Search This Blog


Cao, Melancon hurt by wanting review of military law

As the U.S. military follows White House orders to review its policy on the permissibility of those who practice homosexuality serving in its ranks, among Louisiana members of Congress and aspirants to those positions most Republicans argue with logic against changing current policy, while Democrats emote without logic in favor of it.

Present law is that anyone about whom there is genuine evidence demonstrating that he acts on homosexual relations is to be discharged from the military. There is very good reason for this, as any attitudes that interfere with optimal functioning of combat-related units are to be discouraged. Having sexual impulses trump martial virtues endangers lives.

However, more to the point, in keeping with the understanding that self-identity regarding sexual preference is a function not of any built-in biological necessity but, rather, in undertaking certain actions, is that any member of the military in a combat unit (by definition all men) who is undisciplined enough to express physically these feelings towards any other member of the unit demonstrates a flaw that detracts from the unit’s performance and can put its members at risk when these feelings interfere with decisions that should be based upon military considerations. That’s what the law is there to protect against.

But elected Louisiana Democrats seem oblivious to this truism. Since Pres. Barack Obama has directed defense/military underlings, who he can fire at any time, to say it’s time for a review, these unreflective state automatons cite that as a reason for their support, that it’s the “military” establishment that backs a change (and to demonstrate this politicized aspect to the debate, some interestingly name retired Gen. Colin Powell as a confirming source, even as Powell in 1996 testified against this kind of review). Thinking and informed people know it’s not logic, but politics, that lies behind this explanation.

For the most part pronunciations for and against the review have no real import, but in the case of two U.S. representatives support for the review will end up detrimental to their election bids. Vying for reelection, Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao was the only national elected Republican from the state to voice support of the review. Cao needs to understand this will win him practically no votes in his heavily-Democrat and black district (indeed, if there is an issue on which blacks are likely to stray from the Democrat plantation, it is on the acceptability of mainstreaming homosexual behavior into public institutions) and will lose him more than it gains. As a professed strong Catholic who should believe in the Church’s teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful it’s absolutely puzzling why he would abandon principle on this matter when there’s no political capital to be gained.

Current Rep. Charlie Melancon, trying to make the move to the Senate, with his professed support of review also drives another of the many nails he already has willfully accepted into his political coffin. It only will further convince the continually-diminishing segment of the voting public that still does not see he is a liberal fraudulently trying to pass himself off as something else of precisely the opposite and will win him fewer votes.

Laugh we may at the feeble intellect behind trying to promote this change, but if its carriers succeed it will be no laughing matter when the quality of our military is compromised.


Anonymous said...

Wow. You know there is "genuine evidence demonstrating that you act on heterosexual relations", Professor. Perhaps we need to pass a law discharging you from your teaching duties as your proclivity could interfere with educational progress.

Anonymous said...

"Laugh we may at the feeble intellect behind trying to promote this change, but if its carriers succeed it will be no laughing matter when the quality of our military is compromised."

How about the compromising of quality that results from lowering the recruitment standards to meet quotas, allowing criminals, racists and those without high school diplomas to enlist?

Are you suggesting that gays expelled from the military are more damaging to the military's functioning than the people the military replaces them with?

That would be a stretch, even for your typical tortured logic...