A Clash of Integrities: Homosexuality, Religion, and the Military
Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation has a lengthy but thorough discussion entitled “A Clash of Integrities: Moral and Religious Liberty in the Armed Forces.” The article discusses the controversy over homosexuality in the military, from the initial creation of the policy most commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to its current state. His analysis is thorough, and he doesn’t mince words:
The repeal of the 1993 law prohibiting open homosexuality in the military poses significant risk for military service members and chaplains who, as matters of religious or moral conviction, hold to traditional values regarding marriage and sexual behavior. The [Pentagon] report…[does] not allay concerns that the religious liberty and free speech rights of these service members and chaplains will be compromised to the detriment of their military careers.
Donovan notes the controversy that resulted in Rigdon v Perry (noted here) is precedent for the current repeal plan to cause conflict in the military.
Perhaps out of pragmatism, Donovan does not suggest re-instating the original law. Rather, among other analyses he makes five suggestions:
- Emphasize the new law as a privacy standard and not a sexual orientation nondiscrimination code.
- Avoid politically correct speech codes. (In response to policies discouraging the use of the word “homosexual.”)
- Make clear that “political” and freedom of speech and assembly standards are the same for persons of differing moral conviction. (In response to explicit protections of expression of homosexual advocacy, but not the opposing view.)
- Clarify that civilly expressed personal moral or religious views on questions of sexual behavior are not limited to worship contexts.
- Make clear that civilly expressed personal moral or religious views on questions of sexual behavior may not be taken into account in any context involving recognition or promotions.
Read the long but interesting article here.
Via the Army Chaplaincy blog.
When did the term “homosexual” become non-PC? Is “heterosexual” still PC?
Unless Chuck Donovan of the Heritage Foundation is clairvoyant he has no way to know nor has any proof (excepting “THINKING”) that homosexuality in the military poses significant risk for military service members and chaplains. Although I expect some challenges along the way, as long as “respect” for each other is first and foremost this will not be as big an issue as its been made out to be. I know, I know, the more the dissenters bring it up, and the more they cry wolf, over and over and over again the presumption is they will eventually grind everyone down to just give in. Not his time buck’O.
@end
If you read about halfway down the linked article, you’ll see the author’s discussion on the CRWG’s recommendation that the use of the word “homosexual” be avoided.
You’re free to believe that homosexuality is wrong, just like you’re free to believe that people being black is wrong. However, as DADT emphasized, you’re not allowed to act in a manner prejudicial to good order and discipline — and that applies whether you’re giving someone grief for being homosexual or whether you’re sexually harassing someone of the same gender.
I read the article, but I’m still trying to figure out how “homosexual” is tied to more negative stereotypes when “gay” is used as slang for something negative.