May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
Senate Armed Services Committee hearings this week on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had an air of unrealism about them. That’s because, in response to media and activist pressure, Congress and the Pentagon have deliberately framed the issue in wholly surreal and antiseptic terms. This to compel a politically correct outcome.
Policymakers ask whether repeal can be effected, and whether openly gay service poses an unreasonable level of “risk” to the force. But that’s the wrong and misguided question.
The question isn’t whether the U.S. military can manage open homosexuality within the ranks. Of course it can! The U.S. military also could manage, surely, to fight three wars simultaneously, while absorbing a 15% budget cut. That doesn’t mean, however, that these policy options are wise or preferable.
Moreover, the entire thrust of this debate has focused, stupidly, upon the “feelings” or views of the troops. Will they accept openly gay service? Can they handle serving with a gay service member? Will the military crumble if lesbians and homosexuals come out of the closet?
Of course most servicemen and women don’t care if someone’s gay. I don’t care if someone’s gay — provided, that is, they don’t make an issue of their sexuality.
In fact, gays can and do serve now, albeit discreetly. And that’s a testament to the success of the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. So why fix what ain’t broke?!
Because the point of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t to allow gays to serve; it is to enforce public acceptance of homosexuality.
It is to supplant the Judeo-Christian tradition with a more modern, secular humanist tradition. It is to put homosexuality on a par, legally and socially, with heterosexuality. It is to infringe upon religious liberty. And it is to replace our traditional understanding of manhood and masculinity with a more sexually ambiguous sense of these terms.
Indeed, that’s the more nefarious and underhanded purpose of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which the media never report on or discuss.
There’s also the offensive notion, promulgated in the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” survey, and by Congress and the media, that military service men and women who object to open homosexuality within the ranks are benighted bigots who need to be enlightened by positive exposure to lesbians and homosexuals.
No, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who object to openly gay service harbor, I think, a healthy and natural aversion to homosexuality; and their views should be respected, not ostracized and condemned.
But the bottom line is this: if openly gay service is such a grand and great idea, then why not try it out first in one or more of the services — say, the Air Force or the Navy — that seem most hospitable to it?
Why not allow for diversity and competition? Why not see if open homosexuality within the ranks gives the Navy or the Air Force an edge or an advantage in recruiting and retention?
Because the advocates of openly gay service aren’t interested in diversity or competition. They’re interested in forcing their will, and forcing their ideas, upon everyone — even those who harbor legitimate moral, religious and aesthetic objections to homosexuality.
This week’s hearings were a sham designed to rush through a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so that President Obama can reward his gay donor base. These hearings were as predictable as they were shameful.
Congress should do its due diligence, push back and exercise its constitutional oversight responsibilities. Serving as a rubberstamp for the executive branch is not what the American founding fathers had in mind when they created our national legislature.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?