February 28, 2000

I don't know any gay people (because the Bible says not to consort with sinners), but I sure am glad they're not allowed to serve openly in the military. Like my progressive friend Alan Keyes, I believe homosexuals are an abomination and would prefer that they be completely banned from the military. However, I understand the political realities of the situation: the fault lies with flaming leftist radicals like Al Gore and Bill Clinton.

There has been some pressure on the United States to change its "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gays to serve openly. Recently, for example, Britain completely lifted its ban on gays in the military. However, a close look at the facts shows this to be a terrible mistake. Look at what has happened to the once-vaunted British army since it lifted the ban: in the few months since the decision, over two officers have quit in protest, and surely thousands more will follow.

How can the British High Command hope to staunch the flow? Only by reinstating the ban on gays in the army. The lifting of the ban in Britain should have no influence on U.S. policy because our countries are vastly different; we all know Britain is a godless country of pagan hedonists. Perhaps when our level of morality and civilization has fallen to the level of Great Britain, then we can consider allowing gays to serve in the military.

Others point out that Israel has allowed gays to serve since 1993. This is completely irrelevant. Orthodox Judaism is a bastion of liberal propaganda. Israel is also a secure place, surrounded by friendly neighbors. They don't have to worry about foreign threats like we do.

Military superpowers like Mozambique and Latvia have always banned gay soldiers. How are we going to keep up with them if we don't do the same?

Allowing gays to serve in the military would be disastrous because it would disrupt the morale of our highly-disciplined soldiers. Polls of enlisted men and the unanimous stance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff demonstrate this, regardless of what the commander in chief thinks.

In the 1940s, when President Truman wanted to integrate black soldiers with white soldiers against the wishes of the Joint Chiefs, did he succeed? Of course not! The integration of black and white soldiers would have destroyed morale and maybe even have caused us to lose Vietnam.

If military veteran George W. Bush says gays shouldn't serve, that's good enough for me.

Think about this issue from the average enlisted man's perspective. Imagine yourself on a long-range reconnaissance patrol in the humid jungles of Iraq. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, bullets whiz over your head as you dive for cover.

You're pinned!

You turn to shout for someone to bring up the M-60 to lay down some covering fire, but then you remember that soldier might be gay!

In the heat of battle, inches between life and death, only one thing matters: the sexual orientation of one's fellows.

What if we allowed gay policemen, firemen, store clerks or professors? Clearly law enforcement, fire prevention, commerce and education would crumble from within. It would be the downfall of western civilization as we know it.

If gays aren't qualified to do any of these things, they're certainly not qualified to serve in the U.S. military.

How could they contribute anyway? Does the army really need an elite battalion of go-go boys, home decorators and hair dressers?

I don't think so.

Look at the practical difficulties: what if two gay guys were on a submarine and one got pregnant? Or if a marine deserted in the middle of an amphibious assault to visit a gay bath-house in San Francisco?

Allowing gays to serve is a slippery slope. The next thing you know, some feminazi will say women should be allowed to serve in the military, too.

When it comes down to it, if anyone should be allowed to get killed for this country, it's us heterosexuals. Allowing anyone else the privilege simply defies common sense.