Media Research Center president Brent Bozell took to CNN last night to make the outrageous accusation that the Smithsonian Institution has put on an art exhibit that would be appealing if "you are into religious bigotry." In doing so, Bozell ignored reporting from his own organization and used a series of contentious descriptions of the works in the exhibit to incite anti-gay sentiment.
Bozell also has sent letters to Congress that purport to speak "on behalf" of "the overwhelming majority of Americans who call themselves Christian." In the letters, Bozell demanded "Congressional hearings to investigate the Smithsonian Institution for its attack on Christian values and common decency." The letters repeatedly reference the federal tax dollars that the Smithsonian receives.
This isn't just about Bozell's attempt to control what the public can and cannot see at museums. It's also about attempting to choke off public funding for the arts.
In his Washington Examiner column today, Byron York takes a swing at press coverage of the Pentagon's service member survey regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell. York makes much of the fact that among troops with combat experience, larger percentages of service members predict a "negative effect." From York's column:
Press coverage of the new Pentagon Don't Ask Don't Tell report suggests that large majorities of U.S. servicemen and women wouldn't mind the repeal of the military's current policy on gays. Don't believe it. What the report actually shows is that the military is deeply divided over the policy, both between the service branches and especially between those who have served in combat and those who haven't. Did you know that 59 percent of Marines who have served in combat say repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell would have a negative effect? And that 45 percent of Army respondents who have been in combat say the same thing? That is significant, not marginal, opposition.
True, among service members with deployment experience and those in combats arms units, larger percentages of those surveyed predict negative results. However, an overwhelming majority (84 percent) of Marines in combat arms units who have had actual experience working in a unit with a service member believed to be gay said that the unit's "ability to work together" was either "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor." That number is even higher (89 percent) among Army combat arms units and higher still (92 percent) among the services at large. From page 6 of the report, emphasis added:
Given that we are in a time of war, the combat arms communities across all Services required special focus and analysis. Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of the overall U.S. military who predict mixed, positive or no effect in the event of repeal, these percentages are lower, and the percentage of those who predict negative effects are higher, in combat arms units. For example, in response to question 68a, while the percentage of the overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their unit's ability to "work together to get the job done" is 30%, the percentage is 43% for the Marine Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.
However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit's "ability to work together," was "very good, "good" or "neither good nor poor." Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units--all very high percentages. Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, "We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He's big, he's mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay."
However much the conservative media would like to preserve the myths about DADT, the fact is that countries that have repealed gay bans follow a familiar pattern. Surveys of troops often suggested widespread resistance to policy change, but repeal did not undermine unit cohesion, effectiveness, or recruitment and retention.
From the December 1 edition of CNN's John King USA:
Loading the player reg...
Did retired Lt. Col. Oliver North really just say that a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell could mean a return to the draft? Yes, in an appearance today on Fox News' Happening Now, North said DADT repeal could mean a loss of 30 percent of military personnel, and that an all-volunteer force could not survive such a loss. From the December 1 edition of Happening Now:
JENNA LEE (anchor): Viewers have a lot of questions about our resources though as a military, and this is follow-up from Ken Delap. He wants to know if there is ever a scenario you can imagine where we would have to reinstate the draft?
NORTH: Well, yeah, I can because of what they're about to do in terms of the Congress passing this revocation of section 654 of Title 10. What you're liable to have happen, is a consequence of-- and by the way that is known in the jargon as "don't ask, don't tell". What you're likely to have is a whole lot fewer voluntary enlistments that we rely on right now for an all-volunteer force.
LEE: And Colonel North, you really think that would happen? Because Briana had a great question from Phoenix, Arizona. She says, "Is having homosexual men and women in the military really a detriment to the establishment of the military?" Sounds like you're saying yes?
NORTH: It is. There's no doubt. In all of my trips overseas, Briana and Jenna, and everyone else out there, in now almost two years of covering this war for Fox News on the ground with U.S. units, I have never - there's very few always and nevers in life -- I have never talked to a staff noncommissioned officer or a mid-grade officer with combat experience who believes this is a good thing to do. And if we're relying on the fact that 30 percent have already expressed their concern about this, don't leave the military and get replaced, then we've got a problem because you can't live with an all-volunteer force that loses 30 percent of the best-educated, trained, led, militarily equipped and combat-experienced force the world ever has known. It could be very, very dangerous in the long-term.
Why, that seems like a mighty strong assertion. If only we had hard data on the subject. If only a recent comprehensive survey of U.S. service members had asked how a repeal of DADT would affect their decisions to stay in the force.
What's that you say? The Pentagon recently asked over 115,000 service members in a survey about DADT?
12.6 percent of those surveyed said they would leave sooner than they had planned, 11.1 percent said they would think about leaving sooner. That adds up to 22.7 percent, assuming every respondent who said they would leave early actually did, and that every respondent who said they would consider leaving early decided to do so.
To approach 30 percent, one would have to assume that the 10.5 percent of respondents who said that they did not know how repeal would affect their career decisions would up and decide that the post-repeal military just wasn't for them. Given that absurd, baseless assumption, we arrive at a total of 33.2 percent. One would also have to disregard the estimated thousands of gay and lesbian military personnel who would be retained each year if not for DADT, and to assume that any uptick in recruitment of gay personnel was non-existent or negligible.
However, such an exodus is extremely unlikely, given similar surveys taken in foreign countries before those nations allowed open service. 45 percent of Canadian troops said they would refuse to work with gay personnel, and two-thirds of British troops said they would leave the military if the gay ban were repealed. Despite those indications, retention was not harmed.
So, to recap, repeal would cost the U.S. military 30 percent of its personnel only in a preposterous fictional world where every single service member who answered that they would leave sooner did not reconsider and actually left, where every single service member who answered that they would think about leaving sooner decided to leave early and did so, and where every single service member who couldn't say how repeal would affect their decision.
In that world, North's anecdotal evidence and persistent fear mongering might hold water. That anecdotal evidence is itself suspect: in "almost two years of covering this war for Fox News on the ground with US units," has North really never spoken to any U.S. military personnel with positive things to say about gay troops in the British or Canadian forces in Afghanistan?
But in real world where people consider data and history, North's numbers just don't add up.
The Pentagon's Don't Ask, Don't Tell study released yesterday found that a clear majority of military personnel don't have a problem with ending the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military. So how did the Washington Post kick off its article about the troops' views? By emphasizing the fears of a small minority of military personnel:
Some expressed fears about contracting AIDS or getting leered at in the showers. Others worried that it would get in the way of critical bonding at barbecues and bar outings. Still others said it would be an affront to their religious beliefs and harm the military's credibility.
That's the Washington Post's lede for an article about a study finding that 70 percent of the military thinks ending DADT won't pose a problem: The fears of "some" about AIDS. Instead of emphasizing views that are consistent with the study's findings, the Post chose a more inflammatory, and less accurate, route, playing up ugly stereotypes about gays. The first quote or paraphrase of a survey respondent who favors repealing DADT didn't appear until halfway through the article, after the Post had told readers that (again, a small minority) of respondents fear AIDS, leering gays, affronts to their religious beliefs, damage to military credibility, diminished barbecue bonding -- and quoted three repeal opponents.
The Post's promotion of the article further illustrates its focus on the views of the small minority of service-members:
And when the Post did finally get around to quoting the majority who favor repeal, it omitted some of the most compelling comments. Among the responses that didn't make it into the Post report:
"I love America for its tolerance. I am willing to be a KIA [Killed In Action] because I think America values equality and civil liberties. It would be great if the institution I served in mirrored exactly these ideals."
"This is an equality issue, and who doesn't deserve equal rights? We've done it before with African Americans, and we have done it before with females. We can do it again. As brothers and sisters in arms, we stand and fight not only for our country, but for one another."
When a majority of members of a conservative institution in a nation with a history of discriminating against gays don't want to discriminate against gays anymore, that's the news -- not the fact that a minority still cling to prejudice. The Post article simply is not representative of the findings of the study in question. Worse, it privileges inflammatory rhetoric and anti-gay stereotypes.
There is a long-running conservative media narrative that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military openly would undermine unit cohesion, recruitment, and retention. For example, take Les Kinsolving's insistence in his recent WorldNetDaily column that repeal of DADT would prompt an uptick in early retirement so huge that it would necessitate a return to the draft, and that Baptist and Catholic chaplains would be forced from the military. Thankfully, those tired voices can rest after the release of the Pentagon report on Don't Ask Don't Tell. The report investigates their concerns and as it turns out, the sky isn't falling.
The report confirms that open service is unlikely to harm unit cohesion or readiness. In a letter released today by the Palm Center, 30 scholars contend the report echoes many other studies and leaves only one obstacle to repeal: prejudice. When asked about the effect of repeal on task cohesion, personal readiness, and unit readiness, majorities of those surveyed said they expected a "positive, mixed, or no effect." From page 64 of the report, emphasis added:
The Service member survey asked a number of questions on Service members' views about the effect of repeal on unit cohesion, including task and social cohesion. Task cohesion is a unit's ability to work together effectively, whereas social cohesion is a unit's ability to get along and trust one another. Overall, 70-76% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, a mixed, or no effect on aspects of task cohesion. Similarly, 67-78% of Service members said repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on aspects of social cohesion.
Only 12 percent of those surveyed said that repeal would have a negative effect on their personal readiness, and only 31 percent expected a negative impact on unit readiness. From page 68 of the report, emphasis added:
Service members were asked to assess their current readiness, as well as how repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would affect their personal readiness and their unit's readiness. With regard to personal readiness, 67% of Service members said that repeal would have a positive or no effect; 22% said the effect would be equally positive as negative, and 12% said repeal would have a negative effect. In addition, 58% said repeal would have a positive or no effect on their ability to train well; 21% said the effect would be equally positive as negative; and 21% said repeal would have a negative effect. The responses about effects at the unit level, as opposed to at the personal level, were somewhat more negative. For example, with regard to their unit's ability to train well together, 31% said that repeal would have a negative impact.
Right-wing concerns about recruitment and retention are similarly overblown. From pages 68-69 of the report, emphasis added:
The Services rely on referrals--from family, friends, and current or former Service members--for about a third of new recruits. Overall, nearly one-half (47%) of Service members said that repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell would have no effect on their willingness to recommend military service to a family member or close friend; 6% said that it would have positive effect; 10% said it would have a mixed effect; and 27% said it would have a negative effect.
Overall, more than 60% of Service members told us that their career plans would not change as a result of repeal; 13% said that they would definitely leave sooner than they had otherwise planned; and 11% said they would think about leaving sooner than they had planned.
In other countries that have allowed gay men and women to serve, the repeal of bans on openly gay service did not affect recruitment or retention, despite significantly higher percentages of troops stating beforehand that they would respond negatively. In a 1985 survey of male Canadian troops, 45 percent said they would refuse to work with gays. In a 1996 survey of British troops, two-thirds said they would not willingly serve if openly gay and lesbian persons were allowed to serve. Both countries subsequently lifted their bans without suffering the severe circumstances predicted by surveys.
Lest they ignore Kinsolving's concerns for military chaplains, the report authors thought that, too. From page 12 of the report, emphasis added:
Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence of views about Don't Ask, Don't Tell exists among the chaplain corps. A large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.
However, the reality is that in today's U.S. military, people of sharply different moral values and religious convictions--including those who believe that abortion is murder and those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do not--and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight together on a daily basis. The other reality is that policies regarding Service members' individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist, and we believe they are adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different views and beliefs.
Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part of any education and training concerning repeal. Those regulations strike an appropriate balance between protecting a chaplain's First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain's duty to care for all. Existing regulations state that chaplains "will not be required to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith." At the same time, regulations state that "Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command."
But perhaps the most telling numbers from the Pentagon survey are that of the 69 percent of those surveyed who report having worked with a service member believed to be gay or lesbian, only 8 percent of respondents report having experienced a resultant negative effect on the unit's "ability to work together." From page 4 of the report, emphasis added:
The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today's U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated that the unit's "ability to work together" was "very good," "good," or "neither good nor poor," while only 8% stated it was "poor" or "very poor." Anecdotally, we also heard a number of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person's sexual orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship. Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.
On the same day CNN reports that a Pentagon survey will report that a "majority of U.S. service members surveyed do not care if the law banning openly gay and lesbian troops from serving is repealed," World Net Daily has published a column by Les Kinsolving that warns that repeal would bring mass early retirement significant enough to prompt a return to the draft.
From Kinsolving's WND column:
But that uproar will surely be superseded if the commander in chief of our armed forces joins a lame-duck Democratic Congress in repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, known as DADT.
Such an action would force members of our Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard to share sleeping quarters, showers and latrines with self-announced homosexuals. Service personnel would eventually be subject to the orders of noncommissioned and commissioned officers who are similarly self-announced homosexuals.
If that took place, just consider the impact of a large number of long-serving personnel who would retire as soon as possible - rather than submitting to such a horrendous invasion of privacy as being lusted after by the numerous lobbies of militant homosexuality.
This, in turn, would almost certainly put an end to our all-volunteer armed forces. That would compel reinstitution of the draft.
Any such compulsory service in the armed forces with self-announced noncommissioned and commissioned officers who are militant homosexuals would at least cause major lawsuits - along with an even higher rate of draft resistors than during the Vietnam War.
In the real world where people gather data about militaries that have implemented inclusive policies, no such thing has ever happened. Polls of British and Canadian troops suggested mass resignations would occur following the repeal of a ban on gay service members, but retention did not suffer following repeal. Not a single one of 104 experts surveyed for a 2003 study believed that recruitment or retention suffered because of the repeal of bans by the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British militaries.
Times are tough for the newspaper industry -- perhaps that is why Michigan's Holland Sentinel has turned over its pages for yet another anti-gay advertisement.
This time around, the ad features a same-sex couple embracing beneath a headline reading, "How sad when God's original design is twisted!" The ad, purchased by Pastor Earl Shetler of Now Jesus Ministries, goes on to quote Bible passages. As Towleroad notes, Shetler "also runs a tree removal service in Saugatuck, Michigan, a popular gay and lesbian resort town."
Attempts by Media Matters to reach Holland Sentinel publisher and editor Peter Esser for comment by phone and email went unanswered. You can reach the Holland Sentinel here or email Esser directly here with your thoughts on the paper's decision to profit off of bigotry.
View the previous ad that ran in the Holland Sentinel this past July by the Family Research Council (FRC) after the jump. The FRC was added to a list of anti-gay hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center just months after the ad appeared in print.
When we last left Dr. Laura she had announced that she would be ending her nationally syndicated radio show on December 31 due to criticism over the now infamous rant in which she used the N-word 11 times. For those that need to be brought up to speed:
On August 10, Dr. Laura Schlessinger launched into a racially charged rant, during which Schlessinger -- in her own words -- "articulated the 'n' word all the way out -- more than one time." Among other things, Schlessinger also told an African-American caller that she had a "chip on [her] shoulder."
Schlessinger apologized the next day.
As Media Matters noted at the time, it wasn't the faux-psychologist's first brush with controversy:
Schlessinger's troubles then -- just like now -- began with incendiary remarks aimed at a minority group. During the 1990s, Schlesinger blasted "homosexuality" as "a biological error," "deviant behavior, a dysfunctional behavior," and linked gay men to pedophilia and child molestation. Schlessinger also touted "therapies which have been successful in helping a reasonable number of people become heterosexual."
When Paramount announced it had signed Schlessinger to a TV talk show for the fall of 2000, the group StopDrLaura.com successfully "waged a campaign to dissuade companies from sponsoring the show." Dr. Laura debuted to "disappointing" ratings and Paramount "had difficulty attracting national sponsors to the show," forcing the studio to sell ads at reduced rates (LA Times, 9/22/00).
In the spring of 2001, Dr. Laura -- to no one's surprise -- was cancelled. Schlessinger blamed the cancellation on gay rights groups such as StopDrLaura.com and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), telling Larry King that "political correctness" "overpowers and overwhelms the United States of America today. ... This was strictly about trying to destroy my voice." Schlessinger defenders claimed that critics were trying to silence her "1st amendment" rights.
It is now being reported that Schlessinger will only be trading in her terrestrial radio program in favor of a satellite broadcast on Sirius XM. As Huffington Post notes:
The AP report, which appears to have been published prematurely, says Schlessinger will begin on Sirius XM on January 3, just three days after signing off from terrestrial radio.
Much like Howard Stern before her, Schlessinger says that freedom of speech is what drew her to satellite radio.
"The first and most important thing that appealed to me was the freedom to speak my mind without advertisers and affiliates being attacked by activist groups that just love to censor anything they don't agree with," she told the Associated Press. "That just about made my heart and head explode."
The Associated Press report appears to have been designed for publication Monday, and has since been retracted. A note to editors said to disregard the story was it "was not intended for publication on Friday." A representative for Sirius XM did not respond to a request for comment.
In a November 23 Washington Times op-ed, Frank Gaffney wrote that repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law could lead to reinstatement of the draft. Gaffney stated: "If tens of thousands choose not to submit [to the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] and 'vote with their feet,' as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has called on them to do, it may become impossible to rely only on volunteers to staff our military." Gaffney continued: "In that case, a vote for repeal of the 1993 law barring homosexuals from the military amounts to a vote for reinstating the draft."
Gaffney further equated the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with TSA's security procedures, stating: "Being forced to submit to a privacy-rending body scan or pat-down - unpleasant as it may be - is not likely to compare to the trauma that can flow from being forced to submit to showering or sharing a bunkroom with someone who finds you sexually attractive."
From Gaffney's op-ed:
Team Obama's line is that "most" in uniform think there will be no problem, or at least "mixed" good and bad repercussions. But if even an estimated 10 percent choose to leave the service - let alone 40 percent of Marines, who, according to the leakers, think repeal will cause problems - the effect will be traumatic, possibly devastating, for the U.S. armed forces. If tens of thousands choose not to submit and "vote with their feet," as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has called on them to do, it may become impossible to rely only on volunteers to staff our military.
In that case, a vote for repeal of the 1993 law barring homosexuals from the military amounts to a vote for reinstating the draft.
Author and advice columnist Dan Savage appeared Tuesday afternoon on CNN Newsroom to discuss two reports out this week by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): The first updating its list of anti-gay hate groups and the second finding that LGBT Americans "are far more likely to be victims of a violent hate crime than any other minority group in the United States."
Savage -- the founder of the "It Gets Better Project" which aims to stem the recent tide of LGBT youth suicides -- took the interview with CNN's Kyra Phillips as an opportunity to jab CNN and other networks for providing a platform to anti-gay hate group leaders like the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins. As Savage noted in a blog post following the interview, Perkins' Family Research Council is on the SPLC's list of anti-gay hate groups. From the interview:
PHILLIPS: You know, it's difficult to say what would be a solution [to anti-gay hate crimes]. But, could we start with more hate crimes legislation where bullies are prosecuted more severely?
SAVAGE: We can start with that, we can also start with… really, we need a cultural reckoning around gay and lesbian issues. There was once two sides to the race debate. There was once a side, you could go on television and argue for segregation, you could argue against interracial marriage, against the Civil Rights Act, against extending voting rights to African Americans and that used to be treated as one side, you know, one legitimate side of a pressing national debate and it isn't anymore. And we really need to reach that point with gay and lesbian issues. There are no 'two sides' to the issues about gay and lesbian rights.
And right now one side is really using dehumanizing rhetoric. The Southern Poverty Law Center labels these groups as hate groups and yet the leaders of these groups, people like Tony Perkins, are welcomed onto networks like CNN to espouse hate directed at gays and lesbians. And similarly hateful people who are targeting Jews or people of color or anyone else would not be welcome to spew their bile on networks like CNN and then that really -- we really have to start there. We have to start with that type of cultural reckoning.
In a November 18 editorial titled, "Barack's Brokeback barracks," The Washington Times again baselessly fearmongered that "[m]ilitary personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military" if the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law is repealed.
From the Times' editorial:
The unchecked leaks conceal the larger problem with the working-group effort, which has focused not on whether the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military - usually called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - should be repealed, but how a repeal should be implemented. As sources in the military "listening sessions" have stated in letters to The Washington Times, working-group members have promoted the Obama administration's social revolution from the top down. Military personnel whose religious beliefs conflict with the LGBT agenda will find themselves no longer welcome in the military. Even if the 70 percent number were accurate, that would imply nearly a third of the troops would be on the unwanted list.
From the November 16 edition of Fox Business' Freedom Watch:
Loading the player reg...
The slow-witted thirteen-year-olds Tucker Carlson has apparently hired to run The Daily Caller strike again:
Get it? Rosie O'Donnell, who is gay, is therefore half a man. Hahahahaha!
When The Daily Caller launched with $3 million in seed money from Republican financier Foster Freiss, the GOP donor said: "Tucker and Neil [Patel] present a huge opportunity to re-introduce civility to our political discourse. They are mature, sensible men who are very thoughtful and experienced with pleasant senses of humor and do not take themselves too seriously. They want to make a contribution to the dialogue that occurs in our country that has become too antagonistic, nasty and hostile."
I'll give Freiss this much: His quote is funnier than any of the Daily Caller's gay jokes.
It's been a little while since the Washington Post last provided a platform for gay-bashing, so let's check in on the On Faith microsite, shall we?
Uh-oh. This won't go well: It's a discussion topic about gays in the military. And the Post's introduction to the discussion quotes the the anti-gay views of three people -- but doesn't quote any gay-rights advocates.
And right off the bat, Frank Pavone, president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council and a Catholic priest (last seen writing in the Post that sex can only be had "in a marriage between a man and a woman, and when open to life") chimes in with a post encouraging military chaplains to denounce gay service members. Here's Pavone:
On military bases, when our service people gather for worship, they are gathering as a community called together and united by the Word of God. By so gathering, they are saying they accept that word and are striving to live by it. If they come together as Catholics to have Mass and Communion, they are identifying themselves with a community that has a specific set of beliefs and practices, and they are saying they accept those beliefs and practices.
Those beliefs and practices include accepting and respecting God's plan for human sexuality and striving to live accordingly. The chaplain's role is to lead the community in the affirmation of those beliefs, and to bring God's strength to those trying to live them. The chaplain draws clear lines between what corresponds to Christian belief and behavior, and what doesn't. It's not up to the chaplain to create or change those boundaries.
If we institute policies which are going to openly condone homosexual activity, let's not be surprised or complain when chaplains do their job.
So, I guess Pavone isn't among those who consider "unit cohesion" an important goal. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't be quite so eager for military chaplains to sow discord among troops by devoting sermons to the supposed immorality of gay service members.
Pavone also suggests gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly, demonstrating a clear double-standard in the process:
Now if a gay person wants to serve in the military, I honor that person's commitment to defend this country and serve its citizens.
At the same time, I would think that defending the country and serving its citizens are precisely the motive for entering the military - not, on the other hand, making a statement about being gay.
I don't know where Pavone got the idea that people who want to be able to serve without lying about being gay are more interested in "making a statement about being gay" than in serving their country, but I'm quite confident he'd never write such a passage about troops who want to be openly straight.