Under the claim of states' rights, Virginia state congressional delegate Robert G. Marshall wants to keep "active homosexuals" out of Virginia's National Guard:
[Marshall] said the Constitution reserves states with the authority to do so and that he'll introduce a bill in the state General Assembly next year that ensures the "the effect of the 1994 federal law banning active homosexuals from America's military forces will apply to the Virginia National Guard."
"With the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell,' President Obama seeks to pay back his homosexual political supporters," the Prince William County Republican said, echoing a sentiment shared by many of the repeal's most ardent opponents. "This policy will weaken military recruitment and retention, and will increase pressure for a military draft."
"The Constitution never would have been ratified if states were not [guaranteed] unqualified control of the militia, now called the National Guard," he said.
Yes. President Obama is definitely "paying back" his queer supporters with this one. And in the alternate universe where the mere presence of queers nancies up a government's military enough to actually affect its performance, I'm sure the repeal of DADT will have a severe and fierce effect on our military's ability to do ANYTHING. Y'all, these queers in the military are going to mess everything up so badly that we are going to have to bring back the DRAFT. Let the hand-wringing commence! (No limp wrists, though).
It's certainly not the case that in other countries where queers serve openly, their militaries operate just fine:
"President Obama and a majority in Congress are conducting a social experiment with our troops and our national security while Americans in uniform are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, indeed, might be called into battle in Korea," [Marshall] said.
And it's certainly not the case that many in the U.S. military's leadership support letting queers serve openly, or that most people currently on active duty in the U.S. military also support letting queers serve openly. I mean, why take facts into account when bashing "active homosexuals" is just so much more fun?
So at this point, Marshall's brought up states' rights and the Constitution. Could we also get a little Founding Fathers name drop? Heck yes we can:
Though the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the statutory ban date only from the 1990s, Mr. Marshall argues that it really tosses aside 232 years of American military tradition, saying "the practice of barring homosexual participation in the armed forces dates back to the American Revolution, when Gen. George Washington commanded the Continental Army."
"Gen. Washington did not tolerate personal behavior by his troops that was incompatible with the character traits he expected from his soldiers in exercising their military duty," he said. "In March of 1778, Washington discharged, via public rebuke, a soldier who had attempted a homosexual act with another soldier and then lied about it under oath."
Marshall is certainly correct in using Washington as a proper example on moral matters. In dealing with these sensitive topics, we should always look to men like Washington and certainly must never question their judgment as something that might also have been influenced by the culture of their time. If it was good enough for the late 18th century, it was good enough for the Founding Fathers; therefore, it's good enough for us today!
I'll tell you what the commonwealth of Virginia is NOT gonna do! They are not gonna let the Feds tell us we must tolerate f*gs serving in our military, boy howdy. States' rights!