This past weekend, many cities and towns in the United States and in other parts of the world celebrated Sodomy Pride events. In President Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago, some estimates indicated that as many as one million persons turned out to enjoy the Sodomy Pride Parade and the extra fun activities that followed. Most of Chicago’s best-known politicians also participated, including former President Obama’s Chief of Staff and now Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel. (The Chicago police reported that only nine people were arrested for fighting and stabbing, and a number of persons were injured, including one police officer. Unusually for Chicago, there were no deaths reported at this year’s event, even though murders are up 38 percent in 2012 over last year’s comparable total.)
While the Sodomy Pride Parade has been a major event in large cities throughout our nation for decades, 2012 also saw the first ever Pentagon Sodomy Pride event. Coming just ten months after the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” this past Tuesday, the Department of Defense held its first ever event commemorating and honoring its lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered military personnel at the Pentagon. Among the 350 persons in overflow attendance, Army Nurse Corps Captain Angela Shrader sat with her arm around her female partner of twenty years and marveled at the occasion. “In my lifetime, I never thought this would happen. To be able to come dressed in my uniform with my partner and be open, I can’t tell you how excited and proud I am!” Staff Sgt Stephen Bee of the U.S. Air Force was quoted after the event as saying, “I never thought I’d be in the Pentagon for an LGBT event. This was amazing,” and Naval Lieutenant Kevin Naughton added, “I did get teary-eyed. It’s exciting.” Part of the excitement, of course, comes as Tuesday’s event took place just weeks after both President Obama and Vice President Biden announced their support for homosexual marriage. Yes, it is an exciting time in which we live.
At the celebration, a number of speakers, including Defense Secretary Panetta, spoke of the struggle for homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights for members of our nation’s armed forces. Officials also praised the military services for adapting readily to the law that permits homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons to serve openly in our nation’s armed forces. Jeh Johnson, the military’s general counsel, stated at the event, “For those service members who are gay or lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders. They no longer have to live a lie in the military.” Further, in videotaped remarks at the event, President Obama said that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” made it possible for the Department of Defense to honor “openly gay service members who defend our country with honor and integrity.”
According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (“SLDN”), an organization that provides legal services to LGBT military personnel against “all forms of discrimination and harassment of military personnel on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity,” an estimated 66,000 LGBT troops are presently on active duty. In light of the total number of active duty military personnel, that number seems high to me given the proportion of LGBT in the broader society. Moreover, I am unsure whether a military career was or is a huge draw for LGBT personnel, notwithstanding the assertion in the late 1970s song by the Village People that “in the Navy, you can sail the seven seas, in the Navy, you can put your mind at ease. . . . In the Navy, come on, protect the motherland, in the Navy come and join your fellow man.”
The Pentagon, in a survey sent to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, responses submitted to an anonymous online drop-box seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants, found that approximately thirty percent of military personnel surveyed say that the change in policy has made a negative difference within the ranks, and those military personnel were opposed to serving alongside openly homosexual and lesbian troops. Forty percent of the Marine Corps were opposed to lifting the ban on openly serving homosexuals and lesbians. Further, a significant number plan to leave the military much earlier than they had originally planned based upon the change in policy. (I bet you missed that from the mainstream media!)
But if one were to imagine that what Congress and the President giveth, Congress and a (new) President can taketh away, disappointment may await. In recent days, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA) says that the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is settled and won’t be revisited, even if Republicans win the White House and Senate in November. (You see: elections do have consequences!) Representative McKeon said, “We fought that fight. . . . That’s not something that I would personally bring up.”
Of course, homosexual conduct (and all sexual conduct outside of marriage) is a deeply moral question. When Marine Corps General Peter Pace was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said in a March 2007 interview with the Chicago Tribune, “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” At that time, General Pace was subjected to harsh criticism by leftists and homosexual activists who despise biblical norms of conduct. As one example, SDLN demanded an apology from General Pace as it found that the General’s remarks were “outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful.” I suppose they forgot to add that the remarks were also homophobic and intolerantly bigoted. But then again, such an added statement by the SDLN could have been too over-the-top as the glittered makeup and dress (or lack thereof) worn by revelers at the San Francisco Sodomy Pride Parade.
Yes, this is no longer your father’s military, and is quite a change from even one year ago when the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” passed in the lame duck session of Congress after many of its supporters, in both the House and Senate, had been turned out of office by the voters a month earlier. At that time, many viewed the action by Congress as contemptuous of voters. (George Berkin writing in NJ.com, equated Congressional action with “punching the boss between the time you get fired and when you clean out your desk. It is like spilling your drink on your fiancé just after she dumps you a week before the wedding.”) Of course, homosexual behavior that could lead to a court martial as recently as last year is now celebrated. Chaplain (Colonel) Ron Crews, USAR retired, and executive Director for the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, was quoted in The Christian Post, “For the first time ever, the Department of Defense is making a positive event over behavior (sodomy) that had been a court martial offense a year ago. Now the DoD is wanting to honor that behavior. That’s the stark reality that we’re living in now.” Indeed it is, and I fear that while Representative McKeon considers this matter settled, this change could lead to more divisive cultural wars in the decades to come. It is clearly foreseeable that such experiments in social engineering seeking to restructure long-held traditions in our society can jeopardize the national security of the United States as many hundreds of thousands of troops leave a United States military that no longer respects traditional values.
Over the years, I have counseled and encouraged numerous young men interested in pursuing military careers to do so after they completed their studies. Today, however, I would discourage devoutly Christian and patriotic young people from serving in our nation’s military. And in particular, I would discourage young people from serving for this President who, in a candid and unguarded moment last month, famously referred to “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really? On his behalf? In any event, when the full import of what President Obama and his administration have done becomes clearer in the years to come, I fear that the devastation will be complete and far too late.











Do they really call it a “sodomy pride” parade? If so, I am dumbfounded that they insist (with no substantial evidence) that homosexuality is something they are born with, yet they earmark their events by the behavior that characterizes them. Why can’t they see their fallacy?
No, BCody, it’s not self-labeled as a “sodomy” pride parade. The editor has labeled it as such, forgetting that heterosexuals engage in non-procreative intercourse as well as the fact that the sin of Sodom was, according to Ezekiel 16:49, being “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned” about the needy. You rarely hear that passage quoted.
If you haven’t been paying attention, being unconcerned about the “have-nots” has become a moral virtue by most Right-thinking politicians and pundits these days, since in our caste system, if you “have not”, it’s because you’re probably a hippy stoner slacker who’s just looking to suck of the government teat.
Discussions of military rule are complex, much more complex than simply referring to Judeo-Christian morality and calling it a day.
Moraleis a consideration, but it’s not the last word. The military once argued strenuously against desegregation. It would probably have continued to remain segregated had Truman’s Executive Order not forced the military to learn to adapt to the differences of others. Did morale suffer because of it? Maybe it did, at least initially. Does that matter?
If you have not served in the military yourself, I encourage you to consider the documentaries “Restrepo” and “The Ground Truth”, both detailing the military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unless you wish to assert that Christian virtue consists of fostering indifference regarding human life, then you must concede that the aims of the military are wholly other than those of the Church …. of any church.
I’m not sure how to state this without sounding as if I’m disparaging our troops, but it seems clear that our troops exist not to think and feel but to act and respond, at least within the time of their service. You cannot be relied upon to take human life if you’re going to be morally conflicted over it. The effects of dehumanizing civilians and enemies is one of the primary reasons for PTSD.
Profanity, pornography, prostitution and even rape are widespread. (To blame the mere existence of women in the military for this is absurd: it’s akin to blaming the rape of a civilian female because she happened to be wearing a short skirt in a public bar.) There is even some evidence that the US military facilitated prostitution near military bases in South Korea. This is hardly a group of cloistered monks.
You might find this all distasteful, but it’s certainly not untrue. If you’re hoping for some other type of military, I’m not sure you know what you’re asking. Can we really win a military conflict populated by sensitive men and women who see moral ambiguity where they should see clarity or who see humanity in the enemies they’re supposed to mow down with an automatic machine gun? I’m not sure how they could. Further, is it reasonable to expect these men to face the harshest possible living conditions on earth without resorting to something other than prayer (like pornography) to escape the boredom, fear and isolation?
So what about gays in the military? I’m not sure other than to say that to insist that the military is “too moral” to permit gays is laughable. It’s also nonsense to insist that we must make allowances to appease those who “feel discomfort” over the mere existence of someone else who is different. There is no ultimate right to not be offended. If harassment is the issue, then it should be handled accordingly.
The opposition to gays in the military is generally not derived from real issues of harassment but rather over the mere discomfort of having to serve with those “sodomites” (as you lovingly refer to them in a post prior to appealing for funds yet again). Well, that’s just too bad. Perhaps fat people offend my sensibilities, but I’m not going to demand they be denied rights or access to the same things I have.
James,
“Perhaps pedophiles offend my sensibilities, but I’m not going to demand they be denied rights…” Do you see how your attitude misses the point? You are as prepared as anyone to exclude those who are immoral; what you will not see is that objection to sodomy is not an “ooh ick” reaction but a judgment of behavior. Only if you are prepared to say that out-and-proud pedophiles deserve the same access as you, you should reconsider…
David writes: “Only if you are prepared to say that out-and-proud pedophiles deserve the same access as you, you should reconsider…”
Okay, David. We can deny access to the military to gays when we deny access to:
a) remarried heterosexuals (Luke 16:18, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9 labels them “adulterers”)
b) heterosexual fornicators
c) Mormons and Buddhists (idolaters)
Sorry, but there’s no equivalence between adult consensual sex (of any kind) and pedophilia.
James,
While we would hope there is “no equivalence,” wait and see where the logical end is with regard to sexual sin. There is an overarching equivalence–the sin of pride. Hence, Sodom was destroyed because of their pride…one might even call it “Gay Pride.” I think I’ve heard that phrase somewhere before…
James: You seem to think that you can persuade people here that black is white, up is down, dark is light and sin is good. You will not succeed. The Word of God is not mocked. Yes, you can point at our sins and say they mean your sin should be accepted. But all you do is convict us that we (and all Christians) fall short of the glory of God. I already know that every day I wake up and am not burning in the fires of Hell is an act of pure grace on God’s part. Our sin make us worthy of his wrath and that means that we must engage in repentence and amendment of life. That is what God offers us.
It is what He offers you. He has nothing more to offer. He has nothing else to offer. He has nothing better to offer, because His offer is the best thing in the Universe — and it is exactly what we need.
“Yes, you can point at our sins and say they mean your sin should be accepted.”
What I’m suggesting is that you not single gays out for contempt, ridicule and discrimination in a manner far beyond that of any heterosexual “sinner” that you seem quite willing to tolerate (and even vote into public office!). To insist that gays are, without exception, sex-crazed amoral monsters is not the truth of things. To dismiss them as “sodomites” is an attempt to dehumanize them and is the same sort of reductionist language that the editors of Touchstone critique. A great number have proven themselves worthy to serve in the military, to act as teachers and leaders and have served their communities well.
Ironically, this is partially the “liberal media’s” fault: the portrayal of the average gay male on television or the news is either mincing, weak and shallow or only looking to party, do drugs and have sex. That’s not reality, although it does boost ratings.
I will be the first to support freedom of speech and for the ability of people to voice their beliefs. I believe that small businesses should not be compelled to compromise their beliefs if they are not providing a critical public service. I have written in support of men and women who have differing views than I but have voiced them respectfully and tactfully. I’m not part of the “Gay Gestapo”!
At the same time, I will vigorously fight the gross injustice that has been done to decent gay men and women across this country who are merely looking to build an acceptable life for themselves and their families (whether others happen to like the formation of those families or not).
If I didn’t feel you or anyone else here had a conscience, I wouldn’t bother appealing to it. Take it as a compliment.
James, thank you for your condescending “compliment,” since you are more evolved than breeders. While I am sure you are not part of the Gay Gestapo, but the conduct I often see on city streets by homosexuals and lesbians, and even the conduct of LGBT activists at the White House at the recent Sodomy Pride events at the White House (I think this is the first one ever under President Obama) with twittering photos of themselves giving the middle finger to President Reagan’s portrait and other presidents, shows to me the vile rudeness and how low many (most?) are. I say most as I would think that disprespecting traditional presidents and values reflects the dominant point of view of most LGBT, and that many others would do it to show their disdain for traditional values. I say that homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and trangendered should stay out of the US military…they would fit in well in any other government office…and it is ok in the Belgian or Italian armies as those militaries don’t count for much….certainly not for defense. And you also mentioned that many are in education. If my children’s teacher was outwardly homosexual, lesbian or trangendered, then my husband and I would take them out of that school or classroom as soon as possible. I have little trust in whatever values or instuction they have to offer.
James: I fear you miss my point. I am not trying to debate or persuade you. I am trying to convert you.
Alyssa: If you have children in a public school, it matters not one whit whether any given teacher or administrator is homosexual or not. If the rightness or wholesomeness of homosexuality is not taught now, in every class, it soon will be. Homeschooling or a private, faithful Christian school is your only other option, and I fear that the Almighty State will soon take those refuges away from us.
James,
I was not proposing an equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. I was saying that I *know* you would exclude a man from the military if he turned out to be a pedophile — even *if* he was an outstanding soldier otherwise. And you would exclude him *not* because his pedophilia is illegal but because you would not want such a man in our military. Yes?
Or would you be okey-dokey with an out-and-proud pedophile serving in our military?
You presume also that I would give a pass to adulterers. I would not. I think the military should not, either; but there is no question that homosexuality is a graver offense than adultery, and pedophilia is graver still, and one’s response should be according to the gravity of offense.
David writes: “[There] is no question that homosexuality is a graver offense than adultery”
On what basis?
Adultery involves deception and betrayal as well as the violation of an oath taken to another person and before God and family. It breaks apart a family, embitters the betrayed spouse as well as the children by creating a cynical and distrustful mindset towards relationships and also potentially puts any unborn fetus at risk for a variety of communicable diseases should something be transmitted to the mother.
None of these are occur in a consensual adult homosexual relationship. Your assessment thus makes no sense from any ethical, religious or philosophical moral framework.
You also didn’t address whether heterosexual fornicators should be permitted to serve in the military or not.
You asked me about pedophilia. If the military did not already automatically exclude convicted felons from serving (a reasonable approach), then if the person had served their time, then I’d prefer they serve in some very difficult and menial way in the most risky and unpleasant of military assignments. Think a summer in Kabul. Better than being on public assistance since no one would hire them to do so much as mow somebody’s lawn, yeah?
[...] Pentagon Celebrates Sodomy Pride (Touchstone Magazine) [...]