Gene Robinson, famous as the first homosexual bishop in the Anglican church, wrote an opinion piece in USA Today demonstrating the lack of understanding some opponents of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” have about the military, regulations, and the law.  In his piece, he criticizes the reply by ADF attorney Daniel Blomberg that said “religious liberty is in real jeopardy” should DADT be repealed.

First, Robinson says: 

No Roman Catholic, fundamentalist Christian or Orthodox Jewish chaplain would have to change her or his beliefs about homosexuality.

That much is true.  No one has suggested the government can force people to change what they believe.  (As an aside, Robinson’s inclusion of the pronoun “her” is interesting, given his subjects.)  He then says

If any gay or lesbian servicemembers went to one of these chaplains, they would still receive the counseling against homosexuality they have always received.

That could also be true.  What he fails to address, however, is what would happen if a homosexual servicemember — counseled “against homosexuality” by a superior officer (Chaplain) — lodged a complaint through the chain of command or Equal Opportunity system, as they would be permitted to do.  His justification is incomprehensible:

Speaking against homosexuality is what gay and lesbian soldiers have come to expect from these brands of religious leaders.

Apparently he thinks religiously-based comments declaring homosexuality wrong — what some homosexual advocates call “bigotry” — are “expected,” and therefore they won’t mind.

He also takes what is yet another swing at what has become a common meme by those who support the repeal of DADT:  “It’s just like…”:

Presumably, these same chaplains have counseled soldiers against getting an abortion, even though it is perfectly legal to do so.

This swing “misses,” and the argument fails, for the same reason as did the discussion about remarriage.  Having had or desiring an abortion, like having had a divorce or remarriage, is not a characteristic of a protected class under military anti-discrimination policies.  Therefore, any military member — Chaplain or not, religious or not — is free to express their support or disagreement with abortion, divorce, or remarriage.  (Resnicoff also tried to use the abortion equivalency, and Blomberg pointed out his error.)

However, if the laws under consideration in Congress are passed, homosexuality will be a protected class.  As such, the topic of homosexuality is nothing like divorce, remarriage, or abortion.  In fact, the Alliance Defense Fund makes a compelling case that the proposal on open service by homosexuals is like nothing to date in the military.

Yet proponents of repeal repeatedly propose the claim it is “no different” than any other policy change to date.  They have yet to provide a compelling, or even accurate, case.

One final thought: Robinson said no Chaplain would be forced to change their beliefs.  This is true.  Opponents of repeal, like the ADF, have only said Chaplains may be punished for expressing their beliefs, not that they would be forced to change their beliefs.