……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The Report is in. It’s called a Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”It’s a study by the Department of Defense to answer this key issue: Can openly homosexual people serve in the U. S. Military without affecting our nation’s military preparedness?
I recommend you read the first 17 pages of the reportwhich deliver the summary and conclusion. The co-chairs of the study, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and General Carter F. Ham of the U.S. Army, offer this conclusion to their 256-page report: “we are convinced the U.S. military can make this change.”
During the course of the study, some significant hurdles to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) became evident. Here are some of the hurdles, positioned alongside the mitigating response the co-chairs gave.
Repeal “Hurdles” Mitigation
| Estimated annual cost to repeal DADT will be $50 million to $60 million. | But we’ll save $20 million annually by not having to recruit & train replacements for those dismissed under DADT. |
| A large numberof Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving
alongside someone who is gay. |
“Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs;they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold differentviews and beliefs.” |
| The most intense resistance to repealing DADT comes from the 3000-plus chaplain corp. Many chaplains believe homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. | “The reality is that in today’s U.S. military, people of sharply different moralvalues and religious convictions…already co-exist, work, live, andfight together on a daily basis.” |
| Under military law, private consensual sodomy is a criminal offense. | “We support the… repeal [of] Article 125 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and remove private consensual sodomy between adults as a criminaloffense.” |
| “…we heard from a very largenumber of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or
living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian.” |
“Most concerns we heard about showers and bathrooms were based on stereotype…” |
| The “survey results reveal a significant minority—around 30% overall(and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted
in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repealof Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” |
“In the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that, aside from the moraland religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about ‘open’ service isdriven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay Service memberswere allowed to be ‘open’ about their sexual orientation.” |
| “…67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man orlesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission ‘in afield environment or out at sea.’” | “…predictions and surveys tend to overestimate negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporatewithin its ranks the diversity that is reflective of American society at large.” |
| “…tensions and incidents… may arise between individual
Service members in a post-repeal environment, including the Service member who simplyrefuses to serve alongside a gay person…” |
“…commanders should be reminded of the enormous
latitude and discretion they have…to address any situation concerning Service members who are intolerant or intractable in their behavior toward oneanother.” |
| “…many asked us if the stated positions of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and theChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in support of repeal in some way influenced, prejudiced,or constrained our review and assessment.” | “This was not the case.” |
The co-chairs’ conclusion?Military effectiveness will not suffer.
Their thinly veiled rush to repeal brushes aside the large numbers of Service members in opposition. This is a consensus-building effort? They use the term “stereotype” 11 times. They allow religion and morality no voice in the discussion.Cost? What cost? What’s $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 a year? And if it’s against the law, simply change the law.
Big surprise, I guess, but I was struck by the mental gymnastics it took to reach their conclusion.Which, as they noted, was completely their own. (This just means they’ll bear the full penalty before the Lord of Righteousness.)
Well, some are feasting today, celebrating this as “progress.”
I suggest we turn to fasting. We may not alter the course of our country in this matter, but we can please the heart of God by refusing to call evil good (Isaiah 5:20). Though we’re small in number we can be like those “few people” in Sardis who held fast to righteousness despite the filth that was all around them (Rev. 3:4).
Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
0 Comments