Problems with the DoD report

“People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we
break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?”

Here are some findings of and problems with the DoD report:

23.7 % of surveyed Service members (38.1 % of Marines) said repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cause them to “leave [the military] sooner than I planned” or “think about leaving sooner than I had planned”;

44.3% of combat veterans (59.4% of Marines) said that having an open homosexual in their immediate unit in a field environment or out at sea would “Negatively” or “Very Negatively” affect their “unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission”; other survey data shows significant opposition within the ranks to the idea of homosexuals serving openly;

A major flaw of the Working Group report is the analogy it draws between Service members currently serving with men and women they know or suspect to be homosexuals (under DADT) — with being able to serve alongside “gays and lesbians” under a new regime in which homosexuality is out of the closet. Obviously, in the current situation, homosexual Service members are forced to be discrete. A new military culture tolerant of ”open and proud” homosexuality – including pro-homosexual “diversity” teachings, etc. — is simply not analogous to military life under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”;

The report punts on the question of military benefits for same-sex couples, but recognizes that this will be a future issue — and even notes that one of the big problems it will cause is that unmarried heterosexual soldiers will be upset if coupled “gay” soldiers get partner benefits while they are not allowed to get benefits for their hetero boyfriend or girlfriend. Thus, repealing the ban jars open a Pandora’s Box: surely gay activists will DEMAND partner benefits — using lawsuits if necessary — in the name of respect, equality, and “fairness”;

The report discusses respecting Service members’ “dignity” but rules out separate shower facilities and barracks for homosexuals – saying that doing so would “stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner reminiscent of ’separate but equal’ for blacks prior to the 1960s” (p. 12). In other words, the Armed Forces is more concerned about offending ’gay and lesbian” members’ sensitivities than defending the privacy rights and dignity of normal, hetero Service men and women;

The above shows that in the name of paving the way for homosexuals’ alleged “civil rights,” the DoD is willing to abridge the civil rights of the normal majority of Service Members;

The above is also just one example of the DoD’s unfortunate penchant for linking the laudable and noble civil rights achievement of racially integrating black soldiers into the Armed Forces with the crusade to allow open homosexuals in the military — with their attendant sexual desires and behaviors. Racism is bigotry, and wrong. Moral opposition to homosexuality (widely and historically regarded as sinful) — and common-sense privacy concerns based on the self-described sexual desires of homosexual men and lesbians – are natural and acceptable. Applying the DoD report’s logic, men should be able to shower with women as long as they recognize that they cannot ogle them or make sexual advances on them in the shower (see p. 13: “to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in these situations”);

The Working Group report admits that factoring in the sentiments it received in its review process (separate from its online survey) — through large “informational exchange forums” held on bases, smaller focus groups, online confidential communications, etc. — “our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against the repeal of the current policy” (p. 49). Perhaps this helps explain why President Obama and Defense Sec. Gates did not task the Working Group with studying whether the troops wanted this pro-homosexual change, but rather how a Repeal would be implemented;

There are some excellent comments from Service members opposing Repeal in the DoD report, including this by a woman: “I do not have to shower or sleep with men so I do not want to shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel uncomfortable” changing and sleeping as I would if it wa a man in the room. i should not have to accept this.” (p. 50);

On DADT: “You don’t ask and you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke so don’t fix it.” (p. 52);

On using the military to promote immorality: “People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?” (p. 55)

In defending the right of religious and moral-minded Service members (and chaplains) to voice their opposition to homosexuality, the DoD report authors seem oblivious to the escalating legal and cultural conflict in the civilian world between homosexual activists’ demanding same-sex “rights” – and the freedom of Christians and other moral critics to live out their opposition to that behavior.

Surely this “values contest” will be transferred to a post-Repeal military — as many homosexual activists will put their “right” to be accepted above the freedom of Service members to disagree with homosexuality.

The report offers no coherent plan for how it will manage and balance that inherent conflict — and how it will avoid trampling over the rights of moral-minded Service-members in its zeal to enforce homosexual tolerance through (presumably mandatory) post-Repeal education and training programs.

Full Article:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/congress-christmas-lump-of-coal-for-troops-open-homosexuality.html#more-8356

Full Report:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/DADTReport_FINAL_20101130(secure-hires).pdf