CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges
Toleration doesnâ€™t cut both ways
The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.
The first anniversary of the repeal of â€śDonâ€™t Ask, Donâ€™t Tell,â€ť Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.
Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.
Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could â€śget in line with the new policy,â€ť demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplainâ€™s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more â€śclosely supervisedâ€ť because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplainâ€™s religious viewpoint.
At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would â€śmake a great couple.â€ť The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.
Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service schoolâ€™s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.
A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a â€śsacred spaceâ€ť where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.
The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of â€śtoleranceâ€ť if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailorâ€™s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.
Obviously, the recent â€śstudyâ€ť (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.
This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. Itâ€™s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When â€śsensitivity trainingâ€ť is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.
This outrageous social science lab experiment could have been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.
Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who supported the repeal.
Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.