I don't know anything about Gregory D. Lee other than he has some serious misconceptions about gays in the military. From the impression given from his column, you'd think:
1) There aren't already gays and lesbians serving (closeted and openly) in the military.
Having openly gay men and women in close living quarters with heterosexuals would make straight soldiers uncomfortable, to say the least. The morale of units would decline almost immediately, and re-enlistments would most certainly suffer.
They are already there, bub. And many of their colleagues and superiors know they are gay or lesbian. Re-enlistments suffer when you have endless military actions like those our soon to be former Dear Leader sends troops out to engage in.
2) There's a ton of homosex and aggressive pick up action that's going to happen if DADT is repealed. He must have deep conversations with Elaine Donnelly.
[Y]ou need to understand that homosexuals predominantly want to serve in the military in order to have access to people their own age with whom to engage in sex. It’s just that simple. It’s all about sex, and not about serving the nation. It is not unheard of to have a lesbian officer coerce a lower enlisted woman into engaging in lesbian sexual activity. “I’m an officer and you’re a private, who are they going to believe if you tell them I forced you to have sex with me?” Or two male soldiers go out on the town. One has too much to drink, and when they return to the barracks, he passes out in his buddy’s room. When he wakes up, his “buddy” is performing fellatio on him. These are two actual cases, and many more like them have occurred, which prompted the ban to begin with.
3) Lee has some serious issues with his masculinity and delusional heterosupremacy.
I’ll tell you why having openly homosexual military members in the military is an awful idea. Go to West Hollywood or San Francisco the last weekend in June during “Gay Pride” festivities and take a good look at what these people are doing. Then ask yourself if any of them should have anything to do with national security, and if they should serve with, or be in charge of you, your son or your daughter if they were in the military.
...Could the Army stop a homosexual transvestite soldier from wearing a female soldier's uniform while on duty? Should gays be allowed to form civil partnerships in the military and be allowed to occupy military family housing and adopt children? Is the military prepared to handle increased health care costs associated with homosexual activity?
What are these increased costs he's talking about? Does he mean unprotected sexual activity of the nature some gays and straight folks engage in? Are we to believe that STDs the sole province of gay folks? Go take a look at any stats in any community that has abstinence-only education before lobbing that lunacy over the fence.
Since Lee says there will be an exodus of heteros from the military should homos will be allowed to openly serve, he's afraid there will be a return of the draft to stem the bleeding. Well, that would certainly reduce any half-cocked military misadventures right quick, wouldn't it?