Repealing DADT would mean the end of the US Marines as the world’s best fighting force - all to accommodate 3% of the population who think that the number one issue in their life is being able to push their sexuality in someone else’s face.
Aim lower.
“Repealing DADT would mean the end of the US Marines as the world’s best fighting force - all to accommodate 3% of the population who think that the number one issue in their life is being able to push their sexuality in someone else’s face.”
Yep!
“Marines of Conscience or Homosexual Marines”
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Marines_of_Conscience_or_Ho.php
(snip)”...Service in the U. S. Marine Corps requires the loss of many liberties that civilians enjoy; especially, the right of association. Individual Marines cannot choose their leaders or with whom they will work and live. It is beyond governmental authority to force these Americans into situations that compromise their morals. The Selective Training & Service Act of 1940 permits the granting of Conscientious Objector status to “One who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war.” Little known is: People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143, “Conscientious Scruple. A conscientious scruple against . . . doing military duty, or the like is an objection or repugnance growing out of the fact that the person believes the thing demanded of him is morally wrong, his conscience being the sole guide to his decision . . . ” (Black’s Law Dictionary). This “Conscientious Scruple” provision appears to give Marines of conscience a legal remedy for a morally compromising situation of serving under or with Marine homosexuals. Moreover, since there are evidently more persons of conscience in our society than homosexuals, the pool of potential recruits for the current all-volunteer Marine Corps will be reduced.
A question which now begs answering is: “How would replacing Marines of conscience with homosexual Marines enhance a Marine unit’s combat efficiency?” Rather than enhancing combat efficiency, the opposite would be the result. In large part, the degree of a Marine unit’s combat efficiency parallels its degree of unit cohesion. As the term implies, unit cohesion is a function of the emotional closeness of the unit’s members who are drawn together by both social and military common grounds. There are at least three areas by which homosexual Marines would be drawbacks to such cohesion:
1) The social “barracks talk” of Marines is dominated by the object of their sexuality as is their after work pursuits—heterosexuality and homosexuality are, by their natures, mutually exclusive and therefore would create non-cohesive groups;
2) Marines of consciences and other heterosexual Marines who fail to include homosexual Marines in those activities would be practicing, by definition, sexual discrimination and, potentially, would be susceptible to prosecution under military law. That potential susceptibility would sow apprehension throughout the unit;
3) The 2010 Defense Budget was signed into law containing an attachment adding homosexuals to the Federal Hate Crimes Law. As a result, any Marine who expresses revulsion over homosexual acts will be susceptible to prosecution by Court Martial. Also, the federal statute allows for training and prevention programs. This last provision will probably result in forced indoctrination classes in Marine units that would challenge the religious convictions of Marines of conscience and their Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion prompting virulent reactions from Marines of conscience and palpable tension in Marine units.
In creating tension and apprehension between Marines, unit cohesion is degraded and, by extension, so is unit combat efficiency: the relationship between the facility in combat mission accomplishment and cost in friendly casualties...”