Please login to continue
Forgot your password?
Recover it here.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up Now!

You are now logged into your account.

Sign Up for Free
Choose Password
Confirm Password

Posted on Oct 12, 2009 Print this Article

Foreign Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.

The following article by CMR President Elaine Donnelly was published by Congressional Quarterly Researcher magazine on September 18, 2009, Volume 19, Number 32, pp. 765-788m CQR Author Peter Katel, “Gays in the Military, Should the Ban on Homosexuals be Lifted?”  Donnelly's article ran opposite one by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), who is sponsoring the bill to repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., the 1993 Eligibility Law.


The article is a condensed version of the September 2009 CMR Policy Analysis, titled:


Foreign Nations That Accommodate Homosexuals 

In Their Militaries Are Not an Example for America’s Military


The CQ Researcher article asked of both writers the following:


Question:  Should the U.S. Follow the Example of National that Allow Gays to Openly Serve in the Military?  

Answer:  Foreign militaries with open service for homosexuals are not an example for the U.S. Military.

                                                                                                            By Elaine Donnelly

     The experiences of 25 countries without official restrictions on professed homosexuals in their militaries─out of 200 nations around the globe─do not justify repeal of the 1993 law that is usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  With all due respect to Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, (excepting the elite Foreign Legion), Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Uruguay—none of these nations’ small militaries bear burdens and responsibilities comparable to ours.  

     The American Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines accept far-away, months-long deployments, and our direct ground combat battalions, special operations forces, and submarines require living conditions offering little or no privacy.   

     Service in the Israeli Defense Force is mandatory, but deployments and housing conditions are not comparable to those experienced by America’s military.  Germany has conscription for both civilian and military duties, but homosexuals serve primarily in the former, not the latter.  

      The Dutch, Australian, and Canadian forces represent nations with civilian and military social cultures far more liberal than the United States.  (In 2008 the Australian Navy shut down for a two-month Christmas break.)  These forces primarily deploy for support or peace-keeping missions that depend on the nearby presence of American forces.  Most homosexuals are discrete, but American gay activists are demanding special status, mandatory “diversity” training, and career-killing “zero tolerance” of dissent to enforce full acceptance.       

     That leaves the United Kingdom, which demonstrated fundamental differences with American culture by capitulating to a 1999 European Court order to accommodate homosexuals in their military.  It is not surprising that British activists claim success, since same-sex partners get to live in military family housing and march in gay pride parades.  The Ministry of Defence meets regularly with LGBT activists, including transgender groups, to discuss further advances.  Imagine the reaction of American military families—and our Muslim allies in Iraq and Afghanistan—if our Pentagon leaders followed Britain’s example in promoting the LGBT agenda. 

     Conspicuously missing from the list of 25 gay-friendly militaries are potential adversaries China, North Korea, and Iran.   Their combined forces (3.8 million, not counting reserves) are more than two times greater than active-duty forces of the 25 foreign countries with gays in their militaries (1.7 million).  

     Congress is being asked to impose a risky military social experiment that is duplicated nowhere in the world.  Instead, members of Congress should assign priority to national security, putting the needs of our military first.  


* * * * * * *


Posted on Oct 12, 2009 Print this Article