i.e., things that are valued and very important vs. inalienable

The problem, of course, is that not only is it untrue (homosexuality is not a choice); it also fails every conceivable test of replication in “moral” scenarios outside of the DADT policy.

Muscat’s example of religion is totally valid here. The military might have some rational basis for excluding people of religious faith on moral grounds. For one thing, most major religions are (on paper, at least) morally opposed to murder, a belief that presents a significant conflict of interest in combat. And yet, we still allow Christians in the military. And even Buddhists. Soldiers whose moral and political views might be in direct opposition to the military’s agenda serve side-by-side those who ideologically support it.

Sexual orientation, on the other hand, provides no parallel to the moral complexities that the military already accommodates. There is no belief, behavior, or moral persuasion that is fundamentally intrinsic to one’s sexuality. The probihibtion of gays is not a “moral code” any more than segregation was; it is merely a form of institutional discrimination.

The most profound result of the American constitutional system is that basic “hardwired” structural features of the government are extremely difficult to change. The majority could not eliminate the Presidential veto or subject statutes to a national referendum or impeach the President for incompetence and maladministration, because the Constitution doesn’t allow for that. All changes of that sort have to go through the extremely cumbersome Constitutional amendment process.

So it doesn’t make a difference. Fortunately. And I’m not trying to say anything about it being a choice or not. I’m just saying that it doesn’t matters.