-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over the weekend, in a Washington Times op-ed, Robert Knight accused me of thinking I’m “smarter than God” because of my belief that gays should be allowed to openly serve in the U.S. military. When I was alerted to the column by this Robert Stacy McCain blog post, my initial reaction was: Gee, I didn’t realize God had taken a position on the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” debate. Yet Knight also made a broader argument about sexual morality.
Before responding to Knight in more detail, let me say at the outset that despite what Stacy suggests in his blog post, I never accused people who disagree with me on DADT of being bigots, because I don’t think that’s an effective way to argue (any more effective than Knight’s attempt to speak for God). The main point I was trying to make was that it’s hard to debate DADT because one’s opinion is so closely tied toward one’s perception of homosexuality. As somebody who doesn’t view gayness as a big deal one way or the other, I honestly have trouble seeing the problem with allowing gays to openly serve in the military. At the same time, those who oppose lifting the ban start off with the assumption that homosexuality needs to be actively discouraged by society. So this brings me back to Knight, and his broader arguments about sexual morality.
In response to George Will, Knight writes:
Ah, that’s it. Those of us who believe that God created male and female and that sex outside marriage - adultery, fornication and homosexuality - is wrong and harmful, are just not being intelligent. It’s apparently not enough to love friends and family who are into homosexuality; we have to love the behavior that threatens their bodies and souls.
But the debate is not about whether people should “love” homosexual behavior. It’s about the much narrower question of whether gays and lesbians who want to be in the military, and who meet all the requirements, should be allowed to serve openly. Knight tries to say that opposition to homosexuality is about an opposition to sex outside of marriage. He later adds, “And what about the Creator of the Universe? It is God’s moral code that has undergirded Western society for more than 3,500 years. God’s intelligent design - marriage - is the glue that holds it together.” Yet if the aim of the current ban on gays openly serving is to discourage sex outside marriage, would Knight favor kicking anybody out of the U.S. military who has admitted to having pre-marital sex? Talk about hurting recruitment!
Later, Knight poses this question to those of us conservatives who have supported gays openly serving: “[G]iven that you’ve warned us repeatedly about many dangers of the left, why are you embracing the centerpiece of their war on American values?”
As it turns out, my political philosophy isn’t based around reflexively opposing anything just because liberals support it. I’ve long believed in a limited government with the narrow focus of protecting the rights of individuals to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm others in the process. Liberals’ plans to provide health insurance to all goes far beyond my vision for government, imposes tremendous costs on society, and is an affront to individual liberty. So I oppose these policies passionately. Yet my political philosophy also leads me to believe that issues of sexual morality aren’t the concern of government, which means that on some issues I reach the same conclusions as liberals, though I may arrive at that conclusion from a different point of view. (I’m reacting to Knight’s more general question here about why conservative pundits like me don’t oppose the left on gay issues. I recognize that the military is a government institution, and thus raises a different set of questions).
The response that I often get to this point is that the breakdown of the traditional family causes real harm to society. It leads to more crime, for instance, and more dependency on social welfare programs, which in turn expands the role of government. I actually don’t disagree with this assessment. But I also don’t see what government is supposed to do about it. Views of marriage and sexuality have evolved for decades. Some can be attributed to changes in law — such as making it easier for people to get divorces - but even such changes were made as a result of broader cultural shifts. And we now live in an age where sex outside of marriage is considered the norm and even pre-marital co-habitation is quite common. I’m not saying that conservatives should just abandon all attempts to argue that society should take love, marriage and sexuality more seriously. My point is that amid all of these and many other cultural changes, the inordinate focus on homosexuality from Knight and others seems like grasping at straws to me. Put another way, I don’t see how allowing gays to openly serve in the military - which Knight portrays as condoning sex outside of marriage — would make heterosexuals more likely to engage in pre-marital sex, commit adultery, or get divorced. And I don’t see how by pointing this out, I’m trying to pick a fight with God.
View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/06/07/no-im-not-trying-to-pick-a-fig
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Panoply of Beauties
- Of Weiner and Women
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
ADVERTISEMENT
W. Barton| 6.7.10 @ 3:25PM
Do not trouble yourself. No thinking person would think a self serving Bible protitute, like you, would know anything about God.
Mammon you are an expert in living by, so stick to it.
W. Barton| 6.7.10 @ 3:28PM
This message was meant for Knight and Will.
Oldefarte| 6.7.10 @ 3:37PM
Philip, Let me attempt to explain my opinion from 16 years of Catholic religious/philosophical teachings. God's NATURAL LAW [the basis for MAN'S HUMAN LAWS] declares that homosexuality is wrong/illegal [ie, God's creation of the first two humans as a MAN and a WOMAN; the Commandments' THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE/WOMAN,etc]. God also instilled in his created humans the concept of FREE WILL, by which humans are given legal guideposts from God's NATURAL LAW but must be responsible for their own life journey of the correct/incorrect or good/evil. It's up to humans to determine their own fate while alive upon earth, and if their failures cause them to self choose the incorrect pathway, their damnation upon death is their own responsibility. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong, but if a human chooses [by FREE WILL] to so practice same, they are solely resposible for the consequences of their chosen behavior. That being said, that does not extrapolate into their RIGHT to inflict their moral failings upon others in society [ie the Catholic Church's destruction from homosexuality or our military's futuristic destruction from same]. If homosexuals were allowed to openly and brazenly force others into acceptance of their lifestyles upon a close quartered group such as the military, its destruction would become a natural result. Homosexuals should not be prevented/excluded from military participation, but instead/only prevented from openly parading their perverted lifestyle upon others. In other words, they should be required to STAY IN THE CLOSET!!!!!
Tim| 6.7.10 @ 3:47PM
A very difficult subject.
JP| 6.7.10 @ 4:08PM
Mr Klein,
The real question from a military readiness point of view is simple: should the gay lifestyle and sodomy still be punished per the UCMJ? It isn't enough to say gays should openly serve; if it ended there, I seriously doubt there would be much further debate. I mean what homosexual would openly enlist or receive a commission if the acts he commits are still prosecuted under the UCMJ? He might as well put a target on his back. For one, he would probably never make it out of basic training. And if he/she did they would certainly not recieve the requisite security clearances (being that sodomy and other acts would still be considered criminal). If the Congress did rescind the DADT policy, but kept gay acts criminal it would be a bonanza for the ACLU.
And once gays are allowed to openly live thier life styles within the DOD, all kind of policy nightmares would crop up. By treating gays as another political minority within the DOD, Congress opens up problems concerning living quarters, gay marriage within the military, adoption, not to mention the problems with morale. Anyone who has served can just imagine the nightmare that would beset a person who used gay profanity, or voiced justified concerns about serving or showering with a man who was gay. At least we do not force women to shower with men in the barracks (at least not yet).Would the DOD have to institute yet another set of rules to enforce sensitivity standards?
And how would any of this improve the morale and good order, not to mention readiness of our military. Gays overall have behaved themselves all of these decades due to the strict rules of the UCMJ. In the past, there was the draft. During peacetime gays did thier 2 years and were out. If you do not think the courts will impose a radical agenda that will hurt readiness, you are simply mistaken.
carnot| 6.7.10 @ 4:23PM
you refrain from examing all the equities. I served a full career in the military. never was interested/didn't care about whether someone was gay. however, as a matter of privacy, I did not want to room for months at a time with someone I knew had different sexual proclivities. visit a submarine or CVN and you will understand what I am talking about. there is more than one set of rights in play in this drama.
David Hart| 6.7.10 @ 5:13PM
1. You already served with plenty of gays. Did anything untoward happen?
2. I don't get this argument. Are you afraid of getting raped? What does privacy mean as it applies to gay people? I am confused.
3. I hate to admit it but I have some straight friends (yikes). We have shared the same gym. Indeed my partner and I shared a beach house with a straight couple.
Mike M| 6.7.10 @ 8:09PM
Put your money where your mouth is, Mr Klein. Go get yourself a blood transfusion from anyone of those gays you feel so confident about, and then remember those military guys who will be forced to.
David Hart| 6.7.10 @ 8:38PM
Now where did THIS nonsense come from? ALL blood is screened for transmittable diseases. People with HIV are not accepted into the military.
I just don't get this. There are plenty of gays in the military. Suddenly, those people become a threat because they are allowed to be honest about their sexual orientation? I must be confused because I don't get the connection.
I suspect that if you take God out of the equation, nobody much gives a crap about gays serving openly in the military. It doesn't seem to bother the Israelis in spite of the fact that they are in constant peril and in a persistent state of war.
C Bowen| 6.7.10 @ 9:25PM
Mr. Klein is happy for gays and women to fight the battles he supports--we get it already. What he is doing on a conservative site is another matter...
Derek Leaberry| 6.8.10 @ 8:43AM
Homosexuals have no honor and thus are poison to anything they touch. If the military decides to surrender on this point, conservatives should turn our backs on the military and defund it as best possible.
Derain Matari| 6.8.10 @ 3:23PM
Homosexuals have always been predatory, it's genetic, watch your back!