Philip Klein has argued yet
again for openly gay military service. “As somebody who doesn’t
view gayness as a big deal one way or the other,” Klein wrote
yesterday, “I honestly have trouble seeing the problem with
allowing gays to openly serve in the military.”
Klein, I believe, is an honorable man. His indifference to
this issue is no doubt sincere and, unfortunately, widely shared
by many on the Right. So let me try to explain why conservatives
such as myself — especially those who serve in the U.S.
military, and in particular the combat arms — are so riled by
this issue.
First off, our opposition to openly gay military
service has nothing to do with fear or prejudice against
homosexuals. Yet this line of argument has been propagated and
accepted by the cultural and policy elite. Hence the Pentagon’s
silly effort to “study” the issue so as to better understand the
“feelings” of military service personnel.
But you don’t need a study to realize that the vast
majority of our military personnel don’t give a damn if you’re
gay. By the same token, however, most military personnel
recognize that being gay is not at all like being black, Jewish,
Hispanic or Asian. And the reason, as Colin Powel observed in
1993, is simple:
Skin color [and ethnicity are] benign, non-behavioral
characteristic[s]. Sexual orientation, [by contrast], is
perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics.
Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid
argument.
Yet Klein and the cultural and policy elite suggest that
sexual yearnings and sexual appetites are of no consequence.
After all, they argue, so long as we enforce strict codes of
conduct, there will be no problems with openly gay military
service.
Please. Only someone who has never served in the U.S.
military and who has never been to high school or college could
make such a ludicrous argument. Sexual yearnings and sexual
appetites are of tremendous consequence; and they
profoundly shape human behavior.
I could cite examples from my own modest experience as a
Marine to show specifically how and why sexual dynamics (between
men and women) adversely shape behavior and disrupt teamwork and
unit effectiveness. My experience, however, is not
atypical.
Suffice it to say that how military personnel feel about
gay men and women is utterly irrelevant. What matters greatly is
the introduction of an overt sexual dynamic into an
overwhelmingly young and healthy male population. The problem
with openly gay military service is that it puts the full force
of law behind this dynamic while dishonestly pretending that
sexuality doesn’t affect human behavior.
Yet ironically, Klein writes, “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…”
Well, give Klein credit for honesty. He’s not afraid to admit
that he’s at one with the Left on social issues. But if issues of
sexual morality aren’t the concern of government — and I quite
agree that they are not — then why is Klein urging the
government to grant special legal protection to homosexuals? Why
does he think homosexuals should be singled out for special
protective status?
After all, gay men and women can and do serve now in the
U.S. military — provided they keep their private sexual lives
private. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike
Mullen, says this policy (‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’) is wrong
because it forces gay men and women to “lie” about their sexual
status.
But that’s not really true — or at least the policy is not
as bad or as onerous as Adm. Mullen suggests. Most commanders,
after all, are loath to initiate separation procedures against a
gay military member unless and until that member makes an issue
of their sexuality.
In fact, the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy requires gay
men and women to be discreet about their sexual status. Big deal.
Excuse me for not thinking that this is a terrible and grave
injustice wrongly inflicted upon patriotic lesbians and
homosexuals.
In any case, the issue is not one of sexual morality
(though unlike Klein, I do think morality matters); it is one of
human nature, human behavior and group dynamics. Heterosexual
dynamics within the military certainly can be, and often are,
disruptive. However, homosexual dynamics would be even more
disruptive given most people’s natural antipathy toward
homosexual acts.
A shared sense of manhood, after all, is integral to the
military culture, especially in the combat arms. But what happens
to that culture when it becomes known as a hospitable redoubt for
gay men and women? It would be naïve to think that this won’t
have an effect on recruiting, retention and combat
effectiveness.
Yet, Klein decries conservatives’ “inordinate focus on
homosexuality.” Would that it were so! In fact, as Klein well
knows, most conservatives have been reticent to oppose the gay
lobby. Their reticence is attributable in part to crass political
motives (the omnipotent polls show that everyone’s now in favor
of so-called gay rights), and in part to the fact that many
conservatives have bought into the propaganda and deception of
the gay lobby.
But before we force a dramatic policy change and cultural
transformation upon the U.S. military, we might want to reflect
deeply upon human nature and human sexuality, and their effects
upon human behavior: Because the reality is that we are not
automatons; we are sentient beings. And our sentient nature
profoundly affects individual behavior and group dynamics, and
not always for the better.
