The Washington Times' disgusting DADT editorial

Adam Serwer is a staff writer for The American Prospect, where he writes his own blog.

Last week, I wrote that the case against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell "relies largely on an archaic, rapidly diminishing cultural revulsion toward homosexuality." This morning, The Washington Times shows you what that revulsion looks like, with an editorial titled, "Queer eye for the G.I."

The destructive force unleashed by the Pentagon's collaboration with the leftist agenda is apparent from the circus created when homosexual activists like Dan Choi sashayed over to the Times Square recruiting center to make a political point in the short period in which the Phillips order was effective. Leftists are only interested in political points and symbolism here. Providing defense to the nation in the most effective way possible is the furthest thing from their mind. Treating military recruitment primarily as a diversity issue opens up a closet full of absurdities. On what basis, then, would the military discriminate against the elderly? Why can't grandpa become a paratrooper? Should the military not reject someone merely because he is handicapped? Why not a wheelchair-bound infantryman?

The idea that homosexuality is akin to a physical disability is self-evidently absurd -- the military doesn't prevent gays and lesbians from serving, just serving openly. The question of whether or not gays and lesbians are physically capable of doing so isn't even at issue. It's not just the Times making this silly argument either--Republican Sean Bielat, who is challenging openly gay Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank using a blatantly homophobic ad campaign, recently said "I don't see anybody protesting" the fact that men under 5'2 aren't allowed to serve.

Look, I could point you to the empirical evidence showing DADT discharges slowing after 2001 when the military stopping being able to take recruits for granted. I could point out that countries like Israel allow gay troops to serve openly. I could mention the $95 million the Government Accountability Office estimated it would have cost to replace already discharged servicemembers back in 2005. I could point out the distinction between "task cohesion" and "social cohesion," adding that while the latter is affected by allowing openly gay and lesbian servicemembers, the former is not and it is the only factor that actually influences unit effectiveness. I could even go the public opinion route, and cite the fact that most Americans want the policy repealed, meaning that it's hard to characterize this as the pet project of a few LGBT rights activists. Those opposed to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly comprise shrinking homophobic fringe whose disproportionate influence is a result of the anti-majoritarian structure of the U.S. Senate.

But that would all be useless. Because Judge Virginia Phillips already made most of those points in her ruling overturning the policy, and the Times editorial board didn't address any of them. That's because The Washington Times isn't making an empirical or rational argument, it's just counting on the reader being as frightened and hateful as they are.

There's no response to that, other than disgust.