-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” showed that the proponents of open homosexuality in the military are confident, articulate, and on the offensive. Religious believers and cultural traditionalists, by contrast, are nervous (or nonchalant), relatively inarticulate, and on the defensive.
That’s unfortunate because, as I’ve argued here at The American Spectator, religious believers and cultural traditionalists have the better argument.
Indeed, they are valiantly trying to uphold their First Amendment right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. They are doing so, moreover, when virtually the entire American establishment — and certainly the vast majority of “elite” and “respectable” opinion makers — are arrayed against them.
Their opponents include, regrettably, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, both of whom testified before Congress today.
Gates and Mullen both voiced their “personal belief” that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed; and they announced that they have begun preparations necessary to make that happen.
The Department of Defense, moreover, is convening a “high-level working group” to identify and review all military policies and procedures that will have to be changed to accommodate open homosexuality in the ranks.
Gates and Mullen insisted that the working group will have “no preconceived view”; however, it certainly will have a preconceived objective — namely, “to accomplish this transition [to open homosexuality within the ranks] successfully and with minimal disruption to the department’s critical missions.”
In other words, the working group will go about its business secure in the knowledge that its conclusions have already been determined. Indeed, “the question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it,” Gates said.
To be sure, he added, the Department of Defense “can only take this process so far, as the ultimate decisions rests with you, the Congress.”
Nonetheless, Gates has directed the Pentagon to reinterpret the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law, with the aim of allowing more open homosexuality within the military.
This prompted Senator McCain to acerbically decry Gates’ “bias,” as well as Gates’ attempt to repeal the law “by fiat.” “I am happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to repeal the law,” McCain pointedly observed.
But the tenor and thrust of McCain’s remarks were wholly inadequate. He seemed peeved and defensive; and he conceded too much.
“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ has been an imperfect but effective policy,” he said. It “is working, and… we should not change it now.”
What does that mean? Does McCain mean that we should change the policy later, when we no longer are making severe demands on our military? It sure sounded like that to me.
In short, McCain and his fellow GOP Senators all seemed incapable of explaining, in a serious-minded way, why open homosexuality in the military is a bad and deleterious idea. They talked instead about changing and dubious notions of unit cohesion, unit morale, and unit readiness; and how these all might be adversely affected if gays were allowed to serve openly within the ranks.
But that won’t cut it, which is why the gay advocacy groups who are pushing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are so confident and so aggressive: They rightly sense that religious believers and cultural traditionalists are tongue tied, defensive, and unsure of themselves and their position — and they are right to think this, unfortunately.
The reality is that in a rights-based political culture, where one group of people is aggressively asserting its alleged “rights,” you are politically defenseless and vulnerable unless you can posit an equally strong and countervailing set of rights.
Religious believers and cultural traditionalists can and should argue from a position of strength: because, quite literally, their rights are on the line in the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The litigious nature of American society, the goals and objectives of the gay lobby, and the unique nature of close-knit military life all make a clash of rights inevitable.
Religious believers and cultural traditionalists have been cowed and intimidated, however, by the forces of American liberalism, which will brook no dissent. Too bad. It’s time to speak out, fight back, and be heard — now, before our rights are taken away and the military’s family-friendly culture is destroyed.
Two final points. Admiral Mullen said that he favors allowing gays to serve openly because otherwise they are forced to lie about their sexual orientation. With all due respect to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this simply isn’t true. Gay servicemen and women can and do serve without incident, and no one asks that they lie about their sexual orientation.
What the military does ask is that gay servicemen and women keep their sexual behavior and activities private and out of the workplace — and that they refrain from using their sexuality as a protected status to enforce upon non-gays acceptance and legitimization of their lifestyle choices.
Contra Admiral Mullen, integrity is not at issue; tolerance is — the tolerance of the U.S. military for religious believers and cultural traditionalists.
Second, we have yet to hear from the other service chiefs, and specifically the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway whom I suspect has a different view about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
It’s easy, after all, for the Navy — and a four-star Navy admiral — to be politically correct, because the Navy really doesn’t have to fight anyone; the Navy really isn’t at war. Consequently, the Navy can afford to indulge fashionable causes and trends: because if it screws up, no one is likely to die.
The Marine Corps, by contrast, is spearheading the military’s most intense and demanding combat and humanitarian relief operations — in Afghanistan and Haiti, respectively. Thus, they are far less indulgent of politically correct nostrums and ideas. The Marines, remember, must stay focused on mission accomplishment. That means protecting their rights as Americans, and protecting the Corps’ unique military culture, heritage, and traditions.
In any case, the debate has been joined. May it be honest, candid, and full-throated; tolerant and respectful; pointed and insightful. And let’s hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — the good, the bad, and the ugly — about sexual fraternization and gay relations in the military. Our servicemen and women — and the American people whom they serve — deserve a fully informed and honest debate. Bring it on.
View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/02/dont-ask-dont-tell-but-do-disc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
LiveFreeOrDie| 2.2.10 @ 8:38PM
"Our servicemen and women deserve a fully informed and honest debate. Bring it on."
In this sad age of political correctness they aren't likely to get it. Not from congress.
Tina Schrader| 2.2.10 @ 9:27PM
Mr. Guardiano, are you familiar with the line by the late Libertarian Senator Barry Goldwater? "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight." Or was Goldwater somehow not a true Conservative (and if so, I'd love to hear the explanation why) and so his view on that wouldn't count? Not all Conservatives feel the way you do on this - and rightly so. Of course, I don't see them mentioned in this article.
I understand why you feel the way you do; it's the first reaction many people have and the one that WOULD seem to make the most sense. The problem is that the facts betray you. "Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993)...Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000-2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
Political correctness has nothing to do with it; that's a cop-out defense - and a rather tired one at that. Simply because someone fights to change the status quo does not mean they're trying to be "politically correct." - Unless you'd like to apply the same disdain to the Civil Rights movement.
Becky| 2.2.10 @ 9:57PM
I would love an open and honest debate on the issue.
I do not serve but think all the branches should have the opportunity to state their views, without the confusion of Civil Rights equivocation or other countries (who have different cultures) as examples.
I personally would not feel comfortable being in close quarters with a member of my own sex that was homosexual, but I am older, and it may not bother younger people.
Jim Webb used to be a strong opponent of women in combat, although he seems to have softened a bit (politics?).
Mary Louise| 2.2.10 @ 10:55PM
Opponents have the better argument because gays have been serving in the Military for as long as there's been a Military.
Proponents like to link race and sexuality, but the difference between them is that race doesn't carry with it a distinctive and necessary -by definition- behavior. And behavior can disturb and disrupt.
No one knows if homosexuality is genetic or not. The science isn't there. It might be someday, but AFAIK, it's not there now. It could be that a disposition, combined with style of parenting, is what gets one there.
If studies -real studies, not ones that are driven by an agenda- continue, it'll be interesting to those drawn to the study of genetics.
The opponents also have flesh and blood soldiers, honorably serving their country, who want to be free to be honest. Conservative pleas are going to be inadequate by comparison.
I don't know of any time in history when a culture has raised homosexuality to parity with heterosexuality. And to my mind, that is the issue. Natural or not, it's anamolous and not an equal good. And now that heterosexuals have abandoned dignity and modesty, homosexuals are empowered to take advantage of that.
It matters what men and women in uniform think.
The Israeli military allows gays to openly serve, though I think they're barred from certain positions in Intelligence. But the Israeli military is full of conscripts, and that makes a big difference in how you have to treat or handle the issue.
I lived in the gay section of a City when I moved from my home town. It was a nice part of town. Nice shops, fairly safe area. One young man I came to be friends with, and to my surprise, revealed an interest in me. I said, wait a minute, I thought you were gay? He said he really wasn't, but that he'd been on his own since he was 16 and the quickest way to make a good buck was to service older gay men who cruised the City (Atlanta, I think) he grew up in.
I could never pretend to understand or discount sodomy. Never can two men look each other in the eye during union and say I love you. As they say, it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Opening up the world of sexuality to a young man or woman before his or her time produces an astimagtism that bends everything towards that view.
Probably, people are gay for a lot of different reasons. Victor wasn't really gay, he just had no standards and/or a pretty shabby upbringing. It still sort of startles me to see two lesbians, one of whom is obviously the husband, giving me the once over. One of these days I'm going to have to ask: Are you the man of the house? Are you the husband?
philfl63| 2.2.10 @ 10:58PM
Oh yes, let's have an open and honest debate on the issue. And while we are at it, why do we not have an open and honest debate about allowing pedophiles and pederasts serve as well? How about rapists, and practitioners of bestiality? After all, those are only personal, private proclivities (alternative lifestyles). It is real simple people, the U.S. military is the only, I say again ONLY entity that stands between our cotton-candy insulated fantasy lifestyle here in the good ole USA and hell on earth as is experienced in the rest of the world. Homosexuality is wrong, immoral, evil, illegal, depraved, unnatural, vile, pernicious, wicked, and every other negative pejorative to be found in the dictionary. The military culture is unique. Perversion will not make it better or more effective or more diverse or more fair or more equal. This "debate" is a lie from the pit of hell to further bring our country down into the gutter. I do not want AIDS-infected ghouls bleeding all over me in combat. I will not aid anyone I know who is wounded and is a homosexual. I will not expose myself to that danger. Our political and military leadership need to retire right now, while they have time, if they are too craven to stand up for what is right and honorable. Homosexuality is from the hell of the homosexual's putrid soul. I can not control that, but I sure as heck can do whatever possible to keep them out of the military.
Mary Louise| 2.2.10 @ 11:51PM
Søren Kierkegaard on Homosexuality:
"A psychological observation on homosexuality in antiquity. The reason why pederasty was so general in antiquity and was not really condemned was undoubtedly because of paganism's corruption, but psychologically there is something else to be remembered. In the relationship between man and woman, sex, there was no room whatsoever for the intellectual side; woman's position was too low for that and in the first place too low in man's estimation, which is the case everywhere in the East. The relationship is an entirely sexual one. And so the intellectual side is introduced into the love of young men as Socrates says, though in an entirely innocent sense, and so degenerated into that vice. But the intellectual side had nothing whatsoever to do with the love of the other sex. In Christendom, to greater or lesser degree, the intellectual side was added to the love of woman. But it is a question whether the addition of the intellectual side to such an instinct is not, morally, a very serious matter, and whether it does not produce a refinement as a result of which it is but little good loving and being faithful to only one when per abusum one goes and adds the intellectual side to it. "
Yosemeti Sam| 2.3.10 @ 1:36AM
Here's an idea - have a poll amongst the military
personnel. To bugger the PC issue 'question' directly to straight men & women in the armed forces; whether they generally cotton to serving with flamboyant homosexuals - who love a parade.
Clarify the issue for the putative straits of homosexual sympathizers losing sleep in the upper echelons of the armed forces.
Yo, Rasmussen !
PCC| 2.3.10 @ 3:09AM
Am I wrong to be irked by Admiral Mullens' repeated reference to his "personal" views on this subject?
Am I wrong to think that I don't give two hoots about his "personal" opinion?
What I'd like to know, and what I think he is paid for, is his professional opinion.
Am I missing something here?
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 8:45AM
News-Sentinel.com links to this page.
Mick Lee| 2.3.10 @ 9:05AM
Given my experience in academia, if this comes to pass, there won't be any problems because there just CAN'T be any problems.
S.L. Toddard| 2.3.10 @ 11:30AM
"Indeed, they are valiantly trying to uphold their First Amendment right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech"
I have to say, I think the morale/unit-cohesion arguments are better than this one. Or else allowing openly gay persons to be employed *anywhere* denies "right(s) to freedom of religion and freedom of speech" to their religiously conservative coworkers. Which is to say that for one to make the first amendment argument vis a vis gays serving openly in the military, one must also by extension argue against openly gay persons being employed anywhere, in any capacity, more or less.
John R. Guardiano| 2.3.10 @ 12:44PM
S.L. Toddard,
Thanks, but the issue isn't whether gays can serve in the military. They can and they do.
At issue are the rights of religious believers and cultural traditionalists, and whether the military must be forced to condone and endorse open homosexuality. That’s a very different question from whether gays can serve.
Again, the litigious nature of American society, the goals and objectives of the gay lobby, and the unique nature of close-knit military life all make a clash of rights inevitable.
I want to protect the integrity of the American military culture -- which, not incidentally, is integral to American military success -- as well as the rights of religious believers and cultural traditionalists. Fortunately, we can do this while also allowing gays to serve in the military, as they do now.
Mine, in fact, is a moderate and reasonable position nestled between the two extremes -- the extremists who want to ban gays from serving in the military and the extremists who want to force the military to accommodate open homosexuality.
I reject both extremes and thus want to retain the current policy. Will you join me in championing this moderate and reasonable position?
Regards,
John
S.L. Toddard| 2.3.10 @ 5:58PM
Thank you for your reply, Mr. Guardiano. Please bear with me because fear you misunderstand me.
"Thanks, but the issue isn't whether gays can serve in the military. They can and they do."
I understand that, which is why I wrote "allowing *openly* gay persons to be employed... etc" and "for one to make the first amendment argument vis a vis gays serving *openly* in the military... etc".
"At issue are the rights of religious believers and cultural traditionalists, and whether the military must be forced to condone and endorse open homosexuality. That’s a very different question from whether gays can serve."
Yes, it is. My point, which maybe I did not make clear, was that if one were to argue that gays serving *openly* in the military would violate the 1st amendment rights of other soldiers by "force(ing) the military to accommodate open homosexuality", couldn't one also argue that gays working *openly* in any private company would violate the 1st amendment rights of co-workers by forcing the company to accommodate open homosexuality?
Which is to say, wouldn't that logic have to apply to the private sector, and wouldn't you - in defense of the 1st amendment rights of gays' coworkers - be compelled to argue that gays working in the private sector openly as gays should be disallowed? If not - if forcing private companies to hire openly gay employees does not violate the 1st amendment rights of that company or its employees, then why would forcing the military to employ openly gay soldiers infringe upon the 1st amendment rights of other soldiers (or the military in general)?
"I reject both extremes and thus want to retain the current policy. Will you join me in championing this moderate and reasonable position?"
I do think your position is moderate and reasonable. I don't find it offensive or immoral or extreme in the least. I'm just not sure that it is logical.
Thank you for your time, by the way.
S.L. Toddard| 2.3.10 @ 5:58PM
Great - a mistake in the first sentence. Obviously that should read "because I fear you misunderstand me".
Ugh.
Nick| 2.3.10 @ 6:19PM
Hey, Toddard, where have you been hiding?
You never answered my question from yesterday. You have a nasty habit of doing that.
Did Mussolini do a 180?
If he did, please cite some quotes from him saying he renounced socialism and was now a right-winger.
Also, start that remedial reading coarse ASAP.
S.L. Toddard| 2.4.10 @ 7:38AM
My God. Nick, if you think you have ever - or COULD ever - concoct any argument that I would have to hide from you need to stop doing acid, fast.
Yes, Mussolini broke with the socialists and then abandoned socialism, considering it a failure ("Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail", he said. In 1932 he wrote "When the war ended in 1919 Socialism, as a doctrine, was already dead; it continued to exist only as a grudge," and "Fascism (is) the resolute negation of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism.") He then concocted fascism as an alternative. Seriously, Nick - these are very, very rudimentary points of European history. These are the absolute *basics*. That you are ignorant of them should be terribly embarrassing to you, although considering the American right's embracing of anti-intellectualism I fear you will wear your ignorance like a badge of honor.
Don't - it's nothing to be proud of.
Nick| 2.4.10 @ 12:39PM
Instead of pulling quotes off of wiki, you should read Mr. Goldberg's book.
None of those quotes say Mussolini rejected socialism.
And he didn't "concoct" fascism as an alternative. Fascism was a new and improved socialism compared to Marxism and all the other socialist theories of the time.
If you knew half of what you THINK you know, you'd be dangerous.
S.L. Toddard| 2.5.10 @ 10:54AM
"And he didn't "concoct" fascism as an alternative. Fascism was a new and improved socialism"
Not according to Mussolini, its inventor. According to Mussolini, "Fascism (is) the resolute *negation* of the doctrine underlying so-called scientific and Marxian socialism". See the relevant definitions of "negation" (4 and 5) below:
negation
- 4 dictionary results
ne⋅ga⋅tion
–noun
1. the act of denying: He shook his head in negation of the charge.
2. a denial: a negation of one's former beliefs.
3. something that is without existence; nonentity.
4. the absence or opposite of something that is actual, positive, or affirmative: Darkness is the negation of light.
5. a negative statement, idea, concept, doctrine, etc.; a contradiction, refutation, or rebuttal: a shameless lie that demands a negation.
According to Mussolini himself, in his own words, Fascism is the "opposite", of socialism - a "contradiction", a "rebuttal" of socialism. But what would Mussolini know about what he himself thought of socialism, right Nick? I'm sure widdoo Jonah Goldberg, who is not a historian and who owes his position at NR entirely to nepotism, knows better, right?
Class dismissed.
Nick| 2.5.10 @ 11:55PM
If you are going to Google "mussolini rejects socialism" or "jonah goldberg's book sucks", you should actually read the full quotes you are wrenching out of context, or just plain not understanding.
How do I know this is what you did? If you had actually read what you quoted, you would've used this quote to TRY to prove your point:
"We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the " right ", a Fascist century."
Let me provide the FULL quote you butchered (with the key points highlighted):
"Such a conception of life makes Fascism the resolute negation of the doctrine [UNDERLYING] so-called [SCIENTIFIC AND MARXIAN SOCIALISM], the doctrine of [HISTORIC MATERIALISM] which would explain the history of mankind in terms of the class struggle and by changes in the processes and instruments of production, to the exclusion of all else." (Emphasis mine)
I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit, so pay particular attention to the words in big letters.
And then read this:
"The Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism, [SHOULD NOT], however, be interpreted as implying a desire to drive the world backwards to positions occupied prior to 1789, a year commonly referred to as that which opened the demo-liberal century. History does not travel backwards." (Emphasis mine)
Also:
"From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements [WHICH ARE STILL VITAL]. It [PRESERVES] what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else.
Your BELIEF that fascism is the "opposite" of socialism is not supported by the facts.
The above quotes, in context, prove my statement that "fascism" was a new and improved socialism put into action by a man named after left-wing revolutionaries, and whose father read him Das Kapital as a child.
Fascism/National Socialism and Communism/International Socialism are two sides of the same coin.
You are like an out-of-work teacher .... no class!
Pingback| 2.3.10 @ 11:13PM
Liberals Ecstatic Over Potential Repeal of DADT; Every One Else, Including Military–N links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
steve| 2.4.10 @ 7:44PM
I doesn't matter what those in the military ranks think, theirs is not to think but to do. DADT is inherently dishonest. The military has a code of conduct that will suffice to cover these individuals. Imagine a draft, would we want gays excluded from serving. A soldier wrote, felons pose a much greater risk to unit cohesion than do gay soldiers. Let them serve.
John Lofton | 2.5.10 @ 11:10PM
Hope you’ll listen to my radio show on homosexuals in the military.Comments welcome.
http://www.theamericanview.com.....php?t=4140
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
jeff dog evans| 2.6.10 @ 12:30AM
I think dont ask etc. works fine. I think that repealing it would certainly be detrimental to our military. If our president works to repeal this policy, it's because he feels like he owes the gay community for helping get him elected. He doesn't have to worry about showering with homosexuals or rooming with them. Whoever works to overturn this policy deserves to be sodomized for his ignorance. If I was still in, changing this policy would cause me not to re-enlist.