WASHINGTON, D.C. — The forces behind the repeal of “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) — namely, homosexual activists,
the media elite, Obama, leading Democrats, and a few RINOs — have
dishonestly portrayed their efforts as a matter of “fairness,” “equality,” and “inclusion.” According
to the New York Times, Obama signed the repeal into law before
crowd.... The audience for the ceremony included a who’s who
of gay activists....” The military’s top brass seemed to
be Missing-in-Action from this joyous occasion.
Overturning the Clinton-era law, which prohibited lesbians and gay
men to flaunt their lifestyles as uniformed members of the U.S. military,
isn’t about allowing individual gay servicemen and women to serve
honorably as valued airman, sailors, soldiers, or Marines. What the
repeal of DADT really comes down to is power and influence —
the never-ending recognition and affirmation of homosexuality as a
publicly sanctioned alternative “lifestyle” — and the
action to reward an important constituency of liberal activists.
It is the latest attempt to normalize behavior that society has historically
considered destructive, hedonistic, decadent, and debauched. It is
about extending group rights and privileges, societal recognition,
and acceptance to a previously shunned subculture.
Author and philosopher Michael Levin has astutely identified the crux
of what really lies behind activist agenda:
It is commonly asserted that legislation granting homosexuals the
privilege or right to be firemen endorses not homosexuality, but
an expanded conception of human liberation.... A society that grants
privileges to homosexuals while recognizing that, in the light of
generally known history, this act can be interpreted as a positive
re-evaluation of homosexuality, is signaling that it now thinks homosexuality
is all right.... Many commentators in the popular press have observed
that homosexuals, unlike members of racial minorities, can always “stay
in the closet” when applying for jobs. What homosexual rights
activists really want, therefore, is not access to jobs but legitimation
of their homosexuality.
This is precisely the political dynamic involved in repealing DADT.
It is about power, leverage, and clout, and the extension of privileges,
recognition, and re-evaluation to a once marginalized subculture that,
until now, has been openly disqualified for military service. It is
the classic case of the camel getting its nose under the pup tent.
Supporters of the repeal of DADT frequently argue that purging the
armed forces of homosexuals hurts the operational effectiveness of
the military, since many homosexual servicemen and women are highly
skilled professionals. Hence, not allowing homosexuals to openly serve
as homosexuals drains the military of much-needed talent. The argument
is disingenuous because ultimately it isn’t about what benefits
the military. Essentially it comes down to what is beneficial to the
homosexual agenda (dismantling prohibitive policies and gaining public
acceptance): Today the armed services, tomorrow marriage. It is an
attempt by activists to keep homosexuality before the public until
this subculture is fully integrated into all spheres of American society.
In voting to repeal DADT, Sen. Richard M. Burr (R-NC) stated that
repeal was “generationally right” and argued that Americans “don’t
think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do.” However,
exclusion — maintaining high standards for selecting qualified applicants
— is what has historically made the U.S. armed forces an effective
and efficient fighting force. Stripping away the military’s exclusionary
character, lowering standards for politically correct social experimentation,
will eventually erode its combat effectiveness.
The U.S. military has largely been exempt from “societal pressures” of
egalitarian conformity. A good example of this is how the military
is, by law, exempt from discrimination lawsuits under the Civil Rights
Act. Acceptance into military service has never been viewed as a “civil
Every year thousands of applicants are rejected from serving in the
military because these prospects do not pass the Armed Services Vocational
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), a multi-aptitude test. Scores in four critical
areas (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension,
and mathematics knowledge) comprise an applicant’s Armed Forces
Qualifying Test (AFQT) score. Passing the baseline AFQT score determines
whether or not applicants are qualified to enlist in the U.S. military.
report by the Education Trust found that 23 percent of high
school graduates fail to meet the minimum threshold on the enlistment
test to join any branch of the U.S. military.)
The ASVAB is discriminatory in the sense that it weeds out unqualified
applicants; the results often have “disparate impact,” in
other words, the disqualified applicant pool has a greater impact among
ethnic and racial minorities. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Griggs
v. Duke Power Co. that the use of an IQ test for employment selection
is discriminatory under Title VII of Civil Rights Act because of the
test’s “disparate impact” on racial minorities.
The point is that the cohesiveness and operational effectiveness of
the U.S. military and the military’s primary mission of national
defense depend upon preserving this exclusionary factor in recruit
selection. The United States Armed Forces should remain isolated from
egalitarian coercion — external pressure to conform and shape our
military to fit contemporary fads and fashions.
Lifting DADT is indicative of what author John Kekes describes as
the “Rhetoric of Toleration” in his book, The Illusions
The truth is that egalitarian liberals advocate toleration of discrimination
in favor of minorities and women (but not against them); of obscenity
that offends religious believers and patriots (but not blacks and
Jews); of unions’ spending large sums in support of political causes
(but not corporations’ doing the same); of pot smoking (but
not cigarette smoking); of abortion (but not capital punishment);
of the public lies of Clinton (but not of Nixon); of hate speech
against fundamentalists (but not homosexuals); of sex education in
elementary schools (but not prayer); of jobs open only to union members
(but not private clubs open only to males); of lies about American
imperialism (but not the Holocaust); of sacrilegious language (but
not of language that uses he to refer to all human beings); of scientific
research into just about anything (except racial differences in intelligence);
and so on and on.... [E]galitarian liberals are unique in favoring
limits on what they dislike while claiming to champion toleration.
Repealing DADT is simply the removal of one more exclusionary barrier
that egalitarians find contemptible. In the not-too-distant future,
given the repeal of DADT, one can easily foresee “Gay Enlisted
Clubs” and “Gay Officer Clubs” or the “Gay
Leatherneck Association” or the Marine Corps branch of the Mattachine
Society as the extension of this privileged group reaches new zeniths
within the ranks of the U.S. military.
Is it really worth jeopardizing the cohesiveness and combat effectiveness
of an overwhelmingly macho institution such as the USMC for the sake
of accommodating the agenda of the Stonewall Brigade?
Lamb Amongst Wolves column by Kevin Lamb is copyright © 2010
by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, www.fgfbooks.com.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to reprint if credit is given to the
author and the Foundation.
Kevin Lamb, a columnist and writer, served
as managing editor of Human Events from 2002-2005.
To sponsor the FGF E-Package:
please send a tax-deductible donation to the
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or sponsor online.