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

[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.