image I’ve been following this case somewhat since being formerly in the Army National Guard in Iowa and in Illinois I’m concerned about the impact lifting this policy might have.  Our military, especially in time of war, should not be turned into a grand social experiment.  While I understand the position of some who feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve – serving in the military has a unique history and atmosphere that any other workplace would not have.

The only viable reason to end this policy would be military effectiveness.  How would ending this policy impact that?  How does it impact morale?  How does it impact logistics?  These are things that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his commanders have to consider.

That typically isn’t the argument we’re hearing instead we’re hearing that not allowing homosexuals to be “openly gay” in the military is a denial of their civil rights.  As a member of the military there are a number of “civil rights” that can’t be exercised for instance, officers can’t criticize the President of the United States.  When you put on that uniform you surrender individual expression.

Can homosexuals serve with distinction?  I have no doubt that they can and many likely have.

That isn’t really the question to be considered either – it boils down to military effectiveness, how allowing military members to be “openly gay” impact military effectiveness?  How does it impact unit cohesion – which is something that typical workplaces don’t have to consider.  The unit has to live, eat, fight and sleep together do people really think that being “openly gay” won’t impact that?

Then again I reject the premise that our sexuality is what defines us, but that is a whole different blog post.

Then there is claiming the “right to serve.”  Nobody has the right to serve in the military, what world are the people making this argument living in?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other military commanders are studying the impact of this and have requested time.  And now we have a Federal judge, U.S. District Judge Virginia Philips saying – nope the policy has got to end now – worldwide.

It is foolish to rush this.  It is foolish to treat our military as a social experiment writ large.  I also question the scope of the injunction, I have to research this, but does a Federal District judge’s injunction carry any influence outside the federal district the court resides?  Like in Afghanistan…

In both impact and scope, this decision demonstrates judicial hubris which is something I’ve come to expect from our Judicial Branch.

7 comments
  1. Gays serving openly in the US military is hardly a “social experiment” and has had little or no effect on military readiness in the western countries that already allow open service—countries that include allies such as Israel and the UK. Our military has had to lower its entry standards to meet its recruitment goals, and yet it is somehow GOOD for our military readiness to expel trained and experienced veterans merely because of their sexual orientation?

    1. First off in Israel everybody serves so that isn’t the best comparison. Looking at their last open conflict with Hamas I would say something is hampering their effectiveness (no I’m not blaming homosexuals) though.

      It is good for our military if their sexual orientation becomes a distraction and impacts unit cohesion. That can be downright deadly.

      I wonder since Israel and UK like to be touted if anyone has really studied the issue and also curious just how “open” the homosexuals are.

    2. Also curious what was the motivation for those in the U.S. military who outed themselves… was that in the best interest of their branch of service? Were they trying to make a political point or was it lawsuit fodder because homosexual activists have *never* done that before.

      1. All types of activists have played the “lawsuit fodder” game — including a particular Iowa pastor who is right now trying to get a lawsuit with the IRS, I believe. Let’s play fair on the “activist” accusations!

  2. The big question no one is asking is what will allowing gays to serve openly do to our image in the eyes of the enemy? Before you jump on this consider it will undoubtedly be used as a recruiting tool since homosexuality is an offence to Islam. So are a number of other acts we allow and sometimes condone, but this would serve as a rallying point. Having served in Iraq and soon Afghanistan they take this stuff seriously. I agree with the comments about forgoing rights and not everyone has the right to serve in the military. If you’re too large, can’t run, qualify with a weapon, etc. you cannot serve. Some may say that’s comparing apples to oranges but I see it as a reduction in combat effectiveness.

  3. The big question no one is asking is what will allowing gays to serve openly do to our image in the eyes of the enemy? Before you jump on this consider it will undoubtedly be used as a recruiting tool since homosexuality is an offence to Islam. So are a number of other acts we allow and sometimes condone, but this would serve as a rallying point. Having served in Iraq and soon Afghanistan they take this stuff seriously. I agree with the comments about forgoing rights and not everyone has the right to serve in the military. If you’re too large, can’t run, qualify with a weapon, etc. you cannot serve. Some may say that’s comparing apples to oranges but I see it as a reduction in combat effectiveness.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Will the Iranian Government Survive?

If you haven’t been watching this story over the weekend.  Iranian President…

My Top Ten Predictions for 2012

Looking back at my predictions for last year I actually did get…

Have You Signed The Plank One Petition? Tell the GOP Leadership to Keep Social Issues on the Agenda

The American Principles Project, Susan B. Anthony List and American Values are…

Obama’s Abortion Decision Least Popular

President Obama’s decision to overturn the Mexico City policy to allow funding…