Yes, it’s back, but this time those who are reluctant to tell are military personnel who are opposed to homosexual activity. They are seeking reassurances that they will not be punished for “telling”.

When does the US military find the time to actually fight?

From here:

Military chaplains are calling for reassurances that troops will not be punished if they speak out about their opposition to homosexuality.

According to Associated Press, a joint letter from retired chaplains from 21 religious groups to the lead chaplains of the Army, Navy and Air Force says that troops may be unable to speak openly if they fear punishment.

Douglas E Lee, a former military chaplain who signed the letter, said that the lifting of the ban on openly gay soldiers was “already an assault and a challenge on individual conscience and some soldiers may think it’s forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs or being marginalised for holding to those beliefs”.

From here:

The repeal of DADT was wrong not, primarily, because the changes it will bring will radically transform both the U.S. military and its relationship with key allies all over the world, and inevitably undermine the security and defenses of our nation. Nor even because it was passed over the vehement objections of the great majority of America’s fighting servicemen whose daily lives and service it will soon and drastically impact.

No, ultimately there’s only one reason to oppose the repeal – and it is, of course, the reason that almost no politician or military officer is willing or able to say, right out loud.

The repeal was and should be opposed because it endorses homosexual behavior – and homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

But why, you might be thinking, pick on homosexual activity and ignore other behaviour that is wrong? Because – while they are undoubtedly occurring – the military is not being asked to explicitly condone any other wrongs.

It is a losing battle, though, since only a Christian perspective regards homosexual activity as wrong: society has largely abandoned Christianity in favour of a constantly shifting moral relativism, so the homosexualisation of Western culture will undoubtedly continue apace.

Speaking of openly serving homosexuals, interviewed marines said, “They won’t hold up well in combat” and “Maybe they should just take the same route they take with females and stick them to noncombat units.” Oh dear, these Marines are clearly prime candidates for “re-education”.

From here (my emphasis):

But Private Carias, 18, has one major concern: gay men, he says, should not be allowed to serve in front-line combat units.

“They won’t hold up well in combat,” he said.

That view, or variations on it, was expressed repeatedly in interviews with Marines around this town, home to Camp Lejeune, and outside Camp Pendleton in Southern California on Sunday.

Most of the approximately two dozen Marines interviewed said they personally did not object to gay men or lesbians serving openly in the military. But many said that introducing the possibility of sexual tension into combat forces would be disruptive, an argument made by the commandant of the Marine Corps a week before the historic repeal was passed by the Senate on Saturday and sent to President Obama for his signature. ….

In the interviews, the Marines also argued that front-line units living in cramped outposts were encouraged to be extremely tight knit to better protect one another. An openly gay man — only men can serve in combat units — might feel out of place and as a result disrupt that cohesion, they argued.

“Coming from a combat unit, I know that in Afghanistan we’re packed in a sardine can,” said Cpl. Trevor Colbath, 22, a Pendleton-based Marine who returned from Afghanistan in August. “There’s no doubt in my mind that openly gay Marines can serve, it’s just different in a combat unit. Maybe they should just take the same route they take with females and stick them to noncombat units.”…..

“Showers will be awkward,” Private Tuck said outside a shopping mall here, expressing a worry mentioned by just about every Marine interviewed. “But as long as a guy can hold his own and protect my back, it won’t matter if he is gay.”

But a friend of Private Tuck’s injected a note of skepticism. “It won’t be totally accepted,” said Pvt. Justin Rea, 18, from Warren, Mich. “Being gay means you are kind of girly. The Marines are, you know, macho.”

Several combat commanders, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to speak publicly on the issue, expressed concerns. An Army platoon sergeant who recently led front-line soldiers in Afghanistan, and who supported the ban’s repeal, said he envisioned a difficult transition period during which harassment of openly gay troops would be common.

“They were kicking people out for being homosexual, and now they will be kicking people out for picking on homosexuals,” the sergeant said.

Chaos and confusion unnecessarily injected into the military during wartime all because of a liberal addiction to half-witted, politically correct tomfoolery.

First, and most important, the rightness of doing something does not depend only on the thing itself but on why it is being done. In spite of the liberal claim that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military is a matter of justice or fairness – it isn’t. Those who have campaigned most vigorously for the repeal are those who wish to change society’s view of homosexual activity from one of being contrary to natural law and damaging to society to one where it is simply a harmless lifestyle choice, along the lines of dying one’s hair pink.

Although keeping DADT would have been a rear-guard action against the continued homosexualisation of society – an act that may be too little, too late – the repeal is, nevertheless, a retreat and I think there have already been too many retreats.

Second, every liberal with whom I almost always disagree wanted this repeal, thus providing a confirmation of my deep-seated suspicion that what is really going on is more sinister than they are letting on.

Third, the polls of military personnel claiming there would be no effect on military effectiveness were not as conclusive as the Pentagon would like us to believe; those who do disagree with the repeal will undoubtedly be subjected to sensitivity awareness training until they come around – all in a time of war when energies should be focussed elsewhere.

I am not against allowing a homosexual to serve in the military. What makes me uneasy is that being employed by the military is insufficient: the demand that homosexuals should be able to serve “openly” is really a demand that homosexual activity be recognised as normal.