The Myth about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
A lot of people think that President Clinton changed the law by allowing homosexuals to serve in the millitary by instituting a law called “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” stating that homosexuals were allowed to serve in the millitary as long as they kept their sexual deviance in private. Today I want to set the record straight and give you a status update on this issue.
In 1993 President Clinton attempted to get Congress to lift the ban on Homosexuals in the military. After numerous hearings Congress passed what is officially known as Section 654, Title 10 which clarifies the law that was in place as Pentagon policy even before the Clinton administration, which states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Since that time, the law has been held up in federal court numerous times as being constitutional. For confirmation of this and more detailed information, check out the testimony before Congress from Elaine Donnelly from the Center for Millitary Readiness.
Now why do I bring this up on this blog, which is was created to deal with Men growing closer to God? On the surface, this issue probably sounds totally irrelevent. I do it because as Christians we live in the world, and hear about issues like this all the time. It is neccesary for us to be able to stand up and defend the faith to others.
To that end we need to remind people that the Bible clearly says, in both Testaments, that homosexuality is a sin, abhorent to God. It goes directly against God’s plan for sex in marriage. I was going to place Bible references to these points in this post as I normally do, but in my search for them I found an article which does a much better job outlining this entire subject, and is worth reading in it’s entirety.
I hope you will check out the article from CMR for information on homosexuals in the millitary, as well as the article on Homosexuality and the Bible. If you have any questions or need more resources feel free to either leave a comment or use my contact form. And pray for those who are gripped in the sin of homosexuality to repent of their sin and believe the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Have a great Palm Sunday!
I understand that homosexuality is a sin – but it’s only one of many.
I believe anyone who has the heart and competence to serve in our military to defend our great nation should be accepted.
Targeting homosexuals – as opposed to those who are addicted to pornography, those who cheat on their wives, who have multiple sexual partners, etc. – is not the best policy for our nation. What’s the legal basis for restricting someone based on sexual orientation? Does that hinder military operations and morale? I highly doubt it. A gay soldier risking his life to protect me? I welcome him.
In the end, I find it unfortunate that we take the fight on this issue when the real problem is much bigger than homosexuality.
Does this hinder military operations or affect morale? Um yes, it absolutely does. In fact the issue is worse than that, it is an issue of national security. This is why I included the link to Elaine Donnely’s testimony before Congress on this issue. I suggest you go back to my post and read it. As a former member of the President’s council on this issue, and the founder of the Center for Military Readiness she really does know what she is talking about.
Allowing professed homosexuals into the military would force heterosexuals to cohabit with them in the close quarters of the military where there is often little or no privacy, like in a barracks or on a ship or camp. This would be like forcing male and female soldiers to live together, having no privacy in showers, bathrooms, or when changing.
Once this happens, inappropriate actions conveying homosexuality or desires would create a sexual tension that would indeed hurt morale, possibly even sexual harassment. Those whose feelings or beliefs are offended by this will have no recourse, such as filing a claim. They would actually be forced to just put up with it or leave the military.
This is just one of the reasons detailed in Ms. Donnelly’s testimony. I urge you take a look at hers as well as Sgt. Mgr. Brian Jones’ (Ret.) testimony before Congress on this subject before making up your mind. I understand your sentiment, but I would respectfully tell you that it is an uninformed opinion. However, if you do find any evidence to back up your claims, I would enjoy seeing them and would post them if you wish.
God bless you, and have a great day!
I disagree.
Temptations may arise but any inappropriate action should not be tolerated. Sexual harassment? Not acceptable. JAG officers should see to this and enforce the law.
I will read the testimony later but please note that I do have an informed decision. My officer friends in the various military branches (who are not gay) are glad to have anyone protecting them – sexual orientation is never an issue when it comes to war and protecting each other in a firefight.
And btw, before you attack my character on issues like this, I graduated from law school and am certified in national security law. Homosexuality is the least of our worries when it comes to national security. I can see red flags as you might have alluded to but appropriate actions can be taken without condemning and banning all homosexual soldiers from our military.
First, I never meant to attack your character, I was merely stating a different opinion, as well as my opinion on your opinion.
Second, I think you are confusing openly gay with closeted. I agree that those homosexuals who hide their sexual preference from their military comrades are not a major threat. There is not going to be sexual tension when you do not know about it. The problem here is being open about it.
Think of it this way. Let’s say your wife wants to join a gym. Great you say, she can exercise, work off stress, and keep in shape. However, what if you found out that there is only one unisex locker room and showers. That means that when she is finished with her workout she is going to go into that room and, in front of other men, take off her clothes, wash in the shower, towel off and dress while other men watch. This is the problem.
I know what you are thinking: “this is different, you are talking about men and women.” So let me “neutralize” it for you. We are talking about people having to dress, shower, etc. in the same place where they KNOW there are other people who either ARE looking at them or simply want to.
Most people would not want to put themselves in this situation. So most straight people would opt out of service in the military. IF we assume that ten percent of the population is homosexual (and some experts believe it is a much smaller number) then we only have ten percent of the population to work with, understanding that not all of them will want to serve. I personally do not think that is a large enough pool of people to draw from to protect our country.
As for your officer friends, I recently received a letter from Elaine Donnely reporting that they have a petition signed by more than 1000 retired FLAG and starred officers urging the President and Congress not to change the law, stating how bad an idea it would be to allow openly homosexual people in the military.
Thank you for reading the testimony I posted, and again I apologize if I have offended you, my Christian brother!
Okay, finally read the testimony. It’s not convincing at all.
The sexual tension argument is invalid. Contrary to popular belief, gays do not automatically want to have sexual intercourse with every naked man they see. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals can be respectful and considerate of one’s privacy. It doesn’t matter what sexual orientation you are, if you are engaging in any conduct (however passive as it may be) that is questionable, you should be reported and disciplined if appropriate. Those who do not report are simply encouraging more inappropriate behavior to continue. And about that lesbian example, that incident happened in 1974 where racial tensions were high and even then, such misconduct should have been reported from the beginning.
The gym argument doesn’t apply b/c you are comparing recreational activities to career commitments. People join the military to primarily fight for our country and not to feed their sexual cravings. And when such sexual opportunites do surface, 99% of it is purely consensual. That 1% of misconduct of rape and harassment should always be reported. Even in your gym example, I have no doubt my wife would report anyone for treating her as an object and challenge that offender’s membership to the gym.
No worries, I am not easily offended. But I do recommend that when you debate with folks, attack the issue, not the person.
Again, I do see homosexuality as a sin but to restrict homosexuals based on morals is not legally sound. Heck, it’s not even smart. Homosexuals will not ruin our military. I give them more credit than being a possible factor of contributing sexual tension and loss of soldier morale. Any Christian in the military who is terrified of gays should do a spiritual gut-check. Jesus is on their side and if anything, our Christian soldiers should love our gay friends so they can share the Word and His power with them.
Promoting more restrictions on the gay community based on these weak arguments will only escalate the hatred for Christianity. In my opinion, this is not glorifying to God at all.
Response to argument about gym and sexual harassment
The sexual tension and gym arguments do not have as much to do with misconduct as PERCEIVED misconduct. If you offered a woman the opportunity to use the W omen’s locker room or the Men’s she will choose the W omen’s because she doesn’t want to RISK being harassed. The same is true in the military. Heterosexual soldiers and potential recruits will choose not to participate because of the possibilities. It is only human nature.
In addition, people may be joining the military to serve their country and as a career but that does not mean they are not sexually active. If anything the opposite is true, as the military is a high stress environment, and sex is a good way to relieve it. It also does not matter if the sex is consensual. If you were in a barracks, trying to sleep, would you want to watch two men “getting it on” in the bunk next to you? This is exactly what would happen. It happens today with heterosexuals.
Restricting homosexuals based on morality is not legally sound? Last time I checked the law was based on Judeo-Christian ethics, which calls homosexuality a sin. As for glorifying God, changing the military would be accepting of the lifestyle, which does not glorify God.
BTW, did you read any of the evidence?