Tony Perkins writes a disgusting blog post over at CNN's Religion blog basically using religion as an excuse to deny rights to gays and tries to cast repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as undermining the rights of religious people.
Mr. Perkins is a bigoted moron. He can't make a coherent argument to save his life, as well. I suppose when faced with record numbers of people who want this law repealed, you have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel of scare tactics to get people to take your side.
They won't this time.
He writes:
Some people think allowing open homosexuality in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and health concerns or because of moral or religious convictions.
Now, I have a question: is that so wrong? Would one argue that we can't allow blacks into the military because racists will not want to join or stay in? Would one argue that we can't allow women into the military because sexists will not want to join or stay in? No, and rightfully so, because such opinions these days would be considered bigoted and uninformed. Likewise, his opinion is noted, but it is not one that is valid anymore.
The fact of the matter is that homosexuals aren't going to join the military and start giving fellatio to every service member they see. I really hate to break it to Mr. Perkins but gays want to serve their country to. They are willing to die for the country. He'd deny them that based on his unwarranted fears.
This is, of all things, hiding behind religion to allow discrimination. This has been tried before and has pretty much failed every time. Will you ever learn? The subtext of the argument is that it is okay to discriminate against gays.
Anyone who points to the mountain of evidence to the contrary [of people being born gay] - or merely expresses the personal conviction that sex should be reserved for marriage between one man and one woman - runs the risk of receiving a negative performance evaluation for failing to support the military’s "equal opportunity policy" regarding "sexual orientation."
Anyone is allowed to have their opinions but there are appropriate times and places to express your opinions. When you are in Afghanistan or Iraq, I can't imagine you'll be worried that the guy trying to save your ass next to you is actually gay.
As a gay man myself, I've come across people with differing views on my "lifestyle" (as they love to call it) and you know what? We discussed it. I may not have changed their minds, but there was certainly no censorship and I wasn't blocking their right to have their opinions. The fact is, in today's society, you may have your opinion that gays are morally wrong, but you don't have the right to deny them work or deny them a myriad of rights they are entitled to. The same should go towards the military.
But under the new regulations, will they be free to preach from the entire Bible? Or will they be forced to excise the many passages declaring homosexual conduct to be a sin?
Would a Chaplain be able to preach that women should be silent?
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
No? What about women needing to be shamefaced?
"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)
I suppose those lessons won't get us very far. I suppose if a Chaplain held onto the racist "Ham Theory" on the origins of race he wouldn't get very far either. People like Tony Perkins are fighting against a tide of change when it comes to views on homosexuality and the Bible is not a strong back up tool on that front.
It was religious liberty that drew the Pilgrims to America and it is religious liberty that leads off our Bill of Rights. But overturning the American military’s centuries-old ban on homosexual conduct, codified in a 1993 law, would mean placing sexual libertinism - a destructive left-wing social dogma found nowhere in the Constitution - above religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom.
On this front, I think it is clear that he can't try and make a non-religious argument using entirely religious arguments. Not one argument made here was based on any secular thought which really means he can't make any strong connection between what his faith says and how it should be applied to the real world.
Religious freedom is not the freedom to discriminate. Religion was used to defend many positions that are not palatable to any Americans today. Religion was used, in part, to deny women the right to vote, to deny slaves their freedom, and to deny blacks the right to not be discriminated against.
If all of your arguments are religious, and these religious arguments were codified into law, then you have successfully argued why Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be removed immediately: it is your faith codified into law. You can't make any arguments about ill-affects on morale, or on troop retaining issues, or even on grounds that gays will skip around molesting soldiers. When a faith-based argument lacks any real world evidence, we dismiss it outright. I only wish CNN could have dismissed you before you wrote your disgusting piece.
So really, for saying that discrimination of gays should be allowed on religious grounds, I have to say to Perkins:
Screw you.