by John F. McManus, President

About "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

While campaigning for the presidency in 1992, Bill Clinton received enormous financial support from numerous homosexual groups and individuals. Eight days after he won the election, he announced his gratitude and said that he would lift the ban on homosexuals as soon as he entered the White House in January 1993. His statement created a storm of protest and he backed off temporarily and agreed to study the matter further. He then accepted and instituted a proposal offered by Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Congressman Ron Dellums (D-Calif.) that became the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Under it, the ban on homosexuality remained, but a person who is homosexual could serve without being asked about such a preference or without worry that someone serving alongside would report discovery of such a preference.

An outraged Senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) responded at once: “What [Mr. Clinton] has done is allow gays to be in the military and lie about it. That is typical of the ’60s generation that Clinton represents, where there is no specific element of morality that is binding. It’s a situational ethic and frankly, I think it’s the worst of all possible solutions.” But “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” did become policy.

The change sought by Mr. Clinton and enacted by Congress replaced a 215-year-old ban on homosexuals in the military. That ban, appearing in Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, guided the services as follows:

Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission....

Reasons for such a strong position abound. For instance, there is nothing that can destroy the basic military unit more than homosexuality. When called upon to do so, Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors don’t perform extraordinary deeds for headlines, medals, promotions, etc. They do so because of loyalty and comradeship with their fellows and with their superiors. Once that bond is breached by placing homosexuals within a unit, its effectiveness has been weakened if not completely destroyed.

Serving in the military is not a right; it’s a privilege. If some can be barred because of height, weight, age, physical condition, even a failing score on an intelligence test, others can and should be barred for homosexuality for being destructive to the military unit.

Will a fundamentally moral man encourage his son or daughter to enlist alongside homosexuals? The answer is “No” and this deprives the military of its best possible recruits. If serving means being placed into close quarters with homosexuals, many who possess strong moral underpinnings will simply avoid service of their own accord.

Acceptance of homosexuals is a severe departure from long-standing practice. It makes more likely the acceptance of other fundamental departures from military discipline and the proper function of the military. Moral relativism, a feature of homosexuality, spawns the attitude that all military orders and practices are relative and not to be acted upon swiftly or carried out without question.

It has always been considered wrong to place women in mostly male military units, and it is even more damaging to allow homosexuals within the military at any level.

President Obama wants to do away with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. It would be wise to do so. But he wants Congress to abandon all bans on homosexuals serving in the military. Instead, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 should be dusted off and reestablished as official military policy.

U.S. Representatives and Senators need to hear from constituents about this matter.

John F. McManus served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.