Taking a Stand

Two stories to bring the issue home on DADT and gay marriage. The first is about a well respected soldier who we lost in Afghanistan:

Andrew never denied his sexuality. But like so many, he struggled with what it means to be gay in America. Yet it was only one part of him. He was so much more. In the note on his laptop, he never used the words gay or homosexual to define himself. His younger sister, Martha, says it's the least interesting thing about him.

But with his death, his parents have taken up the cause of gay rights. Andrew fought for his nation in a foreign land. His parents' war is being waged in their home state of Minnesota. To them, it's about defending the Constitution -- protecting the rights of all citizens.

...

Andrew didn't have a significant other. If he had, the partner wouldn't have been allowed to escort his body home from Dover Air Force Base, nor would he have received Andrew's $100,000 death benefit.

I highly recommend reading the full story at the link provided. Keep in mind all of the various arguments put forth here and around the world, among our NATO allies, Israeli forces, etc. that somehow our military is too unprofessional to deal with a known gay comrade. Throughout the world and even within pockets of our own military this has simply not been the epidemic nightmare made out to be.

The second story involves two lesbian marines who tried to work the system to gain equal treatment for active duty benefits. They now face possible prison time and dishonorable discharge for the attempt.

(CNN) -- Three California Marines have been charged with marrying for financial gain, accused of manipulating the military's off-base housing program so a lesbian couple could live together, according to a woman at the center of the case.
Marine Cpl. Ashley Vice says she and two others have been charged with conspiracy, making false official statements, fraud and adultery for allegedly marrying to collect thousands in financial assistance offered by the military to heterosexual married couples.

If this is how we treat those who most directly fight to secure the blessings of liberty, on such an unrelated matter of conscience so far removed from their capacity to do the job... it's no wonder that the violations of liberty throughout the country along the same lines continues along with it. Madison embraced a notion of liberty that defended matters of conscience from state intervention and attempted to enshrine that notion in the first amendment (see Church and State: Revisited and Church and State: Follow Up).

In this case many will argue the military isn't the place for social experiments... but gays in the military predate the policies. The problem isn't that we're forcing new radical social changes on the military, we're forcing outmoded discrimination on the military to the detriment of the mission and the men and women fighting in it. They're looking at the problem bass ackwards. Unfortunately it may take many more Andrew Wilfahrts to remind people that we're talking about real soldiers here, not some bizarre alternate reality where gays in the service result in pink camo and columns of troops turn into gay pride parades a la San Francisco.

Reality needs to sink in. Our military deserves better. Our citizens deserve better. Liberty is not for the majority to force matters of conscience on the minority. And no, just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to like it, or that you're being "forced" to approve of it. Acceptance of liberty involves tolerating many things one disagrees with. It cannot reach inside your mind and force you to agree with everything done within the bounds of liberty. Deal.