By Michael F. Haverluck
There’s the story about the Marine veteran who said, “I joined the Marines and homosexual behavior was illegal. Then they made it optional. I’m getting out before they make it mandatory.”
Just a joke? Perhaps.
But the U.S. military, which only months ago moved to advance homosexual behavior by eliminating the longstanding “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, has surged forward with special support for homosexual members, declaring June as “Gay Pride Month” for the armed forces and planning a festival to honor troops of both genders who practice homosexual behavior.
The details still are being worked out, but the event reportedly will carry the same weight and significance as other military events that pay tribute to ethnic groups and their contribution to the U.S. military.
Military officials attribute the motivation behind the event to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s desire to single out and honor homosexual military personnel for their service.
“Now that we’ve repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ he feels it’s important to find a way this month to recognize the service and professionalism of gay and lesbian troops,” stated Capt. John Kirby, a Navy spokesman.
No mention was made, however, of celebrating the achievements of service members not falling under the umbrella of the LGBT community or ethnic diversity.
Before and after the repeal of the statute, the Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, questionable research and reports supposedly indicating that open homosexuality in the military has positive ─ not detrimental ─ effects on military morale and national security have swept through media.
The Thomas More Law Center corroborates that reported findings have been anything but authentic.
“To accomplish this political objective [of normalizing homosexual behavior in the military], Pentagon officials utilized rigged public opinion polls, leaks of false information and muzzling of combat commanders who opposed the repeal,” the law center reported in a public statement.
The publicized “studies” seem to reflect the sentiment of LGBT members within the military.
“I don’t think [open homosexuality in the military] is just moving along smoothly, I think it’s accelerating faster than we even thought the military would as far as progress goes,” said Air Force 1st Lt. Josh Seefried, a finance officer and co-director of OutServe, an association of homosexual military personnel.
However, the definition of “progress” could be considerably different on both sides of the political and moral spectrum. Many accounts of indoctrination programs instilling the mandatory acceptance of open homosexuality within the military have been reported. The swift implementation of the training, as well as mandatory compliance with the teachings, could only be considered rapid advancement by advocates of homosexual behavior.
But Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly believes that the aggressive policies and instruction administered to all 2.25 million armed forces members are far from what many would consider progress.
“It’s too early to report any success, but indicators show that there are negative consequences of the new military policy known as LGBT law, which was created at the repeal of the 1993 law called DADT,” Donnelly told WND in an exclusive interview. “Trends are not good.”
Donnelly points to the CMR Policy Analysis called “Chilling Trend of Sexual Assault in the Military,” which reports that “sexual assault in all branches of the services have increased by 22 percent since 2007.” It also states that violent attacks and rapes in the Army have nearly doubled since 2006 to 1,313 last year, with 5 percent of the assaults on men. Furthermore, it reported that in “all branches of the service, male sexual assault victims have increased significantly, from 10 percent in 2010 to 14 percent in confidential reports.”
The trend continues, says Donnelly, who stresses that it can hardly be considered “success.”
When asked whether the Pentagon overstepped it boundaries by planning an event celebrating homosexuality when the originally declared intent of the policy change was only to tolerate the open expression of homosexuality, Donnelly answered to the affirmative.
“Yes, but this should have been foreseen by those signing the current LGBT law in 2010, which now controls the military,” Donnelly replied. “In the early 1990s, the Clinton administration held a similar celebration called the ‘Diversity Gay Training Event,’ and the demonstrations by LGBT activists there were so offensive and controversial to Christians and non-Christians alike that Clinton never held the event again.”
And how will the Pentagon’s party affect the behavior of homosexual military personnel?
“This is only the beginning,” Donnelly warned, noting that it was even too much for Clinton, while pointing to other scandalous demonstrations witnessed at
“Gay Pride” events all over the nation. “I think this is an open-ended welcome of ‘gay’ culture in the military.”
Donnelly asserts that the trend will become more and more prevalent in the military, pointing to a WND article earlier this year titled “Marines starting to look ridiculous.”
And what kind of effect will such celebrations have on people of faith in the military, including chaplains?
“Zero tolerance,” Donnelly said. ” … If you don’t agree, you can end your military career. A Coast Guard [member] initially lost his job for merely inquiring about privacy. Military LGBT law works to stifle and end careers of those who disagree.”
She also pointed out that a lack of an exodus from the military is no indicator that things under the LGBT law are working for everyone.
“Military culture has always been one of obeying orders, and soldiers have been ordered to abide by LGBT law,” Donnelly explained. “Also, many troops who would have ordinarily left under such pretenses remain at their posts because of the declining economy and a lack of jobs out there.”
Donnelly also stated that chaplains are having their hands tied more and more with LGBT law and same-sex “marriage” legislation.
The CMR leader went on to note that there are many negative factors behind the new LGBT law that the media is simply not reporting.
“They report this as a cultural issue and this misrepresentation is problematic,” contends Donnelly, who mentioned a Military Times poll that only magnified and extrapolated statistics favorably portraying responses to the repeal.
“Instead of spinning the story with preconceived conclusions, the Military Times should investigate why 21 percent of those with personal experience reported negative consequences from repeal,” she said. “Readers would also like to know why respondents saying that they ‘Accept Change’ dropped from 24 percent to 12 percent, and those planning to stay in the military declined by one-fourth (4 percent down to 3 percent).”
But the overlying issue is whether LGBT law and the repeal has jeopardized national security.
“There is no constitutional right to serve in the military,” the CMR president explained, emphasizing that segregation based on sexuality has always been rational and customary. “They blur the issue with irrational segregation, such as racial segregation, which has no reasonable basis. Sexual privacy is necessary for troops to function properly in our military, but this is no longer respected as it has been in the past.”
And what can people do to curb what many recognize as a destructive tide in the military?
“Tell your member of Congress that the issue needs to be revisited and investigations need to take place to see what’s really going on,” Donnelly asserted. “The problem is LGBT law. The LGBT community in the military is not responsible for our current predicament … The people who need to be held accountable are the U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the Commander in Chief Barack Obama, who didn’t even know what they were signing in 2010. But the president had a different agenda in mind, as the current administration is fully committed to LGBT law. The culture of the military is in danger and is being abused by the commander in chief, who is using it for the political payoff he receives at LGBT fundraisers.”
The Thomas More Law Center agrees that the current administration signing LGBT law into the military puts both soldiers and citizens in danger, and its attorneys continue to challenge this threat to America’s national security.
“This new law will ultimately destroy unit cohesion and morale, reduce the number of heterosexual volunteers, and considerably degrade the ability of the military to defend our nation, their first responsibility,” said Thomas More Law Center President and Chief Counsel Richard Thompson. “Our military men and women, our sons and daughters, should not be subjected to an involuntary social experiment which will damage our national security. That’s why we will continue our efforts to oppose this immoral law.”