Now for the Military Obamanation

If I simply produced a website devoted to all of the pro-homosexual activism of US President Obama, I would have little time to work on anything else. He has been relentless and single-minded in pushing the radical homosexual cause at every opportunity.

His latest crusade is to overturn the current policy regarding homosexuals in the military: the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy introduced by Bill Clinton in 1993. This allows homosexuals in, but not deliberately or knowingly. If they are there, OK, but don’t make an issue of it. Sexual orientation does not have to be disclosed upon seeking to enter the military, but homosexual conduct is a dischargeable offence. Obama is not happy with this compromise position, and he wants to take things much further.

He recently told a crowd of homosexual activists, “I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars.”

But is this a good idea? And does talk of discrimination and equality even apply in the military? Many military experts and social commentators don’t think so. They offer plenty of reasons why we do not need to head down this path of open slather.

For example there have been numerous cases of homosexual rape in the military, well before it was partly legalised in 1993. I have read about some of these incidents. It makes for sickening and disgusting reading. To open the doors completely will simply result in many more such cases.

But it will be objected that a ban on homosexuals in the military will reduce the number of servicemen. Not necessarily. There are already homosexuals in the military, and we don’t know how many more would enlist if Obama gets his way. And it can well be argued that the number of military personal gained by the complete inclusion of homosexuals could well be offset by the number of heterosexuals who might leave as a result.

The objection is often raised about the exclusion of blacks in the military. But the truth is, at least in the US, blacks have always served in the armed forces. And the fact of the matter is that skin colour, like gender, is a benign characteristic. It cannot be helped, and it is unjust to discriminate on the basis of such characteristics.

Of course homosexuality has to do with sexual preference and activity. It is not a benign characteristic, and it is not immutable. Many choose to move into homosexuality and many choose to move out of it. It is not unjust for societies to show preference to lifestyles that are more in keeping with the good of the community.

As Colin Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff remarked in 1992, “The presence of homosexuals in the military is prejudicial to good order and discipline. Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

Of course talk of rights and discrimination are always thrown around at this point, but we are here dealing with national security, not social engineering. The military exists first and foremost to protect its citizens, not to be a hothouse for social experimentation.

Indeed, as Brig. Gen. Richard Able (Ret.) of the US Air Force explains, selectivity as to who is allowed in the military is crucial for at least four primary reasons: unit cohesion; health; morale; and discipline. He argues that all these areas will be undermined by the wholesale inclusion of homosexuals into the ranks of the military.

In fact, a 1974 US Supreme Court decision affirmed that the military is “a specialized society separate from civilian society”. As another high-ranking military officer noted, “The military has to exclude people who are too short, too fat, too tall, not smart enough, not literate enough, and those with infectious diseases or certain physical handicaps”.

These and other common objections raised are comprehensively dealt with by one authority who has written a whole book on the topic. US Army Major Melissa Wells-Petry wrote an important volume which examines all the ins and outs of this debate. Entitled Exclusion: Homosexuals and the Right to Serve (Regnery, 1993), this much-needed volume provides a very detailed look at the issue.

It is worth quoting at length, so let me offer a few choice snippets. First, US Navy Admiral Thomas Moore sets the stage for the detailed analysis which follows: “Our armed forces are not a paradigm of American democracy, and they are not meant to ‘look like America’.”

He continues, “There is no such thing as a constitutional right to serve in the military, just as there is no such thing as a constitutional right not to serve in the military. As Major Wells-Petry points out, to serve is both a privilege and a burden, but it is not a right.”

She nicely makes this case in over 200 pages of well-documented and finely-reasoned argumentation. This is how she summarises her case: “The profession of arms is unlike any other. It is not a profession of individual aspiration, nor is it a profession of social pro-action. In evaluating military personnel policies or decisions about the composition of the armed forces, the touchstone cannot be how the policy or decision furthers the interest of the individual or the enlightenment of society at large.”

Her final words are these: “There is no sensible or sufficient reason for the military – as a social and constitutional institution, much less as a warfighting force – to attempt to go first in forging rights for homosexuals. Social reformation is neither the province nor the mission of America’s fighting force. Rather, the mission of America’s fighting force is a constant, costly, and consuming vigilance – both internal and external – that is unknown outside the profession of arms. Indeed, as General MacArthur poignantly observed, the military has a single, fixed, determined, inviolable mission – ‘it is to win our wars’.”

The defence of a nation is far more important than implementing the dictates of the social engineers, or placating activist minority groups. As Commander-in-Chief, President Obama should know this. But clearly he does not – or more likely, does not want to. It will be the nation as a whole which will suffer as a result.

[1083 words]

24 Replies to “Now for the Military Obamanation”

  1. What do you expect? He has accepted a Nobel Peace Prize which he knows was not deserved. The man lacks integrity. He does not want to “punish” patriotic homosexuals who have stepped forward to serve their country. Is he going to extend this privilege to other forms of deviancy? Why not? A patriot is a patriot.
    John Snowden

  2. Actually, I think this is a very positive move by President Obama. I don’t see how someone’s sexuality effects their ability to serve. It makes sense to discriminate on the basis of, say, fitness, but not sexuality.

    I suppose there will be a few military personnel who will lack the maturity to work effectively with openly gay colleagues, but I’m quietly confident that those sorts of attitudes are well and truly on the decline. In fact, perhaps there should be a policy which excludes from the military those who have problems working with others because of trivial matters such as race, gender, sexuality and so on.

    The repeal of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ doesn’t weaken America’s military, it strengthens it.

    Heather Bates

  3. “We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country.” Obama also said that he would not want his daughters “punished” with a baby if they made a mistake. His misuse and misapplication of the word “punish” is deplorable. How dare we say “No” to the outward expression of gaydom in a firefight.
    Anthony McGregor

  4. Thanks Heather

    But I am always amazed when someone who claims to be a Christian keeps coming out with comments that are totally bereft of anything even remotely resembling biblical Christianity, but instead have everything to do with the latest agendas of secular humanism. Sort of makes you wonder…

    I have already dealt with the furphy about discrimination, so there is no need to call your bluff on this again. And of course you simply ignore all the points I make, simply to push your trendy lefty nonsense. Simply consider one point, the prevalence of horrific homosexual rape which is already rife in the confined conditions of military life. Do I have to in fact provide case studies with all the gory details? But why let a bit of reality stand in the way of promoting the vacuous nostrums of political correctness and the radical left.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  5. Thankfully we no longer attack or discriminate against coloured people, simply because we realise that people of other races, beneath the skin are, essentially the same as us. Yes, races have superficially different characteristics. Black people, for example are able to withstand heat better than the whites and the whites are better equipped biologically to endure the artic; but these are innocuous traits that are not going to threaten the unity, stability and cohesion of a society. On the contrary: an inclusion in the gene pool of different races only invigorates it. The reason that we no longer need the law – and maybe never needed it in the first place – is because coloured people do not try to force them selves on us a different species, or “strange flesh“ as it says in Jude 7. They do not pretend that they are the same but then insist on living according to different rules that are intended to destabilise and deconstruct society. Other races want to be like us, get married, settle down, have children and raise a family of their own. “Am I not a man and brother?” was the inscription written on broach worn by the abolitionist during the 19th century.
    But homosexuals take pains to tell us that when they attack us, give death threats, disrupt our church services, break up university forums, threaten us with public humiliation, fines, loss of jobs, and soon the threat of prison, this is not because they demand the civil right to be treated as equally human, to be integrated into society, to be able to sit at the front of the bus, to be able to eat in the same restaurants, go to the same bathe room. What they demand is the right and freedom to deconstruct sex, marriage, family, society, creational ordinance and truth, in other words to reorder the universe so that they get what they want when they want.

    What you have written about the army Bill can be said about education which is also no longer about education but about social engineering.
    What we are witnessing is not meltdown of the west but its slow and awesome capsize:

    David Skinner, UK

  6. I guess a simple question for those supporting Obama on this would be whether or not allowing mixed-sex dorms would be an issue for the military. Do they?

    It just seems like common sense to me to minimize sexual issues, especially in the military workplace which can be life or death. Most people don’t have to face sleeping and showering together with colleagues in their jobs. I notice many supporters of the repeal of DADT point to gays serving in the military having little effect in other countries. I am, unsurprisingly, a little skeptical of such pronouncements, particularly as it seems to be a difficult thing to quantify. How does one measure morale? What other issues does it introduce? (I’m curious what you would say about this, Bill)

    I have worked with people bold about their homosexual behaviour, including more than one who have tried to shock me – with little success – and it’s not an issue for me in terms of work because there I have not had a situation in a secular workplace where what they do behind closed doors is relevant. But I can see how that may very well be different to bunk down to sleep in the same room for weeks or months. Never mind stripping down for a shower.

    This just seems to me to be yet another head-in-the-sand attitude about human sexual behaviour – but then, most political correctness has little to do with facts. Too bad here if it starts costing lives at some unknown point in the future. By that time it will be far too late to change and Obama likely will be long gone.

    Just as an aside, why do people ignore an obvious inconsistency about Obama – so often he is smooching up to Islam, but I can categorically guarantee that gays in the military is just further grist to the mill for justifying acts of jihad. Fundamentalist muslims will just see this as further confirmation that the USA is a great evil and is clearly weakening. I suspect it would be unlikely that his next ‘Happy Ramadan’ video would mention much talk about his achievements for ‘equality’. But I suppose he can talk about his Nobel Appease Prize instead – I know that will have the terrorists quivering and wanting to lay down their arms.

    As you say, Bill, I thought the idea of the military was to win wars, otherwise your country is finished, it’s just a question of when.

    Mark Rabich

  7. Bill, a common objection or false presupposition that we have put to put to bed before we engage with any one on the topic of homosexuality is the one that claims that homosexuals are born as such and that consequently they have no choice but to be what they are. Or as Popeye the sailor man would put it “I yam what I yam.” This doubt lurks invariably at the back of most people’s minds and has the instantaneous effect of neutralising and short circuiting any further discussion. We are rendered speechless.

    But homosexuals are not born; there is no gay gene. They are the result of emotional and psychological nurture (or rather lack of it) during the first few years of child’s life; possible seduction before and during pubescence; societal pressures to conform to peer pressure during teens and finally as a deliberate and rebellious life style choice, when older. It can be all or just one of these.

    Heather Bates, the tactic of accusing people who object to homosexual behaviour as being immature is really code for saying that they are either Neanderthal or in need of a visit to the local psychologist for chemical realignment. Your other comment about being confident that these attitudes are well and truly on the decline is also code for saying that we have no right to hold these opinions in the 21st century. This is not only sheer, stiff-necked, bulging-eyed and strutting arrogance, but pure Nazism.

    Elton Trueblood has said, “ One of the reigning tenets of our time is the extreme belief that all our problems are new. I would call this the disease of contemporaneity … associated with it is the a really terrible conceit…the notion that we are living in such fresh time and that wisdom has ‘come with us’ whereas nobody ever had it before – this I find to be an absolutely intolerable conceit.”

    This is how such critics would exclude and silence those who have a problem with being forced to accept the Gaystapo:

    David Skinner, UK

  8. Thanks Mark

    Yes you are quite right in all that you say, including your question for me. Yes, such measurement would be hard to come by. But more to the point, it is one thing to have individual homosexuals in the military, discreetly performing their duties. As it stands in the US military now, they do exist, but if caught engaging in sexual acts, they can be dismissed.

    But if social engineer Obama gets his way, it will be open slather, both in terms of the increase of numbers, and the openness of activities. The shocking stories of scared young men being assaulted and sodomised by homosexuals, especially in closed quarters (consider the fact that there is nowhere to hide in much of the military – especially on a naval vessel, submarine, etc) are bad enough to read about now. These will simply exponentially increase.

    And homosexuals themselves have boasted about how such a setting would feed their own lusts, not just voyeuristically (‘wow, check out those guys in the shower!’), but with plenty of fresh meat to daily exploit. They are saying this, not me. But our advocates of PC (including those who claim to be Christians) would simply have us ignore all that, and pretend it does not exist, preferring instead to push their abstract and airy-fairy concerns about ‘discrimination’ and the like. While they have their feet firmly planted in mid-air, it is the young men of the military who will have to pay the price for all this. And so too the nation, as national security concerns are trumped by social engineering, and giving into same-sex lusts.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  9. Mark Rabich the Angican site, Global South reported that “In a statement released on the second day of the Lambeth Conference (2008), the Sudanese church called upon the American church to ‘respect the authority of the Bible,’ refrain from ordaining gay priests or bishops, halt gay blessings, and ‘cease court actions’ against traditionalists ‘with immediate effect.’ The American Church’s experiments with gay blessings and bishops had led to the deaths of Sudanese Christians, Dr Daniel Deng said in an impromptu press conference in the Lambeth Conference media room. Because of the actions of the American church, ‘we are called infidels in the Islamic world when they hear of the same-sex blessings,’ he said. ‘It will give [Islamist militants] reason to kill’ Sudanese Christians he said’.”

    But this will apply to all Christians living in Islamic countries.
    God help them.

    David Skinner, UK

  10. You write, “For example there have been numerous cases of homosexual rape in the military, well before it was partly legalised in 1993. I have read about some of these incidents. It makes for sickening and disgusting reading. To open the doors completely will simply result in many more such cases.”

    As you will know, homosexual rape is almost always about the exercise of power – it is committed more often by men who are otherwise heterosexual. It is nothing to do with gays in the military.
    Jeremy Pemberton, UK

  11. Always remember that this is a power struggle like any other, Gay Power is the correct title. Any organisation/class/group/race/whatever that has ever been put down can never be satisfied with liberation/toleration. The only thing to discover now is: How far the group (in this case the Gay Power group) is allowed to go before a tipping-point is reached, and people say “Enough!”, and: Who benefits by enabling the power quest to go on (Obama, obviously, in this case – and certainly many of our British politicians).
    John Thomas, UK

  12. Bill, what’s your take on the health care debate in the United States? As an expatriate American living in a country with “socialized” medicine it seems to me that you’re uniquely qualified to comment on this.

    Ross McPhee

  13. If the book about homosexuals in the Nazi party, “The Pink Swastika” is anything to go by, America may well conquer and destoy much of Europe.
    Lawrie Mcnamara

  14. Thanks Jeremy

    Strange, but the critics will take a quite different line when it comes to sexual abuse at the hands of the clergy. Let me paraphrase you: “As you will know, rape by the clergy is almost always about the exercise of power – it is committed more often by people who are otherwise clergy. It is nothing to do with the clergy or Christianity.”

    Somehow I don’t hear that line coming from the secular left. But they want to use it when the issue is one of homosexuals doing the assaults. Sorry, but I am not buying into your argument here, nor the apparent double standards by so many on your side.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  15. Thanks Ross

    I’m not sure how qualified I am to speak about it, but in short, I am not impressed with Obama’s plan in particular, and socialised medicine in general. But it would take a bit of time to properly explain why, so I will have to write an article on the topic – hopefully some time soon. So stay tuned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. Bill, with all due respect, I don’t see how it matters if someone in the military is homosexual or not?

    If one man rapes another man, obviously there should be an inquiry into it, and that person should be justly punished.

    In the same way that if a man in the armed forces raped a woman, there would be an inquiry, and that person would be justly punished.

    But the two issues are not synonymous.

    Amanda Fairweather

  17. Thanks Amanda

    But with all due respect in return, unfortunately you really seem to miss the point here. In the military today both men and women serve – but they live in separate quarters (at least for now). Thus the temptation to, and availability of, heterosexual activity – whether forced or not – is lessened considerably.

    But when homosexuals are living in close confines with other men (or lesbians with other women) the likelihood of homosexual acts are of course greatly increased – whether forced or voluntary. So rape as such is not even the real issue here. It is about sexual temptation and activity, and how that can undermine the cohesion, discipline and morale of our fighting forces.

    It is this problem of the intimacy and explosiveness of human sexuality – with all of its attendant tensions and frictions, including emotional, psychological and medical ramifications – that is the concern here. The military exists for one purpose – to defend a nation. It should not be turned into a hot house of sexual activity, or a means of promoting social engineering.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. I guess my very first sentence of my above post would be a fair question of Amanda: How about mixed-sex showers as well?

    BTW, I want to correct myself for the term ‘gays in the military’; ‘people who practice homosexual sex working in the military’ I would consider as being more accurate, albeit wordier. The confusion of identity with behaviour in the way we use language seems to me to contribute to giving activists assistance to overlook what homosexuality actually means.

    Mark Rabich

  19. We need to look at the various practices and pathologies of those who practice sodomy which tends to be higher in the homosexual community – things like AIDS, HIV, various STDs, pederasty, sado-masochism, bipolar disorder, drug addiction, incidence of suicide, instability, divorce, and above all the appropriation and destruction of marriage, the family our children and Truth. In these the homophile though distinctly in the minority, 1- 2% of the population, punches way above his weight.

    In the UK Lord Waddington, hero man, managed to get the inclusion of a free speech amendment inserted into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, clause 58 that now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986 which read as follows: “In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

    Sounds reasonable but Brownshirt Gordan and his homosexual chums like Peter Mandelson, Ben Bradshaw, Chris Bryant, Chris Smith, the lesbian Angela Eagle, and many others of the same camp, will have none of it – simply because it does not privilege homosexuals not to have their conduct criticised. They are a privileged breed. Because we are not allowed to even demur towards homosexual practice, we will not be allowed to object to anyone’s sexual behaviour.

    If we have to except homosexuality in its entirety we have to accept everything that goes with it, especially its physical expression. As Mark Rabich seems to suggest, the word homosexual, after all, is composed of the word “sexual.”

    We all have an orientation towards sexual violence, lying, swearing, scandal, murder, adultery evil, greed, depravity, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slander etc. These are within human nature but we have never had laws that now actively give protection to and encourage us to give expression to these vile passions.

    David Skinner, UK

  20. I would draw readers’ attention to the discussion by James White, the Christian apologist, of Obama’s speech, highlighting its profoundly anti-Christian tone and sentiment, in the following Dividing Line broadcast on White’s website:

    There are sound clips from Obama’s speech, and hearing these I defy anyone to affirm that he is in any sense of the word a Christian. He is a post-modern secularist with the usual anti-Christian far-left agenda, who at the same time demonstrates his abject ignorance of matters Biblical (and most other things too) time and again.

    Murray Adamthwaite

  21. I note that the Democrat controlled House has added a Hate crime legislation onto the defense apprporiation Bill due to be voted by the US Senate shortly. The Hate crime has absolutely nothing to do with defense funding – the ‘Hate’ is anyone speaking out against homosexuality.
    The House has been very clever, the Senate cannot split Hate legislation from Defense spending without it going back to the House, with all the delays in providing funding for troops and veterans – many of the US public would see Senate rejection as anti-patriotic because it would hurt the troops who are out there in harm’s way.

    Please pray for wisdom and courage for responsible US Senators to do what is right in this circumstance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *