Judicial Activism Against the U.S. Military

U.S. Army tent with constructed wooden entrance (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

We’ve seen a lot of judicial activism from our court system in the past year, perhaps for a couple of reasons.

Having an ultra-liberal in the White House (he was the #1 most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate) coupled with an ultra-liberal congress run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has emboldened the liberals in the judiciary to come even further out of the closet to make activist rulings that have no foundation in law or the Constitution–and in many cases are actually contrary to the law and Constitution.

I think Leftist judges also see the writing on the wall with the coming election, and realize that if they’re going to get going on tearing down the moral framework of the United States, they must get the ball rolling now before some semblance of sanity returns to congress.

So it is that U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips pulled the ruling from somewhere (polite company dictates I not guess too hard in public on just where it was pulled from) that the military’s prohibition on homosexuals serving openly in the military is “unconstitutional.”

From Fox News:

A federal judge on Thursday declared the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional and said she will issue an order to stop the government from enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips said the ban violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of gays and lesbians. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or are discovered engaging in homosexual activity, even in the privacy of their own homes off base.

In her ruling, Phillips said the policy doesn’t help military readiness and instead has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

As usual, these liberals have it bass-ackwards. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the military would hurt military readiness and have a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

Having spent 10 years in the military stateside and overseas, I am well aware of the unique problems homosexual behavior can cause in the close-knit, close-quartered military environment. I’ve seen these problems arise from time to time as homosexual military members came out in the open to make advances on their comrades.

I have written extensively about these as President Barack Obama has made his goal clear to force open homosexuality into the United States military, and there is no need to recount that fully again here. But to summarize:

  • It promotes an atmosphere of permissiveness and moral turpitude, as well as undermines discipline; our military forces must be highly disciplined and composed of strong moral fiber.  We don’t, after all, want to promote attitudes which are apathetic or hostile toward moral behavior in people who control guns, tanks, bombs and missiles.
  • Unique battlefield conditions, sometimes requiring blood transfusions from other soldiers in the field, can put other soldiers at great risk since 72% of male AIDS cases are linked to homosexual behavior
  • Liberals in congress have already made it clear they would likely punish soldiers who realize that all major religions condemn homosexual behavior as immoral and contrary to God’s design for human sexuality. Caught squarely in the crosshairs of such Orwellian “thoughtcrime” are our military chaplains, whose job it is to counsel soldiers on any number of matters including moral behavior.
  • Perhaps the greatest problem permitting homosexual behavior in the military deals with logistical and personnel issues.  Single soldiers often have to share quarters with one or more other military member of the same sex, and this is even more true in many overseas areas. We do not quarter male and female soldiers together for obvious reasons. We should not quarter heterosexual soldiers with homosexual ones for the same reason: few people are comfortable sharing close living quarters with someone who views them with unwanted feelings of sexual desire or opportunity.  This would then necessitate not only allocations for male and female soldiers, but still more categories of separate quarters for homosexuals–and even then, logistical and fairness issues abound. Our military exists to wage force on our enemies, and for that reason alone.  It is not a club, it is not a right, and it is not a field of social experimentation.  We cannot afford to waste time, money, effort and attention in building more quarters to accommodate an immoral sexual behavior, and we cannot afford to distract our troops and force them to deal with this in their quarters.

Outside the military barracks in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Photo Credit: Athneil Thomas)

The military restricts service on a routine basis for a variety of reasons because these factors hinder military readiness.  Such reasons include but are not limited to past criminal behavior, drug use and abuse, physical impairments, mental impairments and so on.  Homosexuality has never been permitted in the United States military because it is a detriment to military readiness and effectiveness, and prior to President Bill Clinton’s asinine “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, the thought of allowing homosexual to serve in the military–whether openly or pretending it wasn’t happening–was not even entertained.

This is part of why Judge Phillips’ activist ruling is pure bunk. By her logic, being restricted from doing drugs also violates a military member’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, as  does committing adultery (against the law in the military) or telling off your superior officer, or even the “right” of someone with a congenital heart defect to serve in the military.  Perhaps these realities escaped her in her zeal to legislate from the bench (something not permitted by law in the American form of government), but all of these behaviors (and sometimes even factors beyond the control of the individual)–including homosexual behavior–hinder military effectiveness and readiness.

The American people need to speak out against this judicial activism and assault on military readiness. The people have been speaking out in unprecedented numbers in the past year and a half against the fiscal irresponsibility of our government, and most people still realize homosexual activism is a threat to military readiness.  We need to speak out against this activism as loudly as we have against fiscal activism.

In a hostile world that hates America and the American way of life, we cannot afford to be playing political games with national defense.

7 Responses to “Judicial Activism Against the U.S. Military”

  1. Amen to everything you said, Bob. How the homo-activists steadfastly blind themselves to even the logistic problems and refuse to talk about it is absolutely astounding and points to the extent of their “give-me-what-I-want-at-all-costs” political mentality. For them, this is not about military readiness or “equality,” but power – to remake and largely destroy what is America’s greatness. They’ve already openly admitted that they want our military to be like other country’s, at least with respect to homosexuals infesting them. How else would they like to dumb us down into the common denominator of mediocrity of a Euro-socialist utopia?

  2. From what I understand, the Plaintiff lawyers simply clobbered the Defense lawyers, when they presented witness after witness of ex-military people, all of who were straight, who said gays weren’t harmful to the military.Then the Plaintiffs provided quote after quote by current military brass who also said it is time to repeal DADT. The Defense simply didn’t have the witnesses to make their case and got badly outlawyered

  3. Unfortunately it’s easy for a case like this to go the way it did when there is such gross and widespread failure to properly understand homosexuality. The policymakers often seem to be not just in denial about the realities of homosexuality, but actually unaware of them altogether.

  4. These “current military brass” are what is often called a “useful idiot.” This is someone who is duped into helping a person or cause who would otherwise be recognized as harmful to their best interests.

    I haven’t read the case, but based on how these things go in virtually every instance, I’m pretty sure they DID have the witnesses and DID have the evidence…but that evidence didn’t line up with the activist judge’s agenda, so they were deemed unpersuasive or nonexistent.

    Of course we have to remember, too, that it was President Obama’s “Department of Death” (aka “Department of Justice”) which was charged with defending existing conditions. That’s like charging the foxes to defend the hen house. (As a side note, failure to defend and carry out the law by the executive branch should get some people fired and, if Obama was complicit in the dereliction, get his sorry self impeached–we send a chief executive to the White House to do a job, and if they refuse to do it, they should be fired)

    But that doesn’t even matter. Regardless of whether DOJ was derelict in its duty to defend the law, the burden of providing a compelling case in favor of forcing this immoral and unhealthy behavior openly into the military lies with those who desperately want it…and there is no compelling case, nothing more than “I want I want I want.” Sorry, that’s not even remotely good enough to warrant bringing on the problems I cited above.

    This remains bad “law” and judicial activism. There is no basis whatsoever, Constitutional or otherwise, to insist on forcing the acceptance of an immoral and unhealthy sexual behavior into the United States military. And there remain many practical reasons NOT to force acceptance of this behavior in the military.

    If engaging in an immoral and unhealthy behavior is more important to them than behaving in a manner that does not impair miliary readiness, then the military should not and does not have an obligation to lower its standards to accommodate their self-centered and immoral behavior. The same is true of the drug user, the adulterer, or the homosexual. They have made their choice as to what is of the highest importance to them…and it isn’t military readiness.

    I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of a society in history so zealously suicidal as American pop culture.

  5. Is there any way this won’t now end up in the Supreme Court ?

  6. I’m reasonably sure the homosexual activists won’t give up until they have been utterly and totally defeated. So if the Obama Administration can be shoved even grudgingly into doing its job (something the California government has refused to do–its job), I’m sure it will end up at SCOTUS…even though it doesn’t have diddly squat to do with the Constitution.