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“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed; and they announced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.
