In the years since repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for the United States Armed Forces, much has happened.
A lot of good people left the service. It wasn’t the same military they joined.
In October, 2010, I was sitting on a stage at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks in dialogue with a repeal proponent on this issue, as he casually stated to the officers and faculty before us that, “It’s O.K. to have your own moral beliefs, but you’re just going to have to suppress them.” He was a nice man, but frankly, he had never served in uniform.
Looking out at the audience, I knew there would come a time in each of their lives when they wouldn’t have to suppress their beliefs anymore. They could vote with their feet—once—but they had a vote based upon those beliefs if they wanted.
Some contacted me. Here’s what they told me:
“I would like you to know that we are one of the families who will be slipping out of the military. My husband has faithfully served his country for almost 13 years now but at the end of his current enlistment in 2014 we will begin our life in the civilian force. My husband is a Marine and the ramifications of this will not be good. I can name at least 5 other families who will be doing the same.”
“My spouse is the Equal Opportunity Representative for her unit. Needless to say, she will be dealing with homosexuality first hand and be responsible for putting together and teaching the classes for the indoctrination of homosexual tolerance into her unit. She does not see how she can do such a thing when this lifestyle is completely against our family beliefs.”
“Now after the repeal vote, I am an active duty officer on a promotion list wrestling about whether or not I should accept the promotion—usually a no-brainer—or to leave the service I love because of this issue.”
“This issue is not about religion–we just know it’s wrong.”
Three to four years is about the time it takes for one cycle of moves in the military. When a military service member approaches a change of assignment, a date of return from an overseas duty location, or completes an active duty service commitment, he or she can politely opt out of any future assignment and separate from the military—no questions asked.
Slowly over these last six years, one by one on their own, principled, values-driven service members quietly separated from the military they joined. There wasn’t any chaining to the fence at the White House as homosexual proponents had done. They didn’t throw their medals back at the White House, a la former Secretary of State John Kerry. There wasn’t any “mass exodus.” It wasn’t possible.
They served with honor, and when their time was up, well before retirement eligibility—skilled craftsmen, special experts in critically manned career fields all, they simply said they’re separating from the service. Out of deference to their civilian masters, they simply walked away.
How many? In the 17 years the ban on homosexual service members serving openly was in effect, proponents of repeal suggested that about 13,194 military service members were separated from the Armed Forces because they were homosexuals. If we asked the question, we might find the number to be two to three times more skilled, honorable service members have separated from the service because of the repeal.
But, the Pentagon and our former Commander-in-Chief never asked the question. It has become the biggest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” issue since the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The price has been heavy and yet our government is afraid to find out the true cost. I would think even proponents of repeal would want to know that answer. Ask the question. Prove me wrong.
Have military chaplains had their careers threatened or have they been disciplined for their faith?
In the Pentagon’s own report, it’s clear that no one opposed repeal more openly than the military chaplain cohort. Chaplains feared the worst regarding the fact that Biblical opposition to homosexuality wasn’t something they just made up. In his remarks at the release of the report, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated “that the chaplains are not going to be asked to teach something they don’t believe in.”
And yet, over these last several years, we have heard anecdotal stories about chaplains occasionally, such as these:
A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.
A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.
We must bravely approach all of our military chaplains about their experiences on duty since the repeal. They predicted command interference with their ministry and conflicted loyalties to God and to man. We should find out if those fears have been realized. We should ask them, but we haven’t. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is alive and well.
The successful liberal activists fell out of favor with their peers.
Homosexual proponents of repeal have already tried to write the history of this effort, in as much as they see themselves as the victors. That was fast, and their book has been out for years. But any glory was short-lived by immediate criticism from some of their own leftist peers who obviously held their tongue during the repeal effort.
Proponents of repealing the gay ban were criticized by their radically liberal friends for promoting military service at all. Critics charged that proponents over-militarized the debate—making the point that military service is something Americans should not promote.
As a result, these homosexual lobbyists have back-tracked and acknowledged they needed to pursue a militaristic approach in order to win the repeal of the gay ban. They acknowledged that they had to suppress their personal leanings toward pacifism in order to carry the day in the debate. And I thought it was just about equality.
Such is life for a homosexual proponent on the “winning” side. Just as soon as you try to write the history of the victorious effort, your unsatisfied fellow activists taint that history. Those same proponents now blog critically against the Pentagon budget and the very existence of a military. And then, yesterday happened.
The pendulum has now swung back.
So now I wonder if there will be an addendum to this already-written history after a new Commander-in-Chief’s pronouncement yesterday regarding gender dysphoria and military service? Those same activists are back calling his action “despicable.” Litigation to follow. Perhaps being on the “winning side” isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.
I would imagine our socially liberal opponents are as concerned about the Secretary of Defense’s call for a review of all education and training programs in the Department of Defense that do not promote warfighting. Could Secretary Mattis be re-ordering (again) the notion of “service before self”? There’s very little possibility of opposition litigation here.
All of that “training” curriculum from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute that was written to indoctrinate largely social conservative service members as well as mute military Chaplains in their own pulpits, might now be up for grabs in favor of education and training that promotes—wait for it—winning our nation’s wars.
If, as our friends on the left would tell you, that this is just about fundamental fairness, there will always be activists in the ranks who will want even “fairer” treatment. That’s what we heard from our liberal friends yesterday who really don’t have a fundamental understanding of what it means to serve. They want “fairness” from an organization that asks for its people to give their lives for their country, the most fundamental unfairness of all.
Seems like there’s more to this story that is yet to be written. And, be careful. The large pendulum you push, may swing back to hit you when you’re not looking.