[Bret L]

On Jul 9, 10:04*am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
In the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, there's something in there about
"freedom and justice for ALL!". *How is it just, to make a certain group of
people sit in the back of the bus or stay in the closet? *What if you
couldn't share anything about yourself or your family to your military
comrades? *The military has gays and it needs gays, but just as long as they
sit at the back of the bus? *You know it's not about YOU, it's about
equality and if you're uncomfortable, get over it.

Homosexuals are a small minority and they are NOT essential to
military service (although quietly tolerating discreet lesbians is
very useful to administrative commands because they are professional,
efficient, and unlike ordinary females virtually impregnable). We
exclude people with medical conditions through no fault of their own,
and we used to exclude others for reasons they also had no control
over because they would necessarily have been awkward to accommodate
and still do. (An example I know of is a man with six toes on each
foot, who needed 5-E footwear, It kept him out of Vietnam, as it had
kept an uncle out of WWII and a great uncle out of WWI).

Military service is NOT a RIGHT. During WWII known or suspected
Communists were drafted like everyone else, but in Korea they were
mostly quietly let off with a permanent deferment for their own safety
as well as morale. Some relatives of high level mobsters were passed
over, although others were not-they tended to volunteer in fact and
while several served honorably it was felt others were security risks.
There are numerous examples one can find of this nature.

Given their small numbers and the types of problems they can and have
caused-even when not committing overt acts in a military setting-
simply excluding known homosexuals is a sensible and reasonable policy
in light of the purpose of the military. It is not a particularly
grievous affront to them, any more than it is to diabetics and
amputees.