By bkeyser  | December 11, 2010 | 18:13
I threatened to start a forum on this subject in the 'Stewart rips McCain' thread due to the number of comments there, and the increasingly difficult ability to keep up with new comments.
I've been pretty clear on my position regarding the current policy and [the now stalled] potential for repeal, but as a matter of fairness and openness, I'll restate it briefly: Part of the reason I chose to end my career in the USMC in 1992 -along with some lower back problems that later required surgery- was the likelihood of a President Clinton and his views of the US Armed Forces, notably his stance on gays which was expressly enumerated during his campaign. Like most active duty members at the time, the prospect of gays serving among us was not viewed with a great deal of enthusiasm, or trust. It seemed like some sort of social experiment for the sake of a small voting bloc. Oddly enough, nearly two decades later, it has proven to be just that.
But more than 18 years since I actively served, I still hold the view that if there is a group of individuals that can't be molded by the Drill Instructors on Parris Island, SC, it's the counter-culture of radical homosexuals. Most likely, even if the courts eventually overturn the policy, these radicals won't be lining up at recruiting stations across the country; they're more bluster than substance. But what they bring to the table is the ability -through lawsuits and political activism- to disrupt the good order and discipline that is essential to training and warfighting. In my view, it is the goal of the homosexual community to interject itself into every facet of society; not simply in an effort to gain acceptance or "equal rights", but in a way that eventually results in power. I don't believe their motives are pure; I don't believe that they simply want to serve. Because they can. And they do. What they want is a protected class; not only in the military but in the whole of society. (The constant comparisons to slavery and a human-rights struggle is all the evidence I need...)
So I ask one simple question: Can anyone delineate any tangible strategic and tactical benefits to allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US Armed Forces? Soldiering is a life and death proposition. If allowing gays to serve openly does as I suspect -creates a calculable measure of incongruity which ultimately puts lives at increased risk- no one can justify the policy shift. And the argument that the military must adapt and overcome is ridiculous; overcoming extraneous and pernicious impediments placed upon you by members of your side is reprehensible; just ask the squadmates of those killed due in part to the current ROE in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Finally, no one has the right to serve. No one of any shape, size, color, gender, religious influence or sexual orientation has the right to serve in the US Armed Forces. What you must have is the desire to make the commitment, the ability to withstand the rigors of service and the strength of mind and body to put your country and your fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines -above all else.