Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, writing about the prostitution scandal in Colombia, where reports are that as many as 21 Secret Service agents and military personnel paid for sex before President Obama’s arrival at the Summit of the Americas on Friday, said this:
When the White House says its job is to “conduct [itself] with the utmost dignity and probity,” it seems somewhat contradictory to the culture of permissiveness this administration has created here at home. When you relentlessly attack moral principles, as this White House has done over the course of three years, it becomes increasingly difficult for the administration to call these actions wrong. …
The United States, under this administration, is a country that increasingly celebrates sexual indulgence. Is it any wonder this country is suffering from an ethical identity crisis? This is what comes of an administration that systematically destroys the moral foundations of our military, government service, and public schools. On one hand, the administration has tried to force our military to embrace homosexuality by making unnatural and immoral sex legal–and on the other, it’s outraged that its military is engaging in another form of legal but immoral sex. (Prostitution is permissible in Colombia’s “tolerated zones.”) Both behaviors are inappropriate, unhealthy, and destructive. Yet only one seems to incense government officials.
If this seems a bit muddled, that’s because it is. But this culture of moral confusion is inevitable when American leaders push a radical social policy that arbitrarily gives sexual license to some and condemns it from others.
Let’s examine Perkins’s arguments in turn.
The notion that the Obama administration is “systematically destroy[ing] the moral foundation of our military” strikes me as intemperate and unfair. Most (though not all) senior members of the military, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and General David Petraeus, believed that the time had come to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). So did then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Are they part of the systematic effort to destroy the moral foundation of the military as well?
The core of this debate is whether unit morale would suffer if gays were open about their sexual orientation. There is evidence that because of shifting sexual mores, including attitudes towards gays, unit morale would not suffer. (The Department of Defense’s Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” indicates that there was low risk of service disruptions because of repeal of the ban.) It’s important to note that other countries that allow openly gay people to serve in the military (like Israel) haven’t experienced combat readiness, unit cohesion or morale problems. In reviewing the many countries that permit gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military, the Defense Department’s report found that, “Uniformly, these nations reported that they were aware of no units that had a degradation of cohesion or combat effectiveness, and that the presence of gay men and lesbians in combat units had not been raised as an issue by any of their units deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.” (Page 89 of the Defense Department report shows that at the time it was issued, 35 nations permitted gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military vs. six nations that excluded gay men and lesbians from serving or serving openly in the military.) We’ll of course be able to make an informed judgment of the effects of repealing DADA soon enough, since we’re now testing the proposition.
Then there’s the argument that the Obama administration is giving “sexual license” and promoting an “ideology of unrestraint.” The logic goes like this: overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” leads to a brothel in Cartagena.
This argument is, I think, quite weak. For one thing, most of those caught up in the prostitution scandal are Secret Service agents, not members of the military. And it’s hard to believe that if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” hadn’t been overturned all of seven months ago, then the Secret Service and the military personnel who reportedly solicited prostitution would instead have stayed on the straight and narrow. There’s a reason prostitution is referred to as the world’s oldest profession. What Perkins is engaging in is the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). President Obama overturned DADT. Secret Service agents and members of the military were caught up in a prostitution scandal in Cartagena. QED.
Nor does DADT have much to do with “celebrating sexual indulgence.” Military standards of conduct already prohibit fraternization and unprofessional relationships. They also address various forms of harassment and unprofessional behavior, prescribe appropriate dress and appearance, and provide guidelines on public displays of affection. Repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell doesn’t change any of that; it simply means that for the first time in America’s military history, service members would be allowed to publicly reveal their sexual orientation without fear of reprisal.
As for the “culture of permissiveness,” here Perkins is (inadvertently) making the case of same-sex advocates, who argue that gays should be allowed to marry in order to place them within an institution (marriage) that encourages fidelity. The argument is that same-sex marriage would weaken the “culture of permissiveness” since marriage discourages it. Same-sex marriage would, according to its proponents, be a profoundly traditionalizing act. Again, we shall see (a handful of states now recognize same-sex unions and more will soon follow).
There are certainly grounds on which to criticize the Obama administration, including on social policy (see the Obama administration’s decision to require Catholic hospitals, charities and universities to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives and abortifacients, in violation of their conscience and creed). And intelligent and honest people will disagree on issues like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and legalizing gay marriage. But the idea that the prostitution scandal in Colombia points to “the significant erosion of ethical standards in the Obama administration” is simply wrong. Everybody’s interests, including the interests of social conservatives, would be better served by engaging these issues in a serious, sober, and empirically rigorous manner.










There is a growing acceptance of sexual permissiveness within our country and culture. That is almost without doubt. Further, its growth is encouraged when people who should speak out about it, don't. n nFor example, when Rick Santorum talked about morality, Democrats could have noted that Mr. Santorum had a point, that we have become too permissive a society. Democrats did not support him, nor did the president. (You don't have to agree with all his positions to note that some of what Mr. Santorum said made sense.) n nThus, with their silence they approved. And there has been tremendous silence on morality from the left and from Democrats (and some Republicans for that matter). To say that this silence is all right, that one need not speak out, is to say that sexual permissiveness and immoral actions are fine. n nOn that score, President Obama is failing. (I don't have to mention, but I will, that when race is involved, the president is more than willing to add his thoughts. But sex, not so much.) n
It is silly to argue about what is a "fair" attack on Obama. In politics you have to be reciprocal. If the other side fights unfairly, you must do the same. The only test is effectiveness. Obama is the dirtiest fighter ever. He certainly does not deserve to receive only "fair" attacks. That is foolish. n nAs for the substance, I find it amazing that you believe the Obama administration's report on DADT, and that you are already willing to accept, before you hear the evidence, whatever it tells you about the repeal. These reports, and the reporting of evidence about DADT are obviously political documents. Do you realize Obama has already been campaigning on this issue to target audiences? Why you would trust the most deceitful administration in US history (yes, worse than Nixon) is beyond me.
Glad Peter Wehner is out protecting the Obama Administration from "intemperate" attacks from a conservative group while the Democrat Governor of Montana is accusing Romney's parents of being polygamists.
Bear in mind that while sexual harassment and fraternization are prohibited, that doesn't make people stop doing it. Males and females are in separate housing for a reason. When you mix people with the objects of their sexual desire temptation will be great. When you mix people with low self-control (as many combat arms soldiers are), you are going to have harassment and fraternization.
While it is tempting to fall into the trap of blaming the government, and especially the Democrats currently in the White House for the deterioration of our culture the blame fits much more directly on each of us individually to the extent we have supported and participated in the popular culture. When we watch television programs and and buy music and go see movies that glorify, celebrate and promote promiscuous behavior we become contributors to the problem. In that mecca of our culture Hollywood it is widely known that a movie or song doesn't have to be especially good. As long as it includes sex and/or violence it will sell. When we individually decide to get a divorce or have sex outside of marraige or cheat on our tax returns we are lowering the standard for ourselves and those who associate with us. We need to expect more of ourselves. We need to participate in efforts to improve culture. We need to set a better example for those who look to us for guidance. We are all products of influence and we need to be more proactive in allowing only that which builds and improves into our lives.
The article is correct. Obama has shown himself to be worthless and incompetent but the Secret Service scandal is not his fault. It is not his job to supervise everyone in the Federal government.
well, Peter, everyone can have a bad day sometimes, and the day you wrote this was a baaaaad day. n nyou tell us that openly gay behavior in the Army is fine because the Dept of Defense tells us so! really? so when the DOJ investigates its handling of the New Black Panther case and finds itself in the clear, do you also believe that? I don't. n nthen you compare us to Israel. Israel is a tiny country with an army that everyone, male and female, must serve in. America is a really big country with a volunteer army whose women until recently couldn't even serve in combat. not even slightly the same. n nyou make fun of the idea that gays in the army "led directly" to Cartagena. well, nobody's saying that–not even Perkins, who is definitely on the very far right of the right. but he brings up a great point: that the Secret Service and legal prostitution is a scandal, but gay sex among soldiers is a celebration of life. I have to admit that does sound strange to me. n nfinally, Pete, how do you suppose this scandal would be framed if the president had been George W. Bush and not Obama? do you honestly think the MSM wouldn't be trying to pin this all on Bush? you bet your bippy they would, along with plenty of talk about Republican hypocrisy. n nhere tho, people are scurrying about trying out-absolve Obama. n nmajor fail, Peter. better luck next time.
I have served in two armies in my life, the US Army in Viet Nam and the Israeli Army in various places. I have served with openly gay men in only the Israeli Army, I never had any problem with them, the gay soldiers did their job about as well as any other soldier, and the IDF seemed to function just fine with all of us together. nI do believe that societal acceptance of homosexuality is problematic, indeed, the Jewish Torah was the first time in history that homosexuality as cast in a negative light and made a sinful act of the highest order. There were good and solid reasons for the Torah banning homosexuality 3500 years ago, and as near as I can tell those reasons are still valid. nOf course all we can do now is see how societal acceptance of homosexuality will ultimately play out, for better or for worse.