Even many of the so-called opponents of homosexualization of the armed forces barely oppose it

While various conservative commentators have been silent about the repeal of the prohibition of homosexuals in the military, many of those who formally belong in the “oppose” category oppose it on such meek and mild grounds that it amounts to no opposition at all. Thus John of Powerline (a site I have essentially stopped reading) wrote on December 18, the day of the repeal vote:

I don’t think I’ve written anything about the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but my views are the same as Paul’s. This is a decision that should be based on military effectiveness, not pressure group politics, and there is considerable evidence that in some contexts, at least, openly homosexual soldiers could pose problems. At the same time, my guess is that there are other contexts where having a handful of gay soldiers would not be a big deal. And in principle, of course, repeal of DADT can always be reversed if its consequences turn out to be problematic. Not that I expect this to happen.

The DREAM act, in my view, posed a much greater threat….

He treats it strictly as a utilitarian issue: “evidence” shows that repeal “could” cause “problems” in “some” contexts. There is absolutely no sense that the admission of homosexuals into the military really matters. There isn’t the slightest awareness that this law opens the military to ever greater homosexual demands and an unending, ever-more-intrusive campaign against anti-homosexual discrimination.

And, as with other conservatives who either support the law or oppose it only on weak terms, there is no sense that this bill will make it hard or impossible for conservatives to oppose homosexual “marriage.” If homosexuals are good enough to fight and die for our country, why aren’t they good enough to marry each other? Marriage, conservatives will reply, is different, it’s a unique institution with its own requirements. Yes, but for the last 17 years conservatives have argued that the military is different, a unique institution with its own requirements, and now they’ve backed away from that. The military has become just one more area of society that must be non-discriminatory. Why shouldn’t marriage be non-discriminatory as well?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 31, 2010 10:17 AM | Send