Credit
Andrew T. Warman for The New York Times
You were a member of the first co-ed class at West Point, then you served in the Army for five and a half years, but it’s safe to say that you’ve spent more time on a different battle: fighting for civil rights within the military. Do you think there are any similarities between what drew you to the military as a young person and what drew you to this crusade? One hundred percent. The reason I fought the “don’t ask, don’t tell” battle and the battle for women and transgender people in combat was the same reason I was at West Point: I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I fought to expand those opportunities because it was the right thing to do, but also because it would make my Army stronger. When you open the doors to include everyone who is qualified to do a job, you’re making your organization stronger.
There’s a common argument against this idea, especially the phrase — I’m bracing myself. Is it “social experiment”?
Yes, that the military should not be a place where we conduct “social experiments” — to try to diversify the military by opening the ranks to those who were previously excluded. It’s not a social experiment to work alongside L.G.B.T. people; that experiment has been conducted for centuries, and we’ve kind of sorted out the results. Armed forces shouldn’t be hidebound. If you want a stronger force, it should be the most flexible, the most advanced, the most forward-thinking. During the fight to repeal D.A.D.T., there were some people in the L.G.B.T. community who were trying to make a case on the grounds of equal rights, but the strongest case to repeal D.A.D.T. is, frankly, that it was bad for the military. It’s bad for the military to kick good people out.
Can Donald Trump undo the advancements that occurred during the Obama administration in opening the ranks? These are all policies that a secretary of defense, not to mention a president, could undo. Practically, though, it would cause a great deal of disruption in the force. You know, he has other priorities.
Fetishizing troops and veterans is a phenomenon that extends beyond Trump, but he has been doing it very publicly — particularly in regard to appointing generals to his cabinet. Congress may issue a waiver in order to have a recently retired general serve as secretary of defense. There are centuries of history that argue that civilian control of the military is essential for a free democratic country. The military has tremendous power, and unless you want to turn over your government to the guys with guns, you have to maintain the status quo.
The vice president-elect has a position on what he calls religious liberty, which allows citizens to refuse to do business with people with whom they have a sincere religious objection — but this has also popped up in the military, right? Yes. One estimate indicates that nearly two-thirds of military chaplains identify as evangelistic Christians, and only about 15 percent of service members do. We’ve had a number of instances in which a gay or transgender troop will visit a chaplain and hear, “Well, I can’t talk to you unless you confess your sin and turn straight or be who God made you to be.”
That has happened? Yes! What people fail to understand is that chaplains give up some of their rights as ministers when they become military chaplains, just as soldiers give up some of their free speech to defend free speech. Some chaplains argue: “My first responsibility is to God.” Well, if your responsibility is to God and not the Army, you need to get out of the Army. That sounds cold — of course your first responsibility is to God — but you take on these obligations, and if your responsibility to God doesn’t allow you to fulfill them, you’re in the wrong place.
