Sunday, February 7, 2010


Meditations on DON’T ASK DON’T TELL

Somewhere in the past 100 hours of an incredibly busy week in the security business, I became aware of the latest Obama Administration smokescreen to cover for a very bad start to the year (Scott Brown victory, Supreme Court decision against the Federal Election Commission, Air America going out of business, and the shameful conduct of a certain North Carolina ambulance chaser coming to light in book form.)

What I'm talking about of course is the policy crafted and introduced by Bill Clinton early in his Presidency; the now-infamous ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. They even rolled out the marginalized and irrelevant Colin Powell, to explain to us that it's time to repeal the ban on gays in the military.

Colin Powell: Soldier, Statesman and former Republican; heavily marginalized and irrelevant.

True to the Liberal script, Bill Clinton ran on the theme that he was going to take care of everybody, cure society of its ills - “I feel your pain!” - ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ was probably the only campaign promise he ever delivered on. Ironically, the result of this great Liberal desire to fix everything and speed up social evolution was that suddenly the military was equipped with rules and regulations that obligated them to throw homosexuals out of the service.

Under the guidelines of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, it was not illegal to BE homosexual in the military, per se, as long as the three rules were followed - SAY, ACT, DO:

SAY – A servicemember could not state that he or she was homosexual.

ACT – A servicemember could not engage in homosexual behavior.

DO – A servicemember could not be involved in a homosexual marriage.

Prior to this policy, it was not illegal to do any of the above. No homosexuals had been thrown out of the military for any of the above. What homosexuals were persecuted for, if anything, was indecency in public (cruising public restrooms, etc), actions unbecoming an officer or an NCO, or fraternization policies.

Homosexuality in the military is nothing new, of course – we can assume it goes further back than Alexander the Great. One of the best officers I ever worked for was as camp as a row of tents. Everybody knew it, and nobody held it against him; his sexuality had nothing to do with the fact that he was a good leader.

Alexander the Great: Soldier, student of Aristotle; preferred the company of men.

The way I see it, a person’s sexuality is not even the issue here. Homosexuality is part of the human condition. What must be considered is that if the military endorses open homosexual behavior; does this mean that homosexual marriage is the next thing coming down the pike? I cannot imagine the effect on discipline when the commanding officer of an Infantry company attends a formal mess with his spouse, Fred.

The United States Army is not ready to accept this, any more than the people of the United States are ready to see the next President being sworn into office with his hand on a Satanic Bible while standing next to his husband/wife, the First Drag Queen. I sure as hell don’t want my children to see such a spectacle, or to be taught in school that such an arrangement is good or normal in any way, shape or form.

I’m a pretty open-minded kind of guy, and human sexuality is the most widely varied, most multi-colored thing under the sun I can imagine. There’s no hypocrisy going on here; we’ve all got our kink. I just don’t want to see your kink thrown out in front of my face. All I ask of the gays is that they keep their kink in the closet where it belongs; and that if I ever buy it on a mission, please go through my kit and get rid of my rubber chicken outfit before they ship my gear back to my family.



  1. I'm going to stand by the premise of what I wrote above. Article 125 does not make it illegal to BE a homosexual, per se.

    The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, on the other hand, obligates the military to persecute a servicemember for simply stating that they are homosexual.

    Article 125 defines "sodomy" as all types of 'unnatural carnal copulation', to include between consenting adults of opposite sex.

    It is difficult to imagine any person in this day and age - hetero-, homo- or otherwise - who could not be found guilty under this statute.

    Article 125:

    "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
    to complete the offense.

    (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct."

  2. Prior to DADT, homosexuality in the US military was investigated and dealt with as a crime.

    Yes, people were kicked out of the military for being homosexual prior to DADT. Those people also stood the risk of further charges in criminal conduct, as well as, iirc, perjury, since it was required of service persons to sign a document stating that they were not homosexual prior to enlisting.

    The suggestion that someone might be homosexual could trigger investigation by CID prior to DADT.

  3. Nobody was kicked out of the military for BEING a homosexual prior to DADT - they were kicked out for conduct. But we're splitting hairs.

    The document you refer to is the SF86 Questionnaire for National Security Positions which prior to 1994 did indeed ask an applicant if they were homosexual. This form is not exclusive to service personnel, but again, this is splitting hairs.

    My point is that DADT actually made things WORSE for homosexuals in the military, that prior to DADT a person could not be punished for simply stating they were homosexual. Investigations were conducted for the suggestion, yes, but proof of conduct was required to make a case.

    The significant point I'm trying to make here is that personally I don't care if your thing is guys, girls, or green donkeys, I just don't want it thrown out in front of me. More importantly I don't want it thrown out in front of my kids.

    Go ahead and embrace this issue, Democrats. Just remember; there's an election coming up in November, and most Americans are already ticked off about the Obama Administration's handling of the Underwear Bomber, the proposed New York trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and the conduct of the War on Terror in general. Most Americans are very conservative when it comes to military and security matters. There couldn't be a better time to focus the attention of the electorate on the state of the military . . . heh . . . heh . . .