[Elaine Donnelly]
In 2007 the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) surveyed presidential hopefuls
on issues of concern to the “LGBT” (lesbian, gay, bi***ual, transgender)
community. Questions on the HRC Survey covered fifteen controversial
issues, including federal recognition of state-level same-*** unions,
the “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA), “hate crimes” (speech
code) legislation, same-*** marriage and civil unions, tax, immigration,
and insurance benefits for gay partners, adoption rights for same-***
couples, “comprehensive” *** education and, of course, repeal of “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell.” That widely misunderstood catch-phrase describes Bill
Clinton’s problematic concept to accommodate discreet gays in the
military.
Clinton imposed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on the armed forces with
enforcement regulations inconsistent with the law, even though Congress
had rejected the concept as unworkable. The 1993 law stating that
homo***uals are not eligible to serve in uniform passed overwhelmingly,
and it has been upheld as constitutional several times.
Responses to the liberal HRC Survey indicated that with the exception of
dissent on same-*** marriage (but not on civil unions), Democratic
senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in complete agreement with
the HRC agenda. All of the check-list issues are controversial, but
repeal of the law stating that homo***uals are not eligible for military
service would be the most disruptive of all.
If a state legalizes same-*** marriage or mandates “LGBT studies”
programs in the schools (already happening in some districts), voters
can protest, mobilize for candidates in the next election, home-school,
or move elsewhere. Gay activists could successfully use government power
to impose their agenda on civilian institutions, but our military will
remain unscathed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly shown “deference” to
military policy decisions, recognizing that the armed forces defend
individual rights, but they can be governed by different rules.
Forced cultural change in the military would be far more radical because
the institution is a prime venue for social engineering. If the armed
forces are ordered to accommodate professed homo***uals, military
officials and members from the Joint Chiefs on down will have to obey
civilian orders to make the program “work.” Strategies for “success”
would include equal housing and social status for same-*** couples, and
“sensitivity training” to enforce acceptance of known homo***uals in the
ranks. But the consequences of mandatory social engineering would not
stop there.
If our most respected government organization is forced to adopt and
promote a San Francisco–style “civil rights” agenda, other institutions
of American life eventually would have to do the same. Schools, marriage
license bureaus, churches, and private citizens would have difficulty
explaining why their concerns are more compelling than objections stated
previously by the military.
In a recent interview with Time, a former Navy captain–turned–gay
activist predicted, “I believe if we get a Democratic president we’ll
get rid of the ban.” Oddly enough, the Associated Press re****ted on
January 25 that some activists are frustrated because Democratic
presidential candidates are not stressing gay issues in their campaigns.
There are two explanations for any dissatisfaction on the LGBT Left.
Radical activists expect nothing less than extremism in the pursuit of
“equality.” And liberal candidates seem to be following the example of
Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton promised to lift the ban on gays in the
military, but did not emphasize that commitment in his campaign.
Then-president George H. W. Bush helped Clinton by ignoring the issue.
In December 1993, President Clinton advanced the gay agenda halfway by
administratively imposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which Hillary Clinton
has described as a “transitional policy” toward homo***uals in the
military.
Military social issues that affect good order and discipline are matters
of national security, which are essential in sustaining not one but two
legs of an updated conservative three-legged stool: national defense,
the economy, and social issues. Responses to the Human Rights Campaign
survey seem to indicate that liberal activists expect their candidate,
whether Clinton or Obama, to stand on a shaky, left-leaning stool.
Regardless of which candidate wins the Republican nomination, he will
need the help of social and national-security conservatives to get
elected. To win their sup****t, candidates should promise to confront the
LGBT Left. That movement should not be allowed to threaten national
security by undermining the strength of the only military we have.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
|
