The Real Reason Behind Opposition to DADT Repeal

I have long maintained that the real reason DADT exists is for the sole purpose of marginalizing gay Americans and institutionalize religious based anti-gay bigotry. Oh, yes, supporters of DADT whine and bleat about unit cohesion, troop readiness - anything and everything to avoid honestly admitting their real motivation: enshrining a particular religious belief/value into the civil and military laws. DADT's mere existence is an insult to the alleged freedom of religion promised by the U. S. Constitution - not to mention many state constitutions (like Virginia's) which likewise disingenuously purport to support religious freedom. DADT and the Marshall-Newman fly directly in the face of Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a predecessor to the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. In separate pieces Andrew Sullivan and Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin wonderfully enunciate the point I have been making. First this from Andrew Sullivan:
*
What we are asking of them [the Christianists and their puppets] is not simply to tolerate reluctantly the fact that some gay people refuse to be ashamed or closeted, but to conflate the symbol of the American soldier with a homosexual. There are very few emblems in American life that carry the weight, power and symbolism of the American soldier, the veteran, the men and women in uniform.
*
To say that open gay men and women are serving their country in uniform is to say that they are fully citizens. It is this equal citizenship that simply cannot compute with the idea of homosexuality in the minds of a minority of the older generation.
*
It moves the debate from "we tolerate you" to "we are you" and "you are us." The same with marriage equality. This is what the holdouts cannot tolerate. Because they realize they will not just have to tolerate but to honor a gay person.
*
And over at Box Turtle Bulletin, Timothy Kincaid scores a direct hit with this analysis:
*
[T]heir chief objection has nothing to do with the military, the fears of other soldiers, or even sensitivity to the religious teachings of chaplains. No. Their objection is based on the fear that open service would remove the stigma and hostility that is institutionalized by the DADT policy. They don’t care about military policy nearly as much as they do about condemning homosexuality and gay people.
*
This fear of “mainstreaming” raises its head in the objections that Focus on the Family makes to anti-bullying campaigns. It’s present in debates over insurance for city employees. It shows up when a theme park has a gay day or when a television show creates a lesbian character or when a library includes a book with a plotline that speaks to the life of a gay youth.
*
[They are] afraid that Americans are rejecting his [their] religion’s views including those about homosexuality and that it is – or soon will be – no longer mainstream thinking to engage in blanket condemnation of others based on their sexual orientation.
*
If DADT is not repealed during the Lame Duck session, it will be a telling sign that religious freedom in the USA is dead and that the promises of the U. S. Constitution are a farce.