Santorum was Right on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Perhaps the last muted and strangled reference to the classic arguments against homosexuals serving in the military santorumwas made on a national stage by Rick Santorum during the 2011 GOP presidential primary. After being cut off in the debate itself by a moderator and then being basically mugged by Chris Wallace on the following Fox New Sunday, the classic discussion was ignored. Ultimately, Obama and a lame duck congress, in a last minute midnight deal, simply changed the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That’s it; the debate’s over. No one will ever be taught the other side of the argument. The main stream media will behave like gays have always served openly in the military and social change, irrational and unevaluated, will become Americana of the future. That’s why this blog.

Perhaps Rick Santorum was planning to say that homosexuality is not a race, religion, or gender and, therefore, is not a protected constitutional class anymore than the obesity, the alcoholism, or those with flat feet. If he was, with seven other candidates speaking in thirty second intervals, he had no chance. Instead, he had a chance to make incomplete arguments that were easily demagogued by a heckling press and an unscrupulous journalist on a wallacesupposedly right leaning network. He may have meant to conclude, as a condition that disrupts the military’s mission, homosexuality should not be tolerated.

Santorum did get off a few salvos that Sunday in what now seems, culturally, a millennium ago. Santorum did contrast the passive qualities of constitutionally protected classes with homosexuality which, he claimed, is defined by active behavior. This is, ultimately, an unsatisfactory argument since homosexuality is, even biblically, defined by its passions not its actions.  Santorum’s argument is further flawed because one of the constitutionally protected classes is religion. Religion itself is utterly active and may, in it’s outgoing quality, disrupt, temporarily, the flow of military order. In this way, while Santorum protested that Wallace’s rhetorical trap was based on a flawed analogy about racial integration, the argument he had time to make made little sense.

If Rick Santorum had given the classic argument made in Clinton’s days by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, General Schwarzkopf and others, an argument that was part of the volunteer army’s recruitment policy until the Clinton administration, he would have noted that the unprotected class of homosexuals, like that of flat feet, has the potential to disrupt the military. This disruption is not based on the reaction of others to the disability, but by the consequences of the disability alone. In other words, the temptation of homosexuality poses grave risks that are not based on an intellectual acceptance or rejection of homosexuality by others in the military, but is a risk that is, instead, based on the potential consequences of such behavior in the barracks, showers, and foxholes.

Even after the lawyers of the Clinton era postulated a celibate homosexual, forever in the closet, who was such a pillar of homosexual virtue that he was too pure to lie on his application; even after this imagined homosexual saint was permitted to avoid questions about sexual orientation as part of the application for service, the idea that homosexuality was forbidden in the military continued.

However, when Rick Santorum said during the Fox debate that, “Any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military,” his sound bite abbreviated a valid point. Obviously, men and women in the military marry and have children. Santorum’s point is that all of this takes place outside the military workplace.

Santorum went on to assert further, “The fact that they’re making a point to include it (sexual activity) as a provision within the military — that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege in removing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ I think tries to inject social policy into the military.”

Here it seems he was trying to make some of the classic argument. This includes:

1) Whether male or female, heterosexuality does not belong in the military workplace. The service of the nation normancomes first.

2) With the removal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” homosexual soldiers are allowed to insinuate sexuality into the barracks, the fox hole, and the submarine. Rather than forcing homosexuals to ignore their sexuality, as is the case with heterosexuals, men and women working a post together, the military is giving this homosexuality a higher, protected status.

Proposition 1 is not difficult to defend (See “Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve Openly in the Military”).  Therefore, proposition 2 is axiomatic. However, buried within proposition 2 are two more self-evident propositions:

3) Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality.

4) Therefore, a homosexual’s speech about his or her homosexuality is not the same as heterosexual’s speech his or her heterosexuality.

Although Proposition 4 is self-evident based on deductive logic, consider the empirical evidence. For instance, under DADT, heterosexual soldiers can talk about their loved ones and put pictures of them on their desks; however, gay soldiers cannot. This is because having a picture of a wife on one’s desk is different than bringing a girl into the barracks. In the first instance, the soldier’s speech is not work related. In the event of homosexual speech, the workplace is directly impacted.

Even if every member of the barracks is homosexual, the work environment is directly impacted by homosexuals speaking about their orientation. Once a homosexual has announced his intention of having sex with those of the same gender, he has bought a woman into the barracks, and a guy into the girls’ shower. The soldier’s intention does not matter. He or she may fully intend to confine his or her homosexual interactions to areas beyond the workplace, but homosexual speech injects sexuality into the workplace in a way heterosexuality does not.

This is because heterosexuality is not the same as homosexuality. One area of speech is like crying fire in a crowded theater. The other is not. The two types of speech are NOT equivalent. This is the core of the real debate in our culture. Saying that homosexuality is the same as or equal to heterosexaulity is a lie. It’s a lie in our military. It’s a lie in our courts. It’s a lie.

Ultimately, there will be those who say that the threat to military discipline by active homosexuals is unimportant. Some will say there’s not problem worth talking about. Like Obamacare, executive amnesty, and eighteen trillion dollars in national debt, the problem of active homosexuals in the military is just no big deal. Anyone who says otherwise, is, you know, just not Hollywood cool.

Three Reasons Gays Should Not Serve “Openly” in the Military

We all know a straight guy on a three month submarine tour would rather hot bunk with a co-ed, but for the glory of his country or the promise of seeing the world, he’s taken a deal he doesn’t like much: he’s bunking, in shifts, with subdozens of smelly guys he’d rather only play poker with. As folks grow older and wiser, they look back and can’t even understand how they managed to live with their fraternity brothers in the “good old days.” This resiliency of youth should be guarded and protected. This resiliency, the ability to live as brethren with those who are nearly strangers, is, among other things, an ability to ignore sexuality, whether it’s gay sexuality or heterosexual sexuality. Those that want gay rights in the military would force sexuality into every inch of these dormitories of patriotic celibacy. However, we are to believe the those who want gays to serve openly in the military are selfless, kind, caring and good. I guess gay rights are more important than the rights of our young patriots to the last vestiges of their personal privacy.

Homosexuality is about expressing rather than ignoring sexuality. The esprit d’corps critical to military service, especially where heterosexual men and women serve together, is about ignoring sexuality. There is no reason for it to be a “gay right” to inject sexuality into that mix. If it is a need for individual homosexuals to do this, they shouldn’t serve. This is as it is for heterosexuals as well. Heterosexuals who cannot contain themselves, who must overtly express sexual intentions in the workplace, end up out of today’s military also. The sacrifice of our youth in the service of our nation is heroic fox holeenough. Their unit cohesion depends on brotherhood and trust. That brotherhood (and, where applicable, sisterhood) depends, to a great extent, on the ability to overcome the need to make overt one’s sexuality and sexual intentions. Making “gay rights” an issue by injecting sexuality into dormitories, showers, and foxholes is not in the best interests of the military.

There are many areas of life and society in which America willingly chooses to help those who are, in any way, limited by the conditions or birth or nature. We willingly place wheel chair ramps for the handicapped and provide braille for the blind in public education. We are a kind and magnanimous people. We consider the effects of poverty on educational development and seek to compensate so that the playing field is level for all. We even allow for mental disease to mitigate in our judgments of criminal offenses. However, in the military and in emergency services, ability, and only ability, should be the criteria for service. Weakness, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should not be enshrined in the military codes as “protected” in any way.

A domestic partner is not the same thing as a spouse. If an entire branch of government wants to open up the flood gates of the “government treasury” (what’s the national debt –18 debttrillion?) and allow people to freely sign up for benefits with any single friend they know, the tax payers have a right to know about it and vote on it. It is a matter of somebody’s rights. It is a matter of the right of taxpayers to their property.

Nor is demanding gays openly serve in the military like integrating blacks and whites. To insist that it is, is racist. Insisting on such an analogy, when the comparison is unmasked and shown for what it is, is to say that being black is a disability.

Dehumanized Marriage is Not a Party

Dehumanized marriage, gay marriage, is often touted as progress of some sort. Many seem to feel that a dehumanized marriage is like “letting everyone be part of the party.” Dehumanized marriage is not a party; it’s an invitation to tyranny.

Marriage, “a joining,” is a mutual commitment based on a biological union. While indeed, marriage is a “celebration” of this commitmarrriage 4ment, here the word “celebration” is not a party. Instead, the celebration sets aside a relationship between two people as unique because of the mutual decision to form a biological, sexual union. Whether or not children arise from this biological union, this union, marriage, is a commitment based on biological realities.

Marriage is both a natural right and a constitutional right. It’s a natural right because it is utterly independent of governments. Legitimate governments, though, as with all natural rights, are responsible for recognizing and protecting the humanizing reality of marriage. Indeed, in our recent constitutional past, courts have found this to be the case. In 1967, in 1978, and in 1987 the Supreme Court rightly found that marriage, understood in essence as, “the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, …[obliging] them to live together throughout life,” is not only a natural right, but a fundamental right inherent in the liberties our constitution obliges our government to note and protect.

Everyone knows that marriage is no picnic, but neither is it an adult prom, a special chance to be recognized by friends and family as part of the traditional flow of society. American laws are based on nearly eight hundred years of cartawar demanding, protecting, and transmitting natural rights and liberties. There must be some other way to make same sex couples feel welcome in society than by purposely undermining the core reality of natural rights that forms the foundation of Western law and civilization.

Doug Mainwaring, a gay Tea-Party activist, once called the marriage equality movement an “un-defining” of marriage. He was exactly right. This “un-defining” is an insidious destruction, not only of marriage, but of the limited government a free people must demand. While marriage, like conscience, is as lasting as our humanity itself, limited government relies on the rule of law. As Marxism has “un-defined” property and thievery, so our judicial system has been bearing the national chest to the storm, begging the lightning to strike. By dehumanizing our marriages and families, we declare ourselves mindless, mewing cattle ready for the avarice of tyrants.

Some of even the most patriotic Americans don’t really understand either the legal or spiritual history of marriage. magna-carta1For instance, one brief before the Ninth Circuit brief read: “At the heart of this case are two competing conceptions of marriage. The traditional conception…holds that.. its [marriage’s] central purpose…is to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring, stable unions for the sake of responsibly producing and raising the next generation.”

The carriage is before the horse! Children and a strong family are but a benefit of maintaining a marriage. It’s the fruit, not the tree. Our judiciary must be unceasingly reminded of their Constitutional responsibility to uphold the natural right to marry and all other natural rights.

Un-defining a right denies that right. If we have a right to marry, but the word “marriage” is meaningless, we have a right to nothing. A society that suppresses, ignores, or devalues any natural right will reap the whirlwind.

More will be impacted than the state of children in dehumanized “marriages.” If our government cannot be trusted to tell the truth about marriage, it can’t be trusted to tell the truth on anything. Why should we unfetter gmarriage 3overnment from its obligations to guard our inherent liberties? Would we willing allow the federal judiciary to un-define the right to bear arms? Perhaps the right to bear sharp Frisbees is liberty enough for a free people.

Any government that does not recognize and protect natural, unalienable rights is an unnatural evil. Why? Because that government’s entire mission statement has become corrupted. Legitimate governments only exist by virtue of their charter to recognize and protect the naturally arising, unalienable, inherent rights of every person.

Our founders rejected the early tenets of evolution expressed by the Enlightenment (see Thomas Jefferson On Intelligent Design), and, instead, felt that these inherent rights were evidence of the will of the Supreme Judge of the world. Any government that is “destructive of these ends” is, therefore, not only without legitimate authority, but also at war with Divine Providence.