP has won the next Senate, they’ve been continuing to stall, delay, and obstruct any business of the Congress, trying to run out the clock — not just on DADT but on everything else, including defense.
For McCain to blame this all on Democrats “obsessively” trying to “ram through a controversial social policy” (one supported by a substantial majority of Americans) is, to put it as charitably as possible, ingenuous.
He has also asked me several times: ‘Where are all the religious leaders, where are the pastors?’ The only voice that is being heard on Capitol Hill is that of the homosexual community who are attacking anyone and everyone who stands in opposition to their agenda.”
That’s right — nobody on the Right has said anything at all about DADT. All those preachers have been silent. All those Conservative Christian sites oblivious.
(We’ll ignore that inconvenient fact that there are plenty of religious leaders who support a repeal of DADT. They’re all bad religious leaders, of course.)
(We’ll also ignore that it’s not opposition to an “agenda” that has gays riled; it’s opposition to themselves and who they are. Kind of like your whining, Tony, about the opposition to Biblical Christians, except, y’know, with some truth behind it.)
FRC has learned that liberal leaders in the House and Senate intend to push bills through both houses today —
Those wily FRC folks! They must have learned that through … the newspaper!
…. akin to the way ObamaCare was forced through both Houses without regard for the public or the members.
Exactly! Except, instead of debating health care reform first for several months before finally managing to get it through, DADT has been debated for, oh, a couple of decades now.
The overturn has already been affirmed by the House; Lieberman has long said he has the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, and vote-counting conservatives say that unless certain lame duck Senators who have publicly said they would support the bill renege, the liberals will pass this bill.
Would it were that easy.
These people are obsessed …
Uh, Tony, about that obsession thing?
… because they are spiritually blind.
As opposed to spiritually blinkered, unable to see or consider a spiritual belief or judgment other than your own.
They are driven (Eph 6:12).
Classy! “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Yes, it’s the Devil you face! The Devil is Gay!
Obviously they either do not know, do not believe or do not care what God has said about the consequences that will come upon a people who approve what He calls an “abomination.”
You mean like remarriage of previously divorced people, or engaging in dishonest business practices? Or maybe you mean the proud, those with wicked imaginations, or folk who sow discord. Yeah, we don’t let any of those sorts join the military. Or, y’know, publish in socially conservative websites.
There should be an uprising from among our churches, but alas, there has not been to date.
Maybe the churches are more worried about feeding the poor and clothing the naked these days.
As for the advocates of open homosexual practice, …
By which I assume he means “living as a known homosexual,” as opposed to “public buggery” — though you never can tell what sort of accusation is being tossed around.
… they know that breaking down the barrier to homosexuality in the military is to capture the last remaining institution in America that maintains conservative moral standards, such as prohibiting the practice of adultery, homosexuality and other aberrant sexual behaviors that are harmful to good order and discipline in the ranks.
Scary language aside, yes, there is actually something to that point. I don’t expect gays will actually “capture” military, but just as acceptance of homosexuals in our midst has increased in the general public as they’ve become personalized as neighbors and co-workers and friend and relative, not just as scary bogeymen, so, too, I’d expect that we’d see an increase in acceptance within the military. (Indeed, the survey results point to just that very thing, where service members who know or believe that someone they serve with is gay tend to be more accepting of the repeal of DADT and optimistic about unit cohesion and all that than those who don’t.)
That’s awfully scary to folks like the FRC, who realize that time is not on their side.
The confusion the policy would bring to our fighting forces, …
What confusion?
… and the threat this “radical social experiment” poses to our national security …
How so?
… is predictable and plain for anyone with minimal spiritual discernment to see.
Ah. “We don’t have to prove it, we just have to asset it, and all the Good People will know we’re speaking the truth.” Got it.
Further, three of the four of the military Joint Chiefs have warned us.
They’ve also said they’re ready to carry out their orders. As, presumably, are the troops behind them.
To summarize the Joint Chiefs:
- The Navy says no problems.
- The Air Force says no problems, but would rather it were not done immediately.
- The Army isn’t thrilled about it, but doesn’t think it will affect getting the mission done, but would rather it were not done immediately.
- The Marines, as noted, don’t think we should do it because a substantial minority of troops didn’t survey well on it.
Not quote the gaypocalypse that the FRC is touting.
As you know, we have featured this issue for prayer for months.
If not years.
This will be a moral watershed for our nation.
I agree. Do we stand for prejudice, or freedom? Do discriminate for religious reasons, or let each man and woman demonstrate, by their service, if they are worthy to be in our military?
Those who pray must be laser-focused on this battle, that God would change the minds of Senators who have decided wrongly on this vote. Every vote counts.
I agree. And I know how I’ll be praying, regarding “the minds of Senators who have decided wrongly on this vote.”