Saturday, December 20, 2008

Military Nominees and the Homosexualist Agenda   [Elaine Donnelly]

The Washington Times has reported that Pres. Barack Obama may appoint Mr. William White, described as openly gay, to be the next Secretary of the Navy.  There is no law against homosexual civilians in the Pentagon, and Mr. White would not be the first service secretary without prior military experience.  Still, the nomination would be unwise for reasons that go far beyond the prospective appointee himself.

 

Bill White is the president and CEO of the Intrepid Foundation, which sponsors the popular aircraft-carrier museum in the Hudson River off Manhattan. He has also raised millions for the Fisher House Foundation, which provides temporary housing and support for the families of injured service members.  These are admirable good works, which have led some prominent retired military officers to promote Mr. White for appointment as Secretary of the Navy.

 

The problem is that the appointment of any person as the “first openly gay” military service secretary would essentially distort the coming congressional debate on the issue of gays in the military.  Early in 2009, primary sponsor Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) will reintroduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law, which is frequently mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).  Unlike that convoluted DADT administrative policy, which was put in place by Pres. Bill Clinton, the actual law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

 

If Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), the new policy would be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines. Corollary programs to make the new policy “work” would include professional “diversity training” to enforce acceptance, and “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees.  Dissenters would face discipline and be denied promotions, which would end their military careers. Incidents of misconduct would increase threefold, to include male/male and female/female misconduct that undermines discipline and demoralizes the troops.  These results would harm recruiting and retention, and effectively destroy the volunteer force.

 

Consequences as serious as these deserve objective analysis, informed testimony, and serious debate by members of Congress.  This would not happen, however, if congressional attention centers on the charitable fundraising activities of the prospective nominee for Secretary of the Navy. (Mr. White did not comment on the Washington Times story.)

 

Civilian service secretaries do not have to live in the same conditions of what the law describes as “forced intimacy” offering little or no privacy.  Congress should protect the interests of surface sailors, Navy SEALS, and submariners who do accept these living conditions, and not pass legislation that would make military life even more difficult.  But instead of considering the harmful consequences of repealing the 1993 law, Mr. White’s perceived status as a “poster man” for the cause of gays in the military would distract attention from the serious consequences of repealing the 1993 law.

 

Such an appointment would call into question the judgment of President Obama, the next Commander-in-Chief.  Despite his personal views, President Obama should put the needs of the military above the demands of homosexualists who want to use government power to impose their agenda on military men and women.

 

Another prominent story in the news demonstrates the attitude of intolerance that is common in the homosexualist faction.   In a Politico article titled “Gay Leaders Furious with Obama,” Joe Solomonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, expressed anger at the “genuine blow to LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered] Americans” that he perceives in President-elect Obama’s invitation to Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration.

 

This overwrought protest, and the post-election harassment of Mormon leaders in California who supported the Proposition 8 referendum defining marriage, foretell what could happen if Congress votes to repeal the 1993 law. Absent the statute, Pentagon officials would enforce “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees with the new policy for any reason.  How would this radical change affect military chaplains whose beliefs are similar to those of Pastor Warren and thousands of clergymen of many faiths?

 

In 2007, Marine Gen. Peter Pace was denied a second term as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he stated his support for the 1993 law in terms reflecting his religious faith.  The law itself is completely secular and centered on good order and discipline, but the controversy prematurely ended General Pace’s career.  Given this experience, it is reasonable to expect that like-minded military chaplains and other personnel who support the law would face the same type of criticism.  If the Pentagon assigns  "civil rights" status to homosexuals, military tradition would mandate “zero tolerance” of dissent.  In the armed forces, denied promotions end careers.

 

Members of Congress should consider the impact of repealing the 1993 law on military chaplains and other servicemen and women, who would have no recourse if the law is repealed.  This is only one of dozens of issues that could go unexamined if members of Congress focus on personal friendships instead of the consequences of repealing a law that has been upheld as constitutional several times, and enjoys widespread support.

 

Mr. White has demonstrated that everyone can serve our country in some way.  This is not a good enough reason, however, to repeal the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military.

12/20 11:25 AMShare