There is a scene in the fanciful 2007 film 300 in which Ephialtes seeks to join the Spartan phalanx at Thermopylae. Leonidas does not admit Ephialtes given that he does not meet the minimum requirements for the battle formation. By the logic of some commentators today in the United States, Leonidas should have been harangued for not promoting ‘Military Equality,’ as if the military had anything to do with equality. Well-meaning and ignorant opining on sexuality in the military sets a dangerous precedent.
The sexual orientation of a person does not inhibit their ability to function in war; this has been proven from antiquity to the present. From the Sacred Band of Thebes to the Israeli Defense Forces, open homosexuality has been and will continue to exist in some of the most professional military forces in the world, and is a moot point.
Achilles and Patroclus.
What can inhibit the effectiveness of military readiness are civilian culture warriors who would seek to impose their belief systems without any understanding of the impact of their utopian yearnings for supposed ‘progress.’ The imposition of civilian values on the military will continue to result in skepticism that some civilians do not understand, nor care about the singular purpose of the military.
The fundamental disconnect between some civilian commentators and military service members are that nothing in the military is a ‘right’ – every day is a privilege in the military. If you are unable to fulfill your duties, you are discharged. It is unreasonable to discharge a person on account of their sexual orientation; it is reasonable to dismiss any notion that utopian fairness belongs in the parlance of commanders leading warriors into combat.
Every day in the military is discrimination, in the sense of differentiation. Your superiors must discriminate between the leaders and the followers, the fast and the slow, the strong and the weak. Failure to differentiate can result in lives being lost.
The mention of genteel fairness when debating sexual orientation during war will weaken the very argument these proponents purportedly seek to make. It is proper to speak in the parlance of military readiness and cite the historical facts and modern scientific research that proves sexual orientation is irrelevant to readiness. The argumentem ad kumbaya will not pass muster in the military.
The tradition of civilian institutions attempting to shape the military in own their image, especially wealthy private universities, is a long one. Certain American Ivory Towers have used various means to shape military policy, often by discriminating against these very military service members. The latent discontent over such policies was recently brought to the public attention again with the confirmation hearings of US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, previously Dean of Harvard Law School.
Lt. Dan Choi burning his discharge letter.
I had the pleasure of meeting Lieutenant Dan Choi, when the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University honored him with the Service to Humanity Award in September 2009. His argument is simple—the values of the military force him to be honest about his sexual orientation. Lt. Choi has been an exemplary service member, and he is an Arabic linguist to boot. All of those with an opinion in the DADT debate should pay close attention to those who speak the language of duty and honor, such as Lt. Choi. His recent social activism has had a greater positive effect for transparency inside the military than years of misguided policies by outsiders seeking to impose their civilian values on the military. I salute Lt. Choi and his allies in promoting greater transparency in the debate of sexual orientation in the military.
