Monday, February 08, 2010
Wall Street Journal runs op-ed opposing lifting the military gay ban -- using the old 1993 arguments
The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed Feb. 3 by Mackubin Thomas Owens, an editor of Orbis, journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, “The Case Against Gays in the Military : Open homosexuality would threaten unit cohesion and military effectiveness”. The link is here. The article is by subscription. On Monday, Feb. 8, the WSJ ran a number of LTE’s, tending to disagree with Owens and support lifting the ban.
Owens seems to be resurrecting the old argument about homosociality, and the idea that “Phiia”, a social bond between members of a unit, would be corrupted by favoritism and “eros.” Of course, with women sharing responsibilities in almost all evils, one could twist his argument into something like “heterosexuality is incompatible with military service.”
We saw all these arguments back in 1993 - extending Nunn's "they have no privacy" and "when you state your status, you have described your conduct." The WSJ is known for fiscal conservatism only -- is this an aberration? (Remember, Foster Winans -- "Trading Secrets" (St. Martins, 1989) worked there.)
So buy the WSJ subscription (online $109 a year) to read it. Seriously, more newspapers are going to start to require subscription to see a lot of their content. Reader beware, decide if it is worth it.