Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our old pal Gordon Klingenschmitt is back and he's got the outrage machine cranked up over a plan to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. And how about this for dishonest framing in a fundraising appeal:
Tuesday the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, repeating President Obama's demand to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) prohibition against open homosexual aggression within the ranks of the military. "We have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens," Admiral Mullen fibbed, revealing his personal belief that "allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."
It is Klingenschmitt, of course, who is lying. There are already rules against sexual aggression in the military, whether heterosexual or homosexual, and that will not change with the repeal of DADT. And on what basis is he accusing Mullen of lying? This argument really has to be seen to be believed:
Sadly, the pro-homosexual Mullen has believed the lies of homosexual propaganda, and deceived himself, and now deceived Congress, all the while claiming he wants a more honest policy that discourages lying, when in fact Mullen actually demands homosexuals tell more lies to their military commanders when enlisting as open homosexuals. Here's a simple proof: Men who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women. Women who were created by God with female parts are not men, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, men.Mullen's confused argument would permit men to deceptively act like women, and women to deceptively act like men, openly deceiving themselves, the world, and their military commanders, and boldface lying against God's very truth, that He created men to be men, and women to be women. But today's confusing homosexual propaganda equates "honesty" with men openly flaunting their femininity, and "truthfulness" with women openly flaunting masculinity. Who's really telling God's truth?
The Bible describes homosexual liars: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie...women did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error."...
CBS news interviewed homosexual Army Lt. Dan Choi, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who currently faces discharge for publicly announcing he's gay.
"I think it's a very healthy thing for people to be able to tell the truth and to come to terms with who they are. I think it's a sign of maturity," Choi said, "At my very first day at West Point, I learned that the honor code says a cadet will not lie, will not tolerate those who lie," said Choi. "They didn't say that a cadet who was gay could lie whereas straight cadets didn't have to lie."
As a USAF Academy graduate knowing the honor code, I now personally confront Choi as a liar, who now openly violates his honor oath, since he deceives himself and the world, by claiming to be feminine, when God created him masculine, with a male body. LIAR. Choi should immediately be thrown out of the Army, not merely for sexual perversion, but for DISHONESTY AND LYING. The only reason he graduated West Point is that he never lied by openly claiming to be feminine while a cadet, when God created him to be masculine. THIS PROVES DON'T ASK DON'T TELL IS THE MOST HONEST POLICY, because it encourages people with sexual perversions not to openly lie about their sexual identity. But if DADT is repealed by Congress, men will claim to be women, and women will claim to be men, and the open season of dishonesty and lying will begin.
Wow. Klingenschmitt apparently believes that not believing the same stupid shit he does makes one a liar. And that the military's honor code requires one to interpret the Bible the same way he does -- or to give a crap what the Bible says at all. This is weapons grade psycho.
Politics
Comments
I'm sure that Mr. JD and possibly even Mr. MRoberts will be along to inform us that Mr. Klingenschmitt is right on.
Posted by: SLC | February 9, 2010 9:34 AM
Let's not forget this guy was a Chaplain. I would hope some of the discriminating factors being screened for prior to entering the Chaplaincy would be general intelligence, honesty, integrity, emotional intelligence, and other related factors. He miserably fails those factors on all counts. It'd be like the NBA drafting a player that can neither dribble, catch and hold the ball, or even run down the court.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 9:34 AM
Re Michael Heath
As Captain Norm Holcomb has informed us in comments on this blog, there are all too many clowns like Mr. Klingenschmitt in the armed forces chaplain corps.
Posted by: SLC | February 9, 2010 9:41 AM
Klingenschmitt is truly impressive.
Really, I hope he's not freely roaming the streets. He needs serious psychiatric intervention...
Posted by: Janice in Toronto | February 9, 2010 9:45 AM
Hahahahahahahah, that is one of the funiest things I read in a long time. Wait, you mean he's serious?
Posted by: Matty | February 9, 2010 9:46 AM
I'm sure that SLC will be along to tell us what JD and mroberts will say. Hey, wait...
Posted by: Squiddhartha | February 9, 2010 9:47 AM
With regard to DADT, some day, we're going to look back with astonishment that any form of a communication gap was tolerated in the military:
http://bit.ly/9YNli3
(satire)
Posted by: bondwooley | February 9, 2010 9:51 AM
...cats and dogs living together - mass hysteria!
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | February 9, 2010 9:56 AM
"But if DADT is repealed by Congress, men will claim to be women, and women will claim to be men"
I think he plagiarized "Lola" by the Kinks.
Posted by: Dogbert | February 9, 2010 9:58 AM
So a gay man is a man who is acting like a woman? And two gay men having sex are two men acting like women. So they're lesbians?
I must be doing it wrong.
Posted by: Dave | February 9, 2010 10:19 AM
This guy thinks he's a dictionary! He is the arbiter of what is masculine and feminine.
Incredible!
Posted by: barry | February 9, 2010 10:27 AM
According to Klingenschmitt, telling your commanding officer "I'm gay" is lying. So....doesn't that mean if someone else tells your commanding officer "he's gay," that person is also lying? Seems to me that his argument, as stump-stupid ridiculous as it is, would imply that the military should discharge anyone who intentionally outs a gay soldier.
Oh nvm, I'm sure K will have some other stupid excuse as to why straight patriots who out someone are not lying even if they're saying the exact same thing the gay man is.
Posted by: eric | February 9, 2010 10:35 AM
Funny. I was under the impression that in the Army there is no God but your Sargent, who cares more about whether or not you can run ten miles and still fight than whatever it is you do in bed.
Posted by: Tacroy | February 9, 2010 10:50 AM
Klingenschmitt is obviously a loonie. That said it does raise an interesting issue. A good friend of mine is currently transitioning from one gender to the other (on hormones but pre-op). They present as the other gender and have for some time. This is fully supported by their employer (the police).
I'm sure this is already covered in the report taken to congress but I do wonder how this would differ, if at all, in the armed forces.
Posted by: David Durant | February 9, 2010 10:56 AM
So... women who "pretend to be, and act like, men" are against God? So... why does Klingenschmitt support or discourage the military service of women? I mean where does it say in the Bible that women are supposed to fight in the military? Make it a career? Earn a living? Order men around? Wear pants? Go around in the company of men with whom they are not related or married?
Why does Klingenschmitt hate military women?
Posted by: Umlud | February 9, 2010 11:48 AM
Even his quote from Romans Ch. 1 is off: The argument is not that the things recited are sinful; rather, they are evidence of sin. This is what drives me crazy about Fundamentalists: They will happily quote a verse or two as "proof" of their argument, while completely ignoring the context of the paragraph or argument that surround it in the text. Shocking, I know.
Posted by: kehrsam | February 9, 2010 11:51 AM
Translation: OMG! TEH BUTTSEKS!!!! THEY WILL HAVE IT!
These guys are comedy gold. Didn't they get the memo? Nobody cares about this.
Posted by: Ian | February 9, 2010 12:01 PM
Klingenschmitt is almost certainly one of those people who think that feminists and lesbians are the same thing. They're all just a bunch of women who want to be men.
Religion, I'm convinced, is not the ultimate root of homophobia-- rigid ideas of gender roles are, and religion often (but certainly not always) promotes rigid ideas of gender roles. To someone like good ol' chaplain Gordy, I would bet gays, lesbians, feminists, stay-at-home dads, etc. are all twisted people who betray their gender because of their psychological perversions.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 9, 2010 12:21 PM
Amen.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | February 9, 2010 12:22 PM
But what about all those soldiers who fear the hordes of homosexual rapists? DADT encourages them to lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they present themselves as courageous men! Why do we still tolerate all these lies?
Posted by: Scott Hanley | February 9, 2010 12:45 PM
Indeed. If there's one thing the (Abrahamic at least) religions worship more then their god, it's rigid gender roles and patriarchy.
Posted by: Rick R | February 9, 2010 12:51 PM
Heh, so let me get this straight... If you are in the closet, you are telling the truth; but if you are openly gay, then you are lying.
Makes perfect (Christian) sense to me!
Posted by: James Sweet | February 9, 2010 1:24 PM
Gretchen, you might find this article rather interesting. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the "ultimate root" of homophobia, but it is very interesting in its rigorous attempts to quantify the effect of religion on homophobic attitudes.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 9, 2010 1:27 PM
David Durant: I vaguely remember a fellow soldier who was on hormone replacement therapy for some other medical issue being non-deployable, but I don't remember enough details to be able to generalize from that. I would _assume_ that transitioning or post-transition transsexuals would also be non-deployable, but I really don't know.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | February 9, 2010 1:28 PM
James,
I think that post shows a strong correlation between religiousness and homophobia, but that doesn't mean that religion causes homophobia. And I didn't even deny that religion does cause homophobia, but I think it only does so when it it also pushes rigid gender roles (which it does often).
Posted by: Gretchen | February 9, 2010 1:40 PM
Sometimes I wish we had a time machine so that we could send Klingenschmitt back to ancient Sparta to present his thesis to the graduates of the Agoge.
Posted by: Paul Browne | February 9, 2010 1:43 PM
Gretchen,
Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that your assertion was disproved by the paper that Tom covered in that post. I just thought you might find it relevant and interesting.
FWIW, it seems likely to me that religion codified and enforced a prejudice that was already there, but it is difficult to say. In the comments to the Epiphenom post, I speculate about whether there is something inherent to religion that boosts homophobia, or if the correlation is merely due to idiosyncratic dogma. It is not at all clear from the data.
Posted by: James Sweet | February 9, 2010 1:58 PM
Lt. Dan Choi, one of the military's best advocates for rescinding DADT, is apparently being re-deployed in spite of coming out and previously being put on administrative leave because of his coming out. The article doesn't provide the justification or whether an Executive Order changed adminstrative procedures on DADT. I assume Rachel Maddow will cover this story since Lt. Choi was a regular guest on her show when she wanted to put a face on DADT.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 1:59 PM
James,
I am endlessly fascinated with the discussion about the degree to which religion both reflects and enforces prejudices and biases, and when and how it does so. That stuff is like crack to me. ;-) I agree with your analysis of Jonathan Haidt's five points of morality and how they do not map to conservative and liberal thinking nearly as closely as he portrays. Michael Shermer is quite enamored with them and thinks they're the key to getting people with varying views on religion to embrace libertarianism, but I remain skeptical (of a skeptic. How fitting).
I don't think Haidt is wrong about his ideas of the moral spheres, and how discussion can collapse between people whose ideas about which ones are most important are not aligned, but the concept needs a lot of fine-tuning and I think he'll probably spend the rest of his life doing that. I attempted to do some of it myself in my dissertation when talking about the purity domain, but didn't address the environmentalism angle because I was focused mainly on purity of the body.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 9, 2010 2:17 PM
Klinginschitt is a USAFA Grad?
WTF?
:Hangs head in disbelief:
-SharonB
USAFA 1980
Posted by: SharonB | February 9, 2010 2:20 PM
I'd love to see Klingenschmitt go three rounds with Choi. See who comes off as more "masculine" after that.
Posted by: Salmo | February 9, 2010 2:54 PM
"dishonest framing"? That sounds repetitive and redundant. What lying is not dishonest? (Cue the lawyer types to shout "I always lie honestly - I never deny I lie!")
Let's just call this "framing" for what it is: bullshit and lying. Just let Kristol and his rotten ideas rot away (unfortunately many people have taken a shine to it, like Nisbet).
Posted by: MadScientist | February 9, 2010 3:49 PM
Lt. Dan Choi, one of the military's best advocates for rescinding DADT, is apparently being re-deployed in spite of coming out and previously being put on administrative leave because of his coming out.
Glass half full interpretation: the military is quietly, pragmatically eliminating DADT ahead of any paperwork change.
Glass half empty interpretation: they're using DADT selectively to end people's careers when convenient. Such as just before they gain retirement benefits, etc...
Posted by: eric | February 9, 2010 4:09 PM
Well...we all know the appropriate response to this, right? Call your Congressmand and press them to repeal DADT.
Posted by: gwangung | February 9, 2010 4:23 PM
On February 9, 2010 12:21 PM, Gretchen wrote:
Religion, I'm convinced, is not the ultimate root of homophobia-- rigid ideas of gender roles are, and religion often (but certainly not always) promotes rigid ideas of gender roles.
Then what is the cause of rigid ideas of gender roles?
Posted by: Blue Nine | February 9, 2010 4:30 PM
Certainly there is no single cause. But I think insecurity and a lack of thoughtfulness have a lot to do with it. Obviously there are general difference between men and women, but the type of person who insists that men must be a certain way and women must be another seems to be the sort who cannot deal well with ambiguity and prefers to appeal to tradition because it makes life easier. And of course there is an element of "If I don't do this, I will be rejected/If I don't do this, she can reject me" about it, a simple power play. For a man who believes that women are weak and should be subservient, a man who voluntarily "stands in for a woman" in any capacity with regard to another man is an embarrassment to himself and a threat to the idea that men as a gender should be strong and in control. And a lesbian who "stands in for a man" is reaching for power she shouldn't have, likewise making an embarrassment of herself and creating a threat to the hierarchy if enough people are willing to grant her legitimacy.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 9, 2010 5:02 PM
With respect to the article Michael Heath linked to about Choi, this comment clarifies that his discharge has not been made final, and he is on reserve training, not active duty.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | February 9, 2010 5:09 PM
There are few people I would ever wish ill of, but I'd love it if Klingenschmitt's God would strike his stupid ass down.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | February 9, 2010 5:17 PM
"Here's a simple proof: Men who were created by God with male body parts are not women, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, women. Women who were created by God with female parts are not men, and they lie to themselves, the world, and their commanders when they pretend to be, and act like, men. "
Wait. Wait.
Wait.
He says that gay men are acting like women (both in a relationship). Doesn't that make thenm lesbians? And women, doesn't that make them gay men, but they're really women?
The stupid... it burns!!
Posted by: Jaime A. Headden | February 9, 2010 5:37 PM
If gays and lesbians aren't telling the truth when they come out of the closet, then why should they be discharged for something not true? Didn't this Christian homophobe guy just disprove his own argument for DADT?
Posted by: Neon Genesis | February 9, 2010 5:56 PM
Please tell me some poor woman isn't married to Klingenschmitt. No matter how demure she is, or how hard she tries, she will never, ever be able to conform to his (and God's, as he'd be the first to tell you) notions of how women are supposed to act.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | February 9, 2010 9:03 PM
I'm not sure what Klingenschmitt means by femininity/masculinity. Maybe he subscribes to the tiring stereotype that gays are "girly" and lesbians are militant feminists =/
Posted by: axilet | February 9, 2010 9:39 PM
Really? You *do* have people publicly saying (writing) things like that in your country?
Excuse me a sec while I wipe some puke from my mouth.
Greetings from the "old" world.
Posted by: Jean-Denis | February 10, 2010 8:40 AM
Methinks Klingenschmitt is mistaking homosexuality for transgenderism.
I do have to wonder how that would work. Gay men think they're women, but they're attracted to men. Which means they wouldn't be after gay men, because gay men think they're women. So... would they be going after lesbians? Since lesbians think they're men, and all. But wouldn't that make them heterosexuals?
Posted by: Makyui | February 12, 2010 5:59 AM