Continuing Feminization of the U.S. Military: The Repeal of DADT

Sexual tension in the ranks means the end of military discipline.

The U.S. military took its first step on the sexual slippery slope when it admitted women to the military academies in the mid-1970s. Later, women began serving on the frontlines (just one way Bill Clinton ensured the decline of our once proud military and kowtowed to the radical feminists). The denial of reality—that there was no new element of sexual tension acting as a distraction from discipline—began then. 

The incorporation of women at least involved normal sexuality. And if a woman became pregnant, she would be discharged. Still, enormous damage has been done.

Now, with the repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving openly, we will see increased tensions, this time with an unnatural and perverted sexuality endangering discipline—and it will be more pervasive in the daily life of a soldier. Where men and women are at least segregated in their housing, bathrooms, etc., this will not be the case with homosexuals. 

What a betrayal by our new Senator Brown to vote for the repeal of this important element of discipline. But then, he probably doesn’t have a problem showering no matter who is ogling him. 

Scott Brown Refuses to Take a Stand on Homosexuals in the Military

On Tuesday, Feb. 2, there will be a Congressional hearing on whether the 1993 law banning homosexuals from serving in the military should be repealed. (The law should not be confused with Clinton’s policy to evade the law, known as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”.)

So it was good timing last Sunday for Barbara Walters to ask Scott Brown whether or not he agreed with Obama on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. But Brown refused to answer her question.

Brown, as a Lt. Colonel in the National Guard, knows well the military’s purpose and climate. He should have manned up and answered this question directly. Instead he avoided taking a clear stance, following the Mitt Romney model. (This is not surprising given that Romney’s men are now Brown’s top advisors.)

Brown deferred to “generals in the field.” Well, Senator-elect Brown, they’ve already spoken (as noted by the Center for Military Readiness):

As of January 2010, a formal statement of support for the 1993 Eligibility Law, addressed to the President and Members of Congress, has been personally signed by 1,164 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military, 51 of them of four-star rank. The statement concludes:

“Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects of the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Voluntary Force. As a matter of national security, we urge you to support the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military (Section 654 Title 10) and to oppose any legislative, judicial, or administrative effort to repeal or invalidate the law.”

Brown’s prevarication does not bode well. It is not indicative of an “independent thinker,” but of a politician waiting to see which way the wind is blowing. Not what his supporters voted for...

Here is our transcript from the Barbara Walters interview:

Walters: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.

Brown: Yes.

Walters: You’re a Lt Colonel. On Wednesday, the President announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell.’  What’s your view?

Brown: I think it’s important, because as you know, we’re fighting two wars right now. And the first part is to finish the job and win those two wars. I’d like to hear from the generals in the field – in the field – the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.

Walters: But Senator, your own view?

Brown: That’s my view.

Walters:  So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?

Brown:  No, I’m gonna wait to speak to the generals on the ground.

For more on homosexuals in the military, see the Center for Military Readiness. We especially hope that Senator Brown will study this report: “Consequences of the Proposed New “LGBT Law” for the Military.”

Scott Brown Going Wobbly on Gay Rights?

Is this what conservatives supported in electing Scott Brown? I don't think so! Let's hope this is just wishful thinking  on the gay activists' part. Then again, pro-gay Romneyites are advising Brown. Hold the line, Scott!

From EDGEBoston (GLBT news), Feb. 1:

"Are Sen.-Elect Scott Brown’s Views on Gay Rights Changing?"

 

Graham Wilson, a Political Science Professor at Boston University, believes Brown’s views on social issues will evolve in time.

"I don’t know his stand on (gay marriage) in detail but I do think he will moderate and has shown signs of doing so already," Wilson told EDGE. "Now that he has the Republican nomination, his challenge is to avoid defeat in general elections that will be held in what for him are likely to be less favorable circumstances."

Someone who is familiar with Brown’s positions on LGBT issues is Scott Gortikov, the Executive Director of Mass Equality, who said Brown has expressed "consistent opposition to LGBT equality" as a State Senator.

Gortikov does hold out the hope that Brown may be inclined to be more supportive of the LGBT community on certain issues considering the company he will be in.

"He is a junior Senator from a Massachusetts delegation and this is a delegation that has supported issues of equality for a long time," Gortikov said. "(Brown) touts not only his traits of independent thinking but also his conservative credentials. There may be nuances to his thinking when it comes to future votes on LGBT issues."

Bay Windows (linked with EDGE) also posted an "open letter" to Scott Brown, asking for a "dialogue". They're "awaiting his reply."