Do you have a source for that, or is it just a concern?
I would find that to be both very troubling and a conflict with guaranteed freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
There’s a big difference between sexual attraction and sexual activity. As I understand it, DADT removes sexual attraction as an issue, but prohibited sexual activity remains under military guidelines.
Surely the chaplain who counsels on the sin of adultery and fornication would be able to apply that to any sexual orientation.
It’s an ugly mess, and I think all of us would wish it to go away. But I still maintain that the root of the problem is in our ever-more-accepting progressive and amoral society and that giving these people a forum through drawn-out debate to argue their case is not good.
It’s in one or more of the gazillions of articles that were pinged by me or wagglebee in the last couple or so months. I didn’t bookmark it but could find it if I spent say a half an hour which I don’t have.
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
So that would cover chaplains. Ha, the entire homosexual agenda is a direct assault against the freedoms of speech and religious expression. What to speak of association. The military has by necessity taken some of those freedoms away in order for to function, but forced association with mentally ill sex perverts is the last freaking straw. It must be fought by the new R controlled House.