I loved reading this tweet over the Christmas holiday. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell needed to go. Needless to say, CitizenLink (a division of Focus on the Family) doesn’t agree.
CitizenLink posted a video interview with Stuart Shepard and U.S. Air Force Col. Bill Spencer discussing the issue. There are a few quotes from the video that I MUST comment on. You can read the quotes and my responses in blue.
“People [in the active military] will look at this issue and say…’I know what I feel morally about homosexuality and having to serve alongside people who now may want to put themselves ahead of that mission, might want to to have their identification come to the forefront as opposed to serve, just to serve as anyone else.’ On the front lines that’s important. When you’re in close quarters, when you’re in combat and bullets are hailing at you, that can be really problematic. You don’t want those second thoughts coming in on the front lines when people are shooting at you. You don’t want anybody having to hesitate wondering about the mission orientation of an openly gay person standing or sitting next to them.”
Now, I will be the first to concede that I have never had to dodge bullets, military or otherwise. However, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that, should I be in that situation, I’m NOT thinking about your orientation. Again, I’ve never been shot at, but I think it’s a fair guess.
Steward Shephard: “By passing this repeal, essentially there are now going to be folks in the military where self is being placed slightly above service, that they’re being given a little special cover there that they can be open about their sexuality. How does that change the dynamic in the military?”
I have no idea how repealing DADT equals gay service members placing themselves over service. By that are we to assume that openly heterosexual service members are placing their open heterosexuality above service? Sheesh. Col. Spencer’s response is priceless…
Col. Spencer: “Well, really nothing’s changed, homosexuals have probably already served. (Really!? Yes, I bet they probably have.) I served for nearly 29 years, probably alongside some who were gay. I just didn’t know who they were. They put mission ahead of self. Now it’s not just about inclusion. We’ve already had inclusion. Those folks have already been serving. Now it’s about some self-identified label that’s come to the forefront. When you’re in a military that is supposed to fight and win our nation’s wars, that self-identification doesn’t contribute to mission effectiveness. It alters unit cohesion.”
Okay, where to begin? Let’s start with this… Are you kidding me right now?
On inclusion: Yes, we have already had inclusion. Remember when the military was segregated? Harry Truman took a lot of flak when he undid that. I don’t see this as that different.
On self-identified labels: Well, I agree with Col. Spencer on this one. Self-identified labels really do have a tendency to get in the way. For example, here is a list of some of the words I have used to self-identify. More than a few have gotten me into a pickle from time to time: Woman, Mom (and gasp, Working Mom), Wife, CHRISTIAN, Asian (I though about adding fat girl but I won’t go there).
Anyway, the idea that professional military men and women would place orientation (gay or straight) over military service and combat missions makes me sick. Gay service members love their country and take their call of duty just as seriously as their straight counterparts. To assume otherwise is both naive and bigoted.
“If you entered the service knowing that you are a homosexual and that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, then there really wasn’t an issue where you discovered suddenly that you were gay and in the military. It was something that you knew about going in; it was a condition that you agreed to, frankly, when you signed up”
So, according to this logic if you were an African-American looking to enlist pre-WWI attending a segregated Negro Training Camp, filling positions that black soldiers were allowed to fill, and living in segregated living quarters were all conditions that you knew you would have to submit to prior to enlisting. Should these men have continued under these conditions even though they knew what they were getting into before hand? Should segregation not have ended? I don’t get it. Just because DADT existed doesn’t mean it was ever the right thing to do.
You can watch the entire video below if you’d like (or if you want to verify the context).
At the end of the day here is my bottom line (for what it’s worth): I believe that these types of comments are hurtful. And harmful.
They are hurtful to the gay community and most importantly they are harmful to the Gospel message.
In the video Col. Spencer discusses that there is no data to measure whether or not repealing DADT will help or improve the way the military approaches and completes it’s mission. I think the more important question is, will this type of rhetoric about DADT help or improve the way christians carry out the cause for Christ? Will it help us to better share the Gospel message in a fallen world?
I say no, it won’t.
What do you think of the repeal of DADT? What should the christian response be?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
17 Responses to Best Christmas Gift this Year? The Repeal of DADT
Leave a Reply
I’m Social
Instagr.am
Recent pins
I think the repeal was and is one of the greatest things to happen in my generation. I am so incredibly tired of christians who leech onto their perception of what the Bible says instead of doing what we are supposed to do…love. Love no matter color, sexual orientation, financial state or anything else that is icing on the cake of the fact that we are all humans. you can not deny the humanity of a gay man or a lesbian woman, their heart bleats the same blood that flows through you as well. human. I think if the christian community continues to spout out the rhetoric of gays and lesbians being “lesser” people the face of the church or christian community will continue to be tarnished. But again, that is just my thought on the matter.
This is an honest question, and where my wondering always goes: What does that mean for personal space and discretion? As a heterosexual, I would not want to be forced to shower with men. What about showering with a lesbian if I am straight? This is genuine curiosity. No malice meant. Seriously, how do they handle things like this?
I agree
I would feel the same way I would at the gym, or in high school swim class (I’m sure there has been a lesbian or two in those places) which is I wouldn’t care. Here’s two reasons why:
1. DADT never banned gays and lesbians from the military. They were there before the repeal so why would living in tight personal space matter now that DADT has been repealed. She is still the same person on December 21st as she is on December 22 when it was signed into law, right?
2. I think the question at some level implies that being gay is all about sex, or the act of sex. Not true. Sexual identity is way more complicated than that. I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable at the gym, etc with gay women because I have no concern that the gay woman changing into her gym clothes next to me is lusting after me in anyway. Her being a lesbian does not mean that she has any sexual interest in me, a straight women.
Those are two thoughts off the top of my head. I would love for a gay person to comment on your question. I’m glad you asked it. I think straight people often have that concern but many wouldn’t be brave enough to ask it. Thank you!
They don’t have to handle it. DADT didn’t allow gays into the military, they have already BEEN in the military, showering away with their straight counterparts. I would guess if there had been a rash of incidents involving gay servicemembers hitting on their straight counterparts in the shower, opponents of DADT would have been discussing those specific examples during the repeal process.
I heard a lot of “OMG, the SHOWER!” during the discussion of DADT, but no one that I heard mentioned a real life example where it was a problem.
Agree. The arguements totally reminds me of the out cry against ending military segregation in the 1940′s. Doesn’t it?
I’ve long supported the repeal of DADT largely because it is impractical and it puts our nation at risk. Do I care that a male soldier out there defending my freedom is gay? Not at all.
I do not care for the politicians patting themselves on the back for repealing this farce. It’s been 17 years since it was put into place and I believe the only reason it happened this time is because it was a lame duck session of Congress and many of them who had already been defeated saw now political danger in voting to repeal, so they did. There was hardly any virtue in this vote (aside from those opposed to this from the start) and that includes President Obama.
I am troubled by the Christian response because I don’t follow their line of reasoning. There’s nothing biblical about it. What of the soldier that is a serial adulterer? How do they address that?
Lynse, I understand your response and I agree with it for the most part, but love, does not stand above biblical truth. We can love on people all we want, but at some point, somebody is going to ask questions and we need to be prepared to answer with love, but also with truth.
I agree that many in the Christian community focus so much on the issue of homosexuality and their rhetoric is angry. It does nothing to build up the kingdom of Christ. But again, at some point a gay person may ask, “What does the bible say about homosexuality?” At that point, responding with “I love you and Jesus loves you” is a cop out.
My pastor, who is one of the most knowledgeable and loving men I know said the following one Sunday during a sermon. He said, “Truth without love is legalism. Love without truth is liberalism. At some point, love and truth are going to collide. When that happens, truth must prevail.”
Again, I agree with your sentiments, it’s just that along with the legalistic view on homosexuality in the Christian community, I have also seen a very liberal view of homosexuality in the Christian community and ultimately, both extremes are dangerous.
I hope I made things clear enough. I wasn’t looking to start an argument.
Via Leroy Stick (@BPGlobalPR, @WorldGlobalPR): “DADT is in America’s long tradition of treating gay people like farts. #justdenyit”
I never liked DADT because it was fundamentally dishonest. “You pretend not to be gay, and we’ll pretend we don’t already know that you are.” Either gay people are allowed in the military, or they’re not. The notion that we’ll allow gay people in the military but just pretend they’re not there is patently absurd.
Oh my word…
Excellent point! I’m glad you brought up the political nature of this mess.
I totally understand what you are saying. Totally. I just think that the in your face, you’re living in sin is wrong.
But to be honest, i am in a season of my faith that i am questioning everything. Including what the Bible actually says about homosexuality and what I have come to believe.
So i guess it would be difficult for me to truly engage in this discussion because i wouldnt know what to say, because i dont know what i believe, once that conversation of “what does the Bible or God think about homosexuality” were to arise….Because currently, i am on the liberal side of thinking.
It is hard for me because until i decide what i perceive the Bible to declare what a truth and what is not I can’t speak on it.
Does that make sense? And I am always game for a little discussion.
I have never put too much thought on this situation but I am glad that DADT was canned. My main issue with this whole situation has to deal with “truth”. We are allowing people to fight for our country as long as they lie about their personal lives, this seems hypocritical. Some may say “it’s not lying, they are just not supposed to mention it”. Well, how then are they to feel normal, live normal lives while fighting for us while the straight soldiers have no problem speaking about their lives. In all this, the whole way that society looks at homosexuals, there has to be a big change. Yes, there are crazy ones that like to sleep around and have sex with everyone they see, BUT, isn’t that a truth on straight people as well? Not everyone that goes to the army being gay is gonna be lusting after every soldier, it takes disciplined people to make a decision to serve their country in that matter and I believe most people that make that decision may have this discipline, gay or straight. I am happy that everyone in the military can live in the same level of transparency and not be force to hide who they are and who they love.
So what is the most interesting about this conversation is that so many of the responses start with “I”
I wouldn’t want… I think… I imagine… I would never…
Perhaps the problem with all of this is that we have so focused on ourselves to the exclusion of everyone else? I mean the very foundation of DADT was designed so that others would not have to “know” you are gay and thus not be “uncomfortable” or “at odds” with what another person is or is not…
We are so obsessed with ourselves that we demand other people wear masks to help us feel comfortable in our environment. Something is wrong with that picture… whether or not we are followers of Christ
That is so true. I never thought about it that way.
Excellent, excellent, excellent point!!!!
I totally agree. To ask a deployed gay man or woman to deny his or her family, partner while they are overseas is just awful. What if you asked a straight man stationed in Iraq to never mention his wife? The double standard makes me sad.