First, and most important, the rightness of doing something does not depend only on the thing itself but on why it is being done. In spite of the liberal claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military is a matter of justice or fairness – it isn’t. Those who have campaigned most vigorously for the repeal are those who wish to change society’s view of homosexual activity from one of being contrary to natural law and damaging to society to one where it is simply a harmless lifestyle choice, along the lines of dying one’s hair pink.
Although keeping DADT would have been a rear-guard action against the continued homosexualisation of society – an act that may be too little, too late – the repeal is, nevertheless, a retreat and I think there have already been too many retreats.
Second, every liberal with whom I almost always disagree wanted this repeal, thus providing a confirmation of my deep-seated suspicion that what is really going on is more sinister than they are letting on.
Third, the polls of military personnel claiming there would be no effect on military effectiveness were not as conclusive as the Pentagon would like us to believe; those who do disagree with the repeal will undoubtedly be subjected to sensitivity awareness training until they come around – all in a time of war when energies should be focussed elsewhere.
I am not against allowing a homosexual to serve in the military. What makes me uneasy is that being employed by the military is insufficient: the demand that homosexuals should be able to serve “openly” is really a demand that homosexual activity be recognised as normal.