The US Air Force Academy explains in a lengthy article discussions from earlier this month on the effects of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, on Academy policies.

On the panel were Chief Diversity Officer Dr. Adis Vila, Academy Chaplain (Col.) Robert Bruno, judge advocate officer Lt. Col. Karen Rhone and Col. Gary Packard, who led the team that drafted the Defense Department’s plan to implement the repeal of DADT.

The discussion lasted for more than an hour and covered a wide swath of topics, ranging from who could be married at the Cadet Chapel and who could conduct the ceremony to the courses of action available to those who had a deep-seated moral objection to serving alongside gays or lesbians.

The summary hits on several topics, including marriage in military chapels.  As predicted, Col Packard highlights the ability of homosexuals to be “married” in military chapels even in states that do not recognize such unions — so long as the ceremony is religious, not civil.

“I could go in and have a commitment ceremony with somebody or have any kind of ceremony in that space according to my religious freedom rights. However, for the government to take the next step and recognize the marriage for purposes of benefits … that would fall under DOMA.”

In response to the issue of beliefs, one (unidentified) member of the audience questioned the objective of some prior “diversity training:”

One of the audience members said it appeared the diversity training to date focused on changing beliefs, rather than changing actions.

“You say, ‘It’s just your actions. We’re not trying to get you to give up what you think and what you believe,'” the audience member said. “I think the goal is, ‘We want you to change how you think so your thinking can line up with your behavior, (but) we can’t address what you’re thinking because we can’t dictate that.'”

The apparent aim at beliefs has been noted here before, though the questioner implied a motivation of changing belief through directed behavior.

In an apparent effort to help explain Col Packard’s emphasis on behavior and the strength of diversity, Chaplain (Col) Bruno made a statement that is somewhat tortured in hindsight:

We could not do the mission here if we were all white, male and Catholic. We couldn’t meet the requirements of providing religious support to all the men and women of this institution.

Unfortunately, the Chaplain conflates wholly unrelated issues.  It is true a staff of all Catholics would have difficulty providing religious support to everyone, as Catholicism is insufficiently similar (or outright mutually exclusive) with some faiths.  This is not to say that every military member needs a chaplain of their faith in order to have spiritual support, but an increase in religious diversity would broaden the chaplaincy’s ability to provide such support.

The issue of gender, however, must be qualified.  Some mainstream religions do believe faith leaders should be of a certain gender.  However, those beliefs are entirely one-sided:  That is, certain religions require faith leaders to be male; none require faith leaders to be female.  So, the chaplaincy could “do the mission” with only one gender, so long as it was male.

However, it is surprising to hear a chaplain say that race has anything to do with “providing religious support.”  No mainstream religion or recognized free exercise requires faith leaders to be of a certain race, nor would the military’s support of those freedoms be impeded by a particular officer’s race.

It sounds noble to laud the value of difference (“diversity”), but to imply the mission can not be done except for race, for example, when race has nothing to do with the mission, undermines the very point behind diversity: There is virtue in diversity because there is value to difference, not just that there is difference.

Similarly, to return to the topic of the USAFA discussion, there is no “value” in asserting that the chaplaincy could not do its mission if they were all “white, male, and straight.”  Just like race, no tenets of a mainstream religious belief require its faith leaders to be homosexual.

However, a misguided appeal to “diversity” (which emphasized only difference, not value) would imply that having homosexual faith leaders would inherently ensure the ability of the military to meet the religious needs of its members.

Such an assertion isn’t true, but it will likely be made in the future.