about drafting women. Navy SecretaryrnSean O’Keefe told midshipmen in Annapolisrnshortly before the Clinton Anschlussrnthat women should performrncombat roles in all the services and bern”conscripted on an identical sociologicalrnbasis as men.” What a gentleman.rnSpeaking of gentlemen, Republicanrn”opposition” to the Clinton plan consistsrnof a bare majority within a minority.rnSome GOP senators have run for cover,rntrying to appease their enemies by vainlyrnprotesting that they are not “gay-bashers.”rnRather than oppose Clinton openly,rnmany supported the safe idea ofrnholding congressional hearings beforernClinton issues his promised executive orderrnon July 15.rnThe homosexual and feminist militarvrnagendas are one and the same. Bothrncite “equal opportunity” as the only relevancy.rnSexual differences, no matterrnhow stark, arc trivialities to be smoothedrnover in sensitivity sessions like those thernentire Navy endured courtesy of the Tailhookrnscandal and a spineless Navy brass.rnLike parents who choose a daycare centerrnbecause it meets their own—not theirrnchild’s—needs, the pansexualists haverntargeted the military not because liftingrnthe ban will strengthen the nation’s defensernbut because the military is thernideal vehicle for their larger agenda: openrncultural acceptance of homosexualityrnand the elimination of Christianity fromrnpublic life.rnDuring Operation Desert Storm, thernGideons handed out one million NewrnTestaments to troops slated for MiddlernEast duty. Had the gay ban not been inrnplace, the ACLU’s Gay and Lesbian Projectrnwould have found a judge to invokern”equal protection” and ban distributionrnof this “oppressively homophobic” literature.rnSensitivity training would havernsurely followed. Is there any reason tornbelieve that a politically correct nationrnthat orders its troops to conceal itemsrnsuch as crosses. Stars of David, and chaplain’srninsignias so as not to offend thernpeople whose hides are being savedrnwould not order its military to salute andrnthen comply?rn—Robert KnightrnVJAYS in the military is a hot topic withrnthe American people. I know this firsthand,rnfor in addition to my law practicernand m)’ duties as director of the HeartlandrnInstitute of Missouri, I host a Fridayrnafternoon call-in show on a St. Louis radiornstation. WGNU, notorious in St.rnLouis for having been the first radio stationrnwith enough gall to broadcast thernMajor League Baseball games of a teamrnother than the Cardinals (it carried thernHarry Cary-era Chicago White Sox), isrnan all call-in station featuring a blackrnseparatist host in the morning and, inrnthe evening, a grande dame retired fashionrneditor from the let-them-eat-cakernschool of conservative thought. Those ofrnus with two-hour outposts in the middlernof the day consequently receive quite arncross-section of thought. Thus, wheneverrnthere is unanimity on one of the issuesrnof the day, I am naturally alarmed,rnbut so it was when President Clinton announcedrnthat he would follow throughrnon his pledge to lift the ban on openlyrngay members of the Armed Forces.rnOne caller maintained that soldieringrnwould quickly become one of the stereotypicalrngay professions along with hairdressingrnand interior decorating. Thisrnwas based on his reasoning that gaysrnwould soon be disproportionately representedrnin the military ranks, since manyrnof them would find the idea of living inrnclose quarters with young, sinewy, lonesomernmen “a pretty good idea.” Anotherrncaller indicated that the “man in uniform”rnwas already a prevalent fantasy inrnhomosexual erotica and that “asking arnhomosexual if he’d like to serve in thernArmy was like asking me if I’d like to bernthe dressing-room attendant for thernFolies-Bergere.” Opposition to the idearnwas fierce, although there was agreementrnthat any soldier who did not reveal hisrnsexual preference to his fellow soldiersrnwould pose no problem. In other words,rnno witch hunts, just a policy of keepingrnhomosexual proclivities a secret betweenrnthe soldier and the chaplain. And oppositionrnto Mr. Clinton’s plan spannedrnracial and gender lines, although onerngentleman called in to say that womenrnwere not going to be as opposed to this asrnmen, because women “just don’t understandrnwhat that’s like.” (This idea leftrnme wondering whether we males couldrnseek membership in the “pro-choice”rnmovement, decreeing that this is a “privacyrnright” of men that women are notrnallowed to comment on because theyrndon’t know what it’s like to be a man.rnBut I’m not holding my breath.)rnThis kind of backlash caught me byrnsurprise. After all, this issue had surfacedrnduring the campaign and everybodyrnknew where Clinton stood, yet nobodyrnmentioned anything then. In fact.rnif I had had to gauge the voters on this issuernbefore the election, I would havernsaid their attitude was one of: “Why arernthe Republicans bringing this up?rnThey’re just trying to shove this familyrnvalues stuff down our throats. We don’trnwant to hear about this. We want tornhear about the real issues!” Yet nowrnthere’s anger at Clinton and steadfastrnopposition to the change in policy.rnConclusion? All controversy aboutrnhomosexuality, whether generated byrnthe left or the right, furthers what isrnprobably the number one point in therngay agenda: making homosexuality generalrnparlor conversation and thereforerneking out grams of acceptance. Voters,rnon the other hand, want to hear as littlernas possible about homosexuality. Theyrnresent whoever introduces the subjectrninto the national forum, in a sense blamingrnthe messenger. They don’t want tornhear Republicans or Democrats makingrnnoisy suggestions about changes in governmentalrnpolicy with regard to homosexuals.rnThey want the status quo.rn—Emmett McAuhffernTHE BIG CHILL generation camernbouncing into town with all of thernhoopla you could imagine—^bright, inyour-rnface articulate, self-righteous, andrnpompous enough to remind us that theyrnwere people more likely to be found inrnbus stations than in airports and thatrnthis, in itself, somehow demonstratedrntheir moral superiority. During theirrnsecond week in power, a waving WhiternHouse aide yelled to reporters that theyrnwere on their way to “a Big Chill weekend”rnat Camp David. With an entouragernof cabinet officials in tow theyrnwere out to show that they’d make governin’rnfun. The centerpiece of the moviernThe Big Chill is, of course, the music,rnthe wonderful music that is perhaps thernonly thing about the 60’s that should remainrnpure and wholly intact. Songs, unlikernpeople, do not need to be temperedrnby time or rewritten by reality checks.rnThe Big Chill, after all, is about disillusionment,rna sadder-but-wiser comingof-rnage party, best expressed by Mary KayrnPlace’s character, a public defenderrnwhose ideals have been tarnished by thernreal criminals she has had to defend. “Irndidn’t know they’d be so guilty,” shernsays.rnMany of us who are just a few yearsrnolder than Bill Clinton and who have alreadyrnhad copious amounts of cold waterrnJULY 1993/7rnrnrn