September 2, 2014

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think of Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

Posted on December 20, 2010 by in Articles

Saturday’s passage of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers thought about homosexuality in the military and homosexuality in general.

First, how did George Washington, our country’s first Commander in Chief, view how a man should conduct himself in the military?

“The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country” – George Washington, General Order, 9 July 1776

Here Washington wants everyman to act in a manner becoming a Christian soldier. We all know Christianity teaches against partaking in homosexual acts, so no “equality” (equality in this context is a misnomer of today, since the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, mandates equal protection and not “equal rights” as is incorrectly cited by most modern leftists) for the gays from old George.

The modern military is against such behavior, because of instances like the following that have occurred (on Washington’s watch) when gays are in close quarters with other men:

“At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.” – George Washington, March 14, 1778, General Orders

Here’s a full Lieutenant who tried to cornhole another soldier, and he’s booted out of the military. But look at how Washington chose to boot him. The homosexual Lt. had to leave camp while the entire military band played, to signify his disgrace and to serve as a warning to others. Typically, the whole camp would watch the disgraced being drummed out.

Some of you reading this are thinking, “Washington was too religious. Surely, Jefferson didn’t feel this way.” And you’d be wrong. Jefferson proposed a law requiring:

“Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration…” – Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments 1778 Papers 2:492–504

Granted, at the time, the common punishment for gay buttseks was death. So, Jefferson can be seen as a radical for requiring castration in death’s stead, although he obviously didn’t condone homosexuality.

One wonders how many would engage in homosexuality if they had to suffer consequences beyond their current consequence of considerably shorter lifespans than their heterosexual counterparts.

As I’ve said before, the military should change its policy from “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to “Don’t Tell, We Didn’t Ask”.

Share with your friends
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • del.icio.us
  • Print

Tags: , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Founding Father’s didn’t think women should vote either. Most people would agree they were wrong on that one.

    Not sure what judging modern events by the moral standards of the past will serve other than to point out the cultural differences. No one could say how a modern George Washington, raised within a culture that interprets Christian scripture differently, has fewer cultural and sociological boundaries, and defines the role of men differently would react to the repeal of DADT.

    But I bet he wouldn’t second guess the right of women to vote, because he would’ve been raised in a society that views the freedom to vote for all its citizens as an important corner stone to the democracy of the nation.

    So we can all agree, George Washington thought that homosexuals should not be in the military and women shouldn’t be able to vote. Right?

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      were you trying to be funny, sarcastic, or just sophomoric? i can’t tell.

      i knew that i should’ve stated in my post “don’t compare this to slavery of suffrage as they aren’t the same issue as this as both have constitutional amendments dealing with them”. see what i get for assuming ppl would know this! bad brooks.

      first, slavery was a compromise. we wouldn’t be a country without that compromise. and many founding fathers were against slavery, but accepted it as an unfortunate compromise to make independence from england possible.

      second, suffrage wasn’t as much against women voting as it was keeping the vote limited to property owners. we even have a record of abigail adams writing her husband john adams about this issue.

      both slavery and suffrage were issues of the day, even back then. no one at the time had a contrary view of homosexuality. save for gays.

      marxist political correctness and secularism have shaped the modern leftist view of homosexuality. not all americans agree with this secular marxist view and it does not make them bigots or homophobes. no one is afraid of gays or of catching teh ghey.

      some see homosexuality as an abomination, and some are simply repulsed by two guys sticking their penises in each others colons. i have to admit, it’s not a pleasant thought. we are talking about their using feces for lubrication here, right?

      oh, and we’re a republic, not a democracy. not even a democratic republic. just a republic.

      • Anonymous

        No, I was serious.

        And good one. You caught my mistake. You are right, the US is a republic not a democracy.

        And yes I am fully aware of the constitutional amendments. I am by no means an expert on American history or American constitutional law, I simply studied North American History way back in university, and still read enjoy reading about history and politics.

        And I disagree about the argument about suffrage being more about limiting the vote to property owners. Women were not viewed as competent members of society by much of the governing population. Yes, there were some remarkable women who had the means to express their position on the suffrage debate but as a group, women were not seen as equal with men in the areas of logic and reason, therefore many believed giving women the vote could lead to a corruption of the voting process.

        But what the point I was trying to get to is that people debated, argued and fought to have American society shift its thinking to make room for the Constitutional amendments that gave Americans the full rights of citizenship. And it looks like this is America’s time to undergo another shift. Another group is debating and arguing and fighting for full citizen rights.

        I’m not a marxist. Not do I consider myself politically correct. Nor am I calling anyone here a bigot or homophobic. Frankly, labels get thrown around too much so let’s agree to avoid them.

        I simply don’t see the difference between this and the fights previous groups have made to claim full citizen rights in the past. And if a country can accept it has made mistakes in the past limiting a person’s rights based on who they are (Irish/Black/Female/Mexican) then why can’t a lesson from the past be taken and full rights be given to homosexuals?

        • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

          you don’t have to be a secular marxist to be influenced by that thinking. all one has to do is turn on the “news”. political correctness was started by marxists as a way to undermine long-held traditional views, and more directly, capitalism. http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

          the supreme court has already dealt with gay marriage, for example, not rising to the level of a federal question re: the 14th amendment. read baker v. nelson 1971 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

          not everyone accepts secular marxism. most in this country are still christians who hold the same views of the founding fathers (sans slavery and suffrage, of course). which view is more american? the secular marxist, or the christian? you don’t need to be a german rocket scientist to figure that one out. modern leftist ideology is not inherently american as it was imported from germany 100-ish years ago. our country has suffered since.

        • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

          you don’t have to be a secular marxist to be influenced by that thinking. all one has to do is turn on the “news”. political correctness was started by marxists as a way to undermine long-held traditional views, and more directly, capitalism. http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

          the supreme court has already dealt with gay marriage, for example, not rising to the level of a federal question re: the 14th amendment. read baker v. nelson 1971 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

          not everyone accepts secular marxism. most in this country are still christians who hold the same views of the founding fathers (sans slavery and suffrage, of course). which view is more american? the secular marxist, or the christian? you don’t need to be a german rocket scientist to figure that one out. modern leftist ideology is not inherently american as it was imported from germany 100-ish years ago. our country has suffered since.

        • Diego

          I’d question the decision to open up voting rights to women. More specfically to women who don’t own property or a business or pay income taxes. Of course I’d question if men who don’t fit in that criteria should be allowed to vote as well so I’m equal opportunity.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Timothy-Maddocks/100000244854522 Timothy Maddocks

        So because I’m an atheist I’m also a marxist? Am I also insane because I’m liberal? I’ve grown up hearing that America is the greatest, freest country in the world. Obviously it’s not true. Not if you’re gay. Except for a few states, gays cannot marry. That is a civil right that is denied them. Let freedom ring. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of gays want to serve openly in the military. They are still fighting for that right. Let freedom ring. Bad news, righty gay haters, homosexuals are part of this world. They always been, they always will be. They’re here, they’re queer, get used to it. They aren’t going anywhere. They are Americans, they are citizens, they pay taxes and obey the law. If they want to serve their country and fight to preserve “Freedom” , they should have the right. This is 2011, time to grow up, America. Practice what you preach. By the way, I am not gay.

        • Suuuze

          ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST AMERICA IS NOT BEST, FREEST COUNTRY…NO ONE CAME AND SHOT YOU OR PUT YOU IN JAIL FOR SPEAKING YOUR MIND. THAT NEARLY MAKES YOU MUCH WORSE THAN YOU WHINE ABOUT TO BROOKS…and seriously righty gay haters…freedom…grow up…practice what you preach? That is proof positive of the liberal and atheistic qualities in you. Don’t stand up for even what you say you are standing up against, because you stand for nothing. Liberalism you know just hands all their complaints, excuses and freedoms you so covet to more government-don’t handle ur own probs, but say that the handoff is ur solution
          Silly ???s methinks…Atheism not equal to Marxist automatically, though insanity leads to liberalism or vice versa chicken and the egg, man. Have some wonderful gay b.f.f.s and they have diff points of view on this which is interesting to start with. Marriage is a word that means something. You don’t just auto-apply it to something similar and the meaning follows right along with it though. Civil Union affords all the fun and not so fun of marriage just like we heteros get, but if your son asked you to describe it, how would you avoid confusion. As far as gay members of our military, I don’t understand why anyone would want to be uber chatty about their sex/love life. Do you sit around all day at work with your boss and some co-workers talking about getting down or even who your significant other is? No You Don’t…At regular businesses, that is called sexual harrassment these days. U talk like that, u get fired and/or sued.

          Bottomline pick whether you want to complain about an issue, which you very strongly point out doesn’t have anything to do with you
          OR
          Be the guy that makes atheism not look so antithetical. Have morals and be a good person, for whatever reason you wish, like freedom, the little guy, etc. The reason I think we all feel strongly about this or any issue is so we can be happy right?
          You gotta be nicer dude, starting with yourself. Lastly, ANYONE who fights for our country is a welcomed patriot. I come from a family of many mililtary. My brother recently returned from Iraq, my cousin on tour 5 in Afghanistan. I know from where my freedom comes…Have a truly wonderful day

  • Chris Loesch

    By stepping backwards from death to mere castration modern leftists would probably argue that Jefferson was a pioneer for gay civil rights. It’s also humorous that the modern liberal often seeks to paint both Washington and Jeffson as Deists rather than Christians.

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      people trying to make those arguments must not read american history.

  • Gscaggs

    To my mind, the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is not a sign of modern society rising to a state of greater enlightment but merely the continued descent down the slippery slope. The abandonment of one moral norm begets the next and so on.

    Predictably, while segments of our society have assuaged the abomination of homosexuality over the last 2-3 decades to one degree or another trans-sexuality, polygamy, pedophilia and even beastality have all gained a greater foothold. This episode will prove no different.

    Notice how somewhere in the last few years, the gay movement transformed into the LGBT community? We can count on further decline to come.

  • Vikingberserker

    Thomas Jefferson’s bill has nothing to do with being and “anti-gay” law, but an anti-sodomy. Note: the punishment for for sodomy with a man was the same as with a woman. Lt Enslin would have had the same punishment if it had been a woman. Out os curiosity, have you actually read the 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War?

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      did you have a point? all this is known information, and it was all linked in the article above? if your point is to be an anonymous troll, we’ll just block you here.

      so, get to it if you have a point.

  • Leeannahzedar

    hi in like this lol

  • http://www.facebook.com/toffuuu Matt Ruthenbeck

    “(equality in this context is a misnomer of today, since the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, mandates equal protection and not “equal rights” as is incorrectly cited by most modern leftists) ” to actually say “modern leftist is also a misnomer with regards to equal protection and equal rights, some scholars of constitution say yes 1st equal protection and thus also allows for equal rights, and anyways that came later during the Civil Rights act which is also an amendment to the 14th Amendment, some people in my view dont really read the whole thing and yes it is long reading with all the amendments….

  • JESS

    Where do people find stuff like this? The world has evolved since ‘the founding fathers’ founded our Nation. Hopefully “We the People” have evolved as well. No one should push their beliefs on another person. If someone is one thing, and the other person is different, it really is quite simple, if you do not like that sort of person, simply do not go around them. That is not rocket science! Each person in this FREE Nation gets to pick and choose with whom they want to associate or not be around. If one does not like “XYZ” then do not go around “XYZ”. Live and let live.