LGBT Law/Policy
Discussion of this issue begins with a simple principle: It is about military readiness and effectiveness, not “civil rights ” The CMR Policy Analysis Charts below summarize many reasons why repeal of the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.) would impose heavy burdens on the men and women who volunteer to serve, while undermining military effectiveness in numerous ways.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and others have co-sponsored legislation (H.R. 1283) that
would repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. and replace it with an open-ended, radical “LGBT
Law” that would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the
orientation is real or perceived.”  

Human Events: Patrick Murphy’s LGBT Law for the Military

Having encountered opposition in the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Murphy and the Obama White House crafted a “Repeal Deal,” legislation to repeal current law with “delayed implementation.”  The House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee passed the legislation on May 27, 2010.

If that legislation is passed as part of the National Defense Authorization bill, President Obama, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates—all of whom have expressed support for repealing current law--would have the power to “certify” that no problems would ensue from imposition of the new LGBT Law or administrative policy.

The following charts summarize the consequences of replacing Section 654, Title 10 with
the proposed new “LGBT Law.”

CMR Policy Analysis Charts
          How the LGBT Law or Policy for the Military Would Work

The net gain in exchange for all of the turmoil outlined above would be—nothing.  Gay activists and their liberal allies cannot justify the heavy costs of repealing the 1993 law.  Implementation would result in the voluntary or involuntary loss of thousands of personnel—many in communities, grades, and skills that are not easily replaceable. This would cripple the All-Volunteer Force at a time when we are at war.  Personnel remaining would have to face more deployments and potential combat situations with fewer, less-skilled people.

CMR Single-Page Summary:  
Ten Reasons to Oppose the Proposed “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military

* * * * * * *

Concerned Women for America (CWA) has published a “Family Voice Bulletin” that analyzes the legislative history of the 1993 law and the administrative policy, DADT:

 Homosexuality and the Military: What “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Is and Why It Matters

* * * * * * *


These commentaries provide additional background on this issue:

Tony Perkins, Homosexuality vs. the 3 R’s of the Military

Robert Knight, TownHall:        “Lifting the Ban Would Do a Rank Disservice”

Ted Nugent: Don’t Change ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Cal Thomas, TownHall:             “Don’t  Ask, Tell, or Legitimize”


* * * * * * *


In a cover story for the Edmund Burke Institute’s magazine Reflections, Grace Vuoto  describes the big picture of how the proposed new law would work:

Gays in the Military?

Stars & Stripes did a brief analysis of how the military would change if the 1993 law is revoked:

“If the Military Gay Ban is Reversed, What Would Change?”