Paul A. Ibbetson
The repeal of DADT: to march or to sashay into the future?
By Paul A. Ibbetson
On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law that repeals the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays wishing to serve in the military. DADT was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was a considered by many liberals a compassionate turn from the military's previous ban on gays' serving in the military. In a somewhat ironic turn of fate, in order to move the homosexual agenda forward Barack Obama would have to classify the social engineering escapades of Bill Clinton to be barbaric. At the repeal signing President Obama said that the new law would strengthen the country's national security and upholds the values that the military fights to defend. He also spoke about the new law allowing skilled homosexuals who were previously turned away from the military to now join the American fighting forces and increase the ranks of our national defense.
To the case that Barack Obama makes for radically altering the standard of operations for military service, the President stands in complete opposition to the belief system of the founding fathers and the traditional standards of this country. How far is the gap between the value system that guides the current President on the issue of homosexuality in the military than that of the founding fathers?
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media writes of George Washington's opposition to homosexuals in the military. In 1778 a soldier was court-martialed for attempted sodomy. The official record of the trial verdict and punishment makes clear Washington's disgust with homosexual activity within the military's ranks. The record of soldier Enslin's attempted sodomy court-martial was discovered in a discussion by David Barton of Wall Builders on homosexuals in the military and was collected from the writings of George Washington from the General Orders at Valley Forge. It reads as follows: "At a General Court Martial where of Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return."
So while the Continental army was in the fight of its life and the projection of victory was unsure at best, George Washington found it of utmost importance to place high value on personal conduct within the military ranks. To maintain the dignity and the cohesion of the fighting force, Washington went beyond forbidding homosexuality within the ranks; he aggressively punished it. The reasoning behind Washington's strong opposition to sodomy and other homosexual acts in the military was based in part to biblical values that repetitiously and without the slightest bit of ambiguity state that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Additionally, Washington, as well as other military leaders, understood the disruptive and demoralizing effects of promoting the homosexual lifestyle within the close confines of military duty. In other words, Washington had a very different vision from Obama's on the ideals that the military fight to defend.
The biblical issue of morality is a message that finds only deaf ears today from the liberal left. The idea of God's law when it comes into opposition of the homosexual agenda is framed with words such as "homophobia." For the advocates that would follow the radical reframing of American values on military service created by Barack Obama, it is easier to say heterosexuals fear homosexuals than to say that God is right.
Even the mentality surrounding future military participation added by overt homosexuals that may wish to join a more gay-friendly armed forces, something that Obama touts as a bolstering factor to the country's future national security, is full of warped inconsistencies. Many military experts have voiced concerns that existing U.S. soldiers will not want to share showers and other intimate living arrangements with overt homosexuals. My interview with retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, author of the book, "Conduct Unbecoming," who was responsible for the Nuclear Football under President Bill Clinton, highlights one such voice of opposition. On my radio show Conscience of Kansas, Patterson stated his opposition to the repeal of DADT saying it would lead to lawsuits and a lowering of military morale. According to Patterson's conversations with military personnel, he estimated that up to 25 percent of serving forces would leave, or consider leaving the military due to the repeal of DADT. A mass exodus of traditional soldiers would most likely outweigh any national security increase brought forth by overt gays entering the military.
In other words, from a national security standpoint, Barack Obama's repeal of DADT will most likely make the country less safe, less secure. From a moralistic perspective, Barack Obama is doing far more damage than simply asking the military to march to a different cultural tune; he is demanding that they sashay into moral debauchery as defenders of the free world. The repeal of DADT is truly proof that America has come a long way; the problem is that we have come a long way all in the wrong direction.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
December 31, 2010
On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law that repeals the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays wishing to serve in the military. DADT was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was a considered by many liberals a compassionate turn from the military's previous ban on gays' serving in the military. In a somewhat ironic turn of fate, in order to move the homosexual agenda forward Barack Obama would have to classify the social engineering escapades of Bill Clinton to be barbaric. At the repeal signing President Obama said that the new law would strengthen the country's national security and upholds the values that the military fights to defend. He also spoke about the new law allowing skilled homosexuals who were previously turned away from the military to now join the American fighting forces and increase the ranks of our national defense.
To the case that Barack Obama makes for radically altering the standard of operations for military service, the President stands in complete opposition to the belief system of the founding fathers and the traditional standards of this country. How far is the gap between the value system that guides the current President on the issue of homosexuality in the military than that of the founding fathers?
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media writes of George Washington's opposition to homosexuals in the military. In 1778 a soldier was court-martialed for attempted sodomy. The official record of the trial verdict and punishment makes clear Washington's disgust with homosexual activity within the military's ranks. The record of soldier Enslin's attempted sodomy court-martial was discovered in a discussion by David Barton of Wall Builders on homosexuals in the military and was collected from the writings of George Washington from the General Orders at Valley Forge. It reads as follows: "At a General Court Martial where of Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return."
So while the Continental army was in the fight of its life and the projection of victory was unsure at best, George Washington found it of utmost importance to place high value on personal conduct within the military ranks. To maintain the dignity and the cohesion of the fighting force, Washington went beyond forbidding homosexuality within the ranks; he aggressively punished it. The reasoning behind Washington's strong opposition to sodomy and other homosexual acts in the military was based in part to biblical values that repetitiously and without the slightest bit of ambiguity state that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Additionally, Washington, as well as other military leaders, understood the disruptive and demoralizing effects of promoting the homosexual lifestyle within the close confines of military duty. In other words, Washington had a very different vision from Obama's on the ideals that the military fight to defend.
The biblical issue of morality is a message that finds only deaf ears today from the liberal left. The idea of God's law when it comes into opposition of the homosexual agenda is framed with words such as "homophobia." For the advocates that would follow the radical reframing of American values on military service created by Barack Obama, it is easier to say heterosexuals fear homosexuals than to say that God is right.
Even the mentality surrounding future military participation added by overt homosexuals that may wish to join a more gay-friendly armed forces, something that Obama touts as a bolstering factor to the country's future national security, is full of warped inconsistencies. Many military experts have voiced concerns that existing U.S. soldiers will not want to share showers and other intimate living arrangements with overt homosexuals. My interview with retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, author of the book, "Conduct Unbecoming," who was responsible for the Nuclear Football under President Bill Clinton, highlights one such voice of opposition. On my radio show Conscience of Kansas, Patterson stated his opposition to the repeal of DADT saying it would lead to lawsuits and a lowering of military morale. According to Patterson's conversations with military personnel, he estimated that up to 25 percent of serving forces would leave, or consider leaving the military due to the repeal of DADT. A mass exodus of traditional soldiers would most likely outweigh any national security increase brought forth by overt gays entering the military.
In other words, from a national security standpoint, Barack Obama's repeal of DADT will most likely make the country less safe, less secure. From a moralistic perspective, Barack Obama is doing far more damage than simply asking the military to march to a different cultural tune; he is demanding that they sashay into moral debauchery as defenders of the free world. The repeal of DADT is truly proof that America has come a long way; the problem is that we have come a long way all in the wrong direction.
© Paul A. Ibbetson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
