Repealing DADT: Unintended results
Those who support repeal of DADT have no idea what the unintended consequences will be on the force.
Central to the issue is the fact that the overwhelming majority of our military come from conservative backgrounds where belief in Judeo/Christian values underpins our society and our way of life (including moral conduct codified in religious teachings).
Justification for repeal seems to be that the American public is more accepting of all varieties of gays now and accordingly, they will be readily accepted within the military.
Such a false assumption will be devastating. The military is no place for social engineering of this type.
Just because the American soldier says he or she holds no personal animosity against gays in general doesn’t mean they want gays serving openly in the military. The Commander in Chief and those who support repeal of the policy fail to understand what the impact will be on military ethos and the “warrior spirit” that is ingrained in our forces from day one.
The increased risk for HIV in blood supplies, promotion policies, reassignment regulations, restrictions on what our chaplains preach and counsel on the issue, gay partner benefits and even gay marriage will hit the services with the force of a daisy cutter bomb making a direct hit on the military establishment.
Housing our soldiers will present an even greater challenge to our commanders. Someone needs to stop and consider the consequences and the impact on morale and unit cohesion.
Training bases with open bays and gang latrines are still in use throughout the services. Is it right that heterosexual soldiers (male or female) should have to endure exposure to gay/lesbian members who may view themselves as the opposite sex of what they are biologically?
Does a commander house two gay/lesbian soldiers together in our new 2+2 person barracks? If he does, would a heterosexual male soldier be able to billet with a heterosexual female soldier? If not, why not?
Would the commander billet a gay and straight soldier together? Could the straight soldier object because of religious beliefs? If not, why not?
And how does the commander deal with those who are transgender and bisexual? These are but a few of the situations commanders and soldiers will have to confront if DADT is repealed.
I cannot begin the imagine what the ACLU and the courts will do to services and to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Do we really want our warfighters engaged in these distractions to the mission of defending our country and insuring our security interests throughout the world are protected?
Make no mistake about it, we are so fortunate to have the most dedicated, loyal and competent military in the world protecting us. Driving down this road to allow gays to serve openly will manifest itself in ways our civilian leadership has failed to analyze or even consider as they try to cram this policy down the throat of our military.
And finally, service in the military is not a right, it is a privilege earned by meeting qualifications and standards and agreeing to contractual requirements of service. I believe the Supreme Court acknowledged the uniqueness of the military and it’s right to restrict enlistments or commissioning when DADT was passed under the Clinton Administration
Peachtree City, Ga.