Army Major General David Haight Fired for Who He Loves
USA Today, via a FOIA request, has revealed that an Army two-star General was investigated and fired simply for who he loved:
Maj. Gen. David Haight, Army Ranger, combat veteran and family man…[had] an 11-year affair and a “swinger lifestyle” of swapping sexual partners…
It is a travesty, of course, that MajGen David Haight would be persecuted for who — or how many — he chose to love. He has been forced to live a lie and deny who he really is just so he can risk his life in sacrifice for the country he holds dear. Does that personal sacrifice mean nothing to those who choose to demean him?
The military’s official line is this “lifestyle” made him susceptible to blackmail. This accusation is actually code for moral turpitude, and it has been debunked by reputable gay rights groups who fought the same persecution just a few years ago. Their data, provided by the Defense Personnel Security Research and Education Center, indicated that not a single case of alleged espionage involved blackmail over sexuality. The claim was just a homophobic way to attack a disfavored sexual lifestyle.
It appears Maj Gen Haight will be allowed to retire, though it may be at reduced rank based on when he last served “honorably.”
And yet no one seems to see the hypocrisy.
Upon what moral standard can Gen Haight be crucified while “sexuality trumps religion” throughout the rest of the US military?
Gen Haight was fired in May. In June, the US military officially celebrated men who have sex with men, women who have sex with women, and both who have sex with both. Whether any of those people is married is irrelevant — as is the number of partners they have — because sex, not marriage, was being celebrated.
That Gen Haight has been excoriated — without defense from the same erotic liberty groups who fought for their own sexual freedom just recently — seems to indicate that some portions of society may yet have a moral line beyond which they will not go.
But why? Why will they demand sexual freedom for themselves and not support it for others?
Maybe its because of religion. Some will likely note that MajGen Haight is a graduate of the Mormon BYU — and that he is a “distant relative” of one of the 12 LDS “apostles,” David B. Haight.
When homosexual advocates claimed they just wanted to be free to love, free to serve, etc., critics at the time noted that permitting homosexuals to openly serve would erase — not move — the moral standard. Yet even homosexual groups continued to oppose other forms of sexual liberty (polyamory, for example) for no other apparent reason than they found it “icky.”
By what consistent standard can anyone, much less the US government, say they will officially recognize, condone, support, and even celebrate sexuality between people of the same gender — and yet persecute someone who participates in ‘swinging’ or any other sexual practice?
Would Gen Haight’s conduct been acceptable if he was homosexual?
That’s a good question, considering a homosexual Air Force officer was just aquitted of sexual assault at court-martial. The incident over which he was charged took place in a lurid, multi-partner homosexual tryst — but he wasn’t charged for the group sexual rendezvous. What’s the military standard for casual sex that permits one officer to do it but not another?
There is certainly a religious argument to be made that defines (or condemns) certain sexual behavior: God created man and woman, and He created the institution of marriage — all for His glory. That “absolute standard” is a criterion against which all conduct can be measured — consistently, all the time. Sex outside of marriage? Shouldn’t be doing it. At all. Cheating on your husband? Not ok. Homosexuality? Nope. Not married yet? Keep your pants on. Then you don’t have to worry about issues of consent, child parentage, dependency status, etc., etc. It’s amazing how simple life is when you just follow a simple, moral standard. (Note no one said it was easy — just simple.)
Unfortunately, some parts of society and government have tried to separate themselves so far from religion that they’ve eliminated any “high ground” upon which they can stand, even when they’re desperate for one.
That said, one can still try to make a religiously neutral argument of character. For example, what does it say of the character of a man who cheats on his wife for 11 years? A few people will notice that statement still requires a moral judgment — albeit a moral judgment many are still comfortable making, even if it is intellectually inconsistent for them to do so.
It’s gotten so bad, in fact, that former Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Mark Welsh was even derided when he cited the “hook up culture” as contributing to the sexual ills of society. Such a statement, of course, required a moral judgment — which made some people uncomfortable, which ultimately forced Gen Welsh to refine his intended meaning to how “young men treat[] young women.” That’s not exactly what he meant, and everybody knew it.
Gen Haight’s conduct was reprehensible — but that’s a character judgment that can only come with integrity from a position of morality, one almost certainly grounded in religion. Does it even matter, though? His lifestyle preference may be officially acceptable soon (after all, it’s already almost socially acceptable). In a few years he may be able to appeal to have his discharge status upgraded retroactively and regain the pay he lost, just as others have when social mores changed and their sexual choices were no longer considered “wrong.”
When the moral “standard” is a sliding scale, anything is possible.
By contrast, when the moral standard is based on God alone, truth, liberty, and life are possible.
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Isaiah 40:8
Also at the Stars and Stripes.
ADVERTISEMENT
If someone is keeping something a secret, then that thing might make them susceptible to blackmail. If someone is not keeping something a secret, then blackmailing them is not possible.
And for the record, homosexuality does not require anyone to have had sex. I was heterosexual long before I ever had sex, and plenty of gay people are not sexually active.
This guy was doing something in secret. He was doing something that he did not want his wife to find out about. Doing things in secret leaves you open to blackmail. If you don’t keep something secret, you are not open to be blackmailed about it. A gay man or woman who is not ashamed of their sexuality is not in a position to be blackmailed with the threat of disclosure of that sexuality. That explains the imaginary “double standard” that you talk about.
@Donalbain
He wasn’t susceptible to blackmail because he was doing something in secret. He was susceptible because he was doing something for which he thought he’d get in trouble if caught. According to homosexual activists, the solution to that quandry is not to punish him — its to normalize the behavior. If the lifestyle is “normal,” he has nothing to fear from people knowing about it, and he’s not susceptible to coercion. In fact, his sexual behavior may even warrant him being granted protected status.
There’s no military policy against having personal secrets. Supposedly, the US military doesn’t care about your sex life, thus the repeal of DADT, etc. So on what basis is Gen Haight being punished?
Simple. He’s being punished for doing something wrong. People are just afraid to say it, either because it would reveal their own hypocrisy, or because they’re afraid next week it won’t be wrong.
Once again. No. He was fired because he opened himself up to blackmail. It says that in the very story you linked to. He did not want his wife to know about his affair and so that made him vulnerable to blackmail. That is a security risk.
The question of wether swinging is in and of itself an immoral act is seperate from that. For the record, I do not believe that swinging is immoral in and of itself provided that all concerned are consenting adults. In this case, however his wife did not consent to the lies he was telling her so that is the immoral part of his actions.
He is punished because he put himself in a position to be blackmailed. It says that in the story you linked to. He didn’t want his wife to find out, thus he was in a position to be be blackmailed. If his wife had known about it and not cared, then the possibility of blackmail would not have existed.
#Donalbain,
He is being punished for doing something wrong, and its called sexual immorality. He is a married man. Marriage is a covenant relationship that is instituted by God, whereby a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife (husband and wife, NOT Adam and Steve), and both will become one flesh, which is why adultery is morally wrong.
Of course you are afraid to admit that his swinger lifestyle is wrong. If you did, then you will be forced to explain “the standard” by which he was punished, which may uncover the reason of why you wont admit that he was punished for doing something wrong.
1) No. He is being punished for putting himself at risk of blackmail. You can tell if you just read the story that is linked to in this blogpost.
2) Nope. Marriage is not simply for Adam and Eve (or any other mixed sex couple). Some people might well WISH it was only for mixed sex couples, but they are factually wrong in the United States of America, where marriage is now an institution that gay people can enter.
3) I am not afraid to admit any such thing. I simply don’t believe that swinging is, in and of itself, wrong. I think that swinging is fine, provided all concerned have given the proper informed consent.
4) The standard by which he was punished was explained in the story. He made himself open to blackmail, which is a security risk.
@Donalbain
Actually, your constant “just read the story” is wrong. The article does say four “senior officials” indicated their opinion he opened himself up to blackmail. They implied that was a bad thing, but they didn’t say that’s why he was being punished. In fact, nowhere in the article does it say what rule or law Gen Haight violated, nor does it say making oneself susceptible to blackmail is even punishable. Because merely having a secret and not wanting your wife to know is not a punishable offense under the UCMJ.
Besides, homosexuals debunked that whole “you might be blackmailed” thing, remember?
@Delta One’s comment is probably more accurate. The general’s lifestyle doesn’t look good for the military, so Article 134. But — that requires a moral judgment, saying his conduct was wrong. That has nothing to do with “blackmail.”
Being a Maj General I’d suspect his superiors are holding him to a higher standard and it also seems he may have violated “General Article 134”, that simply prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.
I would assume he didn’t want anyone to find out and adultery is pretty hard to prove (no pictures?) and there is no UCMJ law that specifically prevents it (except the catch-all article 134).
I was a nudist for 20 years on active duty and always went to very private places and no cameras allowed. If I was caught and disciplined under article 134 then that would have been that, didn’t really care.
[Redacted] this site needs to go in the oven when GLORIOUS LEADER is installed in January.
@Halford Mackinder – “Glorious Leader” do you mean Jesus Christ? Yes this site will no longer be needed when Jesus Christ returns. If you are referring to Hillary, good luck with that one, even she will have to bend her knees to the only Glorious Leader who is Christ.
#BF
Amen brother.
He agreed to the rules forced them on others then broke those rules. That is reason he is being”retired”
@hank snow
You’ll note in the articles referenced above that the military isn’t saying he broke any rules. So what rules are you saying he broke?