- Text smaller
- Text bigger
GOP Sen. Scott Brown has announced his intention to vote in favor of allowing openly avowed and practicing homosexuals to serve in the United States military. His decision comes as no surprise to me (see the article I posted at my blog just before the vote in Massachusetts last January) or anyone else who bothered to familiarize themselves with his statements about the issue of gay marriage in Massachusetts. If, as one news organization reports, his vote gives the Democrats the votes needed to enforce acceptance of homosexuality on conscientiously reluctant military personnel, it is tragically appropriate that it should do so.
Scott Brown epitomizes the consequences of the “money issues, not moral issues” approach to politics the current GOP leadership offers as the only way to defeat the Obama faction’s determined effort to destroy the American way of life. Even if it made sense to believe that fiscal restraint is possible for a licentious people (which, of course, it does not), a rich nation that corrupts and demoralizes its military forces won’t exist to enjoy prosperity for very long.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with respect to homosexuals in the military is at best a makeshift effort to forestall that demoralization in the face of the determined effort to force the American people to approve of behavior incompatible with both their consciences and the natural law principles that justify their claim to liberty. (Regarding the latter, see: “Legalizing homosexual marriage impairs unalienable right,” “Natural Right and the Family” and a number of related articles at Loyal to Liberty.) It encourages a sly stance of connivance and dissembling distinctly at odds with the trustworthy frankness and plain dealing that best characterizes the military profession, particularly in a society determined to establish and preserve decent liberty.
But at least this stance avoids making the violation of conscience a matter of military discipline, subject to accusation, trial and punishment. Though portrayed as a matter of rights for homosexuals, this is really an issue of coercion again those who conscientiously reject homosexual activity as a matter of faith and morals. Adm. Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, made clear that punitive action, including separation from the military, will be taken against anyone who refuses to treat the open practice of homosexuality as acceptable.
In true Machiavellian fashion, this will of course empower homosexuals to accuse and by accusation to destroy the careers of other service personnel at will. Mullen asserted that military service is about what you do, not what you are. But by forcing military personnel to treat as acceptable conduct their conscience condemns, military discipline will be diverted from its right goal of assuring cohesive and effective military action, to the goal of establishing a moral code directly contrary to the religious and moral convictions of the personnel being coerced.
As a practical matter, as Mullen intimates, this will force personnel who refuse to accept the new religion out of the military. It will give extraordinary authority to the protected practitioners of homosexuality, who will become the de facto censors of the sexual attitudes of others. It will contribute to a military culture hostile to the fundamental precepts of natural right, precepts without which liberty and constitutionally limited government cannot rationally be maintained. A military imbued with such hostility (under the formal and informal influence of individuals personally motivated to resent the doctrine of natural law that historically stigmatized the sexual gratification they prefer) becomes the ideal instrument for those who mean to discard constitutional government, and by force impose policies upon the people that disregard and trample upon their natural and therefore unalienable rights. The result will be a military force questionable in its defense of the Constitution, but most reliable in enforcing laws that ignore or trample upon the political rights it was framed to respect and preserve.
It is no wonder that on the same day the Obama faction Democrats in the House passed the legislation meant to inaugurate this new military culture, an unjust court-martial rendered its verdict against an honorable officer whose only crime was seeking reassurance that the Constitution of the United States has been respected in the disposition of the office of commander in chief. This is the harbinger of the sorry truth. If the Obama faction and its GOP fellow travelers like Scott Brown (and, by the way, Ron Paul who voted with the Obama faction in the House) impose their will, soon there will be no place in the military for those who treat their oath to defend the Constitution as a matter of conscience. The honorable tradition of true citizen service will altogether yield to the mercenary and ambitious mentality of those who seek above all to gratify their own pleasure and ambition.
With the election of Barack Obama, we saw the advent of the political leadership suited finally to destroy the American constitutional republic. Once the culture of law-imposed homosexuality takes hold of the military, Americans will live in the shadow of the military force that corresponds to it. God help us.