Since well before he became our military’s Commander-In-Chief, President Obama has insisted on the immediate demise of the military policy against open homosexual behavior.  Given his lack of experience with or connection to military policy, one might have expected the awesome weight of sending our warriors into harm’s way might have made him reconsider his call for radical change.  After all, the reason the military has closely regulated sexual conduct for centuries—just like it closely regulates other aspects of service member’s lives—is to ensure it can do its incredibly difficult and dangerous job.  But one would have been wrong.

After entering office, the President remained insistent that the mores of sexual behavior in the military, which have successfully benefitted our country in one capacity or another since the founding era, be turned on their heads.  And, over the combined objections of the Chiefs of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines—not to mention over a thousand retired high-ranking officers and a large group of decorated veteran chaplains—he got his wish with a law that set a sexual revolution in the military into motion.

One might think, then, that the President would be delighted that a federal court more or less finished the job for him recently by allowing a worldwide ban on the policy to go into effect.  One would again be wrong.  Almost immediately, the Department of Justice filed an emergency request that the court undo what the President has demanded be done for so long.  This request said that “significant immediate harms” would occur if the President’s campaign promise became overnight the new worldwide policy for the U.S. military, citing the need to give combat units time to “prepare themselves” for “any challenges they may face after repeal [of the policy].”  Fortunately, the court granted the emergency request.  But this panicky response shows that changing the policy will not be the smooth sailing that the President promised.

All along, the President has argued that repeal of the policy known as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would simply benefit military “integrity” and not harm the military mission at all.  But even his pro-repeal Secretary of Defense spoke of repeal in terms of attempting to “mitigate[], if not eliminate[], to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to unit cohesion and effectiveness.”  That is, trying to keep a clearly politically-motivated move from harming the military too much.

Similarly, in the President’s own “study” of the military (the pro-repeal spin of which has since been revealed as a sham by the Inspector General), for every service member that predicted repealing DADT would be beneficial, more than two said it would be harmful.  Indeed, the vast majority of combat troops polled opposed repeal because of this anticipated harm.  This, of course, is common sense, as most Americans understand that injecting a politicized sexual agenda into the military is not a winning formula for maintaining maximum troop readiness.

All this leads one to wonder: if this change is risky enough that even the President scrambles to prevent it from happening “too quickly,” the Secretary of Defense who championed it focuses on limiting damage wrought by it, and most combat troops anticipate harm from it, why are we forcing it on our service men and women at all?
______________________________________________

Join the conversation: Facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch
Sound off – Leave a comment below.

ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

February 2, 1943:  the bitter chill of the North Atlantic suffused the dusk as an Allied convoy laden with troops and gear wallowed its way to Europe.  Those who could sleep did so uneasily; German submarines crept about nearby.

The first hour of February 3, 1943 would be the last hour for the transport ship Dorchester.  Minutes after midnight, the ship was gut-shot by a German torpedo.  Dark terror ensued—without power or lights, heaving in the winter seas, the 902 men aboard sought their salvation from the deep.

Only 230 would succeed. 

But from that horror emerged the remarkable story of four Army chaplains who acted with uncommon valor—steadying the panicked troops, guiding them to safety, urging calm amidst the chaos.  As the ship pitched in its death throes, the four handed their own life jackets to troopers who had none, and with that final act of grace they surrendered their lives for the sake of others. 

While the valor was uncommon, the will to serve was not – and the military properly honored the right of all chaplains to serve both as religious leaders and secular counselors.   But sadly, that high regard is now undercut by President Obama imposing open homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Now, while the repeal is scarcely a done deal, military officials who prefer political correctness over moral courage began implementing some bizarre changes.  The breaking point came when the Navy ordered its chapels to be open to same-sex “marriages,” in defiance of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

Legislators swiftly responded and the Navy backed off—for now.  But the conflict between the impending military sexual “morality” and that taught by the vast majority of chaplains could no longer be hidden.

Indeed, the conflict prompted rare written protests from the Catholic  and Protestant chaplain endorsing agencies that supply the vast majority of chaplain candidates to the armed forces.

Their protest resonates with the spirit of the four sacrificial chaplains who were willing to serve whatever the cost, reserving only one thing:  “Chaplains have a tremendous moral responsibility to insure that when they preach, teach or counsel, they do so in accordance with their conscience and in harmony with the faith group by which they are endorsed.”

Bluntly put, chaplains cannot and will not sacrifice Christian truths at the altar of President Obama’s sexual politics—a reality that the President had fair warning of.  Now that the warning is becoming reality, Congress must act to protect the faithful service of the Chaplains, lest the military find itself on the wrong side of history in a war of morals.  Do your part and let your Senators and Representatives know of the endorsing agencies’ concerns while there is still time to act!

Visit “Faith Under Fire” to learn more about how the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” threatens religious liberty.

---

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

The 1960s blockbuster movie Seven Days in May  recounted a fictional plot by military leaders to overthrow a president who pushed for nuclear disarmament. It is a classic anti-military screed that embodied some of the worst far-left thinking of the sixties.

The movie was pure fiction.  But the leftist thinking behind the movie was unfortunately real.  And as we verge on another May, that bad thinking is incarnated in a real president who is bent on overthrowing the moral standards of our military—standards that have seen this Nation safely through centuries of peace and war.

In May 2011 President Obama will keep after his goal of forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior on the military by repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy—not just so a few individuals may serve, but to enforce the homosexual agenda by force of law and military regulation.  When he rolled the idea out in his inaugural address, it seemed like a done deal. But in the wake of the 2010 elections in which he lost control of the House of Representatives, it is no longer a sure bet.

Recently, House committees have been asking hard questions of some generals and admirals on April 1st and 7th—and much to their shame, those active duty commanders tap danced around the hard truths that were set forth months ago by almost 1200 senior veteran officers—retired flag and general officers who can speak without career fears hanging over them. 

But the commanders’ evasion did not go unnoticed, and now some of the best minds in America are rebelling against this radical “repeal” of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Renowned author and Christian leader Chuck Colson—who once commanded a platoon of Marines—pungently points out that forcing errant eros into the band-of-brothers military culture will have devastating impacts.  Chuck Donovan, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, calls out Congressional and military leaders for indulging in shoddy politics that elevate a wrongheaded “sexual liberty” over real military needs.  And of course, ADF has spoken forcefully on the religious freedom aspects of the issue.

This resistance is good news, and it is growing. One hearing already led to a second, and those inspired these incisive commentaries. And if you act swiftly by letting your Senators and Representatives know today that the repeal is wrong and must be stopped, then this May may bring real hope to our stressed and deeply endangered troops.

---

Visit the “Faith Under Fire” resource page to learn about this important issue.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

 ADF Senior VP; Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb writes:

Last September, sixty-six veteran military chaplains wrote to President Obama, telling him in plain terms that his plan to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would “threaten the religious liberty of chaplains and Service members.” 

These are sixty-six remarkable men—representing centuries of experience. Many had attained high rank; some served in combat; and several bear the scars of combat wounds. All knew that the mission-critical chaplaincy, which provides faith leaders for fellow believers and serves as counselors and friends to all service members, was in peril.

Specifically, the chaplains knew that if the President succeeded in forcing bisexual and homosexual behavior into the military—where it would be treated as an official moral norm—that chaplains would “confront a profoundly moral choice: whether they are to obey God or to obey men.”

The good news is that, even after a smiling President signed the law in December, it cannot be fully effective until several steps are taken—including a certification by senior military leaders that endorsing bisexual and homosexual behavior will have no impact on military readiness.  And that won’t happen before the newly elected House of Representatives can hold hearings on the impacts of eliminating DADT.

We don’t know how that will play out—but it may be that the legislative effort may fail to win the day for the homosexual activists. But, they have a plan B—sue in federal court to strike down the DADT policy.

That is why ADF and its allied attorneys just filed a “friend of the court” brief in the Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America case, to inform the court that changing the law will risk the religious freedom of chaplains and service members.  This case, which is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is a direct attack on the law which prohibits open homosexual behavior in the military.

Quoting from the Manhattan Declaration, the brief pointed out that many military chaplains have affirmed that they will not “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships…or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

That stark statement foreshadows open conflict: a military that endorses open homosexual and bisexual behavior can scarcely tolerate chapels on base where homosexual and bisexual behavior revealed to be a grave moral disorder. 

Perhaps that is why military trainers are already telling active duty chaplains that “if they are “unable to reconcile repeal of DADT” with their Christian faith, then they “may request voluntary separation….”  Christians, go home.

Of course, the trainers also talk about how religious liberty will be protected—but that is a flimsy defense, when we see how Christian prison chaplains have been forced to use worship leaders who openly practiced homosexual behavior, and how Christian counselors have been disciplined when they expressed moral reservations about affirming a same-sex relationship.

The moral conflict which was only a warning a few months ago is, unfortunately, becoming reality.  If it does come to pass that DADT fully falls, the conflict will intensify.  But so, too, will the resolve of ADF, its allies, and the chaplains it represents, to defend the God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right of a Christian chaplain to be both a chaplain…and a Christian.

---

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

In a much-publicized decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently decided that a memorial cross at the Mount Soledad veterans’ memorial violated the Federal Constitution. In particular, the Court looked at the First Amendment and examined the issue under the so-called “separation of church and state” mantra. The decision may not seem like much when reported as a news story, but its implications are staggering. Let’s see why.

Imagine a balance scale capable of weighing arguments, so that the weightier side prevails. Here’s the alignment of interests. On one side of the scale, we have a location where a memorial cross honoring veterans has stood, in one form or another, since 1913 – nearly a century. The current memorial has been at the location since 1954, and the area surrounding the memorial is filled with numerous walls of plaques honoring individual veterans. After nearly two decades of relentless lawsuits by the ACLU, the property with the memorial was taken by the Federal Government in an act of Congress to establish a federal memorial for all veterans. By Congressional standards, the action was a marvel of both speed and consensus. More than 80 per cent of representatives in the House voted for it.  The Senate approved the transfer in a unanimous  vote –see many of those lately?

On the same side of the scale with a unified Congress, we also have enormous community support and the opinion of the largest veterans’ organizations in the nation, representing literally millions of veterans.  In fact, the veterans’ groups forcefully described the ACLU lawsuit as an insult to the honor and memory of veterans everywhere. They expressed the surprisingly easy-to-grasp concept that veterans should be able to say how they would like to honor their own. So, on one side we have long-standing tradition, Congress and the President, local residents, and veterans.

What could possibly be placed on the opposite side of the scale to tip the balance? The answer is a handful of individuals who claim to be “offended” by the sight of the memorial. This is not a misprint or misstatement, and now, if this three judge panel has its way, it will be the law for much of the country.

Groups like the ACLU have a long-standing dysfunctional relationship with memorial crosses. The military has long used the symbol of a cross to honor soldiers and veterans; consider, for example, the nation’s second highest military award, the Distinguished Service Cross. Offended observers irrationally see here a covert attempt to establish the Christian faith. The very suggestion defies common sense and experience.

Imagine you are driving down a peaceful country lane, when you round a curve and see a small cross with flowers planted on the roadside. What would be your first thought: someone perished at this spot, or would it be “someone is trying to establish the Christian religion roadside”? No rational person jumps to the second conclusion. And yet, according to this decision, the small handful of thin-skinned types who do must be accommodated.

The comparison is even starker when we look behind the arguments. The memorial cross stands in mute recognition of sacrifice, honor, and courage. These attributes were displayed by veterans, many of whom paid the ultimate price to protect our freedoms. In a grotesque use of those freedoms, a few individuals motivated by their personal offense and sense of self-importance, sued to destroy the symbol honoring those who fought for those freedoms. The easily-offended ACLU clients behind the suit try to cloak their actions with pretensions of constitutional dignity, but the arguments sound more like the yapping of irritated poodles in the presence of a solemn memorial.

Fortunately, the three judge panel is not the end of the road. The United States Supreme Court has an opportunity to hear this case and reverse the terrible injustice. In fact, the Supreme Court has already hinted about their views on memorial crosses. In another ACLU lawsuit against a memorial cross, only the year before, the Supreme Court reversed the same appellate court, though on a different issue. The majority decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy featured stirring language about memorial crosses, which I cannot improve upon, and so I will simply quote:

(A) Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.

Unfortunately, three judges on the Ninth Circuit didn’t get the message. Americans everywhere are hoping the Supreme Court will step in again and right this wrong.

This article originally appeared on Mercator.net, January 13, 2011.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.