DADT Illegal Under First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has a thoughtful and timely column at Huffington Post that explains in plain language why DADT should be struck down as illegal and in violation of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Would that more among progressive Christians would loudly condemn religious based discrimination that turns the promise of the Constitution on its head. Sadly, too many courts - i.e., think Supreme Court of Virginia - lack the courage to apply the clear language of the Constitution that bar unequal treatment based upon one's failure to conform to the religious beliefs of others. In the process of his column, Robinson excoriates Archbishop for the Military Services USA, Timothy Broglio, who supports the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell which has wrongfully enshrined the Roman Catholic Church's (and other religious faiths') anti-gay religious beliefs into the civil and military laws. DADT flies directly in the face of Section 1 of Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom wherein Jefferson ripped religious persecutors like Broglio a new one." As for the Catholic Church's claim that gays are "inherently disordered," it would seem that if anyone is inherently disordered it's Pope Benedict XVI, Broglio and the rest of the Church hierarchy that covered up the sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children and youths. Here are some highlights from Robinson's slam dunk column:
*
Archbishop for the Military Services USA Timothy Broglio released a statement earlier this month arguing that the federal government should not repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prevents gay and lesbian men and women from serving openly in the military. He claims that doing so would compromise the faith and role of Roman Catholic military chaplains. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. His arguments are so spurious and misguided it is hard to find a place to begin in refuting them.
*
The separation of church and state is not threatened by a change in the DADT policy, despite the archbishop's claims. No Roman Catholic chaplain, nor any other chaplain with negative views of homosexuality, will be required to teach, preach, or counsel anything outside their own beliefs.
*
The archbishop restates in his letter what everyone knows: The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "are contrary to the natural law" and that "Homosexual persons are called to chastity." If you go to a chaplain with those beliefs under a repealed DADT, that's still what you're going to get in the way of counsel. What you won't get under the repeal is a dishonorable discharge to boot!
*
No chaplain is required to marry or bless any relationship against his or her will--just as no such requirement is made of any clergyperson in American society. This is a red herring--a strenuous objection to a problem that does not exist. DADT is not about relationships or marriage. It is about who is allowed to serve their country in the military.
*
The archbishop inexplicably goes on to drag alcoholics into the debate: . . .
Saying that there is no cure for homosexuality, as for alcoholism, is to say that there is something that needs curing. The archbishop is welcome to his opinion, but he must admit that it flies in the face of contrary judgments by every reputable psychiatric association in the world.
*
I am not saying that the archbishop has no right to his religiously held beliefs. My question is whether the church has the right to impose those beliefs on the state. Separation of church and state works both ways! Just as the archbishop argues that he should not be coerced by the state to change his beliefs (I totally agree!), so must the church not impose its beliefs on the secular state and its military. The church has no right to argue for less-than-equal rights for any American citizen.
*
As I have argued many, many times, when anti-gay arguments are stripped of all the smoke and mirrors, they come down to one thing: RELIGIOUS BELIEF. As such they are inherently unconstitutional and need to be struck down.