First They Came For The Gays
President Obama signs DADT repeal
It has been almost a year since the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). Admittedly, I was one of the skeptics that thought that allowing gays to serve openly in the military would be a bad idea. While I have supported full rights to gays in the civilian world for some time now, I had bought into the idea that the unique way of life in the military would cause too many problems to allow for such a policy shift.
Like a good Marine, I obeyed my orders and went along with the policy. To say the military handled this transition well is a gross understatement. You can imagine there were some mixed feelings (on both sides) and by definition, the subject of sexual orientation is a bit touchy. However, the classes, Q&A sessions, and leadership guidance was amazingly straightforward and respectful of people of all beliefs. In a nutshell, it was made clear that the policy change was not intended to change anyone’s personal beliefs or convictions but to simply allow gays to serve alongside us (as they always have) without having to lie or hide things from their peers and superiors. Nothing else would change. No special treatment, no special barracks, no special anything. Note that all of this training was done well before the policy actually went into effect. With all of this training, we were prepared for whatever may come.
Then the actual day of repeal came…
And it went. And nothing really changed. Our foundation of camaraderie and professionalism did not crumble. Lions and lambs did not lie together. Everyday life simply went on just like it always has. Nearly a year later Defense Secretary Leon Panetta characterized it perfectly when he said, “My view is that the military has kind of moved beyond it. It’s become part and parcel of what they’ve accepted within the military.”
A report to Panetta, obtained by The Associated Press, provides the individual assessments of all the military services and the combatant commands, and all said that as of May 1 they had seen no issues or impacts of the repeal.
The military service leaders have been sending Panetta monthly updates on the impact of the repeal, which took effect in September.Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said he had seen no negative effects on military order or discipline.
“What were we afraid of is we didn’t know,” Dempsey said when asked why military officials were so worried about the repeal before it took effect. “I think that the way we were given a year to make this assessment to educate ourselves to collaborate, to build the sense of trust on this issue, and given that time to do it, I think it worked out well.”
So if it is a “non-event”, why are we still talking about it?
Because certain members of Congress introduced a provision in the Defense Authorization Bill (DAB) that would allow for service members to openly oppose the rights of gays to serve in the military. The premise is that this is a “religious freedom” issue and that by preventing service members from voicing their disdain for homosexuals the military is “infringing” on their religious liberty.
I don’t buy this one bit. The official guidance for the repeal of the policy states that no one is required to change their belief system:
There are no changes regarding Service members’ exercise of religious beliefs, nor are there any changes to policies concerning the Chaplain Corps of the Military Departments and their duties. The Chaplain Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and their duty to care for all have not changed. All Service members will continue to serve with others who may hold different views and beliefs, and they will be expected to treat everyone with respect.
So, the official policy is consistent with all of the training, which does not infringe on anyone’s personal beliefs. What it does restrict is how you interact with other service members, gay or straight. The “restriction” is that you must treat others with dignity and respect. In my opinion if you can’t pass that test, then you are not fit to serve.
Now to the bigger question that is looming here. Why are we talking about this on a Jewish military blog?
The argument for a provision that allows chaplains and others to freely speak out against homosexuality hits a little too close to home for me. I’m not gay, but I am Jewish – which according to many Christians is a far greater sin that homosexuality. With my rudimentary understanding of Christianity, the greatest sin of them all is not accepting Jesus as lord. While I realize all Christians don’t have such strong feelings regarding this, I think it is fair to say that there are plenty military Christians (including some chaplains) that completely believe I will end up burning in hell for my beliefs. Honestly, I don’t care one bit about that, as long as they keep those beliefs to themselves. In other words, I’ll continue to treat them with dignity and respect as long as they return the favor.
According to the logic proposed by these new amendments to the DAB it is not too much of a stretch to expand those new “rights” to other beliefs chaplains or other service members hold. Would it be appropriate for a chaplain, or a military leader to openly express his displeasure with those who do not accept Jesus as lord (i.e. Jews, Muslims, etc.)? An easier example to see is perhaps exchanging “gays” for “women”. If service members (chaplains or not) openly expressed their displeasure of women serving in the military it would be a clear case of discriminatory speech – even if it was based on a religious belief (as might be the case in many religions, including some sects of Judaism).
The problem with openly expressing one’s personal beliefs in the military is that depending on your position, those opinions directly affect others. If a commanding officer gives a talk to his troops and declares how he thinks those who do not believe in “x” are morally corrupt and need to correct themselves, then there is an understanding that those who do believe in “x” will have repercussions for those beliefs.
Chaplains have slightly more leeway, but even that really only extends to their own religious practices. If a Catholic chaplain is conducting mass, I don’t think anyone would have any issue with him speaking freely against practices he does not believe in. However, if he is counseling Marines in the field and chastises an individual for having different beliefs it would be entirely inappropriate. No one is forcing any chaplain to march in a gay pride parade or praise the wonders of homosexuality. They can’t even be forced to perform a ceremony for something they don’t believe in. The DOD is simply asking them not to disrespect (or incite others to disrespect) those who have different beliefs than they do.
In the end, these amendments to the DAB are just a backdoor way to stall or couteract the repeal of DADT. However, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to permit discrimination against other groups under the premise of “freedom of expression.” If our legislators don’t fight back against it, then what group will they go after next?
You’re ignoring the repeated statements by senior military leaders that those who are morally opposed to homosexuality in the military need to get in line or get out.
That certainly seems to communicate a message that one cannot oppose homosexuality in the US military, which is why the legislation is legitimate.
Comment Reply
JD, you are completely misinterpreting the statements that you are referencing. To quote ADM Mullen, “If there’s policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet.”
No one is saying if you don’t support homosexuality, you should get out. The point he is trying to make is that if you oppose a *policy* of the military so intently that you can’t go on with daily life, you should leave. This is no different from how it has always been. For example, if someone in uniform opposes the war(s), it would be entirely inappropriate for them to speak out publicly against the military policy. However no one is preventing them from having that opinion – just that there are clear venues where it is appropriate to voice that opinion and ones where it is not.
It is important that you separate homosexuality from the right for homosexuals to serve. If you have valid arguments against the latter, make them. Whether you think homosexuality is a sin is irrelevant. That is the main premise of my article. As a Jew, I’m considered a “sinner” by your criteria as well. You can believe that all you want. You can even rant about it at your Bible study or church meetings, but when you say that I can’t serve next to you then it becomes a problem.
Allowing gays to serve in the military no more “condones” homosexuality than allowing a Jew to serve “condones” refuting Christianity. Also, banning homosexuals from serving in the military won’t “prevent” homosexuality. All it does is make life miserable for them. If that’s not your goal in daily life, then it probably shouldn’t be something you do at work either.
This policy has no effect on whether your (or my) religion believes that homosexuality is a sin. it does say that we cannot discriminate or harass based on those beliefs. If being free from sin was a prerequisite for enlistment, then I don’t think we would ever make our recruiting numbers.
You misunderstand. It has nothing to do with supporting homosexuality — it has to do with the ability to express a moral, religious belief. Asked if people could express their beliefs against homosexuality, according to reports, Admiral Mullen said “if you can’t get in line with this policy, resign your commission.”
It has nothing to do with “not going on with daily life.” It has to do with a policy’s potential conflict with religious liberty.
It has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with people’s conduct, which is very relevant to the military.
You chose to focus on “condoning” things. You seem to be refuting an argument not made.
Also, you are conflating two subjects. Religious faih is a belief and a recognized human liberty. Unregulated sexual activity is a behavior that is not.
JD – you are saying the problem is condoning a “behavior” versus a “belief”. I guess that is where we differ from your perspective. I don’t think homosexuality is just about sexual acts. It is a characteristic of a person. It describes individuals who are attracted to, date, and have relationships with people of the same gender. The military is not welcome in my bedroom to tell me what I can do, and it should not regulate what you or anyone else does in theirs. But now, they also can’t tell a gay man or woman who they can hold hands with or have a loving relationship with. People who are gay are not asking for the right to have sex, they are asking to be acknowledged as people. They are asking, as people who are only attracted to members of the same gender, not to be discriminated on based on this fact. Not to have to lie about who they wish to date. Not to have to pray no one sees them out to dinner with the person they love, because it could cost them their job.
If you continue to believe homosexuality is simply a number of “behaviors” that are wrong and should be regulated, you are not understanding the complexity of homosexuality. I know homosexuality has become a core issue for some people. However, I believe it is a fact about certain individuals that cannot change. It is not a behavior. In that way, regulating it in any way that discriminates against gay people, is wrong. You don’t get say that black people should not be able to serve in positions higher than white people. Or that black people should not hold certain jobs or roles in the military even if that is your core belief. You also don’t get to act on your feelings agains Jews or any other group you feel is “sinning”. It is only right, then, that you also don’t get to say a person can’t be themselves, and love who they want to love, and serve in the military.
Also – how is allowing people to be themselves a conflict with religious liberty? How is giving them respect whether or not you agree with them going against religious liberty? Are you being asked to participate? Are you being asked to stand in front of everyone you know and say you “agree” with homosexuality? No. You are simply being told that these individuals will no longer be forced to hide who they are, and that you will respect them. Period.
What about their liberty to be free to be who they are? To be free to be honest, something the military prides itself on?
I’m really trying to follow your logic here, but continue to struggle with it. What specifically do you feel you are being restricted from doing that infringes on your religious liberty?
1. ADM Mullen has said that those that do not support the Pentagon’s policy should vote with their feet. It is disingenuous (at the very least) to tie that statement to a response to those who express their personal beliefs about homosexuality. The specific response you cite was to Lt. Gen. Mixon’s public call for troops to openly oppose the policy itself. See my earlier comment on why it is inappropriate to openly disobey (or incite others to disobey) established military policy. It’s no different than disagreeing with our commander in chief – you can voice those opinions in an appropriate venue, but you can’t go on the news or give a speech in front of your troops saying how awful he is.
2. Your conflict with “unregulated sexual activity” *is* based on your religious belief. The belief in something else is equally a recognized human liberty. Besides, there is enough “immoral” sexual activity among heterosexuals in the military to launch a thousand campaigns against (premarital sex, adultery, sexual promiscuity, etc.), yet there is this unusual focus on homosexuality. Why is that? We don’t try to prevent philanderers from serving, and their sexual behavior has no affect on promotion or retention.
On a side note, the term “unregulated sexual activity” is rather disturbing to me. I don’t want any government regulation of my sexual activity.
“The military is not welcome in my bedroom to tell me what I can do…”
If you’re in the military, it may be there whether its welcome or not. Just ask any of the most recent military members convicted of crimes for consensual, adult sexual impropriety.
“I believe it is a fact about certain individuals that cannot change.”
The lack of ability to “change” does not validate or excuse the issue. Do you really think this argument would stand for other conduct?
“You don’t get say that black people…”
You are making a false comparison that even black leaders have said is racially inappropriate.
“You also don’t get to act on your feelings agains Jews…”
You seem to sense an animosity that isn’t there.
“What specifically do you feel you are being restricted from…?”
Your question is not well thought out. The government does not have to restrict activity to influence religious freedom.
“The specific response you cite was to Lt. Gen. Mixon’s public…”
Actually, the citation above was from a different incident involving a chaplain.
“there is enough “immoral” sexual activity…to launch a thousand campaigns against…We don’t try to prevent philanderers from serving…”
We do, actually. The US military has official policies and UCMJ articles against the “immoral sexual activity” you listed. Adultery, cohabitating, etc, are violations of military policy. Even divorce is a “bad thing” the military actively fights. Only now is having sex with a person of the same gender not included in that list and specifically removed from the UCMJ.
Whether you “want” it or not, the government already regulates sexual activity. You cannot have sex with a minor — but the definition of “minor” varies by “regulation.” You cannot have sex with an animal. “Transgenders” are still prohibited from military service. Sex offenders are treated differently than others, and are required to publicly register.
Similarly, you cannot marry more than one person, regardless of how many people a person should be “free” to love. You cannot marry your sister, even if it forces you to “live a lie.” It is no longer illegal in most (civilian) places to cheat on your wife, but it is still “socially regulated” because American society still views it as reprehensible (see the response to Tiger Woods).
Your logic is somewhat convoluted. You’re basically saying religious freedom allows people to express opposition to homosexuality, but not opposition to homosexuality in the military. That is a position even the military hasn’t taken.
Likewise, the last few paragraphs of your post above display a naiveté, or ignorance, of actual military policy, and you are mixing nuance with blanket statements. For example, military members are not obligated to “keep those beliefs to themselves.” That you seem to believe so is disturbing.
Religious liberty means you are free to believe anything you want. There is no equivalent in sexual activity.
JD,
Apparently the phrase is one ADM Mullen uses often, but I’d be curious to see where you saw a direct quote of this directed at a chaplain. All of what I saw regarding that story was a *reference* to this quote in the general context of DADT. The authors seem to take some liberty when they link the two stories. I’d gladly be convinced if I saw a direct quote referring to the chaplain in question.
Let’s say for example one was opposed to the military’s policy on drug use. Would it not be inappropriate to speak to my troops in a public forum about how I think the policy is wrong for all of us serving and that we should actively try to oppose this policy?
The same goes for political action. Even if you ignore the specific regulations prohibiting certain political activities for those of us in uniform, I think it is fair to say that it would be inappropriate to endorse or oppose various government policies in that same public forum.
I’m not implying that “keeping those beliefs to themselves” means that one has to only discuss them in dark corners of secret meeting places, just that they shouldn’t be presented in a way that represents the official policy of the command.
It seems like you are being hyper-sensitive if you feel your religious freedom is being *influenced* by this military policy. I have often had to work on Shabbat, I have often had to eat non-kosher rations, I have often had to work on important Jewish holidays, I have promotion warrants on my wall that refer to “in the year of our Lord”. The list goes on and on. There are countless commandments I am unable to fully follow while I serve in the military.
Can you at least see from my perspective why I have little sympathy for people who feel their “religious liberty” is being threatened because they might feel uncomfortable with some policy that has little to no effect on them personally (other than perhaps having to hold their tongue on occasion)?
Don’t get me wrong, I joined this gun club of my own free will and I fully accept the limits of my Jewish observance as a consequence of my own decision. However, I also accept that my sacrifices are a requirement for a well functioning military.
In the end, I don’t expect us to ever find common ground on this issue, as we see the biblical stance on homosexuality from such complete opposite ends of the spectrum. While we do have some overlap, that topic alone could start another 10 pages of comments… I’m not trying to attack your beliefs (and I hope it does not come across that way). I’m simply trying to put this whole religious liberty idea into perspective for those of us who are “restricted” on a daily basis.
I realize I am making some large “leaps” in my original argument relating opposing homosexuals to opposing Jews, but I do so to drive the point home that the logic of the bill’s proponents is flawed in my opinion. As I said, I don’t intend to change your mind on the topic, just provide a different perspective. I’ll end the debate here, but gladly yield the last word to you if you desire.
1. Again, no one said anything about Mullen’s “vote with your feet” quote. For background, see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/get-in-line-or-resign-admiral-tells-military-chaplain/
2. Who said anything about politics? You clarification about “official policy of the command” changes the topic significantly, and you might consider rewriting your original blog if that’s the case. Which is it? Is a military member required to keep their religious beliefs to themselves, which is what you said above, or not?
3. Exactly. A military member is permitted to express their religious views that other religions are wrong. They are not required to “keep their beliefs to themselves.” Likewise, they are “officially” permitted to express their views about homosexuality in the military, though the implication has been the military leadership doesn’t agree with that official stance — which is why the legislators proposed the amendments. You’ve just made the point.
4. You have an interesting focus on the “personal” that you should reconsider. A military policy banning Jews from serving in the US military wouldn’t affect me “personally,” either. Principle, justice, and the moral right are far greater than what affects one “personally.” You might consider that.
Your ominous “what group will they go after next?” is a bit melodramatic and inflammatory, and it ignores some significant history (and stereotype). In the end, suffice it to say religious freedom is a recognized human liberty. Sexual activity is not. There is no comparison.
Ironically, you’re proposing a “slippery slope” argument to support the open acceptance of homosexuality in the military, while most people use the same argument to oppose it.