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.

Dehumanizing Marriage: Party A, You May Now Kiss Party B

Anytime a basic civil right, an inalienable right, whether enumerated in the U.S. Constitutional documents or not, is violated by a government, that government is dehumanized, the citizens participating in that government are dehumanized, and, of course, those having their constitutional liberties abridged are dehumanized.

Consider the cases in Nazi Germany in which Jews were made to wear a yellow Star of David. The Nazi’s ignored ttwohe basic and self-evident equality among ethnicities in order to single Jews out as less human, deprived of the dignity of equality. The most devious of the Nazi aims, however, had to do with dehumanizing the populace of Germany itself. By refusing to stand up for their fellow humans, the people of German civil society became callous towards the Jews. Ultimately, the Nazi’s themselves became more and more unfeeling towards human life and the plight of their fellow man.

Of course the dehumanization of the German Jew was exponentially quickened because essential religious freedom to worship was likewise stigmatized. Two sets of essential civil liberties were abridged by the Nazis at once. Yet, could the Jews have claimed to have been harmed by wearing the yellow star of David? Shouldn’t they have been proud of their religious background? The wearing of the star was the first of a continuing series of Nazi violations of civil liberties, but the dehumanization of the Jew was already complete before the clear harm began. The prima facia violations of the human rights of privacy and freedom of religion produced the harm to Jewish natural liberties that paved the way for genocide.

Likewise, no matter how one wants to interpret the wording of the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, humans in a state of nature, without government, have the right to take up arms and defend themselves. Although the choice is intimidating to some, it must be; for that is the essence of self-defense. The right to defend oneself is a severe right that elevates all human life by its severity. The choice to bear arms or not to bear arms defines human character, but it is still a fundamental free choice, a liberty that is part of being human. Although, as the U. S. Supreme Court found, to protect the general welfare and to secure the blessings of all our liberties, the state, as authorized by the people, has the right to limit the liberty to bear arms, court or no court, the right to self-defense must not be compromised.  The District of Columbia completely abridged the right to bear arms and the right of self-defense thereby. Law abiding citizens, then, are completely reduced to dependency on government for their defense. They become no more than serfs of the Dark Ages dependent on their feudal lords for defense. They become the chattel of the state, the property of the state. Their humanity is compromised. The state too is dehumanized, for it becomes like a feudal lord, above those whom it exists solely to serve.

Yet, how are those that were refused the right to bear arms for many years in DC harmed? There is only slight evidence of that harm. The NRA often points to the rise in violent crime in areas in which the second amendment is severely constrained. This may simply be the obvious result of the criminals becoming emboldened by an unarmed populace. However, it could also be that the dehumanizing effects of abridging the right to bear arms emboldens those who contemplate violence.

How do these tests of the effects of abridging of natural liberties relate to the recent ban on marriage in California? In both of these instances, laws abridging human rights have plainly existed without any clear harm initially being found. Both instances are also examples of the truth that abridging any civil liberty dehumanizes the state and its citizens. In California there are no more marriages. Men and women cannot receive a marriage license that says “husband” and “wife”; instead, they become “Party A” and “Party B.” This language is plainly dehumanizing, and it is not the 0417marrriageapp1happenstance of nomenclature. The ruling of the Supreme Court of California and its accompanying opinion wreaks with violations of civil liberties and a callous, inhuman refusal to acknowledge the very essence of what it means for a man and woman to join in matrimony.

California’s Court has reduced marriage to only that over which the state has authority. It has looked at all the clothing of marriage and called these changing incidentals ‘marriage’; but the Court has ruled to ignore that unchanging reality of marriage that forms the basis of marriage as a natural liberty.

In every case, a constitutional liberty is such because its reality is greater than man; its power is independent of governments. It is because of such fundamental liberties’ superiority and priority to government that good governments reside in harmony with these native, inborn rights natural to humanity. Good government perceives that these greater, natural, freedoms are the very blessings of liberty that governments exist, solely, to secure. Marriage is such a liberty because it is more than contracts and commitments conferred by the state. The duties of marriage proceed from the joining in marriage, not from government. This joining for which men and woman are designed (whether by natural selection of by the hand of the God of Nature Himself), this is the very essence of marriage the State refuses to acknowledge.

Refusing the title of “husband” and “wife” is not a happenstance of nomenclature; it is evidence that the State of California refuses to acknowledge the essence of marriage, the joining in marriage, that is central to marriage as a constitutional liberty.  Because the state of California, through the voice of its Supreme Pontiffs, manifestly rec615x200-ehow-images-a06-af-f1-obtain-copy-marriage-license-800x800ognizes only those social rights involved in marriage, and because the essence of my marriage, my ‘right to marry,’ to join with my partner as husband and wife, is no longer recognized by California law, my constitutional right to marry is completely abridged. It is in the essence of humanity, male and female, to be able to freely join in marriage. California has a right to regulate marriage, even as the District of Columbia has a right to regulate the right to bear arms, but California does not have the right to legislate marriage out of existence, to deny its reality, and to ignore its core humanity. To designate marriage as a simple set of rights society chooses by tradition to assign dehumanizes us all.