Don’t be. The United States Naval Institute fills the need:
RMKS/1.AS WE TRANSITION TO AN ARMED FORCES CULTURE WHERE GAY MEN AND WOMEN SERVE OPENLY, CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS, POLICY, AND SERVICE ELIGIBILITY WILL BE REQUIRED. THIS MESSAGE OUTLINES THE FIRST INSTALLMENT OF THE ALTERATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE GAY SERVICE MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO SERVE OPENLY.
2. THE NEWLY-ESTABLISHED DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON GAYS IN THE SERVICE (DACOGITS) CHAIRED BY HON. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA) HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY:
A. REF/A/WILL BE MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE 125 (SODOMY) WILL BE DELETED. NO REPLACEMENT FOR ARTICLE 125 (SODOMY) HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED.
B. REGARDING REF/B/, FOR ALL KING JAMES BIBLES ALLOWED ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS, THE FOLLOWING EDITS ARE REQUIRED:
LEVIDICUS 18:22 WILL BE CHANGED FROM “THOU SHALT NOT LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND: IT IS ABOMINATION.” TO “THOU ART PERMITTED TO LIE WITH MANKIND, AS WITH WOMANKIND: IT IS NOW IN KEEPING WITH DOD POLICY”
LEDIVICUS 20:13 “IF A MAN LIES WITH A MAN AS ONE LIES WITH A WOMAN, BOTH OF THEM HAVE DONE WHAT IS DETESTABLE. THEY MUST BE PUT TO DEATH; THEIR BLOOD WILL BE ON THEIR OWN HEADS” WILL BE DELETED.
DEUTERONOMY 23:17 “THERE SHALL BE NO WHORE OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL, NOR A SODOMITE OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL” WILL HAVE THE WORD “SODOMITE” REPLACED WITH “INTOLERANT PERSON”.
3. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY BELIEF IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH THE VALUES OF MILITARY SERVICE. DESPITE THE FIFTEEN CENTURIES OF RELIGIOUS TRADITION, SUCH VIEWS ARE NO LONGER IN KEEPING WITH THE MISSION OF OUR ARMED FORCES, THAT OF A VEHICLE FOR SOCIAL EXPERIMENTATION. MILITARY PERSONNEL OF ALL RANKS WHO PERSIST ON ADHERING TO THESE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WILL BE COUNSELED BY COMMANDERS AS TO THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THEIR VIEWS. INDIVIDUALS REFUSING TO EMBRACE OFFICIAL DOD BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP WILL BE PROCESSED FOR SEPARATION.
Hanson Baldwin would be proud.
The Edge of the American West 
42 comments
February 8, 2010 at 5:49 pm
kevin
What’s worse?
Citing ancient biblical authority in order to discuss contemporary military policy?
Or doing so and, by referring to “Leviticus” as “Ledivicus,” showing that you don’t know jack shit about the Bible?
February 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Spiny Norman
Also, prohibition against wearing mixed fibers (e.g., kevlar and spectra). Also.
February 8, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Tom Elrod
I thing I love about Leviticus is that the two verses on homosexuality are literally the only thing anyone will ever quote from it. The verses on proper sacrifices just lack a certain rhetorical punch, I guess.
February 8, 2010 at 6:28 pm
pv
Is the “fifteen centuries of religious tradition” just a random big chunk of time? I can’t figure out which part (the Old Testament, or Christianity itself, or American religious tradition, or American military values, or the individual believer’s beliefs) traces itself back to the 6th century.
February 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Rich Puchalsky
I was jolted by the idea that that someone semi-official — the U.S. Naval Institute? — would write this homophobic piece. But not really, luckily. It turns out to be sloppy attribution on your part.
The piece was written by guest blogger “UltimaRatioReg”. Are they someone semi-official? Who knows. I’d guess that they are current or former naval personnel. The Naval Institute, which appears to not be part of the U.S. government, appears to let many of its members blog.
The homophobic piece is stupid and bigoted, yes. But it’s not official, semi or otherwise.
February 8, 2010 at 6:35 pm
SEK
I’m all for changing both the books of LEVIDICUS and LEDIVICUS in their entirety. Scrap the whole lot of them!
February 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm
silbey
I was jolted by the idea that that someone semi-official — the U.S. Naval Institute? — would write this homophobic piece. But not really, luckily. It turns out to be sloppy attribution on your part.
It’s more of a group blog (ie the guest bloggers seem to be permanent) and you might check to see who the other bloggers are before pronouncing. So, no, it’s not “sloppy attribution” on my part.
February 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Rich Puchalsky
Really, silbey? People get authority because they’re on the same group blog as someone with it?
I looked at the list of bloggers, as you suggested. Here’s what is listed for the guy who wrote the piece:
“is a Reserve Marine Lieutenant Colonel, an
Artillery officer with 22 years of service. He has servedin all four Marine Divisions, and is a combat veteran of OIFII. In his civilian occupation, he is an emergency planner in New England, and is a qualified exercise developer who has participated in the planning and conduct of myriad federal and state exercises with scenarios ranging from natural disaster to terrorism to cyber attack. His current USMCR unit supports Title X war games for all services.”
If this guy is semi-official, then I’ll remember to congratulate you on your comic book analysis expertise the next time SEK writes something. You made a mistake, and rather than admitting it, you’re just doubling down.
February 8, 2010 at 6:59 pm
kid bitzer
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY BELIEF IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IS NO LONGER CONSIDERED COMPATIBLE WITH
some of my new teachings,
signed, jesus of nazareth.
i thought this was standard christian theology, no?
i mean, i thought they were all about throwing out that old stuff.
February 8, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Matt McKeon
I think official means, by the government. This is a guy commenting on his own time. His pearls of wisdom may reveal much about the attitudes of older military guys, but not official or semi official, whatever that means.
Of course the Marine Corps has dispensed with the “thou shall not kill” section of the Bible some time ago.
February 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm
ari
Rich, it’s so great to see you! We’ve really missed you!
February 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Rich Puchalsky
I missed you too, Ari. You’re still the same person as you used to be, that’s clear.
February 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm
silbey
Yes, really, Rich. The USNI blog includes three active duty Admirals, a Commander, and several other officers, both reserve and active-duty. The USNI itself was founded in 1873 by a group of naval officers at the Naval Academy, and publishes the journal Proceedings, which is where the naval community tends to hash out its debates.
It’s certainly (and carefully) not official, but “semi-official”? Sure.
February 8, 2010 at 7:18 pm
dana
Is the “fifteen centuries of religious tradition” just a random big chunk of time?
Maybe they’re counting from Muhammed?
February 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm
kathy a.
it’s kinda cute that this was written in ALL CAPS, like military orders, huh? and that the website tries to look all official-like? and it is staffed by [guest-posted by?] military people?
there they are, acting all cute. but some of them mean it, and may be in positions of authority in their real military jobs. so, semi-official is not truthfully off the mark.
February 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm
ari
You’re still the same person as you used to be, that’s clear.
I’m famous for my constancy, it’s true. Why not go away again, Rich? That way we can miss you even more!
February 8, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Rich Puchalsky
So the USNI is “someone semi-official”? Really? And it’s supposed to support the position of UltimaRatioReg with all of its semi-officiality, rather than providing space for him to post and not censoring him?
I mean, I expect the ad hom bit from ari. That’s a feature of this place. But you really wouldn’t see anything wrong with this attribution if it came from, say, a first-year history major?
February 8, 2010 at 7:37 pm
silbey
So the USNI is “someone semi-official”? Really?
I believe I answered that question already. I understand that that answer didn’t satisfy you, but I’m going to stick with it.
February 8, 2010 at 7:42 pm
ari
Rich, I don’t recall attacking you personally in the past. Indeed, I seem to remember being far more tolerant of you than you deserved in a number of instances. But I could be wrong. Anyway, that’s all water under the bridge. Let’s talk about now. I’m asking you, again, please to go away. I like this place more when you aren’t here. That might not sit well with you, I know, but there it is. So please, go.
February 8, 2010 at 9:17 pm
NM
Farley gave it the old college-professor try in comments there, but it really is an impossible conversation.
February 9, 2010 at 3:50 am
Daniel Kuehn
Well at least his spelling is pristine!
Oh… wait a minute…
February 9, 2010 at 5:04 am
kid bitzer
i think i see rich’s point.
“semi-” is an intensifier. for instance, there are small trucks, and then there are semi’s, which are much bigger. it’s got to be a really, really big truck before it’s a semi.
so unless it’s really, really official, it’s not semi-official.
you can see why he’s upset.
February 9, 2010 at 5:04 am
TF Smith
Okay, here is my “some of my best friends are navy veterans, gay and straight” admission: I spent a fair bit of my young life in the service. My guess is that probably makes me unique among the readers of Edge, but I could be wrong…certainly among my peers at Liberal Hotbed Suburban State U., I’m pretty close to unique, but that is a truism for my generational cohort as well.
That being said, I know and knew individuals, male and female, back in the day, who fell all over the spectrum of human sexuality. I also know and knew individuals, male and female, whose positions on DADT would fall into every POV represented here, and, for that matter, in the comments section on the posting at USNI that Dr. Silbey linked to…
And for my money, it represents a POV that is fairly common among some current and former senior officers (O-5/-6) and ncos. Having said that, since most of those individuals are on the downslope to 30, there is – as there undoubtedly is among the US population at large – a changing pov on DADT from the younger generation. Flag officers, of course, will follow the lead of the Administration and the Chairman.
It would be intersting to hear what Charlie Moskos would say about the current discussion; unfortunately, since his death, I don’t think there is anyone in the social sciences who really compares.
From a social science pov, although it is undoubtedly appropriate to many to ridicule the anti-DADT pov, it does exist, and should be considered seriously – especially as far as it matters from a generational resistance/acceptance to public policy changes, and the likely impact that resistance may have on larger political issues.
That being said, then to the question of whether the USNI should censor the statements and comments of guest-bloggers when it comes to the political and policy issues of the day: I hold no brief for the USNI (Full disclosure: I wrote a piece for Proceedings once that they accepted, even paid me for, and then never published – not sure if I like ’em or not after that episode; at least the check cleared, I’ll give them that) is censorship really appropriate for any insitutution that aspires to intellectual discussion and debate? Doesn’t allowing your commentariat room to comment (and, potentially, hang themselves, as the author of post in quesion pretty convincingly does) make more sense than prohibiting said commentaries?
Along those lines, is the USNI guest blog space more or less as “official” a webspace as Cliopatria?
IIRC, Clio does not allow the use of pseudonyms; yet psuedonyms are acceptable on the USNI, which is also 501c3…It is also most certainly not a “.mil” space, and God knows some loonies have been allowed to post on Cliopatria over the years…
Actually, the “admin” comments section on the various guest-bloggers’ postings – including the one that sparked Dr. Silbey’s post here – make it pretty clear that the USNI makes no claim to support of its various guest-bloggers’ statements.
Milling about smartly….
February 9, 2010 at 5:12 am
politicalfootball
I think of myself as a regular reader of this blog, but I honestly didn’t understand the animus aimed at Puchalsky until now.
February 9, 2010 at 5:19 am
politicalfootball
is censorship really appropriate for any insitutution that aspires to intellectual discussion and debate?
TF, I don’t have your military credentials, but it was always my understanding that the military cheerfully engaged in censorship all the time – for instance, if the same blogger had put on the same blog: “I like being gay,” he’d be subject to separation from the military, no?
USNI makes no claim to support
Well, shucks, you’re more well-spoken than Rich, but no less confused. If silbey published racist rant on Edge of the American West, ari’s reputation would be damaged – and rightly so, I’d argue. (Similarly, ari’s reputation is burnished by the fact that, regardless of the quality of his own posts, he’s part of a smart blog.)
February 9, 2010 at 5:32 am
silbey
That being said, then to the question of whether the USNI should censor the statements and comments of guest-bloggers when it comes to the political and policy issues of the day
I’m not sure that anyone suggested censoring it, did they? I certainly didn’t.
The reason that I called it “semi-official” was because the USNI is one of those organizations (like the Air Force Association) that is closely allied to a particular service and tends to represent the views of those communities, sometimes the retired members and sometimes not. But we should also remember that active duty officers frequently use such associations (and their retired brethren) to get out a viewpoint that they could not express publicly themselves. Remember all those retired generals and admirals–TV pundits one and all–to whom the Pentagon was paying consulting fees.
The correct comparison is not Cliopatria, but the American Historical Association, and if they had something like this up on their blog, historians would be rightly incensed.
although it is undoubtedly appropriate to many to ridicule the anti-DADT pov, it does exist, and should be considered seriously – especially as far as it matters from a generational resistance/acceptance to public policy changes, and the likely impact that resistance may have on larger political issues
In terms of implementation, I think you’re absolutely correct. But that doesn’t mean we have to give that attitude any respect or deference.
February 9, 2010 at 5:41 am
dave
Rumour has it that there are some members of the US armed forces who don’t care much for n***ers either, but I don’t think that makes their viewpoint that of the service itself. I think, indeed, that insofar as the service has a viewpoint, it might be something like ‘obey lawful orders’. Experience teaches that some service members have problems doing that from time to time, which is why, amongst other things, the UCMJ exists.
February 9, 2010 at 5:47 am
TF Smith
PF, thaks for the response; I appreciate it.
My answer would be that USNI is NOT controlled by the US military, any more than – say – EOTAW is controlled by the universities that employ its contributors (or, for that matter, the CHE or AHA websites are by the universities that employ theirs…).
USNI was set up, quite consciously, in the Nineteenth Century as an advocacy forum for a particular POV about the Navy; part of that was to provide a forum where those interested in the sea services, whether serving or not, could comment about issues of the day – and, at times, in complete opposition to official USG policy and often very critically…
So as far as your example goes, if the same blogger had written a comment that stated his/her homosexuality, I honestly think it would be welcomed and published, probably even spotlighted, by USNI. That is part of their stated mission…one can be suspicious about USNI’s commitment to free and open discussion, I suppose, but that seems speculative, given the state of knowledge…I truly do not know if any personnel dismissed from the service because of DADT issues have sought to be published there, for example.
Of course, that might be a good question for the webadmin, or the editors, at USNI…
I’m glad I’m at least well spoken, if equally confused, but is Ari’s reputation the point of EOTAW? I think there is a little more to this place than that, isn’t there?
February 9, 2010 at 6:47 am
politicalfootball
TF – you duplicate an error made by the USNI blogger. Viewing some opinions as contemptible is not the same as censoring those opinions. USNI, in fact, won’t publish just anything they are given, and they aren’t guilty of censorhip, just editing. The proprieters of the blog are rightly judged according to the language that they permit on that blog.
In this case, the USNI blogger’s opinons are contemptible. If you disagree on that, well, then we disagree – and you aren’t censoring me by virtue of that disagreement.
(The USNI blogger, of course, is particularly hypocritical, because he’s advocating the importance of suppressing some views for the sake of military discipline while whining about his views being suppressed.)
February 9, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Ralph Hitchens
Over fifteen centuries of selectively discarding religious tradition we’ve learned to appreciate all sorts of things once proscribed in the O.T. as offensive to the Lord God. Here in Maryland we do love our crabs, and I’ve got a tweed blazer with leather elbow patches somewhere in my closet. Been a long time since we stoned adulterers or sold disobedient daughters into chattel servitude, but hey — He musta been serious when he mentioned that sodomy business!
February 9, 2010 at 6:14 pm
TF Smith
Well, the third sentence in the post suggests a “need” that should have been unfilled, so I think the inference that the argument is the USNI should not have allowed the blogger to publish the comment on the USNI website is a reasonable one. That would suggest more than simple editing…
Or is the consensus that the USNI admin should have done something else? Allowed the blogger to post his statement, and then condemned it?
February 9, 2010 at 6:23 pm
silbey
Well, the third sentence in the post suggests a “need” that should have been unfilled, so I think the inference that the argument is the USNI should not have allowed the blogger to publish the comment on the USNI website is a reasonable one.
TF, if I’d wanted to advocate that the USNI should not have allowed the blogger to make the post, I would have said “The USNI should not have allowed the blogger to make the post.” I’m straightforward that way. Please don’t assume that your inferences are correct, and especially don’t do so when I specifically say that those inferences are, in fact, not correct.
February 9, 2010 at 6:49 pm
TF Smith
So the point of the post was simply snarking on an semi-anonymous, semi-official, utterly powerless when it comes to this pending policy change, and presumably close to semi-retired neanderthal?
Okay…good to know.
I’m just trying to get at the “history and current events” impact of Col. So-and-So’s anonymous blogging vis a vis Mike Mullen – who ranks the good colonel by at least four grades (if not five, if Col. S-and-S is an 0-5) and is, lest we forget, chairman of the JCS, testifying before Congress that the damn law should be repealed…which is/was a first for any member of the JCS, IIRC.
February 9, 2010 at 6:58 pm
TF Smith
This seems at least as timely:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/as_dadt_repeal_talk_gains_steam_a_gay_guardsman_is.php?ref=fpblg
February 9, 2010 at 7:21 pm
politicalfootball
so I think the inference that the argument is the USNI should not have allowed the blogger to publish the comment on the USNI website is a reasonable one.
Had it been a “comment” in the sense that I am writing a comment here, I can see a strong case that it ought to have been permitted, and ought not have been deleted.
But for my part, and to be completely clear: I, unlike silbey, am arguing that USNI should not have allowed the blogger to publish the post on its web site. USNI should be embarrassed to be associated with such a thing.
The blogger, furthermore, should not have chosen to post it – and having posted it, should be embarrassed to have done so, and should apologize.
The USNI blog post is intellectually vacant and despicable. Decent people ought not be embarrassed to call this what it is.
February 9, 2010 at 7:29 pm
silbey
So the point of the post was simply snarking on an semi-anonymous, semi-official, utterly powerless when it comes to this pending policy change, and presumably close to semi-retired neanderthal?
The point was to highlight the way in which the language around gay issues is still highly bigoted. The point was to highlight the way in which an institution which is semi-officially related to the Navy is willing to host that kind of language.
I’m just trying to get at the “history and current events” impact of Col. So-and-So’s anonymous blogging vis a vis Mike Mullen – who ranks the good colonel by at least four grades (if not five, if Col. S-and-S is an 0-5) and is, lest we forget, chairman of the JCS, testifying before Congress that the damn law should be repealed…which is/was a first for any member of the JCS, IIRC.
And Bill Clinton was the commander-in-chief of the entire American military in 1993. How’d that go?
February 10, 2010 at 4:06 am
Doug M.
I’m in the group that has trouble seeing how a retired bird colonel with no formal position is “someone semi-official”. Sure, the definition of “semi” is so slippery that there’s no way to resolve this, but color me underwhelmed.
I note in passing that the admin posted in the comments:
“As a reminder, the posts are the opinions of our guest bloggers and the comments are those of the commentors. We do not officially sanction any position, though we encourage debate on important issues.”
Doug M.
February 10, 2010 at 11:02 pm
TF Smith
Okay, USNI should not have posted Col. Blimp’s blog, because – among other issues – making him a martyr for their cause is, of course, a good idea.
But with regards to 1993, oddly enough, in the course of 17 years, the population’s attitudes change. Shocking, I know. Let’s see, what’s different today?
1. US at war (twice-over) vs US not at war (amazing what a war can get accomplished – the franchise for women, for example);
2. Obama has the vocal approval of the chairman of the JCS vs. Clinton not having the vocal approval of anyone wearing stars that I recall;
3. Obama was smart enough to wait for a year vs Clinton who, IIRC, ran and stuck his hand into the buzzsaw within weeks of being elected;
4. Just some slight differences in terms of the each party’s numbers in Congress;
Yeah, the political situation today regarding this issue is exactly the same as in 1993…
February 11, 2010 at 6:37 am
silbey
But with regards to 1993, oddly enough, in the course of 17 years, the population’s attitudes change. Shocking, I know. Let’s see, what’s different today?
That doesn’t change that a simple appeal to hierarchy (as you did in the part I was responding to) isn’t conclusive.
February 11, 2010 at 6:59 am
TF Smith
Was I appealling to hierarchy? I thought I was stating a fact…
When the chair says something out loud about a policy change – especially when the same position has already been made clear by the CinC – said policy change is pretty much becoming a given.
If you can provide examples where a policy change supported by the CinC AND the top-ranking officer in the military (and, I believe, the ranking members of the House and Sentae armed services committees) has not gone forward, I’d be interested.
As a side observation, Lt. Choi’s movement from the IRR to drilling reservist status would be another fact in evidence that really says volumes…many more than Col. Blimp’s essay or post or whatever-the-hell-it-is…
As far as USNI goes, write them a letter. Post on Col. Blimp’s blog, which takes comments, obviously. Resign your membership and return the latest copy of Proceedings. Offer a motion to ban any USNI contributors from the AHA, OAH, the Faculty Club, and the Rotarians – you’d probably get plenty of willing co-signatories. Do your best to make the good colonel a martyr, because that will certainly advance the repeal of DADT…
But regardless, this policy change is obviously going to happen; it apparently already is, as witness Lt. Choi’s situation. It will take time – change in large institutions almost always does. Truman ordered desegragation in 1947; in 1950, the 24th Infantry RCT and the 3/9th were still largely made up of black ncos and white (and a few black) officers. That changed in Korea, for good reason; a shooting war has that sort of impact on military personnel polices.
February 11, 2010 at 8:41 am
politicalfootball
Okay, USNI should not have posted Col. Blimp’s blog, because – among other issues – making him a martyr for their cause is, of course, a good idea.
Do your best to make the good colonel a martyr
This “martyr” idea is an interesting one to me, and it’s at the root of a lot of the trouble in this country nowadays.
Some ideas and actions are beyond the pale in decent society, and taking note of that fact is not the stuff of creating martyrs. Had the ignorant USNI poster been obliged to publish this on his own site – and even had he bragged that the post had been turned down by USNI – that wouldn’t have had the effect of making him a martyr, not among any serious-minded person.
Granted, folks who march in the streets with Confederate flags actually do get some mileage out of playing the martyrdom card – “How dare you call us racists!” But silence in the face of loathsome behavior is worse.
And make no mistake: Demanding government obeisance to the literal language of Leviticus is loathsome, dangerous and unambiguously anti-American. Advocacy of equality for women, blacks and gays always stirs up a lot of backlash – but it’s the backlash that’s the problem, not the egalitarian impulse.
Despicable ideas and behavior ought be aggressively publicly opposed. You let stuff like this slide, and sooner or later you find yourself living in a country where, say, torture is openly advocated at the highest levels of government.
February 11, 2010 at 9:20 am
silbey
As far as USNI goes, write them a letter. Post on Col. Blimp’s blog, which takes comments, obviously. Resign your membership and return the latest copy of Proceedings. Offer a motion to ban any USNI contributors from the AHA, OAH, the Faculty Club, and the Rotarians – you’d probably get plenty of willing co-signatories. Do your best to make the good colonel a martyr, because that will certainly advance the repeal of DADT…
I could also post something on my blog…