There is No Constitutional Right to Military Service

"Our past experience as military leaders leads us to be greatly concerned about the impact of repeal [of the law] on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force." - Statement in support of retaining the current law signed by over 1,000 retired flag and general officers.

---

While the entire country remains distracted over the long-overdue finale to the ObamaCare debate, the Obama Administration and Progressive Democrats are already moving full-speed ahead with efforts to further transform the United States by doing everything in its power to hobble our defense capabilities by allowing openly-gay people to serve in the nation's armed forces. Despite the hurt feelings and emotional arguments of those intent on socially-engineering alleged "equality" into the ranks, there are literally a thousand reasons I can think of why this is an extremely bad idea.

10 USC §654 makes three things crystal clear:

1. Congress alone establishes qualifications for military service
2. There is no inherent Constitutional right to serve in the military.
3. Military life includes restrictions on personal behavior that don't apply to civilians.

It goes further to say that the "presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts 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". This is the law, as it applies to homosexuality in the military. Don't ask, Don't tell is simply a DoD directive that spells out when homosexual conduct can subject a service member to discipline or discharge. The law against homosexual service is still in effect, so repeal of this DoD directive would still have the effect of barring homosexuals from military service. Therefore, in order to remove this obstacle, 10 USC §654 would need to be repealed or amended by an act of Congress. These rules exist for many reasons, not the least of which is national defense. Once service members begin to collude together to openly defy the rules they have sworn to live by, they transition from asset to liability, In this case, those who become liabilities shed the title of Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine and adopt the banner of activist. And, contrary to the manner in which the activists have framed this debate, we all know that homosexuals already serve in the military. The issue is, do we allow them to do so openly? Do they get separate quarters? Do they cohabitate? What about bisexuals, bi-curious or so-called "transgendered" people? Cross-dressers? After all, they're still heterosexuals (I think). What would the rules be regarding fraternization or sexual harassment? What if you found out two members were living together, as often happens in heterosexual relationships between military members? Although supporters of repeal think these questions are somehow offensive, ridiculous or off-limits, they are, nevertheless relevant. Where do you draw the line? This issue raises many questions and opening up the military to people who were openly-gay would require new support structures, new laws and regulations governing personal behavior and a major shift in the entire military cultural paradigm. That's not hate, just fact. Have you ever been on board a US Navy vessel? Have you ever seen how cramped the living conditions are aboard a DDG or FFG? The military already has enough on its plate with Somali pirates, program cuts, female pregnancies, Army suicides, false prosecutions of Marines, two wars and several other smaller conflicts than to worry about cultural shifts and further morale issues that are certain to accompany such a change. The services aren't having any trouble recruiting their quotas, so I see no compelling need to expand the recruiting pool in such a manner. Our all volunteer services depend on people who are willing to shed civilian culture, stow their individualism and put the good of the nation and their command above their own interests. But, it seems as some are no longer willing to abide by this requirement. Should they be successful, their individual feelings would be elevated above national security. The fact that they are so insistent about being able to serve openly begs the question where do their loyalties lie? Do they want to serve their country for the sake of serving their country or do they simply want to make some sort of political statement?