Our military is one institution in America that works. Our government can depend on it to back their political aspirations throughout the world; and our people can depend on it to keep them secure. It is indispensible to all we are or hope to be.  Americans know this and regard it more highly than any other organization in our society. One wonders why anyone would want to change our workable wonderful military. Yet President Obama is intent on introducing homosexual conduct into military barracks. That will profoundly change our military. But is it change we can believe will improve readiness?

It is crucial to know that current law defines homosexual conduct as incompatible with military service and prohibits homosexuals from serving. "Don't ask don't tell" is bogus, it is not the law and does a great disservice to the debate and to homosexuals, and others, who believe homosexuals can legally serve surreptitiously. How could the military dismiss someone for admitting homosexuality -- if they serve legally?

Two great former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs are on opposite sides of this issue, Peter Pace and John Shalikashvili. These men are not homophobes or irrational homophiles; they care deeply about our military. General Pace, stating his support of military law on homosexual conduct and traditional morality, said it was immoral.  Illustrative of the heat in this debate, that statement may have cost him his job. Never mind that he, as the chief law enforcement officer in uniform, was merely defining homosexual conduct according to military law. It is criminal and if our laws reflect our morality, immoral.  General Shalikashvili, who was also responsible for enforcing laws against homosexual conduct, now denounces those laws and demands change. He now believes opening our barracks to homosexual conduct will improve readiness.

Many of those who side with General Pace's view also fear readiness decline in recruiting, retention, morale, esprit de corps, unit cohesion and the affect on sexual harassment and fraternization which could become virtually indefinable. General Shalikashvili's side supports moral progressives and is influenced by societal changes, civilian polls, foreign military experience and alleged loss of critical military skills. I believe that civil right arguments were pretty much killed by another Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell who said: "Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument."

Neither side has ever served in a quad sexual military (Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Transsexual, all of whom would surely be eligible for military service if the law is changed. Polyamory could follow); and both sides of the arguments are easily dismissed. (Another argument also easily dismissed, by Army general Barry McCaffrey, amazingly states military law must conform to civilian law (where sodomy is legal)! Should the military then elect our leaders and legalize adultery, unions, strikes, etc.?)

Common sense, traditional morality, and religious teachings are out of bounds in a secular debate where progressive morality rules. And soldier's issues of morale, esprit de corps and unit cohesion are foggy concepts for those who have never served including our President and most of Congress. The only poll that counts is among soldiers who will have to live with the change -- and they reject it. Our military is incomparable and loss of skills is a red herring.

General Shalikashvili states the debate should be "informed by data, not speculation or emotion." It should. Is there data on the costs of sexual conduct? There is. As the Department of Defense personnel huddle secretly to accommodate their Commander in Chief, they need to examine this data objectively without political correctness. Multiple studies document significant, and costly, health disparities in rates of disease and mental health among sexual minorities (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, LGBT) resulting in loss of productivity (sickness), reduced life span, attempted suicide and substance abuse.

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. Money we waste on logistics comes out the pay, readiness and care of the troops.  Several American universities added special toilet units for transgendered people with privacy concerns costing $2500 each at one university. Extrapolate this cost to all the posts camps and stations of our military, the ships at sea and under the sea. Then add similar facilities for lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Considering the past price of military toilet seats, the cost could be significant. Privacy expenses are only a tip of the iceberg.

Military Chapels, housing, schools, hospitals, clubs and neighborhoods will change as will the cohort of camp followers near our bases.  Our health care providers in both active duty and veteran facilities would require extensive and costly retraining as they encounter disease and mental health issues unique to the LGBT community on a considerable scale for the first time.  A quad sexual American military would also require extensive, difficult and complicated sensitivity training for our decidedly masculine troops.

The Catholic Church, a similarly cloistered society, admitted homosexual priests and paid dearly. Migrating to a quad sexual military, especially during a time of war, demands honest, apolitical evaluation in terms of readiness and costs.  Are our lawmakers and president capable of such an evaluation in the face of political pressure from their party base as another election season looms just over the horizon?