Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Gay-Bash

Professional gay-basher Matt Barber weighed in as well in his March 4 column, asserting that "allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be 'tolerated'":

The fact that "homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

[...]

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

Ilana Mercer took a novel approach to the issue in her March 5 column. The military's problem isn't gays, she wrote; to the contrary, "homosexual men are not necessarily effeminate – all the more so men who've chosen a military career; they are unlikely to be limp at the wrist." Straight women, however, have an unfortunate habit of getting pregnant:

The military is soaked in sex. The presence of women has helped this state of affairs. Throw together young men and willing women – and you've created an undisciplined, sexually charged atmosphere. Coupled with enabling laws, this combustible admixture is bound to yield bumper crops of unmarried moms and (poor) baby bastards.

Expunge straight women from the military and you've cleansed the force of the toxic effect they have on esprit de corps, and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism. The military will have been returned to an earlier formation; that of a disciplined band of men united in common purpose.

I say remove straight women; but recruit the lesbian Amazonian lady. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military as an outlet for their abilities.

In this all-male outfit the tendency to strut one's sexuality, straight or gay, will be much reduced. Think of an all-boy school. Hanky-panky happens, but it's hidden.

Jane Chastain used her March 11 column to declare that members of the military "need to be defended from Barack Obama's plan to expand the gay-rights agenda by using our armed forces as a laboratory for social experimentation." Chastain claimed the number of military members dismissed under don't ask, don't tell is "miniscule," and howled, "Is it fair to put our men and women in the military, who have no control over where they sleep or shower, in situations where they are viewed as objects of sexual desire? Isn't military life difficult enough as it is?"

Related articles on ConWebWatch: WorldNetDaily's (Mostly) Anti-Gay Agenda Molotov Mitchell's Gay-Bashing Follies

WND editor Joseph Farah, in his April 21 column, grumbled that repealing don't ask, don't tell was part of Obama's "pandering to a special-interest group, extending privileges based on sexual behavior."

But it wouldn't WND if some writer didn't go off-his-meds crazy and unleash a mind-bogglingly hateful rant. Which brings us David A. Noebel's March 12 take on gays in the military, starting with his assertion that "It turns out that nearly all the major security risks (those who betrayed the United States to the Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.) also had homosexual connections. It seems that spies and homosexuality went together like Mary and her little lamb."

Noebel went on to decry "the homosexual practice of colonization, in which "homosexuals would settle into a position and then use their position to hire fellow homosexuals into the same department or even move them into a higher position until the department was completely colonized." He also applied the term "flaming homosexual" to both Obama administration official (and WND smear target) Kevin Jennings and economist John Maynard Keynes.

Then Noebel really cranked up the crazy:

Now it's 2010, and President Obama, a man steeped in radical left-wing politics and a kind of Students-for-a-Democratic-Society-Commander-in-Chief, wants to allow "open" homosexuals in the United States military. Open homosexuality would have to include the GLBTQ gamut – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer. Lambda Legal and the ACLU will insist on it. And Sen. Lieberman already proposed on March 8 a bill "legalizing bisexual behavior in the U.S. Military."

Allowing "gays in the military," therefore, is misleading. Once gays are openly recruited and accepted in the military, their "cousins" will follow suit (lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, queer, etc.). Such a scenario would even make Julius Caesar, who was bisexual, blush. Among soldiers, he was known as "every woman's husband and every man's wife" (Taylor Caldwell, "A Pillar of Iron," p. 697).

The United Sates is currently involved in two wars. Is the president out to destroy our military? Can any thinking American wish to see an "open" cross-dressing homosexual Army general trying to gain the trust of his troops (or for that matter, the nation)? Have we as a nation fallen so far that we need to apologize to Sodom?

If the military becomes colonized as the State and Defense Departments were once colonized, homosexuals will indeed end up being generals and admirals. Just imagine a quota system in place that required 10 percent of officers be homosexual (similar to the demand that 10 percent of teachers and counselors in schools be gay to reflect the gay population – although the truth is that less than 2 percent of the population is gay).

WND's advocacy on the issue isn't limited to hateful columnists -- it also runs false and misleading "news" articles on anyone who supports the repeal.

An April 23 article by Chelsea Schilling (who has a history of shaky reporting at WND) portraying then-potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as in league with gay opposition to don't ask, don't tell -- which also repeated speculation about Kagan's sexual orientation -- by writing of Kagan's action as dean of Harvard Law School: "In 2005, Kagan distributed a note to the Harvard Law School community explaining that the Department of Defense notified Harvard University that it would withhold all federal funds if the law school continued to prohibit the military from being welcomed on campus. She then reluctantly lifted the ban for the fall 2005 recruiting season."

Schilling failed to report the ban was implemented at Harvard Law School because a federal appeals court had ruled that the Solomon Amendment, which stated that universities that do not provide access to military recruiters cannot receive certain federal money, violated First Amendment free-speech rights. Nor did Schilling report that in the letter she cited, military recruiters had access to Harvard Law students through school's veterans association.

After Kagan was actually nominated to the court, WND repeated the bogus the gay-related attacks. A May 10 article by Bob Unruh sneered that "Kagan had tossed military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus because of the military's 'discrimination' against homosexuals because they were not allowed to openly portray their chosen lifestyle in the ranks." In fact, she did not kick military recruiters off campus.

WND's hatred of gays is so all-consuming, though, that Unruh devoted a Feb. 19 article to the bizarre claim of "[a] team of top-drawer civil and religious rights lawyers" -- read: the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund, with whom WND has a close relationship -- that Obama is "establishing a religion for the U.S. military through his demand to promote open homosexuality in the ranks":

"The military would effectively establish preferred religions or religious beliefs," the letter said. "That is a constitutional offense that carries a very pragmatic consequence: just what will happen to recruiting efforts if Christians become second-class soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines."

[...]

"Military chaplains who have volunteered to defend the liberties protected in our Constitution shouldn't be denied those very same liberties," said [ADF senior counsel Kevin] Theriot. "Forcing chaplains to deny the teachings of their faith in order to serve in the armed forces is a grave threat to the First Amendment and to the spiritual health of Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen who depend on them."

He said if the military is forced to promote homosexual behavior, "for the first time in American history there will be open conflict between the virtues taught by chaplains and the moral message delivered by the military."

"In such a conflict, it's obvious who will win and who will lose. If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior," he said.

As Unruh so frequently does, he makes no apparent effort whatsoever to gather any response to the lawsuit, despite the fact that journalists are suppose to tell both sides of the story.

But that seems to follow in WND's philosophy: Gays aren't real people and must be treated only with pity, derision and/or contempt. And they must be treated doubly so if they want to serve in the military.