Last Updated:October 30 @ 05:57 pm

Ibbetson: The Repeal of DADT - To March or to Sashay into the Future?

By Paul A. Ibbetson

On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law that repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays wishing to serve in the military. DADT was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was a considered by many liberals a compassionate turn from the military’s previous ban on gays’ serving in the military. In a somewhat ironic turn of fate, in order to move the homosexual agenda forward Barack Obama would have to classify the social engineering escapades of Bill Clinton to be barbaric. At the repeal signing President Obama said that the new law would strengthen the country’s national security and upholds the values that the military fights to defend. He also spoke about the new law allowing skilled homosexuals who were previously turned away from the military to now join the American fighting forces and increase the ranks of our national defense.

To the case that Barack Obama makes for radically altering the standard of operations for military service, the President stands in complete opposition to the belief system of the founding fathers and the traditional standards of this country. How far is the gap between the value system that guides the current President on the issue of homosexuality in the military than that of the founding fathers?
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media writes of George Washington’s opposition to homosexuals in the military. In 1778 a soldier was court-martialed for attempted sodomy. The official record of the trial verdict and punishment makes clear Washington’s disgust with homosexual activity within the military’s ranks. The record of soldier Enslin’s attempted sodomy court-martial was discovered in a discussion by David Barton of Wall Builders on homosexuals in the military and was collected from the writings of George Washington from the General Orders at Valley Forge. It reads as follows: “At a General Court Martial where of Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

So while the Continental army was in the fight of its life and the projection of victory was unsure at best, George Washington found it of utmost importance to place high value on personal conduct within the military ranks. To maintain the dignity and the cohesion of the fighting force, Washington went beyond forbidding homosexuality within the ranks; he aggressively punished it. The reasoning behind Washington’s strong opposition to sodomy and other homosexual acts in the military was based in part to biblical values that repetitiously and without the slightest bit of ambiguity state that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Additionally, Washington, as well as other military leaders, understood the disruptive and demoralizing effects of promoting the homosexual lifestyle within the close confines of military duty. In other words, Washington had a very different vision from Obama’s on the ideals that the military fight to defend.

The biblical issue of morality is a message that finds only deaf ears today from the liberal left. The idea of God’s law when it comes into opposition of the homosexual agenda is framed with words such as “homophobia.” For the advocates that would follow the radical reframing of American values on military service created by Barack Obama, it is easier to say heterosexuals fear homosexuals than to say that God is right.

Even the mentality surrounding future military participation added by overt homosexuals that may wish to join a more gay-friendly armed forces, something that Obama touts as a bolstering factor to the country’s future national security, is full of warped inconsistencies. Many military experts have voiced concerns that existing U.S. soldiers will not want to share showers and other intimate living arrangements with overt homosexuals. My interview with retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, author of the book, “Conduct Unbecoming”, who was responsible for the Nuclear Football under President Bill Clinton, highlights one such voice of opposition. On my radio show Conscience of Kansas, Patterson stated his opposition to the repeal of DADT saying it would lead to lawsuits and a lowering of military morale. According to Patterson’s conversations with military personnel, he estimated that up to 25 percent of serving forces would leave, or consider leaving the military due to the repeal of DADT. A mass exodus of traditional soldiers would most likely outweigh any national security increase brought forth by overt gays entering the military.
In other words, from a national security standpoint, Barack Obama’s repeal of DADT will most likely make the country less safe, less secure. From a moralistic perspective, Barack Obama is doing far more damage than simply asking the military to march to a different cultural tune; he is demanding that they sashay into moral debauchery as defenders of the free world. The repeal of DADT is truly proof that America has come a long way; the problem is that we have come a long way all in the wrong direction.

---

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 7.6/10 (7 votes cast)
Ibbetson: The Repeal of DADT - To March or to Sashay into the Future?, 7.6 out of 10 based on 7 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

19 Comments

  1. Chuck AnziulewiczComment by Chuck Anziulewicz
    January 3, 2011 @ 7:18 am

    “Sashay” into the future? Oh, BROTHER. Paul Ibbetson really needs to get out more.

    Everyone in the military knows that Gay soldiers have always been there. Everyone in the military knows that Gay and Straight soldiers have always showered together and bunked together. None of that was ever going to change whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was kept or repealed. I don’t know why people are getting all bent out of shape about it now.

    For what it’s worth, I really don’t care if any soldier, Gay OR Straight, is disciplined or booted out of the military because of inappropriate conduct when on-duty. That’s not what’s at issue here. A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he’s dating on his own time.

    Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine. We don’t need DADT to accomplish that goal.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.9/5 (14 votes cast)
    • Ben_ColderComment by Ben_Colder
      January 3, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

      Wrong, Chuck. I served twenty two years active duty. Gays were banned from serving when I served. I’m sure there were a few that served who hid their preference. I am not against gays serving. I am against them serving openly. DADT was a good policy.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      January 3, 2011 @ 5:56 pm

      Actually, DADT was classic liberalism (read incrementalism) at work.  It could only lead to what we have today.  I, too, served in the military during the period when homosexuals were not allowed in the service.  I’m sure some kept their proclivities hidden and were in anyway.  I served with a few people that I would not swear were not homosexuals (I refuse to use the bastardized term “gay”.  Gay means happy, joyful, having a good time.  Homosexuals are NOT gay).  Who among us didn’t know when DADT became policy that it wouldn’t lead to today’s decision?  As for the future of the military and what will happen on the front lines in war — heaven help us!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
  2. MustLiveFreeComment by MustLiveFree
    January 3, 2011 @ 11:18 am

    Chuck, is it o.k. if male and female soldiers bunk and shower together?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • johannComment by johann
      January 3, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

      If they are gay, guess it’s okay!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • rinoleftieComment by rinoleftie
      January 5, 2011 @ 1:16 pm

      Sure.. why not?  Can’t men control themselves?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  3. jenerseaComment by jenersea
    January 3, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

    The problem with all of this is that the military was never an issue in this.  Its all about legitimizing the homosexual agenda.  They knew if they could get Obama to lift the ban, then they could say that if homosexuality is good enough for military service then it is good enough for marriage, and minority status.  The homosexuals and socialists could give a damn less about the military and how its rank and file members feel about the disgusting spectakle of power that was forced upon them by the mad men in power.  They will not be happy until they have forced all their unwanted agendas upon the rest of society. How anyone can not see what happened last week is beyond me.  It was and continues to be the grab for total power over us all. 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (11 votes cast)
    • GHUComment by GHU
      January 3, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

      You are so right. This is just one of the things on the radical homosexual agenda. Next is gay “marriage”.  Barney Frank has said so right in Congress after repealing DADT.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • rinoleftieComment by rinoleftie
      January 5, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

      You are correct.  And as it should be.  Why should my married partner and I have to spend more to deal with taxes than you?  Why should I, in essence, SUBSIDIZE you by paying more in taxes? 

      We just bought a second home in Florida and guess what, because we can’t list “married” on documents, we have to spend thousand of dollars extra to set up the legal documents so we can rightly own, and inherit in case of debt, our property.

      That’s government intruding on my life and dictating terms to me.  Shouldn’t you be against that?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. ClarkCComment by ClarkC
    January 3, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

    The first thing we need to do in discussing this matter is get the facts straight. Congress did not “repeal DADT.” The existing law banned homosexuals from serving in the military, period. Clinton issued an executive order specifying that no one would be asked their sexual orientation. That was a liberalization of the enforcement of the statute. Yet, in almost all discussions, the statutory prohibition of homosexuals and the DADT enforcement liberalization are spoken of as if they are the same thing. People are led to believe that, in 1993, some kind of new prohibition on homosexual service was passed, called DADT, and now it has been repealed.
    If DADT had been repealed, then we would have returned to the pre-1993 situation, in which homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military and officers ARE allowed to ask about sexual orientation. I would be applauding if we had really repealed the Clinton DADT executive order, but an executive order concerning enforcement cannot be repealed by Congress.
    In fact, what Congress just did was repeal a statute that forbids homosexuals from serving in the military. Such prohibitions LONG predate 1993. If we had conservative commentators clearly saying, “Congress repealed a prohibition on gays serving in the military that has existed in various forms for over 200 years,” then people would understand what has happened a lot better than if they hear “Congress repealed Clinton’s DADT policy,” which is false and makes it sound like we have returned to some pre-Clinton state of affairs.
    As with all political matters,, the Left controls the vocabulary of the conversation and the “Right” goes along with it.
     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (8 votes cast)
  5. New SpiritComment by New Spirit
    January 3, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

    Corruption is corruption, whether it be from a man sitting in the White House who thinks he is God or from a confused, sexually twisted individual who wants to be able to thrust his/her sexual preferences onto a Society that doesn’t want them…it’s all the same. CORRUPTION IS CORRUPTION, NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. The pitifully sad thing is that the homosexual agenda has spread into not only our Military (which WILL CAUSE MANY, MANY MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN TO LEAVE — THUS REMOVING ANOTHER EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PART OF SECURITY FOR OUR NATION), but is trying to force our elementary, middle and high schools to teach homosexuality in their classrooms. ALL OF THIS IS BEYOND WRONG AND AS IT ADVANCES, SO GOES THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA. Homosexuals will NEVER be accepted in a heterosexual society as being “Normal”, so perhaps they need to all be shipped to an island where only they live and they can be as expressive sexually as they want — no one will care.
    As for “Chuck’s” comments — obviously he has NEVER served in any military unit or anywhere where close living quarters create uncomfortable living conditions. Chuck is one of the confused, delusional liberals who “thinks” and speaks without actually researching a subject. Maybe Chuck needs to become Gay so he truly knows what they think and why they act as they do…he definitely isn’t “straight” because his words and inferences come from a one gender+ same gender bias.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  6. New SpiritComment by New Spirit
    January 3, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

    The bottom line here is, “Do we as a Nation feel comfortable with a Military that has many homosexuals bunking right next to straight Military men and women?” That’s like putting a hungry fox inside a chicken coop full of laying productive hens. The hens are busy doing what they do best, while the fox is jumping which ever hen he wants for a meal. When the whole chicken coop is aware of the fox, the egg laying venture becomes compromised because the rest of the alive hens are fleeing for their lives. NO ONE WANTS TO PUT OUR MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN IN A COMPROMISING POSITION WHEN THEY NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT SURVIVING AND HUNTING OUT THE ENEMY. By allowing homosexuals to freely be part of the Military, we are COMPROMISING THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS, SAILORS, MARINES AND AIRMEN. NOT FAIR TO DO THAT TO THEM WHEN THEY HAVE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES TO FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOM. My answer to this would be to have a complete unit that is composed of nothing but homosexuals, from Officers all the way down to Privates. That way, the heterosexual units would not be bothered with the idea of having to share quarters, showers, etc. with ANY homosexual individuals. Gays would be free to join the Military, but they would have their own camps, units, etc. — completely separate from the heterosexual military men and women. This would work and both the straights and the gays could still serve their Country. If Gays “NEED” to be in the Military, then let’s give them their own Military arenas with their own “people” — everyone will be happy then…especially the heterosexuals! 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      January 3, 2011 @ 6:11 pm

      Better yet, let’s not allow homosexuals to serve in the military.  “All homo” units would be something like the “all negro” units prior to 1947 in that it would be a totally ineficient and inflexible use of man power.  However, unlike black service members, integrating homosexuals into the main stream would weaken, not strenghthen, the unit.  We are heading toward a very weak military force. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • rinoleftieComment by rinoleftie
      January 5, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

      By “homosexual agenda” estimates there are 10% of population is gay, or strongly inclined.  By “Conservative Family Values” estimates the number is 1%.  Let’s conservatively split the difference to call it 3% at best…

      Ok– now, I know my gay peers, and it’s really the RARE one that’s interested in the armed forces anyway (they likely joined as I did before they realized they were gay– and I got out as soon as I did).  So–let’s drop the number by three-fold (put in your own estimate).

      So…  for every 99 straight men there is one gay guy.  How many of them are going to be “out”?  Probably only 1 in 3…  so for every 1 gay man there are 299 straight men.

      That’s some odds.  I think the straight men are going to be able to take care of themselves.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  7. jenerseaComment by jenersea
    January 4, 2011 @ 9:34 am

    ClarkC I agree with what you are saying that what they actually did was repeal the asking of the question about whether or not you are homosexual, so there fore the original law should be in force which bans open serving of homosexuals in the military.  I sent both of my Senators and Congressman an e-mail asking them that very question.  I have not received a reply back from any of them. Senators being Democrat and the Congresswoman being Republican from West Virginia. Rockefeller a Democrat voting for the repeal, Manchin a Demo not voting at all.  Capito the Republican voted against repealing.  I suggest you e-mailing your representatives asking the same question and see what if any replies you get.  I also asked my Republican Representative to do everything she could to bring it up to over turn Obama’s decision since they have the power, that will probably go no where.  But you gotta try.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • ClarkCComment by ClarkC
      January 4, 2011 @ 1:22 pm

      You misunderstood my point. They did NOT repeal DADT, i.e. they did not repeal the asking of questions. Instead, they repealed the law that says that homosexuals cannot serve in the military. Then every commentator, conservative and liberal, goes around saying they repealed DADT, which is incorrect.
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  8. Pingback: Capt. Honors: First Sacrifice on the Homosexual Altar

  9. Pingback: Capt. Honors: First Sacrifice on the Homosexual Altar

  10. When will our Liberal politicians realize our military is not a jobs program or a social laboratory?
     
    The military exists for one purpose, to protect and defend the people and the Constitution of the United States. In order to perform that selfless task, members of the military voluntarily give up some of the very freedoms they are protecting for the benefit of good order, high moral and unit discipline. They don’t weep and whine about it. They just do it!
     
    Maybe they gripe to each other but they don’t expect the military to conform to their personal sense of self-actualization or do what is comfortable for them. Rather, they cowboy-up and do their jobs.  This is what SERVING means!  Thank God we have such great young people who make this sacrifice for the benefit of all of us living in this country.
     
    The current law was working just fine. If it upset a few miscreants, so be it. A lot of things the military does is upsetting to the troops.  Many gays are happy to serve in anonymity. They don’t have this pressing need to have their lifestyle validated by anyone or anything. We should’ve left it alone, it wasn’t broke!  We just risked weakening the entire military during a time we are fighting 2 wars!  Where the hell are our priorities?
     
    Right now we need to watch for the unintended consequences!
     
    http://www.thelastjump.com
    Some proceeds donated to charity

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • rinoleftieComment by rinoleftie
      January 5, 2011 @ 1:04 pm

      And many more who want to serve are prevented from serving.  And many who do serve in anonymity are “outed” for vengeance.

      “The fight 2 ways” and “morale” and “unit cohesion” memes are such red herrings.  I have far more faith in our military, their resilience and maturity, than apparently all the anti-reformers do (see my more complete response below).  Don’t project your inability to deal onto those who actually serve.

      The Israeli army has had a policy allowing gays to serve for many years…  you don’t see straight Jews leaving the Israeli army in droves, or a sudden wave of male on male sexual assault (same in much of Europe and our men in uniform work side by side with European Nato forces).  Ironically it’s the ultra-orthodox Jews that ask for– and get– leaves from compulsory time served in aid of Israel.

      Gay men and women should be held to the same military code of conduct as everyone else– both in terms of RIGHTS and consequences should they breach ethical interpersonal boundaries.  And I fully expect in the latter case that they will.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  11. rinoleftieComment by rinoleftie
    January 5, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

    The unbelievable level of silliness illustrated in some of these posts about gay men and women is baffling to me. 

    Are “real men” of the military so afraid of a bunch of “queers” that they are going to leave the military?  These are men we expect to fight Al Queda and suicide bombers?  Do you really think a gay guy is going to “jump” or ogle someone in the showers?  They are there now and you don’t hear stories of this.  Being “out” does not give them license to be rude or worse.  Or are you worried that another man might treat you like men treat women?

    Obviously I am gay…  and I shower with straight guys at the gym…  and I have no interest in them nor would I embarrass myself by such a display.  I can tell you…  for the vast majority of gay men it’s the same.  We are no more likely to put ourselves in such a position as any straight man would embarrass themselve by ogling a woman publicly and lewdly.  Are there bad apples?  For sure…  but just like in the straight world.

    So stop with your hysteria.  Your acting “like a bunch of women” with a mouse in the room.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "Welfare, schmelfare. I find it interesting that while America's median income has dropped from $54,000 to $50,000, redefining the poverty level..." Comment by billybob55
    Posted in America's Most Incurable Disease Is Spending
  • "I still don't get the distinction??" Comment by Bobinms
    Posted in Quarantine Questions
  • "I like his suggestion that all workers going over should sign a contract agreeing to the 21 day quarantine before..." Comment by ltuser
    Posted in Quarantine Questions

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer