From OneNewsNowBy Chad Groening
A conservative military watchdog is very concerned about a recent survey of military personnel that indicates a significant number of service members might leave the all-volunteer force if the ban on open homosexuals in the military is lifted.
The annual survey was conducted by the Military Times, which once again asked active duty personnel if they oppose the effort led by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (D-California) to repeal the 1993 law -- Section 654, Title 10 -- which clearly states that open homosexuals are not allowed in the military.
Approximately 58 percent of the respondents indicated that they were in favor of continuing the ban. But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, is more astonished at the response to a question that had never been asked on that survey before.
"In essence, what would you do if the law is repealed?" she relates that question. "The Military Times found that 10 percent of respondents said they would leave the military, and an additional 14 percent said they would consider ending their careers," she points out. "Now, even if half of those numbers turned out to be an accurate prediction, that would be devastating to our volunteer force. It would pretty much destroy the military as we know it."
She believes those who might consider leaving have legitimate concerns if the law is repealed. "The new policy would be forced co-habitation with homosexuals 24-7 in all military communities," Donnelly adds. "Corollary programs to make the program work would include professional diversity training to enforce acceptance and zero tolerance of anyone who disagrees."
Donnelly expects Tauscher to reintroduce the repeal legislation within the next several weeks.
7 comments:
In all fairness (and in the spirit of honesty), a few small clarifications are in order:
1. The Military Times survey reported that "...nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist...and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours". This is much different than 10 percent and an additional 14 percent.
2. The Military Times article also states that those numbers (10% and 14%) are smaller than the number who said they would not re-enlist or would end their military careers in the 1940s/1950s when racial integration was discussed and in the 1970s when gender integration was proposed. Moreover, when those changes were in fact implemented, "there was not anything near that kind of exodus from the service".
3. Finally, the Military Times article states that "similar debates have surfaced in other countries that recently lifted in the ban, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Israel" and that "none of the dire consequences that were expected occurred".
Dear Anonymous, Indigo, Snead,
Thank you for your comments regarding the Military Times poll. It is not a subject on which I claim expertise. I found the story of interest and thought I would share it with my readers. I welcome all civil comments.
Since you have identified yourself by blogging on my failure to post your earlier comments, let me explain why I did not post that response.
I have posted many comments over the past year and a half that strongly disagree with things I have posted. I welcome and wish there were more debate and discussion among bloggers. I do not, however, post gratuitous insults. Your earlier comment was more insult than rebuttal. When I clicked on "Snead," I found your blog was closed to all but invited readers. Why should I give an anonymous blogger a forum on my blog, when his own is not even open to the general public? And your Indigo Journal blog does not appear to be comment friendly either. It appears one must undergo some sort of registration process to leave a comment.
Unlike virtually all of the liberal bloggers in South Carolina, I do not use a pseudonym. If I leave comments on another blog I always identify myself, and I try to be courteous in my communications.
One of the themes of my blog is the "renewal of the culture." I do not post comments that coarsen the culture. As Waldo, Matheus, and others can attest, I do not respond to the steady stream of insults that seem to be the specialty of South Carolina's anonymous, liberal bloggers.
Again, thank you for your substantive comments.
And yet you stand by an article that is clearly presenting inaccurate assumptions as facts?
Spare me.
You'll have to remind me of what was so insulting in pointing out that this poll is completely inaccurate. But, if I said something untoward, please accept my apology.
I'm also sorry you were confused by my User Profile page. You may want to recheck that, as http://sneadstate.blogspot.com/ is a test blog I use and there's no need to publish it while http://lightscamerasnead.blogspot.com/ is my regular, very public, blog.
On Indigo Journal you'll find my blog address, full name and personal email. Indigo Journal is edited by two people who similarly publish their personal information. I know there are plenty of other writers, some anon, some public. Sorry I don't have time to provide you with a full list of names, addresses and social security numbers.
All that aside, the point is you are pushing inaccurate information. Do you have a response for that?
Wee bit confused here...is Snead arguing that the Militay Times article is inaccurate? If so, should those concerns be addressed to that publication? Regardless, time will tell if a change in the current law would make any real difference or lead to a redefinition of the term "hot bunking"....In The Navy...
Those concerns have been addressed to that publication. Sadly the damage is already done.
Thanks for your question, Anon. The poll to which Snead objects was conducted by The Military Times. The author of the above article and his publisher had nothing to do with the poll. It was, apparently, a poll of active service members who are readers of Military Times. I don't see it described as a scientific poll, just a reflection of what a cross-section of Military Times readers are thinking.
The language used in the article may lead readers to believe the poll is scientific when in fact even Military Times admits "The voluntary nature of the survey, the dependence on e-mail and the characteristics of Military Times readers could affect the results. [...] The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers."
My beef with this post is that it poorly represents the military by citing an unchallenged and inaccurate "news" story.
Post a Comment