Video: Top Gays-in-Military Activist Aubrey Sarvis Tells MSNBC that Serving in Army as Homosexual Was ‘Not a Big Deal’

What price will America pay to celebrate “gay pride” in our Armed Forces?

Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.

Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:

MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?

Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video….]

Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that  it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.

Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?

The answer is “gay pride” — which is a military and national priority only in the minds of homosexual advocates and their liberal allies like our current Commander-in-Chief. Discreet and celibate homosexuals have long served and continue to serve in the military — often after lying about their homosexuality to get in (which calls into question all that “gay” blather about “honesty” and “integrity”). But the fact that the nation’s leading homosexuals-in-the-military activist acknowledges that it was “not a big deal” for him to serve in the Army decades ago (Sarvis was in for more than three years) shows that — on a practical level — the issue is not really about homosexuals serving in the military.

No, Sarvis and fellow homosexual crusaders want servicemen and servicewomen who identify as homosexuals to serve as “out and proud gays and lesbians” –and to be affirmed as such by other servicemen, and by the Armed Forces’ bureaucracy. They already “serve in silence,” but they demand the “right” to do so loudly and proudly — traditional military values be damned. H.R. 1283, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), would accomplish this goal by imposing “sexual orientation” egalitarianism on the Armed Forces in the guise of fighting “discrimination”; as with all “gay rights” legislation, such a law would invariably lead to politically correct assaults on the rights and beliefs of fighting men and women of faith who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

In other words, GLBT activists — driven by the need to justify their immoral and unnatural lifestyle — seek to transform the conservative culture of the U.S. military to approve of “proud” homosexuality and bisexuality, even if that means spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “attitudinal adjustment” for all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who either oppose homosexuality or don’t wish to see it celebrated. If Congress caves in to this “gay” agenda, it would help drive out tens of thousands of high caliber, tradition-minded servicemen from the military.

Isn’t that a rather high price to pay to validate those in the military who aren’t even supposed to be serving in the first place? — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org