Remember, God loves us but not our sin.
Homosexuals in the Military
David Barton
Preface: There was a series of events that led to the need for this historical analysis. Below is a general chronology providing context. There were, no doubt, numerous other events that occurred-- newspaper articles, magazine articles, government reports, meetings, etc. However, these key events will preface the analysis:
January 20, 1993--William Jefferson Clinton assumes the Presidency, promising to end the historic ban on homosexuals serving in America's Armed Forces.
January 29, 1993--President Clinton issues the following memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin:
I hereby direct you to submit to me prior to July 15, 1993, a draft of an Executive Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
June 2-21, 1993--survey entitled, "Congressional Survey of All Active-Duty Admirals and Generals Shows Overwhelming Opposition to Lifting Military Gay Ban." Ninety-seven and a half percent do not wish to have homosexuals serve in the military. Over ninety percent of the military's senior officers question "national security" if homosexuals are allowd to serve.
July 19, 1993--"Don't ask; don't tell" plan announced by the President. Under this plan, new recruits are not to be asked if they are homosexual. Homosexual "orientation" is allowed; homosexual conduct remains a reason for separation.
July 23, 1993--Senate Armed Services Committee votes to pass law supporting President Clinton's policies.
July 27, 1993--House Armed Services Committee offers similar legislation.
Court challenges started by the ACLU and others, and debate rages in the media.
Elected officials and others begin requesting an historical perspective on homosexuals in the military. David Barton prepares the following essay, supporting the contention that immoral conduct never has been allowed in America's Armed Forces.
In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will explore the issue via three questions:
1. Has homosexuality always been incompatible with military service?
2. Why should the military be concerned with a person's morality?
3. Why should homosexuality concern us as a society?
Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military's inception. George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. 1
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.
An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:
The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same. 2
Noah Webster--a soldier during the Revolution and the author of the first American dictionary --defined the terms "dissolute" and "immoral" used by Congress:
Dissolute: Loose in behavior and morals; given to vice and dissipation; wanton; lewd; debauched; not under the restraints of law; as a dissolute man: dissolute company.
Immoral: Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or Divine law. . . . Every action is immoral which contravenes any Divine precept or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other. 3
This meaning of the word "moral" versus "immoral" was understood throughout American society; the practice of sodomy was clearly adverse to and "contravene[d] Divine precept." The order to "suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices . . . contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience" was extended throughout all branches of the American military, both the Army and the Navy. 4
It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. 5 In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 6
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT
Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. 17 The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces.
Why Should the Military Be Concerned With a Person's Morality?
Concern for the character and morality of military personnel has a strong historical basis. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society, and that philosophy extended to our military.
Before considering the importance of morality to the military, first consider some general statements on the importance of morality by those responsible for originally creating the rules that have stirred so much controversy of late in the debate over homosexuals in the military. John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798, while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 18
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. 19
George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, summarized the same truth in his "Farewell Address." Significantly, this address was also partially authored by John Jay (the author of America's first military discipline manual) and Alexander Hamilton (a General during the Revolution). These three military leaders emphasized the necessity of moral behavior, declaring:
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? 20
You can read the rest at:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
Remember, I love you all and God loves you all but we don't like sin.
Thanks,
TT
Homosexuals in the Military
David Barton
Preface: There was a series of events that led to the need for this historical analysis. Below is a general chronology providing context. There were, no doubt, numerous other events that occurred-- newspaper articles, magazine articles, government reports, meetings, etc. However, these key events will preface the analysis:
January 20, 1993--William Jefferson Clinton assumes the Presidency, promising to end the historic ban on homosexuals serving in America's Armed Forces.
January 29, 1993--President Clinton issues the following memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin:
I hereby direct you to submit to me prior to July 15, 1993, a draft of an Executive Order ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
June 2-21, 1993--survey entitled, "Congressional Survey of All Active-Duty Admirals and Generals Shows Overwhelming Opposition to Lifting Military Gay Ban." Ninety-seven and a half percent do not wish to have homosexuals serve in the military. Over ninety percent of the military's senior officers question "national security" if homosexuals are allowd to serve.
July 19, 1993--"Don't ask; don't tell" plan announced by the President. Under this plan, new recruits are not to be asked if they are homosexual. Homosexual "orientation" is allowed; homosexual conduct remains a reason for separation.
July 23, 1993--Senate Armed Services Committee votes to pass law supporting President Clinton's policies.
July 27, 1993--House Armed Services Committee offers similar legislation.
Court challenges started by the ACLU and others, and debate rages in the media.
Elected officials and others begin requesting an historical perspective on homosexuals in the military. David Barton prepares the following essay, supporting the contention that immoral conduct never has been allowed in America's Armed Forces.
In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will explore the issue via three questions:
1. Has homosexuality always been incompatible with military service?
2. Why should the military be concerned with a person's morality?
3. Why should homosexuality concern us as a society?
Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military's inception. George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose. 1
General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.
An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington's actions:
The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same. 2
Noah Webster--a soldier during the Revolution and the author of the first American dictionary --defined the terms "dissolute" and "immoral" used by Congress:
Dissolute: Loose in behavior and morals; given to vice and dissipation; wanton; lewd; debauched; not under the restraints of law; as a dissolute man: dissolute company.
Immoral: Inconsistent with moral rectitude; contrary to the moral or Divine law. . . . Every action is immoral which contravenes any Divine precept or which is contrary to the duties which men owe to each other. 3
This meaning of the word "moral" versus "immoral" was understood throughout American society; the practice of sodomy was clearly adverse to and "contravene[d] Divine precept." The order to "suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices . . . contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience" was extended throughout all branches of the American military, both the Army and the Navy. 4
It can be safely said that the attitude of the Founders on the subject of homosexuality was precisely that given by William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws--the basis of legal jurisprudence in America and heartily endorsed by numbers of significant Founders. 5 In addressing sodomy (homosexuality), he found the subject so reprehensible that he was ashamed even to discuss it. Nonetheless, he noted:
What has been here observed . . . [the fact that the punishment fit the crime] ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature committed either with man or beast. A crime which ought to be strictly and impartially proved and then as strictly and impartially punished. . . .
I will not act so disagreeable part to my readers as well as myself as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature [sodomy]. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named; "peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum" (that horrible crime not to be named among Christians). A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans: "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei" (where that crime is found, which is unfit even to know, we command the law to arise armed with an avenging sword that the infamous men who are, or shall in future be guilty of it, may undergo the most severe punishments). 6
Because of the nature of the crime, the penalties for the act of sodomy were often severe. For example, Thomas Jefferson indicated that in his home state of Virginia, "dismemberment" of the offensive organ was the penalty for sodomy. 7 In fact, Jefferson himself authored a bill penalizing sodomy by castration. 8 The laws of the other states showed similar or even more severe penalties:
That the detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . shall be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that every person being thereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall be hanged by the neck until he or she shall be dead. 9 NEW YORK
That if any man shall lie with mankind as he lieth with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they both shall be put to death. 10 CONNECTICUT
Sodomy . . . shall be punished by imprisonment at hard labour in the penitentiary during the natural life or lives of the person or persons convicted of th[is] detestable crime. 11 GEORGIA
That if any man shall commit the crime against nature with a man or male child . . . every such offender, being duly convicted thereof in the Supreme Judicial Court, shall be punished by solitary imprisonment for such term not exceeding one year and by confinement afterwards to hard labor for such term not exceeding ten years. 12 MAINE
That if any person or persons shall commit sodomy . . . he or they so offending or committing any of the said crimes within this province, their counsellors, aiders, comforters, and abettors, being convicted thereof as above said, shall suffer as felons. 13 [And] shall forfeit to the Commonwealth all and singular the lands and tenements, goods and chattels, whereof he or she was seized or possessed at the time . . . at the discretion of the court passing the sentence, not exceeding ten years, in the public gaol or house of correction of the county or city in which the offence shall have been committed and be kept at such labor. 14 PENNSYLVANIA
[T]he detestable and abominable vice of buggery [sodomy] . . . be from henceforth adjudged felony . . . and that the offenders being hereof convicted by verdict, confession, or outlawry [unlawful flight to avoid prosecution], shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their goods. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA
That if any man lieth with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they both shall suffer death. 16 VERMONT
Based on the statutes, legal commentaries, and the writings of prominent military leaders, it is clear that any idea of homosexuals serving in the military was considered with repugnance; this is incontrovertible, with no room for differing interpretations. 17 The thought of lifting this proscription is a modern phenomenon, and would have brought disbelief, disdain, and condemnation from those who established our Armed Forces.
Why Should the Military Be Concerned With a Person's Morality?
Concern for the character and morality of military personnel has a strong historical basis. Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of pure morals in our free society, and that philosophy extended to our military.
Before considering the importance of morality to the military, first consider some general statements on the importance of morality by those responsible for originally creating the rules that have stirred so much controversy of late in the debate over homosexuals in the military. John Adams (the founder of the Navy), on October 13, 1798, while serving as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief, told the military:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. 18
Adams similarly explained:
Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. 19
George Washington, the nation's first Commander-in-Chief, summarized the same truth in his "Farewell Address." Significantly, this address was also partially authored by John Jay (the author of America's first military discipline manual) and Alexander Hamilton (a General during the Revolution). These three military leaders emphasized the necessity of moral behavior, declaring:
Of all the dispositions and habits which leads to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity [happiness]. Let it simply be asked, "Where is the security for property, for reputation for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert . . . ?" And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it [free government] can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? 20
You can read the rest at:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=101
Remember, I love you all and God loves you all but we don't like sin.
Thanks,
TT
