The Washington Post's coverage of Wednesday's Congressional hearing on gays in the military sanitized the liberal bullying and one-sided, pro-gay monologue I saw firsthand. I attended the hearing with the expectation it there would be genuine dialogue with witnesses and committee members engaging in honest debate. Apparently, that was too much to ask. Chairwoman Davis made it clear from her opening remarks that her mind was already made up that "many Americans who happen to be gay or lesbian want to answer our nation's call to service" and they could be the elixir for the current "strain" on our military.

From the beginning Elaine Donnelly, one of two witnesses in support of the law's current stance on homosexuals in the military, was silenced by Congressmen and women who repeatedly asked her questions and then immediately "reclaimed" their time to continue their incessant rebukes. Mrs. Donnelly was portrayed by the members of the committee as an intolerant homophobe making exaggerations and "inappropriate" comments. Since when did bringing up the issue of HIV positivity in a discussion about homosexual behavior become "inappropriate"?  If 2.8% of American men claim to be homosexual, yet account for 54% of the national AIDS cases, I think HIV positivity is a very relevant concern! (Statistics according to the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention; vol.18, published 2008).

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank criticized Mrs. Donnelly, the first woman to receive the Adm. John Henry Towers award from the New York Naval Aviation Commandery and NewsMax.com's "America's Most Heroic for 2000" award, using adjectives like "rage", "warned", and "ominously" to describe her comments. The comments Mrs. Donnelly made that did not make it into the article include the fact that President Clinton imposed "Don't Ask Don't Tell", an irrational policy that made it seem legitimate for gays to serve in the military when it currently is and always has been against the law. Milbank also ignored the question, "Why are we training people [homosexuals] who are ineligible according to the law?" and whether or not more military personal would leave than homosexuals would join if the law was revoked. Also overlooked was the fact that the number of people discharged because they are homosexual is the least amount of military discharges overall (discharges for pregnancy or weight are much higher).

As a woman, the idea of being forced to share intimate quarters with other women who have openly homosexual desires is appalling. Sexual misconduct in these circumstances would be much less recognizable and reportable because the victim could be immediately be crushed by the banner of equal rights and tolerance. The law is what it is because of homosexual conduct—an unnatural, dead sex act that can never produce life. If Milbank and the committee members do not think the Uniform Code of Military Justice's view of homosexual behavior is legitimate, one needs only study basic anatomy. Overall, the bloated  emphasis of emotionalism over facts in the hearing only reaffirmed my fear that if homosexuals are allowed to serve openly in the military, our soldiers will be burdened by endless sensitivity seminars and lectures on tolerance.