George Washington on sodomy in military

When the nation celebrates George Washington's 280th birthday Feb. 11, will the father of our country be turning over in his grave over America's determination to permit open homosexuality in the U.S. military?

I suspect so if you take him at his word.

He believed sodomy an "infamous crime" that was to be abhorred and detested. In the case of the court martial of Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin, tried March 10, 1778, his sentence was "to be drummed out of the camp … with infamy … never to return."

Today's Washington politicians – and I include many of the highest-ranking, career-driven generals and admirals in that category – believe welcoming sodomy with open arms in the U.S. military represents a new civil-rights threshold.

That is the reason they have determined to tear down the last line of defense against active sexual perversion within military ranks.

TRENDING: The left's vindictiveness: From erasing truth to criminalizing it

Why was Washington opposed to sodomy?

A student of the Bible, as most of the Founding Fathers were, he could not help but take notice of the fact that it was a serious sin – that those who practiced it were dissolute, caught up in immoral conduct and disorderly behavior.

An inspiring wintertime story for young patriots: "When Washington Crossed the Delaware"

The military personnel of the colonies, at war with the world's greatest empire at the time, were "strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue" – not given to licentious activities nor yielding to their debauched sexual lusts that were contrary to divine law.

Today's American leaders have determined that God's laws are archaic myths and that there are no consequences for flouting them – either individually or as a nation-state.

That's why I wish there were still men like George Washington on the scene in American politics today.

And Washington was far from alone. William Blackstone, who wrote "Commentaries on the Law," once the very foundation of American legal jurisprudence, could scarcely bring himself to mention the subject of homosexual sodomy, which he called "a disgrace to human nature." Thomas Jefferson, hardly a Christian fundamentalist, authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. In New York, the penalty for "the detestable and abominable vice of buggery" was hanging. Likewise, Connecticut laws required the death penalty. Georgia was a little more liberal – the penalty being life imprisonment at hard labor. Maine, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Vermont all prescribed sentences of from one year at hard labor to death.

Why was activity now celebrated on television, in movies and in public schools as a simple lifestyle choice discouraged with such conviction at our nation's founding?

I believe it can best be explained by something John Adams, the founder of the U.S. Navy, said Oct. 13, 1798: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What does that mean?

"Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand," Adams explained. "The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

In other words, the whole radical notion of self-government put forth by the founders was impossible without willing obedience by the populace to the laws of nature and nature's God.

But back to Washington.

Here's how he explained it in his "Farewell Address":

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert … ?"

Advertisement - story continues below

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Specifically how does that view relate to the conduct of war and military service?

Here's how the father of our country saw it: "It is required and expected that exact discipline be observed and due subordination prevail thro' the whole Army, as a failure in these most essential points must necessarily produce extreme hazard, disorder, and confusions; and end in shameful disappointment and disgrace. The General most earnestly requires and expects a due observance of those articles of war established for the government of the Army which forbid profane cursing, swearing, and drunkenness; And in like manner requires and expects of all officers and soldiers not engaged on actual duty a punctual attendance on Divine service to implore the blessings of Heaven upon the means used for our safety and defence.

"His Excellency [George Washington] wishes [it] to be considered that an Army without order, regularity, and discipline is no better than a commissioned mob; Let us therefore … endeavor by all the skill and discipline in our power, to acquire that knowledge and conduct which is necessary in war – our men are brave and good; men who with pleasure it is observed are addicted to fewer vices than are commonly found in Armies; but it is subordination and discipline (the life and soul of an Army) which next under Providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world.

"Purity of morals being the only sure foundation of public happiness in any country and highly conducive to order, subordination, and success in an Army, it will be well worthy the emulation of officers of every rank and class to encourage it both by the influence of example and the penalties of authority. It is painful to see many shameful instances of riot and licentiousness. … A regard to decency should conspire with a sense of morality to banish a vice productive of neither advantage or pleasure."

Which approach makes more sense to you – George Washington's or Barack Obama's?