DON FEDER The American Legion, Amvets, the Naval Reserve Association, the Air Force Association, the Marine Corps League, the Jewish War Veterans, the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association - that's a formidable fighting force arrayed against a man who did his best to avoid service during the Vietnam War. But they are only part of the coalition mobilizing against President-elect Bill Clinton's plan to lift the ban on homosexuals in the armed forces. On Dec. 1, more than 50 military, religious and political organizations will assemble in Washington to formulate strategy. On this issue, the military is quickly closing ranks. Pentagon insiders believe the Joint Chiefs of Staff could resign en masse if Clinton keeps his campaign promise, Chairman Colin Powell's public pronouncements about enforcing the order notwithstanding. However, Powell and Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) both emphatically oppose the move. "I cannot think of a better way to destroy fighting spirit and gut U.S. combat effectiveness," says retired Col. David Hackworth, the most decorated living American veteran. When Defense Secretary Richard Cheney defended the ban in a 1991 speech to the U.S. Naval Academy, 4,000 midshipmen gave him a standing ovation. Gay activists compare the move to integration of blacks in the armed forces. Bad analogy, says Powell, the first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs. "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics." To defend this nation, the military regularly discriminates against all sorts of people: those who are too tall or short, too young or too old, the overweight, the physically and mentally impaired, and - when it comes to combat assignments - women. Says Hacksworth, equal opportunity does not apply "down where the body bags are being filled." Homosexuals have served and are serving - many with distinction, we are told. It's equally relevant to note that soldiers with alcohol abuse problems have been decorated for valor. Should the army then rescind its regulation against the recruitment of known alcoholics? Ask any noncom, and nine out of 10 will tell you the same thing: Heterosexuals don't want to be in a position where they'll be forced to bunk, shower and share toilet facilities with those of their gender who may be sexually attracted to them. No problem, says our soon-to-be commander-in-chief: There'll be strict rules against sexual harassment. But the most stringent code of conduct won't contain this genie once it's out of the bottle. Even now - when it can result in a quick discharge - homosexual solicitation in the barracks is not uncommon. If gays could be open about their preference, the problem would be infinitely worse. How many 18-year-olds will have the courage to accuse a superior of sexual coercion? What about the consensual liaisons that are bound to occur? Gays aren't exactly renowned for sexual exclusivity. A 1984 study of the American Psychological Association estimated that the average homosexual has in excess of 50 partners a year. In the era of AIDS, anything that increases promiscuous sex in the armed forces would have catastrophic consequences. There are enough risks related to military service without exposing young men and women to the viral storm raging in this subculture. The Centers for Disease Control reports that two-thirds of all AIDS cases resulted from homosexual contact. A group that numbers 2 percent of the population accounts for half of all syphilis cases. A gay writer discloses: "You can take away AIDS, and you're still looking at a community that happens to be a diseased community. . . . The bulk of your venereal diseases now reside with the gay community." Bob Knight, of the Family Research Council, gets down to the nitty-gritty: "Military life. . . is not a pristine environment. People get cut and scratched while in intimate proximity. In real battle, blood can flow freely. It would not be fair to put a heterosexual infantryman in mortal fear for his life in case his homosexual comrade suffered a bleeding wound of any kind or is the only person available to give blood." Then there's the collateral damage. Does Clinton propose to provide housing and benefits to the mates of homosexual servicemen, as a consistent nondiscrimination policy would require? Clinton's credibility with the military already approaches zero. Assuming his reputation here could be damaged further, pushing this issue will do it. Other posts:
• Do ask, Do tell
• Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality • Margaret Cho • Sex at 74 • For those guessing at my age • Military gay ban should stay • Homosexuals kill Greek economy, as predicted. • Malaysia's Anwar denounces sodomy trial as "corrupt". Wouldn't any queer? • 'Gay' plan for bathrooms called 'moral insanity' • 1000 Rabbis Warn: Open Homosexuality in the Military is a Disaster and May • Post Free Classifieds India |