Military Archbishop Opposes DADT Repeal…on Constitutional Grounds
Military Archbishop Timothy Broglio has previously expressed his opposition to the repeal of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In a recent article, however, he articulated his opposition not strictly on religious grounds, but on Constitutional ones:
The archbishop explained that while individuals may have a legal right to declare their sexual preferences, they have no comparable “right” to serve in the military at the same time.
Rather, he said, the military reserves to itself the right to deny individuals that privilege — just as soldiers may forfeit the privilege of military service in many other ways, through their speech and behavior.
“While I presume that Judge Phillips has a better preparation in Constitutional law than I do,” the prelate reflected, “it seems to me that there is no blanket ‘right’ in the Constitution to serve in the Armed Forces.” He posed a question to critics of the ban on open homosexuality: “Does the military not have the right to choose who will serve?” In virtually all capacities, he observed, officials makes such choices rigorously.
Broglio did not presume that a change in policy would require Chaplains to act contrary to their beliefs, but he did express concern that teaching basic precepts of the faith could be viewed as “intolerance” and thus restricted.
A homosexual advocacy site actually agreed with his prediction, saying Chaplains should not be allowed to spread “homophobia.”
The Archbishop made a solid point. I guess it all comes down to what’s more moral for a secular organization to do – keeps gays out based on religious issues or let them defend others freedoms? Sounds like an easy choice to me.
I know I oversimplified the issue and worded in a way that would favor me, but I’ve been listen to a lot of talk radio and it inspired me.
BJL,
The oversimplification factually omits the basis of all the legal arguments. Gays are not excluded based on religious issues, but rather morale and cohesion issues; as previously discussed. Your oversimplification is biased, but as you’ve pointed out, so are all the opinions on this site.
I am just trying to make light of a very complex issue while still expressing my viewpoint. I know that I am ok with gays openly serving, but I also know that a lot of my brothers-in-arms are not. It will cause a lot of difficulty and stress initially, and that sucks, but all the issues will subside overtime and it will just be another point discussed in history class by kids that think were ignorant and stupid for debating it in the first place. It was difficult for blacks to serve in the military at first, but looking back at in now the whole ordeal seems dumb. I can’t wait for the time when I am seen as an old bigot instead of a young progressive/idealist.
This is-exactly why the chaplaincy should be an “off-base” establishment; so they can protect their beliefs. If a military person wants to participate then they go off base to do so. This will allow the preacher the ability to spread homofobia without “government” interference.
The military could keep one or two preachers on call to handle emergencies and advise only in direct religious matters and not have to worry about Sgt Johnny Gayboy seeking counsel for their sexual orientation issues.
watchtower,
seriously? that’s your answer to fix the problem? Sorry, but I didn’t have the luxury of going off-base while deployed to Iraq. Besides, it is possible to disagree with an action and not be phobic of it.
BJL,
Why does everyone put sexuality and race in the same thought process? They are different situations: race is something the person cannot change, where as homosexuality is at its core the act of a sexual relationship.
I never compared race and sexuality in the terms you mentioned. I only referenced race as a basis for my assessment that homosexuals in the military would cause disruptions in the short term. As I am not a homosexual myself, nor of the mental capacity to understand every thought and feeling of every individual on earth, I am not in a position to say that homosexuals can or cannot choose to be who they are. Additionally, unless you fall into one of those categories yourself, I would offer that you are not in a position to make that call either.
One does not CHOOSE to be a homosexual.
BJL,
You compare the process by which the military will adjust to homosexuals to the way that the military adjusted to blacks. That implies that sexuality and race should be treated the same. My argument stands because it is not based on the desires, it is based on the actions. Actions are fair game for judging – your argument’s logical conclusion is that you cannot judge anyone that is different than you; which means you can’t judge anyone
I am not comparing the actions/choices/logic/motivations of blacks and gays. I am, on the other hands, comparing the ignorant reactions of the majority to these two wholly separate groups. I apologize for not making it clear before; I only want compare the reaction of WASPs to minorities.
The Military will adjust in similar fashion the same way they adjusted to racial equality. If you recall, the US legislation passed laws against racial prejudice, just like they will against sexual orientation. The Military, by default, will adjust accordingly, but not necessarily overnight. What we will need to watch out for is Sgt Nuzzlenuts putting all the suspected or known gays on the front line, you know, to be shot first (don’t you dare pretend this won’t happen either). In fact, I think the Air Force will have more homosexuals than the other services though, and probably more capable of dealing with all of the issues as well. Archbishop Timothy doesn’t have a leg to stand on considering his Churches failures over the centuries, not to mention an abundance of homosexual preachers themselves.
BJL,
You wrongly assume that the reaction of WASPs is the matter of importance. While the generic white anglo-saxon Protestant may have been a factor in the race conflicts, it certainly has no bearing on matters of homosexuality.
You probably are more interested in the reaction of the conventional majority (not necessarily WASPs) to the minority. I’m also assuming that the majority should bend to the will of the minority. My understanding of your argument is that the majority should be more tolerant of the minority. If so, where is the line?
Finally, I take offense that you think I am ignorant because I share a different view than you do. I oppose the repeal of DADT because of my perception of its impact to the military. There are certain parts of the proposed bill which I firmly believe will have negative impact. Is there a way to repeal DADT without harming the military? Probably, but this bill is not it.
What part of my position do you think is ignorant?
Carmine,
I understand your reaction about supervisory responsibilities. Do you think there is a problem of leadership putting suspected homosexuals in the riskiest positions right now? If so, what’s the basis of the perception?
If you want to judge Fr. Timothy, then you have that right. By the same token, everyone else should judge all homosexual people by NAMBLA’s standard. Neither is fair, so knock-it-off.