It’s back, as a big issue, and I still don’t get it.

The question came up at the early presidential debates last year
during the campaign season, those somber moderators like Wolf Blitzer
asking the lineup of candidates on stage to raise their hands if they
support ‘gays openly serving in the military.’ Here’s what I don’t get…

Seriously considering the issue, with all due respect to all human
beings no matter what their race, ethnicity, religion or orientation,
I’m wondering why the ‘openly’ part of this activism. People serving
together in all sorts of places have, in their private lives, their own
particular manner of expressing their sexuality. Why are service
members who have same-sex attraction demanding the ability to lead with their sexuality in daily social interactions and be defined by it, as opposed to who they are as a person?

‘Don’t ask don’t tell’ wasn’t good enough for this group of activists. And it’s apparently about to go.

This will have a big impact on the military. Think of chaplains, for instance.

A military watchdog says chaplains would be put in an
untenable position if liberals in Congress are able to repeal the law
that strictly prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military.

That is, serving openly as homosexuals. They are and have been serving under the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.

Recently a Military Times survey of active duty
personnel found that 10 percent of respondents said they would leave
the military and an additional 14 percent said they would consider
ending their careers if the homosexual ban is repealed. Elaine Donnelly
of the Center for Military Readiness believes that would be
particularly devastating to the chaplain corps of the various military
branches.
 
“Military chaplains, for the most part, do not favor homosexuality or
do not consider it to be a normal alternative lifestyle,” she notes.
“If their beliefs are running contrary to the new zero-tolerance
policy, that would pretty well destroy the chaplain corps in the
military in only a few years because their promotions would be denied.
They could be subjected to other forms of discipline.”
 
The chaplain corps, according to Donnelly, would be relegated to a
certain type of individual. “Would we only be able to have chaplains
who are completely enthusiastic about the new policy — forced
co-habitation with homosexuals regardless of the impact on discipline,
regardless of the effect on recruiting-retention?” she wonders. “See
what a dilemma we are creating here? None of this is necessary.”

Some people want to win their particular battles at all cost.