Trying to fulfill a reckless campaign promise, President Obama is pushing for repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. As with plans to conduct trials of Mirandized terrorists in the United States, the commander in chief has assigned lower priority to the needs of the military and national security.
“This year,” Obama said in his State of the Union address, “I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Members of the Joint Chiefs and even the secretary of defense, a political appointee who applauded and will likely sing the president’s tune at a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on Tuesday, looked grim when they heard the marching orders. A Pentagon spokesman referred to the issue as a “problem,” and rightly so. Pentagon lawyers who advised a delay in repealing the 1993 law only two weeks ago are starting to take the issue more seriously than the commander in chief. And Sen. John McCain, ranking member of the SASC, is preparing to ask some specific questions.
The president’s goal can only be achieved legally by passage of a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders in the armed forces. If that description of the Obama-backed legislation sounds unfamiliar, it is because major media, including conservative talk radio, have yet to describe and analyze what the proposed bill actually says.
H.R. 1283, co-sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.) and more than 180 others, would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” If passed, the LGBT Law would be retroactive — allowing re-entry and restored promotions for anyone previously discharged. It would apply to all units, including infantry battalions, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines, on a 24/7 basis.
Contrary to the president’s statement, there is no national desire to “finally” repeal the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10). The statute, which is always mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. Only the well-funded LGBT Left is pushing this issue, and they expect a political payoff regardless of the consequences.
Apparently the president has not read the law itself, which states, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the military.” Many groups of people who are patriotic are not eligible to serve in uniform, but everyone can serve our country in some way.
The 1993 Eligibility Law has nothing to do with “who they are,” as the president put it. Rather, the law actually passed by Congress, not the DADT administrative policy imposed on the military by Pres. Bill Clinton, states, “The extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community . . . exist as a specialized society . . . characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society. . . . The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.”
In anticipation of hearings starting on Tuesday, Pentagon lawyers are supposed to come up with a plan to implement the LGBT agenda without negatively affecting recruiting and retention, morale, and readiness in the military. This cannot be done, for many reasons.
To draw a “picture” of the consequences of the proposed LGBT Law, the Center for Military Readiness has prepared charts illustrating just how radical the new LGBT Law for the Military would be. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law and expressing concerns that its repeal would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”
Even if President Obama keeps pushing for a new LGBT Law for the military, some members of Congress may be more concerned about the upcoming November elections, as well as the lessons learned in the Massachusetts special election. Voters are concerned about national security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any purpose other than national defense.
– Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness.