There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:
The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.Read the entire story here.
In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.
Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.
It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.
Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .
The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.
. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .
As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.
There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.
The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.
The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.
But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.
Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"
