Land Calls for Filibuster over DADT Repeal

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has called for a filibuster of the Defense Authorization Act, which currently has an amendment repealing the federal law banning homosexuals from serving in the US military:

“I’ve never known of a better excuse for a filibuster than to stop the Congress of the United States from essentially destroying the greatest military force our nation has ever known.”

Each of the four military service chiefs has expressed opposition to what is described as a “compromise” over DADT repeal; Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen’s position is somewhat less clear, as he appeared to initially express support but has now expressed reservations.  In apparently dismissing the ongoing review, its timing ‘sends a signal’ to American servicemembers that their views don’t matter:

[This] will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward…

[This] may cause confusion on the status of the law in the fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading sailors to question whether their input matters.

For his part, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates broadcast a special message to servicemembers telling them nothing will change in the short term, and that current laws will continue to be enforced.

4 replies to “Land Calls for Filibuster over DADT Repeal

  1. Donalbain

    “I’ve never known of a better excuse for a filibuster than to stop the Congress of the United States from essentially destroying the greatest military force our nation has ever known.”

    It truly is sad that he has so little respect for the US military that he thinks they are not able to cope with something that most western militaries can and do cope with on a daily basis. Seriously, to say that your own military is so weak that allowing gays to serve would destroy it is a very sad thing to see from a US lawmaker.

  2. Dealer

    Donalbain,

    your statement only holds true if you assume that the attitude in the US military towards homosexuals is the same as attitudes in European militaries. Because Congress is forcing the issue before completion of the Pentagon review, it is impossible to know if that is the case.

    Additionally, I haven’t seen whole lot of proof that homosexuals have been integrated well in other militaries (and I don’t mean statistical). Many people assume that females have been integrated well in our military. Proof states otherwise: the AF normally requires annual sexual assault training (focusing on female victims, often military to military). This year the AF added an additional, although one-time, training. It’s not statistical proof, but a clear statement we aren’t there yet.

    Finally, you make the statement that individuals are weak if they can’t cope with open homosexual comrades. That’s not the point: the US military member can cope with a lot, but this subject points directly towards the military culture. He thinks the change in the culture will destroy the values of this military and he thinks those values have made us the strength we are now.

  3. Donalbain

    Really? So the US military is based on fear of gays? That is the BASIS of the military? Not love of country for example?

  4. Dealer

    Don,

    I guess that means you don’t have any proof to back up your claim that European militaries have been well integrated.

    The basis of military service is to uphold the Constitution, but in upholding the liberties of the Constitution military service members must relinquish some of their liberties. A good example of this is General Order 1 in the AOR which prohibits men and women from entering the billeting room assigned to a member of the opposite sex. That order is to discourage the potential for divisive relationships forming between service members, and even with that order in place, there are many cases of inappropriate relationships forming, which does undermine morale, order and discipline in a place that needs as much of it as possible.

    If you have open homosexuality, what policy would you put in place to meet the same goals as that portion of G.O. 1?

Comments are closed.