Homosexual Advocates Decry Politicization of Military Personnel Policy

In an amazing display of hypocrisy, homosexual activists concerned President Trump may reverse their political gains are demanding he not “politicize” military personnel policies.

The irony, of course, is that those same groups advocated the politicization of the personnel policy when it benefited their agenda.

The homosexual advocacy group The Palm Center released a letter signed by 31 high ranking (though relatively unknown) retired military officers pleading that Trump focus on military readiness rather than social issues: 

We believe the incoming administration must firmly commit to ensuring steady leadership of our armed forces based on proven principles of military readiness.

The statement fails to note that allowing homosexuals to openly serve had, with the most optimistic outlook, a neutral impact on military readiness.  Even some homosexuals have openly admitted allowing homosexuals to serve openly has had a negative effect, and one report indicated as many as 20% of units that had a homosexual “come out” experienced a negative impact on the unit.

Similarly, the US military is currently placing tremendous emphasis not on warfighting but on training the 3-million man force on transgenderism — a sexual group that makes up about 0.3% of the population. Given the population proportion and military mission, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that effort may be detracting from military readiness.

It is interesting that some groups have suddenly decided the US military shouldn’t be used as a vehicle for social change — at least, not if the social change doesn’t work in their favor.

Repeated at The Hill.



  • Anonymous Patriot

    Like I said before, the LGBT crowd is vastly over-privileged. I can’t believe that a population that consists of 2% of American society has such political clout.

    • @Anonymous Patriot
      A wise conservative leader was recently invited to speak to a group of LGBT advocates. Though his ideology was vastly different from theirs, he figured “why not?” At the end of his speech, he left the LGBT group with a caution [paraphrased]:

      You have amazing political power right now — power that belies the tiny fraction of the American population that you are. Wield it with caution, for a time will come when the novelty and pageantry fades and other groups overcome you as the latest social trend, and you will once again find yourself in equal representation with the rest of America.

    • Thats an interesting idea. Would you care to go further with it? What specific privileges do LGBT people have that mean they are “over privileged”, and what privileges would you take away from them to correct this state of affairs?