Douglas Wilson, most well-known for his long-term debate and friendship with Christopher Hitchens, has a short post on the issue of homosexuality in the military.  He is yet another voice highlighting that many who supported repeal miss the point (perhaps intentionally) when they try to characterize those who oppose repeal.

The public discussion has thus far, in its sophomoric talking points way, addressed whether straight servicemen are willing to “serve alongside” their openly homosexual peers. This question would obviously include evangelical Christians. But this is not the question at all.

Anybody who has spent any time in the military knows that it is not a bastion of righteous behavior. If you join, you will serve alongside fornicators and drunks, and you will learn how to work together with them. Adding patriotic poofters to the mix is a non-issue, and barely worth discussing.

He’s absolutely correct.  There are certainly legitimate issues of sexuality in the military, but those discussions have been ongoing for decades — reference gender.  Therefore, it is not the central issue on this topic.

The issue is this. Homosexual behavior in the ranks is now being considered as a protected and honorable lifestyle choice. This means that if an evangelical Christian witnesses to his crewmates, and he says that Jesus died to liberate them from their sins, and somebody says, “Like what, fer instance,” he can still say “drunkenness, cocaine use, gambling away your family’s paycheck, sleeping with hookers in Naples, laziness, stealing, and adultery.” But if he now includes sodomy, then if someone complains about him (and someone will), the witnessing Christian will be subject to the discipline of the service.

Of course, the implementation plan for DADT repeal specifically addressed this issue:

Service members may, in appropriate circumstances and within the limitations of law and policy, express their moral or religious beliefs regarding sexual orientation. However, Service members may not make statements detrimental to good order and discipline and must obey lawful orders.

That, of course, is perfectly clear and unambiguous, no?

To amplify, its worth noting the working group’s report also included the potential for a homosexual person to be offended by a Chaplain’s sermon. While the report specifically noted the right of the Chaplain to express his beliefs (qualified, oddly, to a religious setting), it still said the offended party could file a complaint

through their chain of command, existing Service policy, or the IG if necessary.

Thus, as Doug Wilson’s post implies, even in specifically “protected” circumstances, military members who express their theological or moral opposition to homosexuality may still be subject to official complaints.

Think that’s how it’ll happen?