A fascinating set of developments has occurred in a Texas GOP primary race for the US House of Representatives. Michael Bob Starr is a retired Colonel and was recently the Wing Commander at Dyess AFB, which is in the district for which he is running. Promoting himself as a conservative — his Twitter tag line says “Conservative. Christian. Husband. Father.” — one of his opponents is accusing him of participating in “social engineering” while in the Air Force:

The candidate, Colonel Bob Starr, can be seen in a number of photos wearing gay pride clothing, throwing his arms in the air as a champion in gay pride runs, and even wearing a rainbow painted gay pride shirt…

Col Starr eventually responded, saying [emphasis added]

“I believe and strongly support traditional marriage, but as commander of Dyess Air Force Base, my job was to enforce the law and not discriminate against anyone who made different lifestyle choices than the ones that I agreed with,” Col. Starr says. “All I had to do was make sure that homosexual airmen were not discriminated against. That’s what changed in the law in 2011…”

“As leader of the base, I participated in as many events as I could to support as many airmen as I could…”

“I created an atmosphere of acceptance,” Col. Starr claims. “I did it regardless of the group or organization.”

Critics pointed out that he seemed to go beyond “all [he] had to do” when he participated in the “gay pride” events.  In another article Col Starr is quoted as saying he was “obligated” to support gay rights as a military commander, and he later tried to re-characterize the events as military pride, not gay pride:

“(The fun run) emphasized pride in our service and pride in our base,” he said.

Actually, gay pride is about homosexuality.  That’s kind of the point.

It is a fascinating situation: From a military point of view, how far is a commander required to go so that all of his Airmen feel “accepted?” From a Christian point of view, how far should a commander go in such demonstrations, before his “acceptance of all” becomes affirmation of something contrary to his own beliefs?

Though no homosexual activist would likely admit it, as a Christian and a commander Col Starr was placed in a difficult position. Given his comments, he likely participated in most of the “fun runs” or other events hosted by base organizations. Thus, had he chosen not to do so for a “gay pride” event, it would have raised questions. If those questions ultimately revealed his personal opposition to homosexuality, would he have been subject to criticism or official complaints?

Absolutely.

It is a near certainty that someone in the “gay community” would have been offended by Col Starr’s principled absence and, because he ran in every other race but theirs, would have filed a complaint potentially claiming discrimination. While the claim of discrimination would likely fail, it is not unforeseeable that his superiors could argue they had “lost confidence” in his ability to command based on his subordinates’ claims of not feeling “accepted” due to their sexual preference.

Even if nothing in the complaint withstood scrutiny, many O-6s and higher can attest that simply being the subject of a complaint — especially on a “hot button” social issue — can interfere with career and job progression. (One Colonel had his star, command, and assignment delayed until the investigation was complete, despite the fact it ultimately exonerated him.)

As a result, Col Starr would not be the first commander to rationalize his apparent affirmation of homosexuality as “required” by military policy. While few have said so publicly, one commander breathed a sigh of relief that he never had to “go there” and deal with that issue — knowing the official “pressure,” if not actual orders, to not just “accept” homosexuality but to support and promote it. Other commanders have been less principled and, while again not saying so publicly, have essentially declared that military policies prohibit anything but affirming views on homosexuality.

With that in mind, it isn’t surprising that Col Starr would say the US military “obligated” him to support what some called “social engineering.”

What is surprising is that so few people outside the military understand this. The public line has been “no negative impact” to readiness and no impact to religious freedom. Yet a recently retired US military commander just said he was required to show support for homosexuality despite his personal — and religiously-based — opposition.

The second question is just as important: What of Col Starr’s actions as a Christian? Keep in mind, he not only ran in the “gay pride fun run,” he also spoke at the events and sported the “pride” t-shirts. An outside observer — which apparently includes his political opponent — might conclude from this public display that he was supporting not just the acceptance of all Airmen, but their homosexuality in particular.

Col Starr seems to have acknowledged the dissonance between his beliefs and his actions, though he also says he “does not regret” attending those events. Did he fail to understand how his actions — even if honorably intentioned — might impact not just his subordinates, but also other members of his faith? Or, potentially worse, did he simply lack the moral courage to stand up for his beliefs? As has been discussed in Christian Fighter Pilot is not an Oxymoron, there isn’t necessarily a right or wrong answer when dealing with some of these situations as a Christian in the military, but the answer that Col Starr has given and the public perception he left raise important questions.

One final issue bears noting: The refrain that commanders participate in “gay pride” events so all Airmen feel “accepted” ignores an important reality. What about the Airmen who don’t condone homosexual behavior (which is, incidentally, a far larger population)? If they see their commander affirming homosexuality, might not they feel less “accepted?”

In this context, it is difficult to categorize the US military taking a public position on sexuality as anything other than divisive:  The commander cannot win.  If he “promotes” homosexuality, he “offends” those who oppose it.  If he fails to promote it, he offends those who prefer it. Better would be no position — which is, of course, what the official position was supposed to be when DADT was repealed.

To put it another way, consider how Michael “Mikey” Weinstein would have reacted if Col Starr had participated precisely the same way in a “Christian pride” event.  Weinstein would have demanded the commander’s head on a pike for “endorsing” Christianity.  Yet he is allowed — some might argue required — to “endorse” homosexuality?

Ultimately, remember that, officially, the acceptance of open homosexuality in the US military has been a “non-event,” with no impact to readiness and no effect on any service members who might have religious, moral, or personal objections. The multiple US troops who have been threatened with or actually punished for making faith-based less-than-affirming statements about homosexuality, or the commanders who have felt they were required to affirm homosexuality over their religious objections, apparently don’t exist.

It has been nearly five years since DADT was repealed. Contrary to some popular beliefs, there remains a tension and, at times, outright conflict between the US military’s treatment of homosexuality and its support for the religious freedom of its troops. Col Starr faced that conflict just last year — though no one would have known if he hadn’t subsequently run for office as a “Conservative. Christian.”  Silence does not mean consent.  The apparent absence of conflict between religion and homosexuality in the military is not a result of large-scale acceptance of homosexuality or moral ambivalence, as homosexual activists and some public voices would claim. Based on Col Starr’s experience, it might be the result of the perception that the only permissible view on homosexuality in the military is an affirming one.

Col Starr’s experience is not an outlier. Other commanders and service members have experienced and will experience that same conflict, despite years of reassurances from some homosexual activists such conflict won’t occur. (Other activists welcome the conflict as a chance to purge Christian “bigots” from the military.)

Given the potential consequences, what should Christians in the military faced with this conflict do?

What will you do?

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---