Richard Burr Is Right

NRO profiles North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr and his vote in favor or repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." 

I don't like to be that blogger that feels the need to get my two cents into every national issue here, thinking people just can't wait to read what Chris thinks about this or that.  Other bloggers can do that, and frankly I don't have the time or the ego to think everyone cares what I think about everything.

So I stayed away from DADT, mostly because its an issue that doesn't bother me much.  But I do think that the time has come to get rid of this policy.  If someone wants to volunteer, go through the excrutiating process of getting through basic, and perhaps even die for our flag - I'm not going to stand in their way just because they are attracted to men rather than women.  I also think its pretty ridiculous to think that just because your gay, you somehow can't control your sexual impulses is frankly kind of insulting.  And from what my brother has told me about the army, straight soldiers need to look in the mirror when it comes to fraternization.

I do understand those who are against this, but it comes down to volunteering to serve the country.  I think it might be a generation thing, and I also think there is no real way to guage how the military troops look at this, because their job is to obey the president, the secretary of defense, and their superiors. 

I don't know, it might just be me.  I've known some gay people and really its just not a big deal to me. 

Comments

[VA Blogger]

"You don't need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." - Barry Goldwater

[Casanova Frankenstein]

Well, GOLLY!!!!!!

Pvt. Gomer Pyle has just reenlisted in the USMC.

[Not Dick Cheney]

OMG! I had forgotten that Gomer Pyle was gay!

Don't anyone tell John McCain. He'll have a stroke.

Unless, of course, he's changed his position on DADT again. Who knows with that guy.

As McCain says, we MUST listen to the generals! Unless the generals agree with the president. Then we must find a bunch of flag officers who retired decades ago and who disagree with the president and listen to them instead. What the heck do the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the JCS know anyway.

Country First? With McCain it is politics and party first and the country be damned.

Of course, everything is trumped by his personal vendettas and sense of entitlement.

I deeply respect what he went through in Viet Nam, but he is a complete embarrassment today. He really has lost his soul.

[Steven Osborne]

Chris,

I will have to disagree with you on this one. Several things.

1) It is not completely generational, I am younger than you, and others I know who are younger than you also opposed government recognition of homosexual behavior in the military. One thing that bothered me about Richard Burr's vote was the fact that he presented it as a "generational shift" issue. It is unfair to suggest that everyone under 30 has a monolithic view on this issue.

2) It was not just retired officers who opposed this. Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos expressed concerns about making such a shift in the military's policy during a time of war. The question also presents itself as to whether or not this would be right to repeal under any circumstances.

3) I am disturbed about how this issue has been presented in a "civil rights" narrative. Quite frankly I believe that it is disrespectful to the men and women who fought for civil rights in the 1950's and 60's, to equate that struggle with the struggle of a small group to achieve recognition for their behavioral patterns.

This is not about bigotry against anyone. The military was and still is an all volunteer force, it is not a question of admittance rather of recognition. This is about the government giving tacitly positive recognition to a particular behavior pattern. The homosexual activist groups have said as much and now have formed a "war room" to begin to lobby for a redefinition of marriage. In addition, this decision to repeal will open up the military to potentially cumbersome lawsuits.

So while I understand the positive ideals of an all volunteer force. I also understand that those who join can and should comply with the principles of said military organization.

I was recently reading portions of the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels clearly understood that for a government to take control of the totality of human life that the "bourgeoisie family," (or nuclear family consisting of father, mother, children) must be removed. Unfortunately, many Republicans buy into Marxist presuppositions without knowing it.

Perhaps Sen. Burr has made this tragic mistake.

[VA Blogger]

1) No one suggested opinions were uniform by generation. Certainly, some older people support not discriminating against gays, and some younger people do. But generally speaking, most younger people are more accepting of homosexuals.

3) It *is* a civil rights issue. Civil rights don't just refer to the rights of African-Americans.

4) I'm not prepared to call everyone opposed to repealing DADT a "bigot", but it certainly is about discrimination.

5) Slippery slope arguments aren't compelling in this case, so I don't care about "homosexual war rooms" or Marxist manifestos. If you think that this is the first step towards converting the country to Marxism, I'm not sure there's anything anyone could tell you to convince you otherwise.

[Chris]

Here are the principles of our military:

""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

How does being gay not conform to this? Bottom line, if someone wants to fight and die, I'm not going to stop them. Rules for homosexual fraternization should be just the same as their are for heterosexual fraternization, not tolerated. Its really not that hard.

[Steven Osborne]

Chris,

"according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

This prohibits homosexual behavior and is in effect until all proper legal means are taken to repeal that longstanding statute. We are not debating fraternization policies.

VA Blogger,

1) Most young people are ambivalent, that may or may not change.

2) This is *not* a civil rights issue. The government has never given equal recognition to all forms of behavior, nor should they.

3)This is not about discrimination. Homosexuals have equal access to public facilities, utilities, and services. There is a difference between discrimination in kind and discrimination of behavior, homosexual behavior was considered to be against the UCMJ and regulations as were other behaviors that are still prohibited by the military. Do those behaviors, including adulatory, deserve equally positive recognition as well?

4)I do not believe that this is the first step towards converting the country to Marxism. Rather one in many. Read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to what homosexual activists are saying. Tell me that I am wrong.

[Chris]

well, since both Congress and the commander in cheif have changed the policy, I think the UCMJ will change as well.

[MARK BARBEE]

MR.Burr, I voted for you. As a member of the N R A I liked your support. This is wrong in Gods eyes.DADT is not right.I will never vote for you again.

[VA Blogger]

Senator Burr probably doesn't read this blog, but I'll be sure to pass along your complaint the next time I see him.

[Bruce]

Mr. Osborne,

You keep saying "behavior." The current laws and regulation (prior to this week) were to prohibit volunteering for thinking you were homosexual or admitting that you thought you were homosexual if asked, not for engaging in homosexual sex or behaviors.

There will still be regulations in the UCMJ that prohibit behaviors - such as fraternization, sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming. What there will not be is a prohibition on someone saying "I prefer a partner of the same sex" any more than saying "I prefer a partner of the opposite sex."

This is NOT about behavior. Changing the UCMJ, which you rightly point out will need to be changed, will still ban BEHAVIORS. It currenly defines behaviors as even saying anything. It is also based on the Manual for Courts-Martial which the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES can amend via Executive Order. In fact, Article 120 was revised in 2007.

There is currently no prohibition on talking about one's personal life EXCEPT one can not mention a preference for a same-sex partner. This is illogical.

Adultery, by the way, is not specifically prohibited. It is prosecuted under more general language.

But that point in your argument is flawed. To say that to allow one previously prohibited behavior means one must support all behaviors is silly. The U.S. once banned the consumption of alcohol (Prohibition). The repeal of Prohibition did not lead to the legalization of all other drugs. The U.S. once banned ANY homosexual act anywhere. It's repeal (see the Supreme Court's ruling in Hardwick v. Bowers among others) did not lead the U.S. to repeal its laws on bestiality or statutory rape of a child.

And the reason it is being debated as a Civil Rights issue is that when one is born with certain genetic traits, the U.S. will not treat you differently than others. If you are born with a different skin tone than I am, under the law you can still do ANYTHING I can. If you are born a different sex than I am, under the law you can still do ANYTHING I can. If you are born with a different sexual preference than mine, why can you NOT do anything under the law that I can?

As for Marx and Engels, they also said that government should control religeon as a means of controlling the people. When the government begins telling my church or synagogue what marriage it can recognize and which it can't, it is involving itself in a regligeos decision. That is more dangerous than the U.S. recognizing certain beliefs that are outside the majority.

You asked me to tell you you're wrong? You're wrong.

[Steven Osborne]

Bruce,

I was debating whether or not to respond as I did not want to rehash old arguments. However, I will try to keep my response as brief as possible.

1) Homosexuality does involve behavior. Suggestions to the contrary are silly.

2) Homosexual behavior, on or off duty, was considered conduct unbecoming of a soldier and was against the UCMJ. Consequently those who admitted to having violated that provision of the UCMJ were dismissed.

3) This is not about homosexuals having the right to serve. The Pentegon report, skewed as it was, clearly indicated that there were already homosexuals serving without self identifying as such. The whole point of repeal was to achieve a point of positive recognition by the government of homosexuality. This creates a contradiction of sorts as, Supreme Court rulings notwithstanding, we still selectively charge people with sodomy in American courts of law. So, technically, our legal system holds a negative view of homosexuality.

4) By creating this contradiction homosexual activists can further the process of developing a legal case for behavioral rights, on which any minute aspect of behavior, sexual or otherwise, can be classified as an inherent "right" as given by the government. With those rights will obviously come the benefits associated. This in spite of the fact that our nation has never recognized an unlimited right to any form of behavior. Instead, behaviors have generally been judged by the results that they produce. For those of us who believe in the idea that rights come from the Creator alone, the idea of man having the right do whatever he or she wants should give us pause. Our rights may not be enumerated, however, they are not unlimited.

*As to your reference to the Communist Manifesto, you incorrectly cite Marx and Engels. They claimed that religion was an opiate employed by the bourgeoisie to mollify the people. Therefore they opposed established religion and sought to replace it with a new religion whereby the people looked to the state as a god.

** I am going to be adamant about the fact that this is absolutely not a civil rights issue. This is about civil recognition. Those whose support this repeal have either wittingly or unwittingly furthered the idea that a particular behavioral group has a right to civil recognition. This could serve to undermine rights that are truly inherent.

[SGT Bailey]

It doesn't matter if a gay serves in a REMF outfit. Not much difference between the Air Force, Walmart greeters, and the Army Adjutant General corps. They are not warriors and no one expects them to be. No one really cares too much about lesbians. Women are not warriors either.

But, the combat units will not tolerate gays in their midst well. Unit cohesion will be undermined. Eventually, warriors will leave the service. The military will be a hollow force of units that will be less combat capable.

Many really brave men will charge up a hill
and face near certain death for their fellow soldiers, but they quickly lose their courage in the face of political correctness. They don't have the guts to say in public what every warrior and combat veteran knows. Gays don't belong in combat units. Repeal of DADT will lead to a less cabable military.

[Bob]

The idea that somehow the military will be weak because a homosexual person is in it is just stupid. There are currently plenty of homosexual folks serving. The question is not if they can serve or not, the question is if they have to lie while serving. I wouldn't have a problem with DADT if it was applied to heterosexuals as well. Lets face the facts, this was about civil rights and Obama and the Democrats were right for a change.

[Sue]

Bob was obviously a REMF, if he served at all. He doesn't understand combat arms soldiers who actually do the fighting.

Over time the combat arms soldiers who actually fight will depart the service. The only ones left will be the service troops that don't actually fight. Good luck with that.

[VA Blogger]

Steven, fifty years from now the arguments you're attempting to peddle to justify continued discrimination will age as favorably as arguments 50 years ago in favor of segregation did.

[Rick S.]

I really don't know the answer to this. What will happen if a gay member of the military goes to his chaplain and asks him for advice on how to increase intimacy with his partner when they are apart. The chaplain then refuses to discuss it with him even though he gives similar advice to married couples. Could the homosexual claim discrimination? If so, it might mean that Catholic priests, conservative Rabiis, conservative Imams, and conservative protestant chaplains might be excluded from the military in the future.

[VA Blogger]

What an obscure issue to scrounge up.

[George S]

It is really not an obscure issue. There will certainly be provocations by gays with agendas. One will certainly try to embarrass a chaplain priest of conservative rabbi. Maybe even a muslim chaplain?

Wasn't the wikileak soldier who gave away all the secrets gay?

[Sylvia P]

Many of the British and US spies who gave away our nuclear secrets to the Soviets were gay as well. You can look it up.

[local gop]

Many of the monsters under the bed and in the closet are gay as well...

[Arturo G]

How would local know that unless he hides under beds and lurks in closets?

[NoVA Scout]

Sylvia advances, by implication, an excellent argument as to why arbitrary restrictions based on sexual orientation should be done away with. She may not have intended to. My experience in the security field, now somewhat distant in time, was that homosexual members of the military and diplomatic services were vulnerable to blackmail and being turned by hostile interests because of the stigma and reaction, both legal and societal, that would be meted out if their orientation became known. I often thought then, as I do now, why not just take that weapon out of the hands of our enemies?

[Unspooled Right Winger]

"why not just take that weapon out of the hands of our enemies?"

NoVa Scout, does that really require an answer?

There are two competing interests here. One is the inevitable end of an outdated policy that has clearly damaged our national security (as with the discharge of Arab linguists at a critical time when they were in short supply) and that, as you correctly point out, hands a weapon to our enemies. The other is the interest of feeding the paranoia of a segment of the Republican base that seems to live in dread fear of rampaging homosexuals trying to turn them gay.

Which do you think is more important?

[Jill]

History does not support the contention that homosexual spies gave away the West's nuclear secrets to the Russians because they were blackmailed or embarrassed. They did it willingly and unashamedly.

PFC Manning admitted he gave away the wikileaks secret documents because he was jilted by his gay lover.

So much for NoVA Scouts argument.