Gays in Uniform

Last week Congress overturned the ban on gays serving in the military. President Obama will sign the bill into law this week. Some see this as a civil rights milestone on a par with the end of racial discrimination. Others are indifferent and have no idea what the fuss is about. Put me in the category of those who are deeply concerned about the implications of this decision.

The law that was repealed was passed in 1993 (10 U.S.C. – 654b). It prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Of course, it’s not that our military accepted homosexual activity before that time. In fact it was cause for discharge going back to the Revolutionary War. But before 1993 no act of Congress was necessary. It was simply understood that this was behavior that would weaken our military forces.

It may be a surprise to some, but the repeal will not immediately go into effect when the President signs the bill into law. It takes effect at the discretion of top military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has been supportive of overturning the ban. First, the President and the Pentagon must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, the military will undergo a 60-day waiting period before any changes are made. In a statement, Gates said he will begin the process immediately. But, he added, certification won't come until after "careful consultation" with the military service chiefs and combatant commanders. This could take up to a year.

Even if there is some time involved, however, I’m convinced that this new law will harm the effectiveness of our military in a time of war. Here are some of the issues that apply:

1. Orientation v. life choices. In spite of the fact that much research has attempted to support the “born that way” hypothesis, there is no clear and convincing evidence that anyone has been born gay. The reality is that the human race is not divided between straight and gay. We’re all just people who were created with a sexual nature. Unfortunately, that part of our nature has been distorted by sin in a number of ways and homosexual behavior is just one of many examples. In other words, life style choices are no justification to latch on to the moral high ground of the civil rights movement.

2. Mental health. Did you know that until 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental illness? (It was then that the American Psychiatric Association removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as a result of social pressure, not because of any new research.)

I agree that gay behavior is not a mental illness but there are some good reasons to be concerned about the mental health of homosexuals. For example, a study made on male twins who had served in Vietnam concluded that on average, male homosexuals were 5 times more likely to exhibit suicide - related behavior or thoughts than their heterosexual counterparts. Another study followed a large New Zealand group from birth to their early twenties. This study showed a significantly higher occurrence of depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse and thoughts about suicide, among those who were homosexually active. These are not qualities I’d like to see in the guy carrying a loaded weapon next to me.

3. Guilt. I’m not talking about guilt feelings that may be imposed on people by a repressive society that doesn’t understand their behavior, but true moral guilt. When Paul wrote about homosexual sins in Romans 1, he described them as “against nature”. When the Bible describes these sins it uses the word abomination, meaning something that’s abhorrent by its very nature. We all live in a world that was created with a fixed moral order. There is no exemption for soldiers. When a person’s actions place him or her in conflict with God’s created order, the result is guilt and the effects that it has on personal behavior and thinking.

4. The ripple effect.

The repeal is far more than just a single policy shift. The overturning of "don't ask, don't tell" will trigger a series of other gay-rights issues. Many states continue to debate same-sex marriage and the right of gay partners to share benefits the same way legally married couples do. With gay service members serving openly, we can expect the same battle in the military. It will become difficult for policy makers to justify withholding visitation rights or survivor benefits to the same-sex spouse of a wounded or fallen soldier. It will take very little time before a gay couple approaches their chaplain to request a military wedding.

5. The true agenda.

If gays, insisting that they were born that way, are patriotic citizens who simply wanted to serve their country, would it be too much for their service to include a period of celibacy while serving? Probably not, but I would suggest that patriotic service is not the true agenda behind this new law. The true agenda is acceptance and normalizing of what the Bible considers deviant behavior.

For these and other reasons, I encourage our leaders to set their personal agendas aside and let our military decide who is qualified to serve without interference from those who aren’t in the game.