Don’t Ask, Don’t Care
The righteous are wailing like zombies from sea to shining sea over the recent federal court decisions striking down the cockamamie "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" law that allows homosexuals to join the military but forbids them from being homosexuals. An exemplar of this sanctimonious outrage is Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group. According to his official biography, "Tony has a tremendous burden to reclaim the culture for Christ."
Tony is also a former member of the Louisiana legislature and he’s also a former Marine. He has been affiliated as well with the National Rifle Association, The American Legion and the Christian Coalition. He’s been associated with the Council of Conservative Citizens, a leading white supremacy group, and in 1996 he was the campaign manager of a right-wing Louisiana politician who paid Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Dukes $82,500 for his mailing list. Tony is elbow-deep in the Council for National Policy, a secretive Republican political forum with a membership that includes religious-right luminaries like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and (heh) Sarah Palin. Tony, apparently a Palin admirer, calls the Tea Party a "civil awakening."
To clarify, the Tony Perkins we’re talking about is not the same Tony Perkins who starred in the Alfred Hitchcock film Psycho. The Tony Perkins we’re talking about is, however, mad as a herd of homeless hornets about the rulings by Federal District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips that allow "open" homosexuals to serve in the military — but he’s angry in a caring, redemptive sort of way. In an October 11 Washington Post piece, Perkins wrote "The most important thing that Christians can offer to homosexuals is hope — hope that their sins, just like the sins of anyone else, can be forgiven and their lives transformed by the power of Jesus Christ." Once homosexuals have been transformed, they have Tony’s blessing to die for their country in self-defeating wars, one supposes.
Like so many Americans of his socio-political persuasion, Tony doesn’t let reality intrude on his opinions or clutter his arguments. Tony told the New York Times that an unspecified number of "Americans are upset" because the Phillips decisions reflect the skullduggery of "activist judges and arrogant politicians" who don’t heed "the Constitution’s limits on what the courts and Congress can and cannot do."
In a September 9 ruling, Judge Phillips declared don’t-ask-don’t-tell unconstitutional based on its violation of the rights to freedom of speech and due process, both of which are guaranteed by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
Article III of the Constitution vests "The judicial power of the United States" over "all cases" arising under the Constitution in the federal courts, like the federal court where Judge Phillips does her judge stuff. So when federal judges, activist or otherwise, make rulings on whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional, they’re doing it because the Constitution says that’s their job.
Like so many of his pious peers, Tony delights in parroting the phrase ""There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces" from the text of Don’t Ask. Just because the Constitution doesn’t mention a specific right doesn’t mean that right doesn’t exist. As Amendment IX assures us, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Constitution doesn’t specifically allow heterosexuals the right to serve in the armed forces, for example. For that matter, it doesn’t grant heterosexuals the right to marry one another either.
Plus, when exactly did serving in the armed services become a "right?" When I was a kid and people were being drafted to fight in a stupid war in Asia, uniformed service was an obligation that an awful lot of people, most notably the people who started the stupid wars we’re fighting in Asia now, managed to wiggle their ways out of. Involuntary service was an obligation, and I don’t recall the Tony Perkins types of the day saying that heterosexuals were obligated to serve but homosexuals weren’t. In fact, I remember quite a few upperclassmen from my high school trying to duck the draft by pretending they were gay, and it didn’t work.
Don’t Ask is doggerel from top to bottom, and as Judge Phillips has wisely ruled, it’s an unconstitutional law. Nonetheless, Congress had every right to pass it because Article I of the Constitution tasks the legislature to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." That same clause makes it equally constitutional for Congress to repeal Don’t Ask whether doing so bends Tony’s nose out of joint or not.
Tony says getting rid of Don’t Ask defies "the convictions of most Americans." Tony must have been tied up in a phone conference with God and St. Peter and several archangels in November 2008 when most Americans voted for a presidential candidate who made repeal of Don’t Ask a key plank of his platform.
Tony says there is "strong opposition" to scrubbing Don’t Ask from military leaders. I guess Tony missed it back in February when defense secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs chairman Mike Mullen — the military’s top two leaders — told the Senate Armed Services Committee that repealing Don’t Ask was "the right thing to do." They must not have covered those hearings on FOX News or CBN.
Tony accuses Judge Phillips of "playing politics with our national defense." Tony is, not surprisingly, unaware that history’s fiercest fighting men have had a thing for other fighting men. As the warrior king of Macedon Phillip II (382 – 336 BCE) told Plutarch, "It is not only the most warlike peoples, the Boeotians, Spartans, and Cretans, who are the most susceptible to this kind of love but also the greatest heroes of old: Meleager, Achilles, Aristomenes, Cimon, and Epaminondas." Alexander the Great, the most victorious general of all time, was queer as a pink dollar bill.
At the opposite end of the spectrum from Alexander we have the presumably heterosexual David Petraeus. King David manufactured a reputation for himself as a military genius by arming Sunni "Awakening Councils" and bribing them into forming a "grass roots" anti-al Qaeda movement. Now we’ve broken all our impossible-to-keep promises to the Awakening dudes, everyone’s acting surprised as a birthday girl that they’ve turned against us and joined the rebels. Jesus in a little black dress, Richard Simmons could have seen that one coming. Petraeus is now pulling the same shenanigan in the Bananastans and Tony Perkins is worried that our national defense will suffer irreparable harmed when a few green berets confess they’re a little light in the jump boots. Where do we find such homophobes?
Fellow citizens, the state of our national security system teems with weighty concerns that demand your earnest consideration. The demise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not one of those concerns.
And when Tony Perkins makes a last ditch appeal to your sense of "traditional values," take another look at the roster of hooligans he hobnobs with and remember that the values he’s talking about are steeped in a tradition that involves burning crosses and poplar trees.
Read more by Jeff Huber
- $80 Billion Down the Plumbing – November 1st, 2010
- Bull Feather Merchant Marines – October 25th, 2010
- Long Warfare Theory – October 11th, 2010
- Uncle Bob Wants You – October 4th, 2010
- All the King’s Bull Feather Merchants – September 27th, 2010





MoT
October 20th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
The whole DADT non-debate is ridiculous. Being homosexual in the military doesn't mean you're any less likely to be a bloodthirsty bastard than your stereotypical "red neck hick". Rainbow patches don't make the bullets or drone strikes any less lethal nor the lies and excuses for why you're even in the military any less damning.
Bob Weber
October 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
What's the significance of Perkins's association with the NRA? Was he on the Board of Directors, or was/is he only a member?
davidgrayling
October 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
There's only one solution: divide the U.S. army into those who are and those who aren't!
They could wear different colour uniforms so everyone would know where they stood. They could compete with each other to undertake deeds of valour, They could live in separate quarters as in miles apart. Fraternization would be forbidden though, when passing in the street, a cautious nod would be allowed between consenting adults.
There, the problem is solved and America can get on with its plan to control the world.
http://www.dangerouscreation.com
DavidSpero
October 21st, 2010 at 12:04 am
I went to dangerouscreation.com, since you always mention it. It's a good site. Recommend others check it out.
David
Jeff Huber
October 21st, 2010 at 3:29 am
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rl…
ghouri
October 21st, 2010 at 3:33 am
The problem today facing the mankind is that we have lossed our freedom and govt. is allowed to use all bad means to tell the lies.
foodoo
October 21st, 2010 at 4:10 am
Gay people want to kill foreigners too.
Why should this be a privilege reserved for straights?
For too long have gays been an oppressed minority
in our military. They are now part of main stream US culture,
they are in our TV shows, sports and politics.
They are now truly "one of us" and now they can finally
take part in oppressing "one of them".
liveload
October 21st, 2010 at 5:35 am
I'm not sure how activities involving the penis, vagina, mouth, or other appendage correlate to the business of killing people and destroying things. Maybe I'm stupid. The orifice I choose to stick my sexual organ of choice into shouldn't have much to do with how well I can push a button, pull a trigger or cook up some reason for somebody else to. Perhaps I was asleep the day they covered that in Sunday School.
lord paleo
October 21st, 2010 at 6:20 am
Well, I guess I can't use the gay excuse when they start drafting people again.
Unforgiven
October 21st, 2010 at 7:31 am
Can someone answer me this – how many people have been kicked out for violating the 'Don't Ask ' part of this equation?
johnc
October 21st, 2010 at 7:39 am
The whole point of this "debate" or "conversation" is to stir people up. The Romans had bread and circuses; we have food stamps and The View. ( I hate the American system of occult government–public relations.)
Tim
October 21st, 2010 at 7:43 am
This is one of those issues designed to obscure the larger and more important issues, like endless war, looming national bankruptcy, and cancerous growth of government. As for promoting morality, those conservatives who think the military is some oasis of traditional morality should visit Okinawa and see what our "heroes" do with their spare time. I don't think much of the argument that declared homosexuals have a right to serve in the US military and get in on all the action of occupying foreign nations and killing foreigners. But then again I don't think much of the military these days. What is euphemistically called "national security" is imperialism. In the meantime, however, this issue if very useful for Mr Perkins who can use it in his direct mailing fundraising campaigns.
MoT
October 21st, 2010 at 8:07 am
LOL! "food stamps and The View"… That's a good one. The last bit is a keeper.
reporter
October 21st, 2010 at 9:04 am
gays and women and generals should be first into battle. you want to kill innocents; go up front.
Bill
October 21st, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Article III Section 2 says not just that the judicial power shall extend " to all cases" but "to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls- to all; Cases of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…" This is not a case for the courts. Judges aren't supposed to make military policy. As Huber later correctly pointed out the rules for the miltary are to be made by congress. The military, as our Founders understood, by necessity live under rules that do not strictly conform to the rules of due process that apply everywhere else. The main consideration for determining whether or not homosexuals should openly serve in the military is the needs of the military and the effect of that policy on military operations. And that is for Congress, not a judge, to decide. Furthermore the judge who ruled against DADT was way ahead of established precedent, since the Supreme Court has not, as yet, determined whether the "equal protection of the laws" applies to people based on the kind of sex they like best.
Phil Giraldi
October 21st, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Great article Jeff! When I was in the draftee army during Vietnam there were plenty of homosexuals in the ranks. Everybody knew it and I cannot recall that anyone cared a whole lot. ironically, as you note, many folks at elite universities were simultaneously claiming that status so they could avoid serving. Draftees in those days used to get most exercised about facial hair, i.e. "Why can't I grow a beard?" or "Is my moustache too long?"
fedupandsick
October 21st, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I want to cheer on the gay community but I can't because that means more meat for the grinder. I hope they refuse to allow gays in the military, they'd be doing them a huge favor.
Guest
October 21st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Will the government have to provide hormone injections to those who are transitioning toward a faux female identity?. Will sailors on nuclear submarines have to share a bunk with the HIV positive? You can't discriminate against those with a condition that afflicts homosexuals more the often than heterosexuals or can you? Will senior NCOs who fall in love with some seventeen year old farm boy be allowed to instruct him in the delights of sodomy. They put female sailors aboard ship and a large percentage return from cruises pregnant. Will hepatitis run wild. Think Pandora. .
Jeff Huber
October 21st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Get cracking on those reading comprehension skills, Bill.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
J
GradyWilson
October 21st, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Great column Mr. Huber. I give you much credit for calling out the racist Council of Conservative Citizens and the anti-gay Christian fundamentalists full well knowing that those groups overlap with the libertarian readers at antiwar.com. And of course the homosexual Raimondo himself has worked for, and is politically close with, overt racists and gay haters like Pat Buchanan.
Vojkan Milosavljevic
October 23rd, 2010 at 4:23 pm
God really has a sense for irony. Tony Perkins? I remember a Tony Perkins. He played in "Psycho" and "Do you love Brahms". Must be a hard burden to bear for a bigot to answer to such a name.