OK, somebody has to say it. It’s uncomfortable and it makes whoever says it open to being called a “Pharisee,” a “homophobe,” a “bigot,” a sanctimonious hater, a benighted troglodyte, or worse. Somebody has to endure that, though. We need to act like grown up, secure people who can talk about difficult things and resolve them.
So, to quote one of my favorites, Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band, “Call me a relic, call me what you will. Say I’m old-fashioned, say I’m over the hill,” but here it goes.
First, for the President to use the State of the Union to call on Congress to repeal the current policy on gays serving in the military was wrong. It is incendiary, provocative, distressing and contrary to the most deeply held religious and moral convictions of millions of Americans. Second, if he really believes passionately in this, he has other means to accomplish it. He can use the budget process, or, even quicker and cleaner, he can simply issue an executive order. He used such an order last night for something far less consequential. The President obviously thought the deficit so important he by-passed the Congress and created a Deficit Commission by fiat.
If, in fact, allowing gays to serve openly in the military is, as the President said, “The right thing to do,” then why not simply do it? What the President actually did was lob an explosively contentious grenade into the public square. Gay activists were instantly in knots about it—disgusted the President didn’t do what they really wanted, but only renewed a campaign promise by punting to the Legislative Branch. And a whole lot of ethnic and cultural groups, moral conservatives, religious people, and, yes, military men and women, are now left to painfully wrestle with what is surely another divisive, corrosive and likely dead-end issue.
Why is this? Because no matter how you cut it, gays-in-the-military does not present the same set of questions as blacks-in-the-military, or latinos-in-the-military. There is near universal belief that it is always wrong to use race, color or ethnicity to judge a person’s character, ability or willingness to serve. (For that matter, there’s no debate the data eliminate whether a gay person can serve admirably or is willing to serve admirably. In fact, not only have gay persons done so, they have given the ultimate sacrifice in doing so.)
The question really is whether it is appropriate for the military to be used to validate a dubious sexual practice. Lets face it, that’s what this is really all about. To the gay rights activists, please be at least that transparent. Tell us what you’re really thinking so we can have an honest conversation. This is about validation of a lifestyle that has as its defining feature a sexual attraction and even a set of sexual acts. After all, isn’t that what on the opposite side makes a heterosexual?
The fact is, well-considered, well-informed, carefully researched and fully contemplated moral and religious philosophies hold that sexual acts between persons of the same sex are injurious to the individuals involved and the society around them. These convictions cannot be dismissed as veneers for irrational hatred or the base animus of the uneducated and ignorant masses. There are plenty of Ivy League PhDs in this camp, along with caring, compassionate, even loving pastors of souls; there are also the vast majority of those who embrace one of the earth’s three great monotheistic faiths. Which brings me to the next point.
A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told me chaplains are “critical to good order and morale, and therefore to the success of our military.” As a board member of an organization that fields a large number of chaplains to the military, I interact with them regularly and I routinely hear about the things that concern them, and this is definitely one. And this doesn’t only affect Evangelical or Catholic clergy. I’m also talking about Jewish, Muslim and Mormon chaplains. In each case, their religious systems teach homosexual behavior violates God’s intended purpose for human sexuality and is therefore not allowed. You don’t have to have a Harvard degree (though many of these chaplains do) to know there will be conflict between what these chaplains are charged to teach and preach, and the President’s proposed policy change. It’s a huge—read that HUGE—problem for morale and good order.
And there’s another thing. Come ‘on, let’s be grown ups. There’s a reason the military doesn’t have men and women showering together. Please don’t dismiss this one as a childish vestige of a now distant Victorian past. The fact is you don’t generally want people around you in a shower that are erotically stimulated by your naked body. Now, I may be betraying my naïve ignorance here about how gay people get excited, but none of my gay acquaintances have ever said it works terribly different for them then it does for straights. The site of an attractive nude body probably does for gays what it does for straights. (Unless, of course, you are gifted with a disinterest in sex, period. That’s another matter.) For most of us, testosterone, estrogen and libido are forward moving forces that need at least a modicum of external controls, including segregated showering and dressing spaces.
I’ve purposely left until last the most incendiary element of this State of the Union attack on personal, moral, social and religious sensibilities—its affect on our relations with the Muslim world. When I participated in my first face-to-face formal dialogue between Christian and Muslim leaders in an Islamic country, I was asked at the start, “Do you accept homosexuality?” Homosexuality is a deal-breaker for the vast majority of Muslims. I know, we don’t want to kowtow to oppressive religions, no matter how many adherents they have, but, again, if we’re looking to solve problems, this is not the way to do it.
Surely the President knows these things. He told us during his campaign he’s a man of deep and considered Christian faith; he had a Muslim father and a partial Muslim upbringing; he has a Harvard law degree and an IQ off the charts. Surely he’s not ignorant of the considerable and principled convictions held by so many on this subject; and of the dangerous pitfalls it presents given the already tense environment military women and men sacrificially occupy.
Let’s grow up and have the big conversation before President Obama’s proposal brings about unintended, irreversible and even terrible consequences for our valiant American heroes.
I’d really like to hear from you on this.
Rob +
