Last Friday the US military decided to delay enlisting those who identify as transgender, with Secretary of Defense James Mattis saying the policy proposal initiated under the previous Obama Administration would be reviewed with “one standard” in mind [emphasis added]:

Mattis said he believes the department must measure “each policy decision against one standard” — whether it affects the ability of the military to defend the nation.

This is unnerving to LGBT activists who have made a concerted effort to claim allowing people who identify as “transgender” to serve would ultimately have no effect on the military.  Thus, if anyone is able to demonstrate a negative affect on the ability of the military to defend the nation — say, the monetary cost, distraction to the primary mission, disruption to unit morale, loss of moral integrity, logistical questions and complaints, just to name a few — the LGBT’s progressive social agenda emplaced under President Obama could come to a screeching halt.

(Notably, there is an important precedent for this concern: The repeal of DADT has officially done nothing for the military — meaning it has not improved the ability of the military to defend the nation.  Yet the divisive and controversial policy has — and continues to — cause disruption to good order, morale, and discipline in the US military.)

And that’s just what’s happening.  The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins recently revealed the costs associated with allowing “transgenders” to enter the military would exceed $3.7 billion over 10 years, and members of Congress are seeing through the farce:

“This [policy] doesn’t make [troops] more effective or efficient or deadly,” [US Rep Duncan Hunter (R-CA)] argued. “What it does is distract everybody.”

According to Rep Hunter, transgender service does not create a positive.  It does create a negative.

The policy would fail.

Thus, LGBT activists have to go a step further.  They can’t merely claim “no impact” if transgenders serve — they have to prove the US military can’t live without people who identify as transgender.

That’s where Ashley Broadway-Mack of the American Military Partner Association comes in, making the ludicrous claim [emphasis added]:

It has been unequivocally proven that allowing qualified transgender people to serve openly strengthens our military and creates a more inclusive and diverse force.

That’s utterly ridiculous.

If Broadway’s claim was true, the US military should be scrounging every corner of America right now trying to recruit men who think they are women and vice versa — because by doing so they’re guaranteed (unequivocally!) to make the US military stronger.

But is it true? Or could she just as easily have said “white male Protestants” or “left-handed Irishmen” also “strengthen our military”?

Nothing about the military is strengthened because someone is one gender while believing himself to be another. By the same token, nothing in the military is strengthened merely because a person is white, or Irish, or likes the Patriots.

Broadway’s claim about sexual behavior is “unequivocal” malarkey.

On the contrary, it has been “unequivocally proven” that foisting “progressive” attitudes about sexuality on US troops — particularly at their expense — is divisive and distracts from the military mission. Doubt it? Check the comments on just about any official military Facebook page when they post something about a local “gay pride” event. Even people who favor homosexuality are begging homosexuals — and the military — to stop talking about it.

After all, who really thinks its a good idea to publicize how Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines like to have sex? Why is it acceptable for homosexuals to continually publicize their preferred sexual practices — and on a “family friendly” military site, no less?

Even so, the truth hasn’t stopped Broadway and her activist allies from claiming sexuality trumps military necessity — and human rights, like religious freedom. For them, the purpose of the US military isn’t to support and defend the Constitution or protect our Nation.

For LGBT activists, the US military is a tool to advance and normalize their lifestyle choice — even when it is contrary to nature, morality, common sense, and the character of God.

There is no “strength” in sin. We are all sinners, and we all lack the strength to help ourselves.

But in our weakness, He is strong.

He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
– 2 Corinthians 12:9-10

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---