Piero A. Tozzi: The New Global Morality: DADT Repeal and Secretary Clinton’s embrace of “Universal Standards”

Apart from from the health care rationing that Obamacare would foster on American citizens, I argue too that the questionable morality of the self-selected administrators of the project would drive policy decisions in directions that violate traditional norms. “Do you really want people like Hillary Clinton or Barbara Boxer making your health care decisions?” I ask. Sound alarmist? Read the reasoning behind Clinton’s praise of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal below and you will see that the goal is much broader than many advocates are letting on.

Source: Alliance Defense Fund

Press Statement – Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 18, 2010
This is a historic step forward for all Americans, a step toward a more perfect union and a more perfect reflection of our core values. As the President and I have repeatedly said, we are committed to universal standards abroad and here at home. Our progress on equality here strengthens our advocacy for human dignity everywhere.

PRN: 2010/1842

Comment by Piero A. Tozzi
Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund

Over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued the press release set forth above. The term “universal standards” — the language of objective morality — has been (mis)appropriated by the New Human Rights lobby to push the abortion and “sexual orientation” agendas along with other left wing causes. This language has become commonplace in UN documents and the work of treaty compliance committees, particularly the committee that monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 — a document rooted in the natural law — has also been hijacked by people who ultimately would undermine it. The call for new “rights” (i.e. the right to abortion, rights based on “sexual orientation and gender identity”) to trump truly fundamental rights (i.e. the right to life, the right of free expression, the right of conscience) is more advanced in global institutions than in the United States. Secretary Clinton echoes the rhetoric, and, along with a number of others at State — Harold Hongju Koh, Lynn Sicade in particular — seeks to import these new transnationalist norms. That was evident in the push to repeal DADT and also in the ongoing push to ratify CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Two strands of thought are evident in the new global morality which have combined to form a real witch’s brew. One is the relativistic and autonomistic ethos of secular liberalism (see e.g., Ronald Dworkin). The other is a dialecticism/cultural Marxism that sees social relations (“gender,” family, etc.) in terms of oppressor (white males, the Church, the natural/patriarchal family, heterosexist norms, etc.) and oppressed (feminist women, groups advocating homosexual behavior, etc.).

In both cases, the enforcement of so-called “universal standards” requires coercion: foreign aid becomes a tool to force developing nations to adopt population control policies; Balkan states seeking EU admission must adopt sexual orientation non-discrimination standards into their laws or else be denied membership, etc.

Recommended Reading:

Nicholas Wolterstorff’s, Justice: Rights and Wrongs (2008) (asserts that human rights must be grounded in the notion of a transcendent Deity in whose image man is created or else the human rights project will fail)

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism (2006). (The thesis of this book is summarized in this interview with the author http://www.zenit.org/article-25495?l=english).


  1. So alarming is the presupposition so blunt and instrument as government can legislate ‘core values’ apropos to situations they presume they have the wit and means to encompass but which are so varied and complex in their interconnections the project is impossible.

    You’d think they’d notice, even when one single party controls the whole mechanism, the essential elephant in the living room that goes along with consenting to enact laws beyond the capacity of those voting to even read much less comprehend.

    Take this matter of people sexually attracted to their own sex in the context of the military. Prideful people who deem they have the wisdom to control all from on high do not think about a group of soldiers huddling in the cold together in some rough spot, or to stay hidden or protected from enemy gunfire in order to stay alive. Now think what happens is one of them has ‘the hots’ for another in that setting. It will cost lives.

    What happens if some of soldiers think their commander put ‘that special someone’ in a less risky, or ‘that unspecial spurned one’ in a more risky spot on a patrol? It will cost lives.

    There will be a backlash. People facing the reality on the ground with their lives in the balance will not be willing to serve in such situations.

    Can it work? Sure. There will be the highlighted cases. But not as often, not every day every where, as in past practice.

    Leadership in decline appears willing to accept that which is not within their perimeter of chosen focus and understanding isn’t of importance.

    The real world is much too complicated a place for legislated ‘core values’ as the politically correct and newly acceptable code word for much decried imposed big brother morality. Here we see those who complained the most about ‘big brother’ decades ago now doing what those they complained of did now that they rule the roost.

    There is a parallel between the U.S. Constituion and the Orthodox emphasis on ‘cataphatic theology’. The idea that it’s best to define what is not, can’t or ought not be done, leaving to the discernment of the people charged with making a success in the various complex project arenas their discretion.

  2. No doubt the next step will involve punishing military members who are openly critical of homosexuality.
    Gays will be encouraged to be “open” while moral objectors to the gay agenda will be prosecuted.
    Such has already started happening in public high schools!

  3. Of some interest, one thing the armed services are good at is keeping track of how things work out. Will the percentages of homosexuals serving in combat match the figure claimed in the general population? We’ll certianly know for sure very soon.

    My prediction is the practice of allowing ‘open gays’ to serve in combat units will legally end with broad political support the week after homosexual dynamics are firmly linked to the first soldier, or worse, soldiers (plural) returning home in caskets or severely injured– no matter the sexuality of the casualty. Although I don’t see any real impediment in non-combat service situations at all. I’m not in the military so can’t speak to it from the inside though.

    Already we must wonder why the media has stiven so very mightly to focus all it’s energy at the Wikileaks web host nut and not the person in the military thought to have done the leaking. Obvioulsy any number of overseas nutso folks would post the stolen secret communications on any number of websites. We don’t hear anything about the life and times and detail of the leaking traitor.

    The best theory is he’s active military and apparently homosexual dynamics were at issue in his motivation in harming our country.

    Now that ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ has been repealed — who wants to bet that, shazaaam, within a few weeks we’ll be hearing all about the traitor.

  4. Harry, given that gays are already serving in the military (albeit not openly), don’t you suppose that the favoritism you fear is, if it’s going to happen, already occurring? My take on it is that given the level of knowledge that is most likely shared amongst soldiers, it’s not hard to guess who the gay ones are, even if mannerisms are not all that overt. If someone refuses to talk about their spouse or date or even any past relationship, what conclusions should one draw?

    “Now think what happens is one of them has ‘the hots’ for another in that setting. It will cost lives.”

    I can only speak for myself so I’m unsure how reliable this is, but sexual fulfillment of any sort is probably going to be the last thing on my mind when faced with a life or death situation and I’m being shot at. I’ve undergone serious surgery before, and flirting with the nurses didn’t really occur to me at the time. Again, that’s just me.

    • Rob, of course what you say must be happening at a lower rate with the fear of discharge should it become overt conduct than it would now.

      Remember most of this is as much about fear of conduct by those not able to trancend the fears as it is actual inapropos conduct. It’s all about unit cohesion and the purpose of military service. Attitude is key, and this attacks attitude.

      I think sooner or later someone or some few will be dead or seriously hurt because of this and their families will not be ‘okay’ with it. Only a question of when. A third party will get killed because another person gets involved in a most likely unjustified conflict with second party over homosexual dynamics.

      So many people have to understand the military exists for a purpose and policies that don’t affect business or charity or civil governmental activities have different consequences entirely in the military setting.

      Ah well, people who don’t have their lives on the line in a lame duck congress that could have done this before the election but didn’t can all feel they got over on the electorate that went the other way a few months ago.

      I wonder if now the universities will welcome military recruiters on campus. They certainly should in all those that accept public money anyhow.

  5. “… universal standards abroad and here at home.” Lenin and Stalin would have been proud of you, you useful idiots.

  6. DADT was a poorly constructed law and it was a good thing for it to be repealed. It created a hostile environment that led to division and witch-hunts within the US military. DADT weakened the US military and caused a loss of many brave American men and women. It helped create a culture of hatred, lies, and double standards. Why would a Christian support that?

    Besides, didn’t Jesus Christ say:

    “This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.”-John 15:12-13

    I would think as a Christian, it would be best to respect gay people that are willing to die for your right to worship Jesus Christ. In the US, people are free to serve in the military. So, if a gay person signs up to serve in the military to risk their life to support your religious beliefs, shouldn’t you give them some respect? Aren’t they actually being obedient to Christ’s commandment better than we are? I don’t hear of any Orthodox Christians standing up to violence against gays in this country. So it is okay to support lynchings and murders of gays in Africa or the US, because the gays aren’t really human or made in God’s image? It is okay to sanction murder of people like Matthew Shepard because they are sinners. Based on this logic, it was wrong for Jesus to heal on the sabbath and to dine with tax collectors and harlots.

    When it comes to Christ new commandment, we are really just a bunch of hypocrites. Straining out a nat but swallowing a camel.

  7. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Niel, this is a novel argument but it could apply to any moral standard the military is required to uphold. Did you know officers can be prosecuted for adultery?

  8. I’m not sure that an effective military needs its members to be morally upstanding in all facets of life. It requires that they respond to orders. Honestly, how many troops are engaging in fornication and drunkenness? I know some men that have been in the military: while most are decent beings at their core, they are hardly saints. They are, however, willing to put themselves at risk in the service of their country. As Scripture says, “love covers a multitude of sins”, and there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

    I’m looking at this merely from a pragmatic perspective: we’ve lost thousands of highly qualified service members during DADT and I’m not sure why, given the fact that we excuse and overlook other types of moral failings where there is no impact on the member’s personal performance.

  9. Fr. Jacobse thanks for the feedback. Yes, I am aware of that fact. I’m not sure if I understand your point totally. There is a difference between someone who is born gay and someone who breaks a commitment, such as committing adultery. I am aware that the Church encourages and points out a higher way of living based on denial, I not suggesting we throw that out the window. But we can’t force people to do make that choice, to do so isn’t love.

    It was recently discovered that higher levels of mercury caused homosexual behavior in marine birds and DTD causes an increase in homosexual behavior and transgender birth disorders. My point is there are a lot of grey areas in life. It is best to be respectful and kind to people who are different from ourselves in our day to day life-we don’t know what their life is like nor have we walked in their shoes. If someone doesn’t respect another’s willingness to lay down their life to protect a stranger’s religious freedom that is just wrong. No one is perfect except for Jesus. Remember how flawed the righteous were in the OT. Remember Lot was saved in Sodom but lost his soul in the desert. Thanks for your time.

  10. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    Again, your argument can be used against any moral standard the armed forces are required to uphold.

    I’m not going to get into nature-nuture debate here. I’d just rather not see the armed forces become a laboratory for social experimentation. DADT was actually a good compromise. We will pretend not to know you are gay if you will promise not to push it. Sounds reasonable to me. Like most things though, this is more about achieving moral parity for homosexuality in the culture which, I contend, can’t really exist. Either heterosexuality or homosexuality will become dominant. The first is stability, the second is anarchy. The two cannot coexist. (That was the wisdom of DADT. It avoided this conflict.)

    Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality

    • Thanks for clarifying. Interesting point about the military “becoming a laboratory for social experimentation.” If we don’t use the military as a bench mark to uphold the founding principal of this country that all men are creating equal than it is all a waste of time-Abraham Lincoln understood that was the case.

      Unfortunately in the past, your opinion was used by religious leaders in the US against racial integration of the military and society. Also it was used in the mid-19 century to support the alleged divine right of slavery of African-Americans. It was also the same argument used by early colony leaders of New Amsterdam to prevent Jewish men from serving in the militia. I hope you don’t regret the use of “social experimentation” that was used in the past in the US military. Fr. Jacobse, I hope you recognize the slippery slop that you are treading. With the logic used in the previous response, it can start to sound a lot like the rhetoric used by Orthodox Clergy in Russia that started the pogroms and enforced genocide on non-Orthodox ethnic groups.

      DADT in theory sounds like a nice compromise. However, the reality was that it was a tool to sanction witch-hunts and the destruction of people’s lives. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe the Orthodox Faith is against pogroms, witch-hunts, and clerical sanctioned genocides. So, I can’t support a law which is a catalyst for such trends. It did not avoid conflict but sparked it.

      As for “moral parity” what do you mean? Do you mean allowing gay people to live their lives and be respected as persons? What do you suggest as an alternative that they be rounded up into special camps to disappear? If I recall correctly in the gospels, the disciples wanted to call down fire on the villages that didn’t accept them. However, Jesus rebuked the disciples for that type of behavior.

      We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Bacteria and Viruses can cause diseases. Also that nature and nurture can both cause homosexual behavior and/or tendencies, so there is nothing to debate.

      We have to stand up for love and base our faith on love others even if they reject us. It is better to love and protect others even if they don’t agree with us. Isn’t that what is meant to be merciful as the Father is merciful? We can’t let fear be the basis for our faith. As St. Paul mentioned, “love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

      If we don’t allow this to be the center of our faith and witness to the world then we are lost. I think it is better to be long suffering and kind to those who reject our faith. As a Christian it is better to suffer than to be the cause of suffering.

      Thanks for allowing me to comment on this particular blog article. Happy New Year!

      • Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

        Yes, it is all so clear now: Same-sex attraction rises to the top of all the great civil rights debates of the centuries. Thank you for clarifying. Trouble is, polygamy, polyamory, even incest and more is knocking at the door.

        Gay Marriage Far Removed From Civil Rights Movement.

        What do I mean by moral parity? Exactly what you are trying to promote here: No distinctions in relationship and sexual activity. Parity in this case really means the collapse of all distinctions all together.

  11. Fr Hans writes: “Either heterosexuality or homosexuality will become dominant.”

    Can you expand a bit? I haven’t had pastoral experience, but I’d think that sexual orientation is relatively constant and fixed, generally speaking. I can only speak for myself and my other friends who are happily married and who, though quite friendly and comfortable with some gay neighbors and even family members, have had no impulse to change that. I understand there’s a spectrum, though.

    You are right about the “incest” taboo, though, I fear. On what grounds do we deny a marriage license to a brother and sister if a precedent of gay marriage is set and “love” is the only factor necessary for a civil marriage license? You can no longer use merely a moral argument against it.

    Polygamy will have a harder go of it as arguing that there is a “right” to have 100 wives (or husbands) is going to be an uphill battle. Where does that “right” end? 300? 1,000? Ironically, the challenge will come from the fundamentalist Mormons (and Muslims) who will seek polygamy based on freedom of “religious expression”. What an interesting world we live in!

  12. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    I roughly agree with this:

    The One and The Many

    I think the rush to repeal DADT, gay marriage, the whole effort to normalize homosexuality has nothing to do with civil rights. I think it’s an attempt to homosexualize the culture. It won’t stop with DADT, it won’t stop with gay marriage, it will keep going and going until all corners of the culture are sexualized, and most likely, homosexualized.

    This just came out today:

    Planned Parenthood Launches ‘Social Change Initiative’ to Teach Parents How to Educate Children About Sex, Including Masturbation, Homosexuality

    PP wants to sexualize children even more. It’s good for business of course, more pregnancy means more abortions but it’s not only about money. Some elementary rot is at work here reflected in statements like this: Specifically, Planned Parenthood’s Web site announced the group is preparing to launch a nationwide “social change initiative” to end the “stigma and shame about sex” in American culture. Shame about promiscuity? It hardly exists anymore yet they intend to eradicate what little vestige remains.

    Our world is catapulting into hedonistic excess, at least our self-appointed cultural flaks are, and dressing this decline in the language of rights or care for children doesn’t change the corruption at the core.

    • I suspect much of this is driven by donations from political activists. Married people have their kids and their spouses to care for. When you don’t have those burdens, especially looking at the price of college, well I could do a whole lot of politics with that kind of money.

  13. No you are wrong. That is not what I am trying to promote.

    This is what I stand by and promote the best that I can, flawed though I am:

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may by sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven in perfect.” -quote the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

    “Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgement; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar,for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” – the Beloved Apostle, John the Theologian

    From your postings on your “Orthodox” blog, I am not convinced you are promoting clarification of current issues within the context of the basic cornerstone upon which Christ Jesus founded the Church. We are all sinners. Christ taught us to love and chastise those with gentleness. That is my basic concern.

  14. Fr. Johannes Jacobse :

    I am neither saying you are trying to promote the sexualization of culture nor am I implying it. I am saying those with an ideological and/or financial interest are (Planned Parenthood, parts of the music industry, the porn industry, the gay rights lobby for example).

    I just don’t buy that sexual orientation is a primary anthropological category. I object to the classification of people as homosexual or heterosexual even though I employ it on occasion. For that reason I think your application of scripture within this context where sexual orientation is a primary category is poorly chosen. Yes, the scriptural command to love the neighbor applies to the person who engages in same-sex activity just as it applies to the adulterer or fornicator (or thief, or slanderer, whatever), but it does not remove the onus of sin that covers homosexual behavior (or adultery, or fornication, or thievery, or slander, whatever) as other parts of the same scriptures you quote make quite clear.

    • Fr. Hans,

      Thanks for the reply back, I appreciate your time and effort in addressing my comments. I didn’t really expect anyone to address them but thank you.

      Yes, I agree with you that people are out to sexualize the culture primarily for ideological and financial interest. The latest series on Spartacus and the True Blood series are examples of such filth.

      I think your objection to the classification of people as either sexual persuasion as valid. People should be valid as persons, even though we all have flaws. My concern is basically how do you deal with neighbors that are gay or how do you treat gay adolescents? It is my experience that children raised by same sex couples tend to fear harassment in the name of religion. Also, it isn’t uncommon for adolescents to be abandoned by their family and church community because of their issues, in the name of religion. Sometimes these same children receive letters from their peers telling them to go straight to hell as blessed by their particular church. These are people struggling with a lot of issues. I understand that the Church is like a hospital, so when confronted with these situations it is best just to be kind.

      Many times liberal Christians have tried to get me to just ignore the sinful aspect of sexuality out of context of marriage. However, I can’t agree with them. For me the gospel is about taking up one’s cross and being crucified with Christ. That is a hard message for a lot of people. So many times when they hear, Orthodoxy isn’t about affirmation of how they live their life whichever way they choose. They tend to disappear.

      Most of the gay people are outside the Church and are suffering. They pretty much know that the Church is about denial and striving from a higher manner of living. But how can you witness to people who may be receptive when “Christians” aren’t so “Christian?” Also, it has been a problem for me to explain because the option of chastity strikes a lot of people with fear. They fear that will lead them to some sort of alienation.

      Anyhow, most of my comments are based on experience with folks at work or as a child growing up. So, I decided just to stick with Christ crucified and being kind to people. That is all one can really do. Since, it depends on their will to strive to unite themselves with Christ. Thanks for the interesting conversation. Take care and Happy New Year.

  15. A man shall justly perish, who having the knowledge of the way of righteousness forceth himself into the way of darkness. – Barnabas

    “Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”

    We are not capable of ridding ourselves of evil desires; ridding ourselves of the power exerted by the sinful nature is to the Holy Spirit’s credit rather than to ours.

    Elder Porphyrios:

    You see, then, how our evil thoughts, our evil disposition affect others. That’s why we need to find the way of purifying the depths of our soul from every evil. When our soul is sanctified, it radiates goodness. We then silently emit our love without words.

    Certainly, to begin with this is somewhat difficult. Remember Saint Paul. That’s what it was like for him too in the beginning. He said in distress: For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want, that I do. And he continues, I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? [8] He was very weak then and couldn’t do what was good, even though he desired it and longed for it.

    That is what he said at the beginning. But when in this way Paul devoted himself ever more fully to the love and worship of God, God, seeing the disposition of heart, entered into him and divine grace came to dwell in him. In this way he succeeded in living in Christ. Christ Himself entered into him, and the man who had said ‘I cannot do what is good, even though I desire it’, succeeded by the grace of God in becoming incapable of evil. At first he was incapable of doing what was good, but after Christ entered within him he became incapable of doing what was evil. Indeed he proclaimed: It is no longer I who live; Christ lives in me. [9] He proclaimed boasting that ‘I have Christ in me’ whereas he had previously said: ‘I wanted to do what was good, but I couldn’t.’ Where did that ‘wretched man that I am’ go? It disappeared. The grace of God within him completed its work. From being wretched he became filled with grace. Grace permeated him, after he had first been humbled.

    Do you see what happens? With the Spirit of God we all become incapable of every sin. We are made incapable because Christ dwells within us. We are henceforth capable only of good. Thus we will acquire the grace of God and become possessed by God. If we abandon ourselves to the love of Christ, then all will be overturned, all will be transfigured, all will be transformed, all will be transubstantiated. Anger, resentment, jealousy, indignation, censure, ingratitude, melancholy and depression will all become love, joy, longing, divine eros. Paradise!

Care to Comment?