Christian group attacks LGBT integration in UK Armed Forces

An evangelical Christian pressure group has attacked the UK’s policy of allowing LGBT personnel to serve openly in the Armed Forces, claiming it has damaged morale and discipline.

In an interview with a news affiliate of the American Family Association (a US-based group that has campaigned extensively in opposition to what it terms the ‘homosexual agenda’) the Christian Institute’s head of communications, Mike Judge, claimed many British military service people were unhappy with the policy. He alleges that senior officers will not discuss their opposition to openly LGBT personnel, ‘because they know that if they are going to maintain their careers, they’ve got to tow the political line.’ Judge further claims that the policy was ‘foisted on’ the military by ‘homosexual activists’ – overlooking the role played by members of the Armed Forces themselves. The interview was ostensibly conducted with a view to the repeal of the US Armed Forces’ own ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ policy.

The Christian Institute’s website states the organisation’s position that ‘a ban is legitimate because of homosexual temptation,’ arguing that due to the need for close proximity and lack of privacy, ‘service life is incompatible with homosexuality.’ The Armed Forces, the group contends, ‘do not have to mirror the democracy they defend.’ The Christian Institute has previously lobbied against the repeal of Section 28, the lowering of the age of homosexual consent and the Civil Partnership Act.

In April, So So Gay interviewed gay and lesbian personnel about the experience of serving in the RAF, 11 years after the lifting of the ban, who reported no decline in morale or discipline. Commenting on Mr Judge’s statements, a spokesman for the MOD said: ‘Following a rigorous review of the policy on homosexuality in the Services, the Ministry of Defence lifted the ban on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces on 12 January 2000.  With a commensurate new Armed Forces Code of Social Conduct alongside the change of policy, sexual orientation is now regarded as a private matter for the individual and a person’s conduct is judged against performance, not their sexual orientation.’