The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : The Marines, the Media and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

The Marines, the Media and ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

By John R. Guardiano on 12.17.10 @ 3:43PM

A Marine Corps infantry captain, Nathan Cox, has a piece in today’s Washington Post arguing for repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Sexuality won’t matter in battle,” Cox argues. “I do not believe the intense desire we all feel as Marines to accomplish the mission and protect each other will be affected in the slightest by knowing the sexual orientation of the man or woman next to us.”

Of course, Cox’s piece puts him at odds with the vast majority of Marines, who think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has worked out quiet well. It also puts him at odds with the Marine Corps Commandant, Gen. James Amos. What, then, are we to make of Cox’s brief? Several things, I think.

• First, the fact that Capt. Cox felt free to publish his opinions on this issue, in his capacity as a Marine, is a very good thing which speaks well of the Marine Corps. This shows that the Marines really do champion thought and intellectual engagement by their officers and enlisted personnel. Good for them.

Would that this were the case with the other U.S. military services! Sadly, though, too often that is not the case. Too many military leaders try to squelch and silence U.S. military personnel because they misunderstand the principle of “civilian control of the military.”

Civilian control of the military does not mean that soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines should be dumb, deaf, blind and stupid. It does not mean that they must avoid the public dialogue and debate.

To the contrary: soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have a constitutional right and duty to help inform the public dialogue and debate. They have a constitutional right and duty to bring their own unique insights and experiences to bear on public-policy questions.

And of course, when policymakers enact a new military policy, our servicemen and women have a constitutional obligation to help enforce that new policy — irrespective of whether they agree or disagree it.

That should be civics 101. However, I can tell you, based upon my own modest military experience, that it is not. Too many military personnel think that they have no constitutional right to free speech while in uniform; and too many military leaders act as if this is true.

But it’s not. Our military personnel have a constitutional right to think and to publish. And bully for the Marines for, as usual, showing the way.

• Second, publication of Cox’s piece, albeit laudatory, shows the incredible bias of the Big Media, which refuses to publish any dissenting points of view about open homosexuality within the military.

When, after all, was the last time that the Washington Post — or any other Big Media outlet for that matter — published a piece, a serious and credible piece, in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

The answer: who knows?! The Big Media certainly haven’t published any such piece in recent memory. Indeed, you have to go the American Spectator and other independent media to find an article or an opinion piece that dissents from the dominant left-wing media narrative about openly gay service.

This is nothing less than journalistic malpractice by the Big Media.

Yes, this is unsurprising, sad to say. However, the Big Media’s deliberate effort to slant the news in accordance with its prejudices is still worth noting and remarking upon, I think. If nothing else, this might help to remedy the situation.

• Third, Cox argues that open homosexuality won’t have any effect on esprit de corps because, according to the Pentagon’s recent survey of the troops, “84 percent of combat arms Marines who had served with a homosexual said there would be no effect, or that the effect would be positive.”

But the number of Marines who report that they’ve served with a homosexual is remarkably low, which makes it difficult, I think, to draw a statistically significant conclusion.

In any case, serving with a homosexual under the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is one thing; serving with him in a more permissive atmosphere in which open homosexuality is countenanced is an altogether different thing. Cox makes a compelling argument for retaining the current policy, not discarding it.

In fact, as Cox himself acknowledges, “58 percent of combat arms Marines said they felt allowing homosexuals to serve openly would negatively affect their unit.” And, based upon my own experience and my own reporting, I believe that the number of Marines who think we should leave well enough alone and retain “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is dramatically higher than 58 percent.

• Fourth, Cox says that in combat, “only one thing matters: Can you do your job?”

That’s true, but in prepping for combat, and in building a team, there’s a lot more involved than technical prowess and tactical proficiency.

There’s a sense of shared identity and a shared sense of manhood that causes people to enlist in the Marine Corps in the first place, and which binds them together as brothers. And the question is this: is homosexuality compatible with that identity and that shared sense of manhood? Is “The Few, the Proud, the Homosexuals” as effective a recruiting slogan as “The Few, the Proud the Marines”?

I think not; and the burden of proof is on Cox and other advocates of openly gay service to show otherwise. That’s why the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. James T. Conway, has objected to how Cox and the Big Media have framed this issue.

The issue, says Conway, is not whether the U.S. military can somehow manage open homosexuality within the ranks. Of course it can. [The military also could probably manage to fight three wars simultaneously with a 15% budget cut. But that doesn’t mean doing any of these things is wise or helpful.]

The issue is whether a change in policy “somehow [will] enhance the war-fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps.” And the answer to that question, says Conway, is absolutely not.

“My best military advice to this committee, to the secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is,” Conway told Congress last year.

· Fifth, Cox says that “in the end, Marines in combat will treat sexual orientation the same way [that] they treat race, religion, and one’s stance on the likelihood of the Patriots winning another Super Bowl.”

Cox’ statement reflects the dominant narrative propagated by the gay lobby, the media and the liberal elite, all of which would like everyone to think that sexuality is a benign characteristic; and that “gay rights” is simply the latest civil rights cause. But this is disingenuous.

After all, as Colin Powell observed back in 1993:

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.

Of course, Marines will aspire to be professional and to conduct themselves with honor. That’s what Marines do. But to suggest that homosexuality within the ranks won’t affect behavior is simply not true. Sexual yearnings and sexual appetites are of tremendous consequence; they profoundly shape human behavior. Two thousand years of human history — as well as the U.S. military’s own recent, but much-covered-up history — demonstrate this.

• Six, Cox complains that because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” gay and lesbian Marines are now “barred from discussing their identities honestly with their superiors.” In other words, the current policy forces lesbians and homosexuals to “lie” and misrepresent themselves.

Of course, this really isn’t true. No one is compelled to “lie” about anything. What gay and lesbian servicemen are forced to do is to keep their sexuality to themselves. Big deal.

In fact, if Cox is like most military commanders whom I know, then I seriously doubt he would initiate separation proceedings against a gay Marine unless and until that Marine made an issue of his sexuality. There are, after all, plenty of lesbians and homosexuals who now serve, and who do so without incidence or disruption.

What “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does, then, is help keep in check an inherently disruptive sexual dynamic. Why change or alter a policy that is manifestly successful?

• Seven, Cox argues that “it is difficult to see how this [openly gay service] could do anything but improve their [lesbians’ and homosexuals’] job performance.”

But the job performance of individual servicemen and women isn’t at issue. What matters is unit performance, unit achievement, and mission success.

And actually, it is very easy to see how sexual dynamics within small military units can seriously undermine their prospects for overall success, even as these same sexual dynamics might conceivably benefit individual gay servicemen and women.

• Eight, Cox argues that many Marines oppose repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because they harbor a “false stereotype, borne out of ignorance, that homosexuals don’t do things like pull other Marines from burning vehicles.”

As a former Marine myself, albeit one with a far more modest service record than Cox’s, I take real umbrage at this statement.

Cox offers no evidence whatsoever for impugning the honor and integrity of his fellow Marines. Yet he purports to read their minds and know what’s in their hearts. And what he finds is that most of them are benighted bigots. This is extremely patronizing and insulting. Cox owes all of his fellow Marines an apology.

Let me suggest an alternative explanation for the Marines’ opposition to open homosexuality within the ranks: Most Marines harbor a natural and healthy aversion to homosexuality. They recognize that it is unnatural, unhealthy and abnormal. And they recognize that every major religious tradition in the world — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, et al. - condemns homosexual acts.

Cox is free to disparage these views as wrong and misguided; but please don’t for a minute suggest that they are mere bigotry and “ignorance.” To the contrary: these views about homosexuality are rooted in profound wisdom and human understanding.

Conclusion. And that’s really what’s at stake in this debate: whether we are going to respect the religiously informed views of our servicemen and women who deign to dissent from the dominant liberal-left narrative propagated by Cox and other elites.

Because, as I observed previously here at The American Spectator,

the point of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” isn’t to allow gays to serve. [They can and do serve now, after all. Instead], 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.

I wish that Cox understood this, but alas, he does not. Nor, sad to say, does the Big Media.

Chuck Anziulewicz | 12.17.10 @ 4:13PM

So how is it that all of our allies have integrated Gay servicemembers into THEIR militaries with virtually no problems whatsoever? Judging from everything I've read, most Straightt soldiers and sailors are fully aware have serving and having served side-by-side with Gay soldier and sailors with no problem ... and yet somehow you are suggesting that if DADT is repealed, Gay personnel will suddenly be far more interested in conducting themselves inappropriately than simply doing the jobs they were trained to do! Try telling that to Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, the Gay veteran who was the first man to have a let blown off in the Iraq War!

Elsewhere online, one person who apparently opposes repeal of DADT wrote, " The personal life needs to be left out of the barracks and out of the foxhole. A soldier who can do their job is just that...a soldier."

And I have no problem with that, as long as the same standards apply across the board. I have no problem with any soldier, Gay OR Straight, facing discipline or discharge for inappropriate conduct while on-duty. The problem with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) is that it prohibits Gay soldiers from having any kind of a personal life. If it comes to the attention of a superior officer that a Gay soldier is dating or in a relationship with someone else, that qualifies as "telling" under DADT.

The other big problem with DADT is that it essentially promotes dishonesty. If a superior officer learns that Sgt. Mike is dating another man while off-duty, and he asks Sgt. Mike if this is true, Sgt. Mike can either lie or tell the truth: Either way he's risking his career in the military.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 4:13PM

IMO, in the long run, to gain enough cannon fodder to keep the empire going you will have to enlist as many educated people as you can-- and that means gays, too.

MarkJ| 12.17.10 @ 5:18PM

"cannon fodder"..."empire..."

How fashionably colonial of you to mention these. I'll bet you're still wondering why Rudyard Kipling hasn't published any novels lately.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 6:39PM

Imperium has no meaning; you think the world is a cream pie?? a bowl of cherries perhaps.

Your's is a chirpy, Kipling-view itself.

Christopher Holland| 12.18.10 @ 12:21AM

Since when have the educated classes you are so big on have volunteered to be cannon fodder? The idea is ridiculous and has no parallel in history.

A gay military also has no parallel in history either. One would think that in the thousands of years of human existence, during which warfare played a prominent part, a gay military would be much more prominent if it had been successful. It has never been tried, in any culture, and that is probably because wars and gays do not go well together. Not anywhere, ever, at any time. Now we are told that it is the best idea since canned beer. I think not. Show me even a shred of factual evidence supporting a gay military and I will believe you.

Jack| 12.18.10 @ 2:55AM

Alexander the great's army were fully aware of his sexual proclivity, and they managed to conquor the known world, the entire known world. He was also the greatest military leader in history.

David W| 12.17.10 @ 4:25PM

I can't understand why there is this need for homosexuals to express their sexuality freely (I was once working with a woman who told me she was “gay”. As if I hadn’t figured it out already). I don't talk about my sexuality (or lack thereof) with anyone. It's no one's business. If someone asks if I am married or if I have a girlfriend I provide an honest answer (no, which is unfortunate for me but fortunate for women everywhere). But to wear it on my sleeve as a badge of honor as some would like to do? I think that is what is desired - not just tolerance but full, total, complete, in-your-face-lump-it-or-leave-it acceptance. Imagine if the Marines were to suddenly become like the Catholic Priesthood was (or still is) in danger of becoming. Not only would it impact the ability of a unit to be truly cohesive (non-combat behavior also affects a unit) but what would the effect be on those civilians/enemies our troops have to deal with (especially in the Muslim world)?

And here is another thought. When I donate blood I am asked several questions related to homosexual activity. I assume if I was engaged in that lifestyle choice and were honest in my answers my blood would be discarded. Why? Because homosexuals are more likely to have diseases that render their blood unusable. When there is combat and blood is needed, where would a lot of the donations originate? Fellow troops. If there are a lot of homosexuals serving either their blood will be discarded or those who receive transfusions may end up surviving the wounds but dying of something else. And while heterosexuals aren’t immune to STDs and related problems, I understand that homosexuals suffer them at a greater rate. I am sure this has been thought of but has been buried.

Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.17.10 @ 4:28PM

Nice article, Mr Guardiano. Just one question: how can you be "a former Marine"? I thought that "once a Marine, always a Marine"?

The USMC has traditionally been the most conservative of all services. Hence, 58% of Marine combat personnel want the DADT statute (10 USC S. 654) to remain the law of the land. Of course, they also understand what the consequences would be if the DADT law is repealed.

Cox should've pondered why the chiefs of the USMC, the USAF and the US Army believe that the DADT law should not be repealed at least until the Afghan war ends.

It would be foolish to impose such a radical cultural change on the US military during wartime.

John Guardiano | 12.17.10 @ 5:38PM

Mr. Mazurak,

Thanks for your kind words. There are many former Marines, but no ex-Marines.

None of us ever leave the Corps; and so there are no "ex-Marines." However, all of us do, eventually, leave active or reserve duty. And, when we do, we become "former Marines."

Best,
John

serfer62| 12.17.10 @ 7:48PM

John
Its Marine Veterans not former but always
Cpl of Marines
SF

John Guardiano | 12.17.10 @ 7:53PM

Serfer62,

Ah, you're right! I stand corrected.

S/F
John

Homer Sexual| 12.17.10 @ 5:06PM

Heh-heh ... Cox ...

Sgt. Mike| 12.17.10 @ 5:09PM

I believe the problem is not with Gay people serving our military, it is the agenda of the militant gay who wishes to use this to get in the fact of anyone who is opposed to homosexuality. Having worked for a government agency in the beginning of Affermative action I can tell you what will likely happen. Openly gay service members will take advantage of the fact that any discipline against one will be considered "discrmination" allowing gays to act in manners not in keeping with good military discipline, secure in the fact that they will not be corrected. Gays will be promoted beyond there ability by officers concerned that a complaint of discrimination will derail their careers. Do you remember Maj. Nidal Hasan? In spite of his performance he was promoted due to fear of being accused of discrimination. Lastly what will the military do when Transgenders begin to claim a right to serve openly wearing the womens clothing ?? No one has a "Right" to serve in the military. Does Captain Cox not know that the Marines reserve the right to deny acceptance or reenlistment to someone who has too many tattoos, or what they consider objectional tattoos. This law will in my opinion unfortunately be repealed, the military will to the best to comply with the new situation, but no one should honestly believe that their will not be any cost to this exercise in social engineering.

Joseph Matragas| 12.17.10 @ 5:28PM

Blah blah blah. Get over it. There is no such thing as a natural and healthy aversion to homosexuality because same-sex attraction is not unnatural, unhealthy, or abnormal for a great many people. Eventually people will stop denying this basic human truth.

Margie| 12.17.10 @ 6:06PM

If this were true then there would be no Hell for those who don't repent of the behavior.
Read the Bible.
God's words, not mine~ so you can't fault me for saying so.

danny| 12.17.10 @ 6:31PM

Now Margie, there you go taking the bible literally again. LOL as they say. Good to see you're still here to try and keep 'em in line.

Joseph Matragas| 12.17.10 @ 8:11PM

Her response wasn't even worth my time. Yours was though. Thank you for the laugh.

raytheist| 12.18.10 @ 8:42AM

"God's words, not mine~ so you can't fault me for saying so."

Bollocks. If you didn't agree with those words you wouldn't quote them. Yes, you can be faulted, and doubly so for not only spouting ancient ignorance, but then failing to own it as your own but blaming it on the Bible. If you don't actually support the Bible, don't quote it. If you do believe it, have the guts to own the ridicule it deserves.

CharlieEcho| 12.17.10 @ 6:22PM

Not this people. Semper Fidelis.

Sgt Mike| 12.17.10 @ 7:08PM

You mean a great many like 2.5% of the population or less?

Joseph Matragas| 12.17.10 @ 8:10PM

If that low percentage is accurate, which I do not concede, that would total over 162 million people worldwide. You can at least quadruple that number if we include bisexuals.

That would be a great many people.

Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 10:06PM

And yet, every major religion condemns homosexual acts. Face it, your actions are immoral and unnatural.

Joseph Matragas| 12.18.10 @ 8:07AM

Every major religion has been used to heartlessly and mercilessly murder legions of innocent human beings, even pregnant women and children. Face it, your point is meaningless, and not even accurate. There are actually three genders in Hindu moral philosophy.

Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 6:36PM

You will lose on DADT. You can't have it all.
You can't win 'em all.

Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 6:48PM

Matragas- You are blowhard hiding behind word games. This is not about sexuality or homosexuality. This is about sex between men. This is about the filth of anal penetration and fecal exposure to one's petard. That is the fruit of homosexual sex. Until you can prove that that action between two men in a military unit is "natural", actually prove that it is natural for two men to anally copulate and share this with their superiors without disrupting the unit, you are just a blowhard with your excoriations to "get over it."

Who are you really rooting for to "get over" and who will be the victims of male homosexual power politics in the ranks?

You turn my stomach with all the rest of your minions.

Joseph Matragas| 12.17.10 @ 7:51PM

Good. I'm glad. Enjoy the vote tomorrow.

Joseph Matragas| 12.18.10 @ 2:40PM

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

Dean from Ohio| 12.17.10 @ 7:00PM

Did you notice that Nathan Cox's namesake, the prophet Nathan, spoke truth to power when he condemned the sexual sin of King David, and the murder that the king committed to cover it up?

Too bad that this Nathan served the cause of perversion and sexual violence. Nathan Cox has surely never served in a military where homosexuals are the ones in power, yet he bloviates about how wonderful it will all be. If you think sexual assault is a problem in the military today, wait until Nathan Cox has his way. With them.

Jack| 12.18.10 @ 3:05AM

Actually, the only statistical result of the British change in the law was a significant REDUCTION of sexual assaults!

Dean from Ohio| 12.17.10 @ 7:04PM

Note also that this "wedding" of illegitimate sex and violence was in a context of a military campaign in ancient Israel. In that case, as in this, the straight, honest and upright soldier lost.

Once the sexual desires of military leaders overwhelm their sense of duty, fratricidal violence will result.

Sgt Mike| 12.17.10 @ 7:06PM

Perhaps the reason behind Capt. Cox's defense of the repeal of DADT is because he is homosexual and wishes to be free to bring his life partner to the Marine Corps birthday ball. Maybe this is the reason he feels free to discount the opinion of the 58% of the troops who disagree with him.

John Guardiano | 12.17.10 @ 7:20PM

Sgt. Mike,
Please. That's neither true nor relevant -- and it's uncalled for and beneath you.

I share your frustration with the incredibly one-sided nature of this debate. But let's conduct this debate in a fair, thoughtful and high-minded way.

You are free to criticize Capt. Cox or me, and even to do so in a colorful, harsh and hard-hitting way. But please ensure that your criticism is substantive and not ad hominem or personal in nature.

Regards,
John

Sgt Mike| 12.17.10 @ 8:22PM

John,
Do you know Capt. Cox? Have you confirmed that he is hetrosexual? I do not believe that the suggestion that his active support for the repeal of DADT could be based on his own personal gain is in anyway offensive. As for it's relevance, do you really not believe that the possibility of someone benefitting from a change in a particular law would not be cause for them to support that change? I do not know Capt. Cox, but as a former Marine who has contact frequently with active duty Marines I find his position to be peculiar. Given the lack of support by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the former Commandant, at least 58% of the combat troops ( I do not believe the survey conducted by the Pentagon was unbiased given that at the time it was being conducted they were telling the troops that it was a forgone conclusion and if they didn't like it they could vote with their feet!) I find it unusual that a leader of an infantry company would actively push for a position that at least 58% of his own troops oppose. This comment was not ad hominem or personal, it was intended to try to determine the reasoning for his strong support for the repeal, and his personal gain could be that reason, which I may add is clearly within his rights.
Respectfully
Sgt Mike

Jack| 12.18.10 @ 3:10AM

My dad was in the marine corps in the early 50s and had a couple of gays under his command. To this day, he asserts that they were fine marines ( and had been DRAFTED). He told me a couple of days ago that it should just be ended all at once and without any special training. Just end it.

Timothy Kincaid| 12.17.10 @ 7:35PM

"Of course, Cox's piece puts him at odds with the vast majority of Marines, who think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has worked out quiet well. "

The DADT report (of which only about 30% cared enough to respond) found that SIXTY PERCENT of Marines thought that there would be no problem with repealing the policy.

Is Guardiano an idiot or a liar? Because where I come from, 40% is not a "vast majority".

Actually, considering that Guardiano is not shy about his own inability to serve along side gay people, and his hints about the type of people with whom he socializes (more than 85% are anti-gay), I suspect that he is actually better described by a different adjective, one that could apply to attitudes that would exclude any group of people (be it by race, religion, or any other category of disliked persons). You know the word, it starts with "B"

John Guardiano | 12.17.10 @ 7:51PM

Mr. Kincaid,
I'll ignore your vituperative, ad hominem attacks. But as to your main point about the survey:

The survey never asked if the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be repealed. The vast majority of Marines, I believe, would say: "No, it should not be repealed. The current policy has worked out quite well."

Whether repeal would be manageable is another question entirely. And that is the question which the Pentagon asked.

You could answer "no" to the first or former question (about repeal) while simultaneously answering "yes" to the second or latter question (about whether open homosexuality will prove manageable). Indeed, there is no contradiction here.

But your intolerance for those who disagree with you points to a real problem with repeal -- which is that those who find homosexuality objectionable, for either moral or aesthetic reasons, may soon find themselves unwelcome in the U.S. military.

serfer62| 12.17.10 @ 7:53PM

The main reason to retain DADT is once Open Gays are allowed in, the next will be an Affirmative Action to promote gays over others...that alone is enough to retain DADT.
I admire those gays who shelved the gayness to serve and they deserve it. However to open the military to gays who join as a perversion is not the way to go...

tim| 12.17.10 @ 8:48PM

Your points in keeping dart are not logical. It does force gays to lie. And its clearly unconstitutional. The writer talks about soldiers having the right to speak up but wont allow a soldier to say 'im gay? Not constitutional. And the burden hate to tell u falls on those against repeal not those for it you need to prove that open gays will hurt the military and you can't. You can't deny equality based on bunches. Gays that are willing to take a bullet so you have your freedom to write this. deserve to have their freedom

Kyle| 12.17.10 @ 9:08PM

It seems like you did not read the entire pentagon report. you hone right in on the 58% of marines that are against repeal...like that is the end of your argument..what you fail to state (purposely, in sure). is that out of those 58% of Marines..92% of them say that they believed that have served with gays and had either a positive or NO negative effect on combat readiness. First..58% is not a VAST majority..its a majority...lets talk about VAST Majorities:
1. 75% of Americans want DADT repealed..thats a vast majority.
2. 60% of Republicans want DADT repealed
3. 70% of the military state that if DADT is repealed...there will be either a positive or NO NEGATIVE effect..thats a vast majority.
4. 30 other countries allow gays to serve openly..
EVERY single county..100%..state that gays serving openly has had a positive or no negative effect...
The fact is that your wrong..the burdon of proof is on those AGAINST repeal..you have to PROVE that discriminating against gays makes the military safer..better unit cohesion..unless you can prove it..(which you cant)...its unconstitional to discriminate period.

LindaK| 12.17.10 @ 10:11PM

The 30th Commandant of the USMC, Ret., also is against repeal of this law. Gen. Carl Mundy wrote a letter to Congressmen concerning this vote.
You may read it here - http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18602.xml

Your percentages are incorrect. Where do you get your information from?
There is no "Right to serve." No one is asking them to lie.
What is the damage is the law stays the same??
Our military is the gold standard--why would we want to change it based on other countries' policies??

joe| 12.17.10 @ 9:11PM

you totally contradict your entire argument in the following:
Too many military personnel think that they have no constitutional right to free speech while in uniform; and too many military leaders act as if this is true

What about the constitutional right to say "im gay"...are you against freedom of speech?? that would be blatantly anti american...you cant say that your ok with AMOS having his freedom to state his opinions..and deny gay soldiers the right to do the same!

michael| 12.17.10 @ 9:18PM

the reason why most media outlets dont publish the view for those AGAINST repeal..well..its pretty simple...there are not that many people FOR DADT...75% of Americans are against it...so i would that that 75% of American newspapers and media outlets would be against it..you always have FOX news..Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and plenty of papers in the South im sure..however..since this notice of Gays cant serve openly in the military is becoming embarrassing to this country....people are steering clear..they obviously want change...the senate voted for it (57-40!.) the House overwhelmingly approved repeal of DADT twice...the American public is for it, sadly...a SUPER MINORITY seems to be keeping this sad law on the books..and for no good reason..they cant prove anything...except for discharging 14,000 extremely talented , capable linguists and brave soldiers.

don| 12.17.10 @ 9:21PM

if the leaders of the Pentagon itself, as well as the majority of the senate, house, American citizens, republicans, Christians, and the President state that the American Military can halt this discriminatory (Needlessly!) law..why cant YOU????

Lisa| 12.17.10 @ 9:26PM

wow..are you serious..big deal?

Of course, this really isn't true. No one is compelled to "lie" about anything. What gay and lesbian servicemen are forced to do is to keep their sexuality to themselves. Big deal

---um..hate to break it to you, but they are ABSOLUTELY forced to lie...if another soldier comes right out and asks "don..are you gay"...which any soldier or buddy in a barrack can ask...they soldier would have to lie...if you ask them.."are you dating someone..tell me about the person"..they are FORCED to lie...I dont see you so willing to keep YOUR sexuality to yourself...do you wear a wedding ring..got pics of those cute kids and your wife in your wallet...would it be a "big deal" if you were forced to take the ring off and throw the wifes pictures away while you were at war....yeah..all of the sudden its a VERY big deal. this is how those that have all of their rights think...how arrogant.
just lie about who you are..and NEVER forget you cant let anything slip about who you are....now that is honesty and integrity for you!!!

Louis| 12.17.10 @ 9:31PM

so..in a changing world...where kids are going to school with openly gay kids...they suddenly go in the military...where no gays are allowed!..what a joke. if you want an all white..or all straight..or all male..army....Id move to a different country...its estimated that 66,000 gay troops are currently in the military...they are professionals...I dont think they are going to start dressing like RU Paul the day after DADT is repealed. They are willing to die for their country...lets let them do it with bit of dignity.

tony| 12.17.10 @ 9:34PM

you quote Colin Powell..in 1993..interestingly enough..you dont quote him 17 years later..lets just say that he, as a black republican..has evolved..and is FOR REPEAL!!!

sandra| 12.17.10 @ 9:42PM

so you say that marines harbor a natural aversion to homosexuality..and that is healthy??...what it is, is called homophobia..and you call it a healthy, natural and gays abnormal...hmmm..its been documented by every psychiatrist worth his weight in salt that its as natural and heterosexuality...what i see in your article reveals the truth..you are a religious zealot...you want to be able to discriminate against gays..but YOU dont want to be discriminated for your religion..hmmm...no..you want THAT protected..are you going to start spurting bible verses..try this on
"you may own slaves...both male and female"....how many slaves to you own?? you cant pick and chose bible verses...if you believe gays are unnatural and perverted (as your number 8 highly suggests..)..then you must believe that you are an abomination if you eat shellfish (leviticus)..or that you may own slaves...
ah progress!!!!

Tim| 12.17.10 @ 9:43PM

your exactly right sandra..so im taking Crabs and lobster off of my "ok to eat list"..damn..I do love lobster!!!!

gayle| 12.17.10 @ 9:47PM

oh..please do share with us your most unique and superior readings for your below statement??

these views about homosexuality are rooted in profound wisdom and human understanding.

--Where exactly is this MOST ELUSIVE profound wisdom and human understanding located..please dont state a bible verse..or something from the brainiacs at the national organization for marriage..please give me sound Medical proof so I can be most enlightened, like you obviously are..LAUGH!

tony| 12.17.10 @ 9:51PM

wow..you can count to eight..and still come to the wrong conclusion!!!
Gays are not forcing public acceptance..we really dont care that you accept us...BUT...we will have total equality..you can continue to have blacks, gays, immigrants, woman, whatever group you want to either hate, or discriminate against..>BUT there are laws..and a piece of paper you may want to read (after you put down your bible)..its called the constituion....and it CLEARLY gives equal rights to every indivdual citizen....no exceptions..so you lose this argument

brian| 12.17.10 @ 9:57PM

how exactly are gays infringing upon religious freedom? Your tone is VERY Superior..straights are superior to gays" blah blah blah...religions peoples rights are being taken away..they more you talk..the more you can tell that you just want all your rights..but you want to deny anothers rights. You want to hide behind your religion and not be able to get fired for being religious..but its ok to fire someone for being gay?? WTF..seriously, you think that way..get a grip!
Turn the tables around...would it be ok for you to BE fired for being Christian...or not be allowed to Marry....or not be allowed to serve your country..the true victims are those that are denied equality...since you, as a religious person..lose NONE of your rights, why do you think its ok to make sure another patriotic, tax paying, gay american cannot further their lives?

Lindak| 12.17.10 @ 10:17PM

There is no right to serve in the military.
I miss my uncle. He died at age 51. He lived a life-style that shortened his life.

joe| 12.17.10 @ 10:00PM

reading your article..im gay..i must have devil horns on the top of my head..how dare I think that im equal to a heterosexual!! how dare I think about taking away religious Liberty..hate to tell y ou..many gays are religious...we want and demand equality...in marriage, jobs, adoption, inheritance etc., how does that take YOUR liberty away...oh..it doesn't!!! Period

Tony| 12.17.10 @ 10:11PM

Sgt Mike..and everyone that has a problem with gays in the military...just 2 words
Tail Hook

it seems its vastly more likely that the heterosexuals are raping, date raping, etc...every time I open a paper there is something going on. Try to keep it in your pants before you arrogantly deny equality to others who actually behave themselves..if you do something inappropriate ..you get Removed...straight or gay..its really that simple.

Sgt Mike| 12.17.10 @ 11:55PM

"if you do something inappropriate ..you get Removed...straight or gay..its really that simple"
Actually Tony, that is part of the problem, it simply will not happen. I worked for a state government agency when Affirmative Action was introduced, first for African Americans, then for women, in theory they were now treated exactly the same as the white males, the reality was much different. Both groups were promoted sometimes en masse to make up for past discrmination, this led to incompetent people being put in positions of authority. This also led to their white male subordinates being told to pick up their slack or be accused of not being a "team player" and losing a chance at promotion themselves. Additionally attempts at enforcing regulations were constantly met with claims of discrimination, show up late for work, drunk, leave early, steal drugs, get administrative charges, claim discrimination, charges dropped. Career officers were not going to place their careers on the line by enforcing the regulations when the Govenor and his appointed commander were using the rise of minorities in the ranks for political gain. Towards the end of my career (30years) we had a openly gay women hired, since the govenor had an openly gay brother and supported gay rights, this female officer was promoted quickly, sometimes 3 times in a single year, she rose from recruit to the 2nd highest rank in the dept in about 6-7 years. They didn't have an opening at that rank so they created one to accomodate the Govenors desire to see her promoted. Sad thing is she would have made a great boss if she had earned her rank but the quick rise thru the ranks left her with a feeling of entitlement, she thought she actually had earned it and knew everything. The final result was she continually screwed up because she wasn't prepared or qualified for the rank she obtained and eventually retired after being told she would have to take a voluntary reduction in rank of 2 grades. This will happen with gays in the military, they will become the newest special minority, they will be promoted beyond their ability and will not be disciplined because career officers will fear that their careers will be damaged by a discrimination complaint. With the CNC and the SecDef in favor of gays, why would things be any different? My only hope is no one gets killed because of it. I would quess you will make this out to be my bigotry against minorities, but it is not. It is my experience based on 25years of watching the actuality of affirmative action, not the theory. If you have never worked somewhere and watch people do less work than you, score lower than you on standardized tests and show up for work drunk, or shoot a person for throwing a snowball at them and not be fired or otherwise disciplined, then you will not understand. This may have already begun with Pvt Bradley Manning the man believed to be behind the Wikileaks information. He is gay and complained about how the Army treated gays, but in spite of the fact that his behavior was so disturbing he was disarmed while in a combat zone, he was not relieved of duty. Do you believe it is possible the reason was fear of a discrimination complaint? Concerning the rape issues, there was a commentary article in the Washinton Times a few months ago by a former military prosecutor, he said that homosexual attacks on hetrosexuals in the military was grossly under reported, both because the brass did not wish it to be reported and the shame that heterosexuals experience after a rape. His article stated he investigated many cases but they were kept secret by the Pentagon. I have no reason to doubt the validity of his accusations. You can delude yourself if you wish that Gays are only concerned with equality, but they are not, civil unions with all the same rights as a married couple are not enough, they have to have the right to marry, simply to force everyone else to accept them. Once they get the right for gay marriage, next will be to force churches to perform them. It is not enough that I do not discriminate against them, I have to like them, and accept them even though it is against my religion and upbringing. If I say I don't care if you are gay, but I think it is an abomination against god and unnatural, then I am a bigot even if I treat them the same as everyone else, I can't believe what I believe, I have to believe what you believe. Just to set the record straight, I wasn't at TailHook and you have no idea how I behave with members of the opposite sex, so you have no basis for telling me to keep anything in my pants and arrogantly accusing me of acting inappropriately.

Tim| 12.17.10 @ 10:16PM

why is it that when I read your article..starts off kind of interesting..I mean...WRONG..but interesting...then you have to show your true colors...your a religious fanatic. you FINALLY get there at the very end..trying best you can to cover that up...but I know it would finally creep up! There is freedom of religion..and freedom FROM religion...its what america is based on...so you cant dictate your beliefs and deny another rights based on your religious beliefs..sorry..does not work that way..what really makes me sick to my stomach is ALWAYS a very simple question..what would Jesus do: Simple...he hung out with radicals, often spoke out against the establishment and traveled with prostitutes...so the answer is easy..JESUS is FOR repeal...
Why do the conservative christians NEVER do what Jesus would do in their situation...sigh

adam| 12.17.10 @ 10:21PM

Tim..you are so right...Jesus: Against War...Conservative Republicans: For War
Jesus..for equality for everyone
conservative Republicans: equality for the majority only..(no gays or immigrants allowed here)
jesus: forgiving and non judgemental
religious Conservatives : Extremely judgemental and non forgiving.
Jesus: talk to Prostitutes,..get them to have a better life
Conservatives: Prostitutes are trash..dont help them..dont talk to them...maybe f*ck them if yoru a republican politician while your wife is away (vitter)..but lets not talk about that.
Jesus does not like to gossip

LindaK| 12.17.10 @ 10:34PM

Conservative Republicans: FOR defending our country(And you) from those who would do you harm.
Jesus: Preparing a place in heaven for those who believe in Him.
Conservative Republicans: many (themselves) are LEGAL immigrants. Illegal immigrants have broken the law.
Jesus: will judge all. Forgives us our sin, and takes it upon himself. Accepts our repentance(turning away from sin)
Religious Conservatives: imperfect people, yes, sinners. If we were perfect we wouldn't NEED a Saviour(Merry ChristMas).
Jesus always called people out of the sinful life they were living. And yes he hated hypocrits, and Religious people. It's about Faith, not Religion.

josie| 12.17.10 @ 10:25PM

Linda..those percentages are correct..where do you get your numbers from...out of the 58% of marines that are not for repeal..92 % said they believe they have served with gays..and only 8% state they had a negative experience with "perceived gays"...get the Pentagon report and READ IT

LindaK| 12.17.10 @ 10:25PM

There IS freedom of Religion in the United States of America. Freedom from religion is a myth. Our Founding Fathers had a deep faith in God and his Son Jesus.
Jesus loved the sinner-but hated the sin. He always grieved over people who refused to repent.
Simple--God is throwing the party(Heaven). HE gets to say who gets in(those who believe in His son Jesus). I love you enough to tell you this.

Jack| 12.18.10 @ 3:30AM

The founding fathers believed in a clock work god. He made and started the universe then left to do other things. They also owned other people! Did you skip American history? Our forebears were terrified of religious fanatics which is why we have separation of church and state in the constitution. The only rationale for DADT is religion. Therefore, it is unconstitutional.

tim| 12.17.10 @ 10:34PM

benjamin Franklin was extremely anti religion.

Tim| 12.17.10 @ 10:37PM

Linda.>I dont believe what you believe..now linda..dont get all arrogant (I know more that you do)...some people dont believe in god...your religious views cant effect MY life...your beliefs cant intrude on MY individual freedom and rights.
Do you eat shellfish..if you do..your an abomination..Linda..DO YOU EAT SHELLFISH???

Samantha| 12.17.10 @ 10:41PM

HE better let gays into his party....otherwise it will be complely boring! Straight guys cant dress..and are not as good looking!

Janice| 12.17.10 @ 10:50PM

if you can pay taxes..you can join the military...survey just came out of the army having to recruit previous criminals and lowering their physical standards to get into the military...at the same time...survey came out stating gays are less fat then straights..seems like a no brainer..they are more fit..so they should serve. keep out the criminals and those that cant physically finish missions.

Roger Fortier | 12.17.10 @ 11:45PM

This dude abides, Mr Guardiano. Repealing DADT not really a civil rights issues since all who join our armed forces give up several "rights" and fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We're the outcry for those prosecuted for adultery, or sodomy, for that matter? What about other stuff that gets you kicked out, like being overweight and out of shape? Felonies, bad debts, domestic violence?

Revolutionaries know that attacking the cultural and moral centers of their target is the surest path to victory. Repeal of DADT is another red line in the incremental dismantling of the U.S. as we used to know it.

Kurt| 12.18.10 @ 8:29AM

actually the military has to continously LOWER theirs standards..let felons join...they keep lowering their physical fitness standards etc.
absolutely absurd when you consider that there are gays who are not felons and who pass the fitness tests but are not allowed to join..
its simply un american

Christian| 12.18.10 @ 8:33AM

yes..many things have been "dismantled"..like the following:
1. Blacks being able to vote, and being freed from slavery
2. Women being able to vote and being treated equality
3. Religious freedom and more acceptance of others religious beliefs..and now..(drum roll please)
4. rights for gay people

this is called Progress..not dismantling

Adam| 12.18.10 @ 8:35AM

seems like you did not read the entire Pentagon report, you only picked the ONE LINE in the entire report that was not in favor of gays serving openly...MY favorite line in the report is the comment from an army grunt...it states
"we have a gay guy in our troop...he is big..he is bad..and he kills lots of bad guys...nobody cares that he is gay"".

Richard| 12.18.10 @ 8:41AM

Roger..no soldiers are forced to give up the right of freedom of speech..EXCEPT for gays...so dont start with 'every soldiers gives up certain civil rights"..ONLY gays are forced to give up freedom of speech..the straights dont have to give that up..

Gary| 12.18.10 @ 8:44AM

"attacking the moral center" of your target...
um...can you please explain TAIL HOOK??

Seems like there are plenty of straight soldiers who, sexually cant control themselves...so what do you do..you take care of the problem..forcefully and with zero tolerance..the same will be applied to any gays who step out of line

Ed| 12.18.10 @ 8:48AM

Linda..Arizona tried to pass a law forcing LEGAL immigrants to carry their documentation on them at all times (sound anything like Germany a few decades back?)...luckily a judge struck that down and unconstituional, even though sooo many conservatives were just fine with forcing an American to carry that documentation..
I really doubt that Jesus would make LEGAL immigrants carry documentation..or hold them until they can provide it

Rick| 12.18.10 @ 8:57AM

Sgt Mike..you go on and on and one about this ONE experience in 30 years with 1 woman..and that comprises your entire argument..and then you expect everyone to believe that you have a crystal ball and can see into the future..you cant state.."this will happen..and that will happen"...because YOU CANT PROVE any of that will happen..so you cant deny rights based on your beliefs on what will happen...
Our Soldiers are already serving with open gays ..the british..those in Isreal, spain, Germany..up to 30 countries. Amazingly none of those 30 countries have experienced what you state.

Michael| 12.18.10 @ 9:08AM

Sgt. Mike...wow..you are way off base..

simply to force everyone else to accept them. Once they get the right for gay marriage, next will be to force churches to perform them. It is not enough that I do not

gays dont want to FORCE straights to accept them...you cant FORCE whites to accept blacks..and you cant FORCE men to accept women..what we want is equality..yep..the right to Marry..the right to work and not get fired because of our sexual orientation, but for our job performance...the right to serve and die openly for our country..we do want EVERY right that YOU have ...but you say we want to FORCE acceptance..and its just not possible..you can hold any view you want of blacks, gays and women.

and without PROOF you cant state that our Pentagon officials are hiding the numbers of heterosexual rapes , that is all heresay...but the tail hook scandal is NOT heresay...it happened..there is proof..and we can comment on that. Straight soldiers are in the papers all the time for crimes of different natures. So until you provide evidence...which you cant...you are just stating your opinion..your not backing it up with any evidence..and its unconstitutional to deny rights based on discrimination unless you pass a rational test, in legal terms..and DADT does not pass that test..

Tim| 12.18.10 @ 9:26AM

Sgt Mike-
you state that you dont discriminate against gays...however..you dont want to see them get married, you dont want them to servce openly in the military..from your example..you dont want them protected from losing their jobs for being gay..how DONT you discriminate against them..and to state that YOU feel that they are Forcing you to accept them is laughable..so your right to practice your religion supercedes their indivudual liberty and freedoms? in America..we can have both..if you dont agree with gay marriage..dont show up at the wedding, if you dont want gays in the military..dont sit with them at the lunch table...seems very 1950s with blacks

Daniel | 12.19.10 @ 12:17AM

Bible quotes,
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"
Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

If the homosexual community chooses to practice homosexuality in privacy, that is there free choice. But let such persons know for certain that the Christian Bible condemns all such practices and God will judge them unfit for the kingdom of heaven if the continue to practice and openly promote homosexual sex.

http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm

The American Spectator

View all comments (82) | Leave a comment Leave a comment