The American Spectator : Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal

Text Size

The Public Policy

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Repeal

Gays already can serve in the U.S. military, but what about the rights of religious believers and cultural traditionalists?

The Senate Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing today about the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the military. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, are expected to testify about how the U.S. military will, over time, implement President Obama’s pledge to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Of course, gays in the military is not an issue that anyone, save for the gay lobby, really wants to discuss. It creates unease, discomfort and confusion — and so we ignore it and hope that it will go away. But it won’t — and nor should it necessarily.

We live, after all, in a free and democratic country in which people have a right to express themselves and to make their views known. And certainly, the gay lobby has been making well known what it thinks of gays in the military — namely, that they’re already there and should be allowed to serve openly and without any moral or cultural stigma.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone to hear that the gay lobby already has won this battle in large part. The U.S. military, after all, is a reflection of the larger-scale American society; and American social attitudes toward lesbians and homosexuals have undergone a dramatic metamorphosis in recent years.

Indeed, Americans — including U.S. military servicemen and women — are far more tolerant, and even accepting, of lesbians and homosexuals than they were 20 or 30 years ago.

This is attributable in no small measure to a concerted propaganda campaign waged by Hollywood, television, and the media to depict lesbians and homosexuals in the most favorable light possible. Consequently, it is all but impossible to find a gay character, on TV or in a movie, who is bad or despicable — or who suffers from vices and compulsions that might be more common within the gay community.

More typical, in fact, are lesbians and homosexuals who are depicted as plaster saints or moral superiors. Think of Tom Hanks’ saintly character, Andrew Beckett, in the 1993 movie Philadelphia. Or recall Doug Savant’s martyr character, Matt Fielding, in the 1990s’ television hit Melrose Place.

There has been a “steady increase in gay [television] characters,” James Barrios told the Huffington Post last September. Barrios is president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

Story lines… are becoming “more reflective of current issues affecting our lives,” [he] said in a statement.

Fair, accurate images of gay couples marrying, raising families, and contributing to their communities help fellow Americans “come to accept and better understand” their gay family members and neighbors, he said.

Examples cited by GLAAD include a gay couple marrying on ABC’s “Brothers & Sisters” and a gay police officer on NBC’s “Southland” — a rare character for a crime drama.

So while most military service men and women — 58% according to a December 2008 Military Times poll — still oppose open homosexuality in the ranks, an equally strong majority are quite tolerant and accepting of lesbians and homosexuals.

Why, then, shouldn’t gays serve openly and freely? Is it not rank prejudice and discrimination to disallow this? Isn’t “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” outdated and unnecessary social policy? Has it not been superseded by a new set of social norms and mores?

Not quite. The confusion stems from the gay lobby’s own religious and cultural bigotry — and its failure to distinguish between tolerance and affirmation.

The vast majority of Americans — including the vast majority of U.S. servicemen and women — are extremely tolerant. However, many Americans — including a great many who serve in our armed forces — are also quite religious. Others who are not religious are nonetheless cultural traditionalists.

Page: 1 2 3 >

topics:
Conscience Rights, Gays in the Military

About the Author

John R. Guardiano blogs at www.ResCon1.com, and you can follow him on Twitter: @ResCon1.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (218) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Melvin| 2.2.10 @ 7:29AM

"Hell hath no fury than a really pissed off queer."
Before some of you get your Mankini's in a bind, the above phrase was told to me many years ago by a homosexual with an extreme sense of humor.
He used humor to overcome the awkward silent moments when a straight person found out he was gay.
I surmise that the real reason that President Obama gave orders to the military to reverse the Don't ask, don't tell because during the State of the Union Speech he had to show that he could still do something.
I mean come on, the economy is in a shambles, the bailouts are a fiasco, the Jobs Bill is a money skimming/laundering operation, the jackass that is in charge of the DOJ has so screwed up the Gitmo, trial thing no one in the government knows now what the hell to do with terrorists.
So King Zero utters that he is going to allow gays to be in the military. "Hey junior!, there is already gays in the military or did Chris Matthews forget to tell you that." Crap, you even screwed that one up to. Can't you do anything right?

Alan Brooks| 2.2.10 @ 10:30AM

Why can't gay servicemen wear pink uniforms?

victor| 2.3.10 @ 11:44PM

Because it would clash with their fuchsia camos.
Why don't you try taupe of mauve?

Ben Krause| 2.16.10 @ 3:32PM

As a 26 year vet and having served in Viet Nam and Iraq, I am for gays in the military when we have coed berthing because that is the enviornment we will have!

Jim O'Brien| 2.2.10 @ 7:44AM

The Air Force Academy has recognized paganism (so did Hitler). What's next?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0.....latestnews

Marc Gottlieb| 2.2.10 @ 3:30PM

Have you ever brushed your teeth? So did Hitler.

Also, while I agree that Neo-Paganism may be silly, I'd hate to think that they should be denied recognition just because they didn't fit in. I mean, as long as we're talking about things Hitler did...

victor| 2.3.10 @ 11:46PM

You don't join the military to "fit" in, you join to be a soldier and to defend your country.
You want to "fit" in, join the glee club.

Louis Jenkins| 2.2.10 @ 4:09PM

You left out Wickans. I suppose the ground crew will sacrifice to Baal on top of the control tower before every sortie. The pilot will have to fly over water to make sure evil sidewinder missles don't follow his plane, and he will have a model make-up of the target to stick needles in.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 8:23AM

As a retired military officer who still works with military folks, I can tell you the opposition to this change is still very strong. I'm just guessing but anecdotally I would say that at least 10-20% of DOD personnel would choose to resign or not re-enlist if homosexuals were allowed to serve openly. The first to go would be the ones with strong religious or cultural traditions that you describe.

Recruiting would become that much more difficult and of course the quality of recruits would suffer as well. Some of our top personnel are these so called religious traditionalists (no surprise there, is it?)

But what is rarely discussed is what would happen if a national crisis required reinstatement of the draft. In that case many religious christians would be forced to choose between some type of conscientious objector status and service. Who knows what the numbers would be?

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 2:28PM

Well, if we keep DADT and the draft comes back, what do you think draft-dodgers will do?

The statement "I am gay" is impossible to disprove. The military is not the CIA, and they can't do background checks on tens of thousands of potential draftees claiming to be gay.

One of the people who originally drafted DADT already said that if the draft comes back, the policy will have to go away for those exact reasons.

Otis my man!| 2.3.10 @ 8:27PM

I think your missing the point.

If DADT goes away, draft dodgers will have to claim they are devoutly religious and can't serve with Homos.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 2.4.10 @ 2:17AM

Actually, a more recent poll showed that only 37% percent of American servicemen are opposed to legislation that would repeal the DADT policy. Nonetheless, it's true that many servicemen would not accept homosexual colleagues, at least for the first few years after DADT is repealed (many years later, they would adapt).

But at least don't try to excuse those who wouldn't accept gays within the military with the claim that they're "religious" or "they're cultural traditionalists". Discrimination is NOT a part of the American culture nor of the American tradition, nor is it tolerated by any religion (except Islam). What this article is about is whether or not to allow gays to join the military, not whether to legalize same-sex marriage (which I oppose).

Now a few facts:
1) Since the DADT policy was instituted in 1993, 13,389 highly-skilled servicemen were "discharged" (i.e. fired) from the military. This means that the US military lost 2 times more servicemen because of the DADT policy than during the First Gulf War, the Second Gulf War and the Afghan war combined (5400 guys).
2) The person who will likely become Discharged Serviceman #13390 will be LTCOL Victor Fehrenbach, an F-15 pilot who has served with the USAF for 19 years. He has logged over 2000 flight hours, including 400 combat hours, and has flew over Afghanistan and Iraq. He was one of the first pilots called up to the air by the USAF on 9/11/2001 (apparently, he was assigned to Otis AFB (now called Otis ANGB) on that day). He has an unblemished military record, and the DOD plans to sack him solely because he's gay.
3) The claim that a repeal of DADT would threaten unit cohesion is false. Many countries allow homosexuals to serve with their militaries. Some of them (including Russia, Israel, North Korea and South Korea) even DRAFT homosexuals to their militaries. And yet, the units of these militaries are cohesive.
4) Among the 13,389 servicemen discharged from the military so far are many Arabic, Pashtun, Farsi, and Russian interpreters, as well as pilots, sappers, etc. With 112,000 troopers deployed in an Arabic country (Iraq) and one deployed in a multilingual country (Afghanistan), can the US military afford to sack any interpreter because he's gay? No.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 8:27AM

Guardiano - what you show is bigotry and intolerance. The military is NOT a religious institution. Why do you want to trample on anyone's rights or liberties. You are requesting that Christians trample on the rights of non-Christians. I understand that -- and so should you.

This does have similarities to blacks in the military and also a women's right to vote. Both were unpopular but the right thing to do. The church even fought interracial marriage. Ultra-"religious" individuals value belief over reason and thus do not evolve their thinking and must be pushed, kicking and screaming, into doing what is right.

I was in the Army over 40 years ago, and because I was Jewish, there was discrimination and hazing. I never told anyone I was Jewish, in fact I'm an atheist, but they looked at my physical factors and the fact that I did well in classes and had me pegged. But when we went to Vietnam and fought in the jungles, that no longer mattered. I killed Cong and protected their asses and they protected mine. We knew who was gay -- and when we were fighting it didn't make any difference if they did a good job. In battle, unless you are a bigot and a homophobe, it doesn't make any difference.

The military is NOT a religious institution. I don't want your "rights" to trample mine. Most of you have not faced discrimination, and until you do, you really won't understand what minorities suffer.

The fact is, you don't care about the liberty rights of others. It is not what people believe, but how they behave that is important. You guys seem to forget that.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 8:34AM

Bob,

I see you missed the whole "Tolerance vs. Affirmation" point of his article.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 8:41AM

I didn't miss that at all. And if you think that is a good excuse, I feel sorry for you as you are kidding yourself. As an atheist, I was forced to "affirm" Christians in the military. Is that what you are talking about?

I see that you are so blinded by your religion that you completely missed the point that his article had no logical merit.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 8:55AM

No, I would say that as an atheist, you were forced to "tolerate" Christians as they were and are still, required to tolerate you.

But once Homosexuality is considered to be a protected class, such as race and gender is, then military personnel will be forced to "affirm" it the same way they are required to affirm the equality of all races and gender.

I can tell you there are still many, many men in the military who disagree with the policy of allowing women into to combat roles. But to publicly so state would be fatal to their careers. The party line is to "affirm" that women are just as capable as men in combat. If you disagree, you have no choice but to resign.

Ultimately, the issue boils down to whether Homosexuality should be considered a protected class, but that is a long discussion that Mr. Guardian did not address and I don't feel like going into either.

Marc Gottlieb| 2.2.10 @ 3:44PM

Dear Landsmann Bob:

Isn't Paul so good to "tolerate" us? You know, the way Christians have always "tolerated" Jews. With all the respect that blameless, high-minded saints like him can possibly muster for hook-nose thieves like us.

Setting that aside, Bob, I appreciate your comments, and couldn't agree more. These Christian Jihadists can justify it all they like, but it's just prejudice.

Bruce | 2.3.10 @ 2:44PM

Give it a rest, Gottlieb - it's attitudes like YOURS that result in bias - not that of Christians.

When I grew up Christians were by far the majority - it didn't matter, we all got along no matter what the religion. My sons generation, however is entirely different (in the same town). From grammar school until high school he was the subject of ostracism because he WASN'T jewish - the now predominant religion in my area. Girls wouldn't date him because he was "a gentile." Friends were scare (with a few notable exceptions) because he "wasn't jewish."

Who exactly is more intolerant than a jewish "comedian", who make livings laughing at gentiles and blacks? Don't hear much about that, do you?

No ... this intolerance thing works both ways, whether you agree or not. Where jews are the majority - their intolerance of things NON-jewish speaks volumes.

victor| 2.3.10 @ 11:54PM

Dear Marc,
Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and that surely includes you!
PS Jesus was Jewish.
His disciples were Jews and the Pharisees, who gave Him to the Romans, were Jews,
And if you are a Christian, you are a Jew:
Romans 2:29
"But he is a Jew which is one inwardly __ and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter whose praise is not of men but of God".

Bambam | 2.2.10 @ 8:48AM

You mean the part where he can "tolerate" that gays and lesbians exist as happy cartoonish characters on TV but when he deals with them in reality he has to "affirm" of how he thinks that they are an abominations and need to run back into the closet?

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 8:46AM

Honestly, this is something that Christians and non-Christians cannot seem to deal with - that tolerating something is the same thing as open endorsement.

Does DADT openly discriminate? What rights and liberties are being trampled here?

Marc Gottlieb| 2.2.10 @ 3:38PM

Personally, I don't agree, but let's assume briefly that homosexuality is immoral. And that you're a self-loathing gay marine looking for a cure. Should you get discharged for telling your supervisor that you were late to formation because you were attending a "Homosexuals Anonymous" analogue at your local church? It's like being fired for going to the dentist.

Nispac| 2.2.10 @ 3:48PM

Except that even a straight Marine can be disciplined for failing to show at formation. Your gay agenda argument fails.

Richard| 2.2.10 @ 6:56PM

Umm...if someone finds out you're gay..you're out of the military...so you don't have the "right" to express your true beliefs...so it's against freedom of speech...and also institutionally obstructs your pursuit of happiness...to name a few. And definitely discriminates...by subjecting a gay individual to repercussions that a straight individual need not fear.

John R. Guardiano| 2.2.10 @ 8:50AM

Bob,
Thanks for your comment but you have completely misconstrued the issue. As you rightly note, gays can and do serve now in the U.S. military. And no one really cares if a fellow serviceman or woman is gay. So what, I ask, is the problem?

In fact, there is no problem. But there will be a problem if and when the U.S. military forces religious believers and cultural traditionalists to accept and to affirm homosexuality. That would violate the religious beliefs and conscience of tens upon thousands of Americans who, in fact, are protected by their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Of course the military is not a religious institution. But it has many religious believers and cultural traditionalists whose rights ought to be acknowledged and respected. Why do you want to discriminate against them?

And by the way: it’s not just Christians, but also Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others who face the prospect of institutionalized discrimination and bigotry.

Should the U.S. military really be a “religion-free zone”? Most men and women on the front lines, I suspect, don’t think so. Prayer, after all, is known to be common amongst Soldiers and Marines who face the prospect of death or dismemberment in battle.

Regards,
John

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 9:05AM

As an atheist, I was FORCED to affirm you as a Christian. Aren't you trampling on my rights? This issue of "affirmation" is a red herring for institutional bigotry. I knew many officers who would not promote black soldiers because they "inferior". In fact, most of the "cultural traditionalists" agreed with that point of view. If you promote a gay soldier, aren't you "affirming" his lifestyle?

I enjoyed your phrase:

"Of course the military is not a religious institution. But it has many religious believers and cultural traditionalists whose rights ought to be acknowledged and respected."

Don't you even see how you are institutionalizing gay bigotry with that religious point of view?

By the way, have you ever served in battle? I have. Believe me, when the enemy is shooting at you and you are fighting hand to hand, "affirmation" is the last thing on your mind.

When I wanted to go to OCS, an anti-semite Captain thought that Jews should not be officers because they didn't believe in Jesus Christ -- and that was important. Is that the type of "tolerance" you are talking about? When I was in Vietnam, I received 5 promotions in 7 months as an enlisted guy and they wanted to give me a field promotion to officer if I would serve another year. By that time, I needed to get back to my wife and two kids.

So please don't lecture me on the difference between "tolerance" and "affirmation". There is no real difference. It is just a way to instill institutional bigotry.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 9:16AM

Bob,

You sound like you're still carrying a 40 year old chip on your shoulder. I agree you were treated badly but times have changed. Many of my fellow officers and friends are Jewish and have had no problems getting promoted.

But what you are also saying is that discrimination against Homosexuals is equivalent to discrimination against Jews. Right now, the Law in many jurisdictions says that is not the case. The Homosexual lobby seeks to make that form of discrimination equivalent. Reasonable people have many reasons to disagree with that equivalency. Again, that is a different discussion.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 9:35AM

Our life experiences do affect our points of view -- and they should. I am tremendously sensitive to bigotry. And yes, discrimination is discrimination. Remember, laws used to say separate but equal was right.

One of the reasons there were so many Jews fighting for black civil rights is exactly the bigotry we received from Christians. You've obviously not experienced bigotry in your life. I judge people on their behavior, not their beliefs. If homosexuals behave poorly, they should be dealt with just as male heterosexuals who make inappropriate attacks on women.

In my opinion, it is unreasonable not to look at equivalency between two human beings no matter what they believe. Laws are meant to deal with behavior, not beliefs.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:02AM

Bob:
Homosexuality=Judaism.
Are you really making the point that a chosen behavior is equal to one's ethnicity or religion?

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 10:08AM

Bob,

Were you forced to affirm or forced to tolerate? Is there a difference to you?

bambam| 2.2.10 @ 9:10AM

So what, I ask, is the problem? 12,000 service men discharged in the past 15 years because of DADT
That would violate the religious beliefs and conscience of tens upon thousands of Americans who, in fact, are protected by their First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
The first amendment protects a Muslim in thinking that his religion supersedes Christianity the same way it protects Jews in not accepting Jesus or Mohammad as prophets offending the other two religions, But it doesn't allow Christians to discriminate against Jews and Muslim because of their belief the same way that DADT does with GLB's (even though Bob's reply affirms that they do it anyways)
Why do you want to discriminate against them? Why do you want to discriminate against GLB individuals forcing 67,000 service men to live in fear of being discharge if anyone found out about them? or do you not view this as discrimination?
you need to get out of your shell and learn how to deal with different human beings regardless of your own biases.
Regards,
Bambam from the Middle East

waltk| 2.2.10 @ 10:30PM

12k were not discharged because of DADT. The majority (89%) of these discharges played the Rainbow Card within 1.5 years of service for a free pass home. Correction, they were discharged because of DADT because if DADT was not in effect these gays either would not have enlisted or would of been forced to seek other means of not honoring their contractual obligation such as desertion or the razor blade. In most cases the military is not asking but the gays sure are telling.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:07AM

They resigned because they thought they were going to ClubMed and not Fort Jackson.
Many of them wanted a free pass and a get out of jail card thoughtfully given to them by BJ Clinton.

Richard| 2.2.10 @ 7:07PM

OK, by the same logic, you are forcing a gay individual to accept and affirm cultural traditionalist views that said-gay-individual's homosexual urges should be repressed because if they were to contradict this view and not repress their urges, then their military career would be over....so a logical argument in favor of DADT does not hold up. And at the end of the day...what is the most important tenet of military culture...obey orders...and the commander in chief is saying being gay is not okay...so you better follow orders soldier!

Zbigniew Mazurak| 2.4.10 @ 2:25AM

Gays and lesbians are currently allowed to serve with the US military ONLY if they never admit that they're homosexuals. It is ludicrous for you to claim that a repeal of DADT would force Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists to "face the prospect of institutionalized discrimination and bigotry". The DADT policy is an example of "institutionalized discrimination and bigotry".

As for the soldiers and marines who "face the prospect of death during battle", they don't care about whether their colleagues are homosexuals, they care whether they'll win the battle.

GW| 2.2.10 @ 2:01PM

How the hell do you claim to be Jewish and Atheist? Last time I checked, Jews believed in God.

Marc Gottlieb| 2.2.10 @ 3:50PM

Jews have long identified as a cultural/ethnic/national group in addition to a religious group. Even the Talmud (a compendium of rabbinical law/theory/humor/etc.), written thousands of years ago, notes that whatever his "sins," a Jew remains a Jew. In other words, you're Jewish as long as your mother was Jewish (though you can also convert).

Bambam | 2.2.10 @ 8:38AM

I absolutely agree with you about how this is absolutely a touchy feely issue. How the hell am i supposed to react and swallow my jokes and bigotry if i know someone who is serving with me a puff?
Get over your self, while a religious person "might" disapprove of homosexuality that in no way should reflect on how he should deal with a gay or a lesbian. DADT legitimizes the position to discriminate and replealing won't mean that the military will turn into a big ol' gay parade... it will simply mean that GLB individuals won't be kicked out for being found out for what they are, and they are the only people that can make that choice.

So here is the suggestion, instead of relying on your single story and seeing things through your mono-scope go and learn a bit about what others think. First of all read some of the numbers and studies about the number of gays and lesbians in the military and some of the first hand accounts of gay and lesbian veterans. Start with this for instance http://www.law.ucla.edu/willia.....Update.pdf
The cost of DADT is $500 million over the past 15 yrs, maybe the jingle of the $ will make you rethink your bigotry.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:09AM

Yo dude, how many of you gays are there in the muslim armies, eh?

Avidyananda| 2.2.10 @ 8:50AM

We must applaud the growth in tolerance toward homosexuals we have seen in recent years. But I am strongly against allowing open homosexuality in the military. (I served thirty one months as an enlisted man in the US army, 1968-71). I say this because open homosexuality in the military will cause an array of complex problems, including divisiveness, favoritism, sexual jealousy and a general unease amongst all. And all of this will lead to serious morale problems and the consequent lessening of unit effectiveness.

I've heard anecdotal stories from a navy veteran of favorable treatment and promotions among homosexuals on a ship. We regularly read of sexual misconduct and sexual harrassment among military involving men and women, a consequence of blind gender neutral mxing of men and women in much of the military. This sort of problem with fraternization, compromised authority, sexual tension and favoritism will simply be enhanced in ways supporters of this policy can imagine.

We can look at the politics in civilian society and see advocacy groups and campaigns for preferential treatment that mark the homosexual movement. We can assume that this same sort of consciousness will find its way into the military. (Note earlier comments on divisiveness and lowered morale.)

Avidyananda

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:12AM

Just as gays got themselves out of the military by admitting they were gay, so did the women who got themselves pregnant to get out the same way.

Tony in Central PA| 2.2.10 @ 9:18AM

The standard question I ask people who promote open homosexuality in the military is " Are homosexual people inherently more virtuous than heterosexuals ? ". The only response I normally get is an uncomprehending stare. I then point out that the military goes to great lengths to segregate heterosexuals presumably in large part to eliminate behavior that could prove to be a distraction to unit discipline and cohesion. How will the military accomplish this with homosexuals ?

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 9:25AM

Younger people have fewer hangups concerning things like race and homosexuality than we old farts. Gays are far more open in society today than they were 20 years ago. Keep religion out of the military and judge people on behavior, not on beliefs.

Tony in Central PA| 2.2.10 @ 11:03AM

Bob, I don't have any idea what your reply has to do with my post. I'm not interested in judging people. I am interested in pointing out how certain behaviors have been discouraged by the military for apparently good reason. Are you suggesting homosexual behavior in the ranks of active duty personnel is OK but heterosexual isn't ?

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 11:14AM

No -- I'm suggesting that unwanted behavior is what should be controlled -- not whether the person is gay or not.

Tony in Central PA| 2.2.10 @ 11:39AM

OK, Bob, some practical questions : if heterosexuals should be segregated for things like showering, sleeping, etc, then why shouldn't homosexuals ? How would this be accomplished ? Are homosexual people inherently more virtuous at resisting the sort temptations a young person might experience while sleeping next to or showering with another person to whom he is attracted ? Or should the military have unisex bathing and sleeping arrangements ?

Jason | 2.2.10 @ 9:50AM

The idea of religious freedom keeps coming up in all of these discussions but discrimination is not a religious freedom. Should you practice a religion that tells you that Japanese people or red-heads are an abomination, you are allowed to think this way but cannot practice this within the confines of the law. As far as homosexuals as a protected class, it's s surprising how this is still a state to state determination when the APA has stated that sexual orientation/sexuality is an inborn trait that cannot be changed any more than hair or eye color. Sure people have gone to reparative therapy which is akin to coloring your hair or wearing contacts, temporary and delusional.

One basic fact is that the government should not encourage a person to lie about themself to keep their job. Think of it in situational terms. Say you are a gay serviceman and you are out with your crew when one asks you if you have a "sweetie back home." You certainly may have Carl, the guy you met at the gym who melts your heart and have lived with for 6 years, but the Government is essentially telling you to lie or you can get fired. I know many will say that this comes under the "done ask" portion of the legislation but talking about ones home life is inevitable and DADT makes it possible for every heterosexual to share this information, while the gay and lesbian soldiers are expected to simply keep mum? And you're saying that mentioning a partner may not only make you lose your job, but will also violate your religious freedom to intolerance? Who is really the victim there? A person who had to accept coworkers or a person who risks losing their livelihood because of an inborn trait which cannot be changed?

John R. Guardiano| 2.2.10 @ 10:10AM

Jason,
Thanks for your note; but no one is arguing that religious folk have a right to discriminate. What I am arguing is that religious folk have freedom of conscience and should not be forced -- by Uncle Sam or anyone else -- to affirm and legitimize homosexuality.

Why or why not someone is gay is irrelevant and beside the point. Who knows -- and who cares?!

Moreover, you ignore the practical day-to-day implications of open homosexuality in the military. I refer you to Commentary's J.E. Dyer who has written very eloquently and persuasively about this issue.

I know in your mind, and in the minds of many unthinking “gay rights” supporters, this is a simple issue: Gays should serve openly; what's the big deal? However, the issue is not that simple. The practical effects and real-world implications of open homosexuality in the military are serious and profound.

Finally, no one is forcing anyone to "lie" about their sexuality. We are simply asking that a gay serviceman’s sexual behavior and activities be kept private, and not be used to force upon non-gays acceptance and legitimization.

Tolerance yes; affirmation, no.

Regards,
John

Bob Smith| 2.2.10 @ 10:25AM

John, I read everything that is posted here and so far I can't understand this one thing you keep on repeating.
"Tolerance yes; affirmation, no."
What do you mean of "tolerance"? and how can you tolerate something that you do not want to acknowledge its existence in the first place?

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 10:41AM

Tolerance means accepting the existence of.

Affirmation means be forced to make a moral choice that a behaviour is morally correct - that it is right and good.

Simon Templar| 2.2.10 @ 11:37AM

Excellent definition and explanation, Ryan. It is too bad that it has to be explained to some people. There seems to be many who really have such muddled thinking and a lack of clarity on so many issues. Let me add to your definition of tolerance. Tolerance is accepting the existence of certain human behavior like alcoholism, for example, without affirming it or passing laws to inhibit it such as prohibition laws. You may not approve of drinking and find it morally distastesful and repugnant but neverheless do not seek government control or interference with others in stopping people from drinking or abusing it.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 11:46AM

Of course we have laws against drinking -- especially when you drive. I do not tolerate drinking and driving. By the way, do you also require people who drink, even occasionally, not to tell you?????

Your analogy is dumb. It is too bad we must explain the logical mush in your grey matter.

123| 2.2.10 @ 3:57PM

Wow, you really missed the point bob. We have laws against operating a potentially deadly weapon when intoxicated or otherwise impared, be it alcohol, drugs or lack of sleep. Not laws against alcohol.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 11:38AM

How can you "tolerate" something you consider to be morally wrong????? Ryan, you make no sense.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 1:15PM

Bob,

We (society) tolerate all sorts of things that many consider to be morally wrong. Some "morally wrong" things can be tolerated, from a Libertarian perspective, that don't harm others. Other "morally wrong" things are tolerated, that were not once tolerated (such as abortion) because Western civilization is in decline. We tolerate homosexuality more than we used to because society as a whole is more socially decayed than it used to be. We will never go back to the moral laws that we used to abide by (such as Sunday blue laws) unless there is a general social consensus that we should. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But the Military doesn't accept behavior that the civilian world tolerates. Military standards are based on "good order and discipline" which in turn are created to enhance military preparedness to fight wars. For instance, Military rules proscribe drinking and driving much more harshly than the civilian world does -because losing a soldier, sailor or Airman to a drunk driving accident has consequences for military readiness. In another case, an male officer who has an affair with a female seaman recruit, will face criminal penalties that a male CEO who has an affair with his female secretary never will. These fraternization rules ultimately relate to fair treatment for all within the unit and are necessary to maintain some level of morale. So the standards the military enforces are based on military necessity not human or civil rights. There is simply no valid military reason for allowing homosexuals to serve openly. The exodus of trained and dedicated personnel that will occur if they are allowed to do so will prove this.

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 2:30PM

Easy. I don't do anything about it.

I have a moral issue with homosexuality, but I don't go about actively discriminating against them.

I have a moral issue with extramarital and premarital sex, but I don't push laws on people making it illegal.

It's the concept about "my rights end where yours begin," which is a bit simplistic, but gets the point across. Simply because I have a moral issue with something you do doesn't mean that I have to kill you or put you in prison for it or deny you a job over it.

Mohammed Al-Mohamed| 2.2.10 @ 7:17PM

Umm, unless you're a muslim, that is.

BH in Baltimore| 2.2.10 @ 12:50PM

Mr. Guardiano,
Do you really believe under the DADT policy, that "no one is forcing anyone to 'lie' about their sexuality"? I was really ready to listen to the other side of this issue. I was curious to hear the arguments against it. But this reasoning seems at best disingenuous.

You must know that gay people form couples, live together, in some states enter into state-sanctioned civil partnerships, and in MA even get marriage licenses from the state. How in the world do you think people can keep this to themselves even if they wanted to?

I was ready to hear your reservations about adding another "protected class" to the system. But your arguments are predicated on the premise that DADT isn't outright discrimination because no one is asking anyone to "lie"--that the policy is tolerant because it doesn't ban anyone from serving. I suppose technically you are absolutely right. There's no gay test. But please don't patronize us by trying to pass this off as tolerance.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 8:28PM

John, pretty much what everyone else responding to your comment said, your argument here holds no water.

Why can't gay soldiers talk about their lives to the same extent that straight soldiers can?

"Keeping their sexuality private" is very difficult. Of course no one really wants to hear the details of one's sex life, but if a gay soldier says anything that could imply an interest in men rather than women, or vice versa for women, it would arouse suspicion.

Think of all the non-sexual things that could imply an interest in, or a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex. All of those things would also be off-limits to a gay soldier.

The other issue is third-party accusations. If someone can dig up the past of a soldier who has fully complied with DADT while in service, and then the gay soldier is discharged, we have a serious problem.

So, essentially, your argument doesn't last 5 minutes when held up to scrutiny.

Gabriel| 2.4.10 @ 12:28PM

There seems to be some dishonesty with regards to affirmation vs. tolerance and the statement that "no one is forcing anyone to 'lie' about their sexuality."

Let's look at the claim that there is no need to lie. This isn't just a matter of sex, but a matter of an individual's the most intimate, and likely important, personal relationship. Gay servicemen and women must keep their private lives not just private, but any identifying information about their significant other must be hidden; personal information about them, their likeness (a photo), or even their name must be hidden. If this is not done, that soldier faces the potential for discharge because any information indicating the solider is gay, voluntarily given or otherwise found, is grounds for discharge.

What about personal discussions with other soldiers in his or her unit? Clearly lies need to be told here. Or are you suggesting the gay soldier simply say "none of your business" to any question about personal relationships? Do you believe this would be reasonable response? I personally think this belief, that you are going to have no real friendships with members of your unit is ridiculous and any friendship would naturally involve these most basic of personal details. In any event, let's simplify this and say that is exactly what is done. The gay soldier never says anything about his or her personal life.

What about this gay soldier, deployed overseas, and the only contact with his or her significant other is phone and email? How much can be revealed in that email? No one can be looking over your shoulder for certain. What about that phone call? Cannot say anything that tells the gender and/or the type of relationship.

Now imagine the straight solder, wife and kids at home, maybe an old parent being cared for, attempting to follow these same rules. Hiding any information about the relationship. Any information that might clue someone in, someone that just happens to be near that phone. Forget talking about things with anyone else, that is already out. Even in a personal phone call, this solder cannot say the name of his wife and "I love you" on a phone call.

With this said, how is the gay soldier not being asked to lie?

In regards to tolerance vs. affirmation, allowing something to be, to exist, does not mean you agree with it. You mention other faiths; clearly the US military allows Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and so on to openly practice. Yet acknowledging these other faiths does not undermine the faith of the remaining, primarily Christian, US military. OPEN acceptance does not affirm these other beliefs, it just accepts they exist. The average solider may disagree strongly; these people do not believe Christ was the son of God and died for our sins. But open acceptance of these faiths does not undermine their Christian beliefs. Why would homosexuality be different? Are you saying that being gay is somehow impossible to accept as a Christian, but belief that Jesus wasn't the son of God somehow is? That being gay is somehow more against the Christian beliefs than.. believing in Jesus Christ?

The racial comparison, or lack thereof, and "special treatment" does not hold up. I would not claim that being gay is the same as being, say, black. Clearly a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy would be fairly ineffective for matter of skin color. But that invalidates a DADT comparison, not the comparison as a whole. These are still both strongly held personal beliefs, again some even grounded in religion, that frame this integration.

I doubt you would make the claim that there are no racists in the military, even high in command structure. I would further doubt you would say this if we were to talk about the time immediately *after* racial integration. The military hierarchy was not required to "affirm" race; they were required to accept it, to ignore it. Executive Order 8802 did just that; equality of treatment and promotion without regard to race. That is not affirmation, that is acceptance and tolerance. Racists can keep their racist beliefs, they had just better not let that factor into treatment and promotion (and as we know, this takes a while to happen and is perhaps still an ongoing process). How would sexual orientation equality differ in any way? Claims of "ordered to get onboard with gay-pride celebrations" is silly scare-mongering fantasy. Were soldiers required to attend civil rights marches, lunch counter sit-ins or bus protests? No? Explain, specifically, how this would be different here. What will be required is the same that was required with racial integration; equality for treatment and promotion.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:16AM

Jason:
"APA has stated that sexual orientation/sexuality is an inborn trait that cannot be changed any more than hair or eye color."

The APA has also stated that it is normal for you, a grown man, to have sex with minors.
It is called inter-generational sexual relationships.
Is that what you mean?
And is the APA really the authority that you look to for guidance?

Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 10:24AM

We are all missing the real point here. The issue isn't the issue. The issue is a nation, once a nation of laws, that now is a nation of favored groups.

If the current government favors your group, you get the bennies. If your group is out of favor, you lose. This is where Marxist thinking leads. If people are identified by their "group" and are taught to vote according to their group dynamic, we can no longer be a nation equal under the law.

This applies not only to the instant issue but to affirmative action, welfare rights and the plethora of interest groups all favored by government (read taxpayer) largess. The political purchase of group loyalty is a corrupting influence on a once proud government of law. It has brought our nation to a sad state. Whether we can ever recover equality is an open question.

Simon Templar| 2.2.10 @ 10:36AM

"...its failure to distinguish between tolerance and affirmation.
It is never been a failure. Rights of those not in affirmation of their agenda? None. Question answered. They do not want tolerance..its always been about affirmation..we would not be called bigots and homophobes if it were about tolerance. While were all making up names to call each other, let me be the first to coin...religophobes..haters of traditionalist values.

Simon Templar| 2.2.10 @ 10:54AM

Let me reframe this, on second thought, because I just realized that the pro-homosexual group would actually prefer that this issue be framed as a religious one...when it is actually one of natural law and nature. You do not have to have religious objections alone to homosexuality....you can make a quite substantial argument taking a secularist or atheistic position as well. So, maybe a better term would be anti-naturalist...those having hatred and objection to natural biological patterns that seek to create unnatural alternative constructs such as transexual, transvestite, homosexual, and other forms of deviant and alternative sexual and behavioral practices.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 11:43AM

"Natural Law"???? That's a joke. Natural law changes as we learn more. It was "natural law" that the world was flat. It was "natural law" that the earth is the center of the universe. It was "natural law" that blacks were less intelligent than whites. We now know that your supreme being made some people more genetically favored to be gay.

"Natural Law" is an excuse made by the uber-religious to justify their position. Nature creates homosexuals through a genetic mixture. Therefore, your position here is just nonsense.

LiveFreeOrDie| 2.2.10 @ 2:42PM

You've just been added to my "scroll past" list. Your replies to others comments are always the same. You don't understand what they are saying so therefore they are nonsensical. Simon references nature and the natural order of things and you equate this to man's past beliefs about the world being flat and blacks less intelligent than whites. Apples and oranges. It's you who makes no sense.

Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 3:42PM

Don't let this single issue make you myopic. If there is no natural law, then there is no basis for our liberties. Without the inate freedom stemming, in natural law, from our human condition our rights become only the gifts of power not of "nature and nature's God".

In that instance we are not free, but are simpl;y the pawns of tyranny or whatever government power may be in place to control us. Beware the path you trod.

Clavicus Vile| 2.2.10 @ 7:19PM

How can natural law change? Maybe you can link to a chart or something, hahahahaha!

My question for you Bob O'Sensitive is was Cicero "uber-religious?"

Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 10:55AM

I Don’t Mean to Be Rude, But… : Backstage Gossip from American Idol & the Secrets tha links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…But… : Backstage Gossip from American Idol & the Secrets that Can Make You a Star Related Blogs on American The American Spectator : Show ACORN the Money The American Spectator : Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal The Death of Global Warming – Walter Russell Mead's Blog – The … Related Posts I DON’T MEAN TO BE RUDE, BUT…: THE TRUTH ABOUT FAME,…

Paul from SA| 2.2.10 @ 11:55AM

By the liberals' reasoning, the military will have to allow transgender, multi-gender, non-gender, transsexual, bisexual, non-sexual, multisexual, trisexual,... people into the military. In fact, any sexual orientation must be permitted into the forces. That includes people who are oriented toward children and violence.

And they'll need to combine all living and bathing facilities into one.

This isn't an issue of tolerance or sex or improving our military. It's not about gays in the military. This is the liberal's attempt to force Americans to accept the gay lifestyle.

Look what happened during the 90's when Clinton first signed this order. Gay men flooded into the military thinking it's going to be a huge sex orgy with large macho men. When they learned they have to train, follow orders, and learn to kill, they quit.

Military men cannot be allowed to just quit.

Paul from SA| 2.2.10 @ 12:06PM

How many women would accept bathing with sex-hungry, perverted men? And from a job you can't quit?

I would never join an institution or job that required me to bath with gay men. That is just so repulsive.

I recall years ago when in college, I went to the student lockerroom to dress, to workout... The place was about 90 degrees and humid, smelled like dirty feet, urine and sweat. The place was full of gay men, standing around naked, ogling every man that entered. I almost vomitted. I never returned.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 12:15PM

If you were a real man without sexual hang-ups, it wouldn't have bothered you. What did you have to hide???? And you believe all men are sex-hungry and perverted? You need help. See a therapist quickly.

Paul from SA| 2.2.10 @ 12:43PM

What you label as a 'sexual hang-up' is just repulsion. I don't call it immoral or wrong or illegal or irreligious. It's repulsive. I don't want any part of your private behavior.

I never said all men are sex-hungry and perverted. It is an example offered for people like you to respond to. Why not consider the point and reply like a normal person, instead of attacking me personally?

I believe the majority of men feel similarly. Taking off my clothes in front of bunch of naked gay men staring at me in a stinking lockerroom is something I would not do for any job. Men will not want to experience that in the millitary, where you can't walk off the job, and where the chain of command and obedience are vital.

I believe the majority of women would understand the analogy. They wouldn't want to have to take off their clothes in front of bunch of men staring.... for a job they can't quit from where the people starting are you superiors?

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 12:30PM

The author seems to suggest that gay and christian are mutually exclusive. However we know that there are many gay christians.

As for military christians, they are participating in wars that cause widespread death and destruction (justified and accidental). Now you're telling me that they draw the line at two guys holding hands?

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 2:32PM

"However we know that there are many gay christians."
~If God says he throws practicing homosexuals into Hell along with liars, adulterers, thieves, and others, then does it really matter what they try and call themselves?

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 3:16PM

Matthew 7 (New International Version)

Matthew 7
Judging Others
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....ersion=NIV

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 3:23PM

Very cute there, Tim.
God still says He will throw you into Hell if you are a practicing homosexual, if you love and practice a lie, are an Adulterer, a thief, a murderer.. if you care to want to know what other things He will throw you into Hell for, read the rest of your Bible.
Deal with it.

Al Adab| 2.2.10 @ 3:37PM

It must be very easy to confuse reading the book with passing judgement, at least for the uninitiated. "Stand firm therefore in the Liberty where (The Messiah) Christ has made you free".

To call sinners, including ourselves, to repentance is never a wasted breath. Thanks Margie.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 3:41PM

It's all about the Hell with you isn't it?
Peace.

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 4:01PM

Pardon me, Tim?
I try and line up my thinking with God's thinking. If He says He will throw me into Hell for the above named sin, then I believe it. I think it is also the loving thing to do, to warn others of what He says. (He, not I).
Therefore I conclude that in order to actually call yourself a Christian, you can't possibly practice homosexuality and truly BE a Christian. Try as one may, to call themselves one.
If you find fault with that, it isn't me you find fault with.
Personally. I find it like this~ "It is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God."Heb. 10:31.
Peace.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 4:05PM

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 4:09PM

Dear Tim,
You are doing the typical Liberal thing here by trying to point to me, for saying what God says. (Attack the messenger). He still says He will throw you into Hell for the above mentioned lifestyles.
It has nothing to do with you or me.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 4:18PM

Dear Marge,
I am neither a liberal nor gay. It simply escapes me that we read the same scripture and come to such radically divergent conclusions.

Well, I doubt we'll solve this. Might as well call it a night.

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 4:25PM

I didn't say you were either of the two.
I was responding to your point about "gay Christians" and how there is no such thing, in truth. To which you pointed the accusatory finger and Scripture at me to try to say "how can you, a sinner say such a judgmental thing?!"
In fact, God calls Christians to speak the truth. And so I just wanted to clear that up, according to God's truth, in the Bible. He does not accept homosexuality as a practiced lifestyle, and says (He, not I), that He will throw you into Hell for it. You cannot please God and call yourself a Christian if you practice a behavior He condemns. (He, not I.)

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 4:27PM

The problem with this is the same with other sins - promoting an explicitly condemned lifestyle (greedy or gay or whatever), and yet proclaiming to be a Christian without the need for seeking repentance.

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 5:05PM

Exactly. And since God calls us to repentance it also shows that He is willing to forgive us of our sin, but repent means a change of mind, and heart, and to turn away from it. When Jesus forgave the woman caught in Adultery He said, "Go and do not sin again." Jn. 8:11.
If He tells us to turn away from sin, and not do it anymore, that must mean we are able to do so. And it blows out of the water the false theory that God "made us" to be "Gay". How could He have made us that way if He tells us to repent of it or else He will throw us into Hell?
He only wants us to obey Him, instead of sin. How wonderful it is to know the loving kindness of His mercy when you turn! For, "The Lord is not slow about His promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." 2 Pe. 3:9.

Carner York| 2.2.10 @ 12:59PM

How exactly does a gay person who wants is or her homosexuality known serve openly? Does he or she fill out a form? Is there some kind of gay insignia on the uniform? The auther of the article is absolutely correct when he says that this policy will devolve into legal disputes as these kinds of things always do. We have already substantially denigrated our military with the inclusion of women in combat related roles and they are slated to be accomodated on subs at the cost of hundreds of millions. The auther poses the single most important question. How does repealing DADT increase military readiness and performace? The clear and obvious answer is that it does not and that is all that should matter.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 2:38PM

"How exactly does a gay person who wants is or her homosexuality known serve openly? Does he or she fill out a form? Is there some kind of gay insignia on the uniform? "

Soldier 1: Do you have a girlfriend?
Soldier 2: Nope, I'm gay.

That's how.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:26AM

That must be a "gay" pick-up line.
Regular straight guys don't ask things like that.
That's what a woman asks a guy.

ADM| 2.2.10 @ 1:22PM

The military's experience with going fully coed should serve as a cautionary point here. First, fraternization (and its consequences including disruption within units and pregnancy) is rampant, just not much talked about publicly. Second, there have been double and lowered standards on the physical side. All of this has been well documented. In the best possible light, the force is no more capable than it was before, but it has costs and areas of weakness that it did not used to have.

Now, since gay men (for example) are as physically fit as straight men, the double or lowered physical standards are not going to be an issue. So, it comes down to fraternization. Clearly, there won't be any pregnancies. But, there will be the same sort of other issues that we currently have between heterosexual men and women. It's distracting, its disruptive and it's unnecessary. Ultimately, it takes time and resources away from things more relevant to the military mission. The only solution to this problem is to ban all such relationships (straight or gay), or to remove them by keeping any open discussion of sexual orientation private, and to punish those cases of misconduct that do occur. Historically, this has proven impossible between men and women without segregating the sexes (which is no longer allowed). Indeed, a recent attempt by an Army general in Afghanistan to punish women soldiers who get pregnant AND the men who impregnate them - an even-handed and non-discriminatory approach to a genuine readiness problem - was quickly beaten up various feminist Senators and immediately "counselled" by Army Chief of Staff "Diversity" Casey. If we can't agree that pregnancy compromises readiness, honesty on the other issues related to it is impossible. This only demonstrates that the issues surrounding coed service include quotas, special recognition for military women and the like. It is highly politicized, creates protected classes and generally creates discord. At this point in our history, I see no evidence that things would play out differently if gay people were allowed to serve openly.

So, while I have no problem with gay people being allowed to serve, I would continue with the current policy.

That said, unless we recognize the problems with the coed force, where exactly the same arguments were raised against allowing women larger roles, there is no principled or rational basis for opposing repeal of DADT. If the fully coed force is a good idea, if putting 600 women on an aircraft carrier with 5000+ men causes no problems or reduction in efficiency, then it is impossible to argue against gays serving openly.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 1:33PM

Well said.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 1:35PM

Do you really think that soldiers don't know whether their buddies are gay or not? When I was in the Army, we knew. Therefore your argument that its distracting and disruptive makes absolutely no sense, or you would call for the banning of all gays from JOINING the military. What makes sense is to keep all sexual oriented behavior out of the military workplace whether you are talking about gays or women. You regulate behavior, not orientation.

ADM| 2.3.10 @ 1:58PM

The distraction and disruption results when people engage in personal relationships or when a personal relationship develops that may result in favoritism or divided loyalties, not because some people in the unit are thinking or worried about someone else's sexual orientation. Then, you have to split up the couple to avoid the question of where their loyalties lie. When you do that, and have to bring in a new person, the unit's cohesion and trust are weakned to some degree. This applies equally to heterosexual relationships.

If there were some evidence that the military would actually punish sexual misbehavior, as you suggest, in a consitent way, I'd accord more weight to your argument. The evidence with the coed force and DSIW (Double Standards Involving Women) is not encouraging. It would be all too easy for a gay soldier to protest that even legitimate rules for enforcing "good order and discipline" were being used to advance a homophobic agenda, and thus avoid punishment. Then, will come the "sensitivity" training and diversity-like PC seminars that are already a part of military wife to address coed relationships, sexual assualt and a host of other things. All of that takes time and attention away from legitimate military activities. Hence, more distraction and disruption. Or do you dispute that this sort of stuff isn't happening now?

The only way I'd support openly gay people from serving was if it were clear that doing so would not open the floodgates to all the problems the coed force has had (in fact, if we enforced the rules consistently on that point, we'd have one hell of an exodus of both sexes). At this point in time, I have no confidence in either our political or military leaders to enforce rules against mis-behavior consistently.

As a matter of law and policy, Congress is within its rights to ban gays from joining at all. Whether that makes sense is a political argument, nothing more. I would not agree to that. But, for all the reasons cited, I think DADT is a workable solution to the current problem.

I also think you need to consider how things actually play out. With women, similar assurances were given about support for equal treatment and standards, and they have never materialized. Moreover, fraternization has not proven to be controllable through discpline, leadership or administrative means. Men and women can both serve, but it makes more sense to keep them as separate as possible because nothing else seems to actually work. Facts are stubborn things.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 1:51PM

Forget gays, generals are ruining our armed forces:

A general in command of U.S. Army training says that a new generation of video-gaming, computer-savvy but less physically fit soldiers will no longer learn how to disembowel an enemy with a bayonet. The passing of the old infantry standby may simply reflect a modern battlefield that has become both more tech-heavy and more tactically complex, according to AP and other news sources.

http://www.popsci.com/technolo.....x-bayonets

GW| 2.2.10 @ 2:04PM

I've long stopped respecting Jonah Goldberg. He's a secular Jew with little respect for the "religous right." He also qualifies everything he writes, as if not to offend anyone. He needs to follow the "DADT" policy and not comment on homos in the military.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 2:13PM

Not that it matters, but he isn't jewish.

GW| 2.2.10 @ 4:12PM

According to his wikipedia page he is. But you're right, 'secular' was the key word I was going for.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:32AM

"According to his wikipedia page he is"

Proof once again, that "wikipedia" is not fallible.
So much for the theory of Wikal Infallibility.

Career Troop| 2.2.10 @ 2:07PM

"Indeed, Americans -- including U.S. military servicemen and women -- are far more tolerant, and even accepting, of lesbians and homosexuals than they were 20 or 30 years ago. "

Whoa. Now there is an outright lie. I can safely say, as an Amercian Soldier with over 26 years of professional service, that U.S. Military servicemen and women are even less tolerant of homosexuals in the ranks then they were before don't ask/tell was thrown upon us.

"So while most military service men and women -- 58% ...still oppose open homosexuality in the ranks, an equally strong majority are quite tolerant and accepting of lesbians and homosexuals." Huh? How can you have 58% opposed and an equal majority for? The fact is that "in those surveyed" nearly two thirds said not just no, but no way in hell! And anyone in the ranks seen as "tolerant and excepting" are austricized as well.

"Why, then, shouldn't gays serve openly and freely?" These men and women are not students or club members, they are warriors, plain and simple. If they don't trust you, you are a hazard to the effectiveness and cohesion of the team. And they do not trust persons with what are, to them, incomprehensible sexual desires. Ergo the team cohesion is compromised and renedered ineffective. They are going about their duties in very kaotic and dangerous situations. Fratricide is an ever present risk. I can tell you from experience that anything seen as a danger to their survival will be removed, with violence if necessary. It's not pretty, but then neither is warfare. If you haven't lived it, you don't know it, and haven't earned the right to talk about it.

win| 2.2.10 @ 2:20PM

As long as everyone respects others and don't make an issue of others or their own views on sexuality, there should not be a problem. That in itself is expecting to much though.

It won't take long for their to be all kinds of studies and anecdotal articles that portray the people in our military, no matter their sexual preference, in a bad light. That in itself will tear down the esteem for our military.

I'd like to think it was different, but the two extremes of left and right are going to milk this for every bit of drama they can.

Doris Day| 2.2.10 @ 2:39PM

How does this issue tie in with the gay fascination for men in uniforms?

YMCA! It's fun to live at the YMCA!

Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 2:48PM

This GAYS IN THE MILITARY is just another example of liberal Democrats trying to destroy America [just as they've done to Catholic and Protestant religions, and are trying to do to corporate hiring practices]. Liberals have now succeeded in trojun-horsing their candidate into the White House, and the war on America is proceeding onto the fronts of holding criminal trials of Muslim terrorists in this country; taking over managerial control of corporations; destroying banks, real estate,etc by forcing the mantra of AFFORDABLE HOMES onto taxpayers; rigging elections via Acorn and Justice's closeting of the Black Panther federal election case; and now this. It's all about the advance of liberalism and the destruction of America!!!!!!

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 3:23PM

Man, you need some lithium -- quick. Even Admiral Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, said this morning that in his personal opinion, DADT should be repealed because you're asking someone to like about themselves. But I'm sure you know more about the military than Admiral Mullen.

GW| 2.2.10 @ 4:19PM

Has Mullen ever been in combat?

NO. At least according to wikipedia (I'm sorry, I'm quoting wp alot today).

What the hell do you think Gen. Patton would say to someone like Mullen? I mean, it's not like Patton actually led troops in combat or nothing, which is the point of having a military.

Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 4:55PM

Bob, you forgot about General Casey who, subsequent to the Muslim terrorist assinating 26 at the Texas military fort, proclaimed that what was most important to the US military establishhment was to continue its DIVERSITY programs/activities [so as not to disenfranchise Muslims in our military]. Mullen is of the same brainwashed mentality, MORON!!!!

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:35AM

Hey Bob,
Career Troop:"These men and women are not students or club members, they are warriors, plain and simple."

Jim O'Brien| 2.2.10 @ 2:57PM

While Obama is focused on gays in the military, the terrorists are focused on winning the war against the United States.

Christopher Holland| 2.2.10 @ 8:05PM

I can imagine the Taliban pissing themselves with laughter as they read this. After 8 years of war, all we do is talk about making the military into a social club for any minority with an axe to grind. No wonder the jihadists despise us for being weak and gutless. Why not just run up the white flag and surrender already? And why pay taxes if all you get is a military that is nothing but a grievance machine for social engineers?

Al Wilson| 2.2.10 @ 3:41PM

I strongly agree that gays should not be in the military. True experience: I was in the Air Force and this airman who was gay left his duty station at a nuclear missile facility to try and molest another airman. This is the kind of thing that you never hear about. He had no impulse control and thus acted with astonishingly bad judgement that could have put other lives in jeopardy. I'm sure there are many other similar stories out there.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 3:51PM

And I had a gay fellow soldier in Vietnam who saved my life a couple of times -- and I did the same for him. By the way, I was married with two kids and he never made a pass at me. I'm sure there are other similar stories out there....

Oldefarte| 2.2.10 @ 4:58PM

Bet ya'll had loads of fun in those foxholes, huh Bob!!!!!

Troll Watch| 2.3.10 @ 12:08AM

This troll will say anything.

Troll Watch| 2.3.10 @ 12:09AM

This troll will say anything.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 3:56PM

Doesn't matter Bob: he's going to hell.

Bob| 2.2.10 @ 4:05PM

Tim, I don't have to worry about hell -- I'm an atheist. And from my perspective, you don't have to worry about something that doesn't exist, either.

LiveFreeOrDie| 2.2.10 @ 8:31PM

And as such you are incapable of logic and reason. Atheist = ignorant. Logically and scientifically you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove there is no God so atheists are inherently ignorant. If you were agnostic you would have some credibility.

Tim| 2.2.10 @ 4:08PM

I'll say a prayer for you anyway Bob, and your brave friend.

Sammy| 2.2.10 @ 4:17PM

This is a brilliant display of "friendly" bigotry. The new bigot is friendly, be ware.

The gay community just wants the same things as everyone else, NO MORE, NO LESS, stop hate-mongering with your bigoted propaganda.

Louis Jenkins| 2.2.10 @ 4:23PM

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
(Item # 26 of 49)
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

Margie| 2.2.10 @ 4:30PM

And this is what Obama wants to do. No surprise there. He who takes his advise from Saul Alinsky, and with whose philosophy he lives by.
Obama is a destroyer, and a brother to him who destroys. One way to do so is to weaken the Military. Why else would he want to repeal this? He is an utter disgrace.

Bob Smith| 2.2.10 @ 4:39PM

If you know anything about the communists and the gays history of america you would know that the first people to distance themselves from teh gays where the communists kicking out their leaders because they were presumed to be gay ... but i guess crap read on the internet and WP is more credible to your bunch

Louis Jenkins| 2.3.10 @ 8:27AM

I guess this thread is DOA, but to add to Mr. Smith's counter point- #29 was entered into the Congressional Record as:

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

I agree that much of what goes on in Congress, today and in 1963, is crap and much info is gained on the internet. I merely pointed out, regardless of the communist leadership's fate once they have gained power, that there is a conflict between the values of our country and communism. I realize that screaming Communist is passe' and in modern day society it is impolite to use the word, but these people will go to great lengths to weaken and abate our nation. If a general acceptance of homosexuality fits the methods, then they will use it. In other words the ends justify the means. And if communists eliminate the gay leadership once power is gained who cares? The communists have gained control. Perhaps those first communist leaders should have never asked, and certainly never told. If it walks like a communist and quacks like a communist, then it must be a communist regardless of its sexual preferences. You cannot argue that our nation has not been changed, and continues to changed, by the acceptance of communistic thought.

I am unfamiliar with the term WP. "Willie Pete?"

Charles Stevens| 2.2.10 @ 4:27PM

I think it all comes down to one extremely basic question:
In combat, how can you rely on the person next to you if you suspect that he/she is more partial to a lover positioned somewhere else on the front line?

Training may not be enough to overcome the fear and uncertainty of a situation in which a life-or-death, split-second decision is essential while all around you is going to hell. Such a combat situation is eminently more controllable and predictable if factors such as love interests can be eliminated at the outset. I believe it has been proven time and again that in combat, a warrior will lay his life on the line for a buddy, for his brother-in-arms. However, throw a lover (either male or female) into that equation, and it fails miserably. If it fails at that level, then you can throw away any thought of an effective military that can successfully defend the nation.

Bob Smith| 2.2.10 @ 4:54PM

I find funny how all the hypothetical scenarios thrown around about how gays will rabbit humping the hetros, seducing them and having love relationships on the battlefield fail to see the most obvious point
THERE ARE ALREADY GAYS IN THE MILITARY AND LESBIANS TOO!
So DADT doesn't bar gay and lesbians from serving ... only forces them to lie and if they are found out to be as such they loose their lively hood.
Now come again and try something a bit less obvious than masked bigotry.
Here is a FAQ to help you out
Are Gay men like women, or lesbians like men?
Nope
Are there Gays and lesbians in the military?
Yes 67 thousand total
Does sexual orientation affect the quality of the job they do?
Not a single proof of it
Do you need to separate the homos from the not?
Homos have with straight people all along, in schools, university and *shock and awe* the military they won't come out crawling out their holes if DADT
What does serve openly mean?
Being open is a personal choice for any homosexuals, and no one can force them one way or another and you will most likely never know unless they decide to tell you... because its non of your business.
BONUS Is everyone that has Same Sex Sex a self identifies as gay or has a homosexual orientation?
Nope sexual orientation is not the same as the act, and it has been proven that in segregated community same sex acts are more frequent and more prominent than in mixed community. it doesn't mean that they are homosexual in orientation they are just horny hetros that found a hole!
CHEERS

Charlse Stevens| 2.2.10 @ 5:04PM

As usual, here is a typical progressive attempting to smokescreen the issue by throwing up a strawman issue and burning it. The issue is not and never has been "how gays will rabbit humping (sic) the hetros". The rest of your maunderings devolves into an illogical rant based on your false premise. I would ask that you try again by keeping to the issues, but I suspect that is well beyond your mental powers, since progressives are demonstrably unable to engage in logical analysis nor use reality-based feedback.

Al Wilson| 2.2.10 @ 5:35PM

Bob, I didn't want to say this, but it was me that was attacked. I repelled his efforts. I was 19, never exposed to anyone like him. Forty years ago, you were automatically given a discharge if you were identified as gay. But think about it...I know this person would deny it and might have implicated me. It was a scary proposition. Truthfully, I had many bad moments after that. That's pretty much what happens when someone tries to molest you, especially when you thought of the other person as a friend. This person didn't present any of the overt mannerisms. I'm concerned that the PC version is what rules the day and it is not always like that. When you are in the military you don't want to worry about what's in your foxhole.

John| 2.2.10 @ 6:01PM

Regarding your below comment. I am a gay man who couldn't be happier, I have the most amazing husband and we are the happiest, most well-adjusted couple you'll ever meet. Anyone will tell you so, it's a tad vomit-inducing how happy, dull, boring we are.

The "vices and compulsions" we have are thanks to bigots like you who propagate hate. I do have a compulsion - to fight for what is right and just in society, to fight bigotry and discrimination of all forms. My only "vice" is fighting for equality for all (something you clearly believe to be a vice).

People like you are the reason why I was afraid to go to school when I was a kid, because the bullies were taught it was okay to bully me.

"Consequently, it is all but impossible to find a gay character, on TV or in a movie, who is bad or despicable -- or who suffers from vices and compulsions that might be more common within the gay community

Henry| 2.2.10 @ 6:12PM

Homosexual should have their way in the military instead of having close combat with the enemy they could have an orgy instead. Americans have already legalized most perversions known to man, what else can be expected of the most depraved people on planet earth. Soon airlines will advertise in flight sexual orgies, straight, bi, or homo on your way to your favorite island, and cruise ships will advertise floating brothels with all sorts of hallucinogens at your disposal, and such carnal delights as gluttony, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and incest. No one should be deprived of his or her civil liberties.

Al Wilson| 2.2.10 @ 6:25PM

Hey John, I'm glad you're happy. The first thing gays always say is that a person who is against them is a bigot. You are so "noble" in fighting for gay rights. Guess what....when someone attempts to molest you it's just like a man trying to molest a woman it's a crime! You also think, wrongly, that gays are fighting for civil rights when, in fact, it is a dysfunctional problem. How many "partners" did you have before you met "Mr. Right"? A recent study I read says 75 is the average. So, a person does not propagate hate when that person is the object of an unwanted molestation. I have also witnessed many gays engaged in a public restroom where I worked as a salesman in a department store.

John| 2.3.10 @ 12:09AM

Fighting your ignorance and bigotry is a rather moot point - like trying to teach a pig to fly, you're a hate-monger who won't change.

While it doesn't matter how many partners I've been with, the number is a whopping ONE before Mr. Right. My Ex was also a great human being now in a very amazing relationship with another man. He has had a whopping TWO "partners" in his life.

I also know 100s of homosexuals who'd counter that laughable stat.

They're also highly functional.

Gay rights are Civil Rights, there is no debate on the issue, just bigotry that sees it as anything else.

Mike A| 2.2.10 @ 6:36PM

Faggots are going to burn in hell, as is everyone in this thread who defends them. The only positive thing that could come out of repealing DADT: good soldiers will know who to aim their bullets at.

Paul D| 2.2.10 @ 6:45PM

BOTTOM LINE: The very comments and disagreements between people on this board are what the troops will have to deal with on a daily basis if this change occurs. And they will be MUCH more passionate about it.

The Military doesn't need this crap.

Cheers, Paul

John II| 2.3.10 @ 7:57PM

Well, if no one else is going to respond, I guess I have to, even if no one's around any longer to listen. Love those lost causes.

I've read the article and all the responses, Paul, including the stuff that follows. Your comment is the most pointed. Taken together, the responses are themselves an implicit argument against the crap you allude to.

Anyone who's been in the military knows the difference between the careerist paper-pushers and climbers on the one hand, and the warriors on the other. Guess which type is now ascendant in the military. (Hint: the same type who got ahead fast during the Clinton years.)

And that too is the BOTTOM LINE.

Yves Bauer| 2.2.10 @ 7:11PM

Countries such as Canada, Israel and the UK have gays openly serving in the military... They do not have any problems...

Otis my man!| 2.2.10 @ 7:35PM

The U.S. is not Canada, Israel or the UK.

Charles Stevens| 2.2.10 @ 7:21PM

Homosexuals in society is NOT an issue of civil rights, it is an issue of special rights.

It has never been scientifically, demonstrably, repeatably proven that any tendency in human behavior is caused by a specific hereditary genotype or phenotype. Homosexual behavior is therefore primarily an issue of environment and largely self-imposed behavior modification. An analogy will demonstrate this...

Suppose that there is a phenotype for large shoulders and upper arms in humans. Suppose that the resultant segment of the population then decides, for whatever reason, to start walking on their hands most of the time. Suppose further that this segment organizes itself and becomes ever more militant, demanding that public rights-of-way and private businesses be compelled to provide walkways and entryways that are conducive to being accessed by the feet of people constantly walking on their hands.

This is the situation we have with homosexuals. There may indeed be some genetic phenotype that affects some physical attribute (note that I am being generous here, since science has yet to prove any such thing). But the USE of any such attribute is solely a decision on the part of the person involved, as well as all other life-choices based on that decision. It is therefore controllable by the person's ratiocination, including choices of association with others of the same type. Again being charitable, we can generalize to say that the cause of homosexuality is 20% genetic, and 80% environmental conditioning.

At this point, it should be noted that behavior change of any type is difficult (smoking, etc.). However, that in no way disproves the point that it is indeed primarily based on behavior, not genetics. The issue is then reduced to finding the most effective means of behavior modification, and not succumbing to it, nor rubbing others' noses in it and turning society upside down as if it were an innate civil right.

BamBam | 2.3.10 @ 2:33AM

The only problem with your argument is that its based on analogy and ignores actual science of it.
Religion is a personal choice and yet it is granted special rights even though people can change their religion quite easily.
On the other hand Gay rights are effecting every day life of equal citizens who get discriminated against because of baseless bigotry.
While psychology, medicine , anthropology, and sociology affirm sexual orientation there is not a single solid evidence that says it's a matter of choice!
funny that it's people like you that rather grant special rights (civil unions and other marriage lite options) rather than equal rights

Pingback| 2.2.10 @ 9:54PM

Do Discount Chain Stores Really Save Us Money Over the Long Run? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…advertising packages. You can get more information at StartUpBusinessDoctor.com Related blog posts How To Become More ?green? And Environmentally Friendly? | Fairy ... The American Spectator : Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Index: Con Majority 32 (-18) Frugality is a career tool | Penelope Trunk's Brazen Careerist Steve Jobs and Control -

JimE| 2.2.10 @ 9:58PM

It's about agenda, gays are never satisifed, give them marriage and they will then demand sex with children. They claim that they are just like everyone else and then demand special consideration because they are different, if it were just about joining the service give them chance to die for their country but it's about more than that. As for bogus Bob I never once saw anyone in the service picked on because the their faith.
30 YEAR VETERAN

John II| 2.2.10 @ 11:39PM

And I've never heard a combat veteran boast about it that way. Generally, you just don't talk about it.

Al Wilson| 2.2.10 @ 10:54PM

Jim E: You are so right! Gays are not like everyone else. They do not deserve special consideration. I have spoken about factual events that actually happened, not philosophy or PC that is BS. Some of them are interested in only getting sexual gratification! The hell with anything else.

Sam| 2.2.10 @ 11:17PM

The reason that people do not want to know about gays in the military is because they are afraid that gay people will a)proposition them or b) actually molest or touch them sexually. These are prejudiced fears. Gay men are no more likely to harm you than straight men.

And one more thing to our Armed Servicemen who don't want to serve with gays. If you don't have the balls to serve with gays, than get the hell out of our army. It makes me doubt the courage of the U.S. Army...

somnolence| 2.3.10 @ 12:25AM

Where do the asexuals fall in this equation? The media would have you believe that there is no such thing as asexuality.

Curtis| 2.3.10 @ 3:45AM

The title of the post nails the issue. All service members live under "don't ask, don't tell."

DADT your politics. DADT your faith. DADT what you do at home with your hetero spouse of lover.

You can love who you want to love, believe what you want to believe, but anything that reflects poorly on the DOD or brings your professionalism into question is a NOGO.

Do people talk? Of course, I know who believes in God. I know who believes in the Goddess. I know who's a liberal, who's a conservative, and which girls kiss girls.

Doesn't matter, as long they are professionals and servicemembers first. If anything gets in the way of that, you are NOGO. You don't talk about, brag about, or display your faith, religion, politics, or love life around people who simply don't want to hear it. You sure as heck don't bring up those things in any manner that violates the UCMJ, or makes your actions appear to represent the DOD or your service branch in particular. That's called harassment, coercion, intimidation, favoritism, and/or simply put unprofessional.

Your personal life is personal. Your service life is your public life. You are hereby 'highly encouraged' to keep your personal life, personal.

And now for a different tangent. Where the heck did people get the idea that serving is a right? You have the right to go up to a recruiters office, and try to get in, the recruiter has a right to say "You're too fat." "You have a bad knee." "You're a convicted felon." "You have tattoos on your hands." or even just "We don't want you." "We're full." or "Met my quota last week. Go away and don't back till FY 2011." No one necessarily has a right to go to basic, or even a right to be considered. No justification or reason needed for rejection.

I see the same stupid thing going on in the civilian sector. People feel like they have a right to have a job (or loan, or hand out, or bail out) until shown why they don't qualify, and then they complain because the qualifications aren't fair. Then they complain that there's some kind of conspiracy afoot to victimize them.

LiveFreeOrDie| 2.3.10 @ 11:46AM

There is no DADT policy in the military regarding politics, faith or spousal activities. There is no violation of the UCMJ for talking about these things. What the hell are you talking about? Are you really equating, politics and religion to homosexual behavior?

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 2:47PM

The only problem is, that if someone is gay, but compliant with DADT, and then someone else digs up his past and outs him, he will be discharged.

It's called a third party accusation

Tyrone| 2.3.10 @ 5:21AM

I served from 1983 to 1987 as an Army Officer. Although I'm opposed to gays in the military and women as well for the reasons described above by GW and Paul D, it should be noted that in Afghanistan, Thursday night is the night the men have fun with young boys there. In Afghanistan, boys are for pleasure and women are for reproduction. I learned this from a buddy of mine who served in Kandahar in 2007. He was guarding a Belgian field hospital and saw these same boys' mothers bring them in to get their anus' sewed up on Friday morning.

I guess we can look forward to this sort of thing in our own military now. I can't wait. ER doctors can learn how to remove improbable foreign objects from men's butts now! Barracks wide orgies and fun in the shower for all!

Bob's case in point of not caring who is gay under fire, is true enough, but it was also because in 1968 you couldn't go to the Hail and Farewell or other unit functions with your boyfriend or hit on other men in the unit. You had to keep things quiet. Gay men are extremely hedonistic and anyone who denies this is ignoring reality or being disingenuous. How about drag night at the EM club? I also suspect the numbers of gays Bob saw in Viet Nam were few if any. In fact, I doubt he ever served.

This repeal will be another case of playing pretend that these changes have no impact on readiness, when in fact they have a huge one. The military will find work arounds, but its grossly inefficient, will cost even more than it does now, will be socially disruptive and is designed to please a special interest group, not to improve readiness. If being gay isn't a choice, then Gays wouldn't try so hard to recruit heterosexuals.

DADT works because it acknowledges this reality. Our military functions well despite the social changes we've forced on it over the last 40 years, not because of them. A predominantly single man's army is still the best force. However, we'll all have to shut up now and clap for the freak show or risk our careers.

Derek Leaberry| 2.3.10 @ 9:00AM

Homosexuality is a dishonorable lifestyle and its practitioners are degenerate. They sap the morality of everything they come in contact with.

What is also interesting is that Bushite Defense Secretary Robert Gates is on board. That is the problem of Establishment Republicanism, even if transplanted to Texas. The Bushes, Bakers and Gates still are steeped in the values of what is left of the old Republican moneyed elite of the Eastern seaboard, an elite comfortable with the left-wing social zeitgeist. And that is one of the many reasons why conservatives must be prepared for Jeb Bush in 2016 when he rears his ugly head for a presidential run.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:46AM

Still can't get GW out of your mind, can you Derek?
He's not the president any more, hasn't been for a year now.
Get over it.

Career Trooper| 2.3.10 @ 9:20AM

I suspected that the "equal rights" lie would pop up here and Sammy didn't disapoint: "The gay community just wants the same things as everyone else, NO MORE, NO LESS, stop hate-mongering with your bigoted propaganda. "

What a crock. Homosexuals had exactly the same as everybody else. They wanted MORE. So they got included in "hate crime" laws. You can yell at me that I'm a biggoted SOB and no big deal. But if I yell back that you're a biggoted faggot, then I can be prosecuted and jailed. This is "NO MORE..?"

The equal rights lie is always that they want the same rights. The truth is they want legal protections and affirmative actions that hetrosexuals don't have.

The Ft Hood terrorist attack was facilitated by the Army's affirmative action climate in that those who suspected the major were afraid to come forward. Now we're going to add homosexuals into the "I'm protected and if you try to impose discipline on me, I'll claim your bigot" group? Another blow to military structure and discipline (pun intended).

Margie| 2.3.10 @ 12:48PM

This is one excellent post. Because it's the truth. Repealing DADT will weaken the Military, and isn't that Obama's goal? I say that because actions speak louder than words. Why else would he do this??

Hydraulic Tools | 2.3.10 @ 10:38AM

Manufacture Hydraulic Tools, offer from hydraulic crimping tool, cable cutter, pipe bender, gear puller, hole digger and hand pumps.

Al Wilson| 2.3.10 @ 12:01PM

John- You have blinders on. If what you say is true about your former partners (I doubt it), you are the exception rather than the rule. I have read that there are many gays that have died of AIDS because of their dysfunctional behavior. It's interesting that you didn't address the fact that molestation is a crime. The ugly truth is just that many gays are hedonistic predators. How can you explain a hole in a stall of a bathroom. I'm talking about an actual event that happened, not someone's dewey-eyed view of the gay community. Unfortunately, you're just in another place.

Franco| 2.3.10 @ 1:07PM

1) DADT is expensive, as somone noted above.
2) We have two wars to either hury up and win or end already, and multiple theaters to monitor. This requires bodies.
3) Gays stop bullets just as well as straights.

If the real issue is the idea that everyone will be forced to attend gay pride events, then let them quit. The government will then be forced to re-institute DADT, or institute a draft.

reads1| 2.3.10 @ 2:28PM

There seems to be a few obvious facts being totally ignored by several involved in this discussion. 1- It is a religous issue, as is adultery. murder, thievery, theft, blasphemy, etc., all sin along with homosexuality. 2- Not even the dogs or other of the animal or bird species engage in this practice. 3- It is totally against the NATURAL process of all created beings. 4- Consider the sexual practice of those who participate in homosexuality, as well as those who support this life style, totally repugnant and disgusting! 5- We have become more tolerant, more liberal, more immoral, more politically correct, more anti-CHRIST, and thus more acceptable of all kinds of corruption, violence, and non-christian behavior, including those who profess atheism. Those who are atheist can justify any aberrant behavior because they have no G_D, therfore nothing to believe in except their own indwelling human, sinful actions. What these people believe and practice in their lives is not a matter for reasonable discussion because they are not reasonable people.
No true Christian condemns any homosexual but condemns only the SIN of homosexuality, along with the previous other sinful activities of Christian teaching.
What LOGICAL reason would any benefit be derived from two homosexuals slobbering over one another in a military barracks of forty eight other men who do not believe in this lifestyle? You are infringing upon their rights!!
This is strictly a political move on the part of Obama and another liberal left step toward the destruction of traditional marriage.
Time is running out on this this generation!!

Derek Leaberry| 2.3.10 @ 3:38PM

It is humorous how many conservatives abide by the indoctrination of the Dewey education system and the mass media when it comes to homosexuality. The cultural rot that permeates Western Civilization has even spread its tentacles into those who call themselves conservative. Many Americans, maybe a majority, have turned their backs not only on Christianity but the historic American nation.

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:49AM

You can always go back to the Olde Country, eh Derek?
There's a plane leaving for Old Blighty. Be on it.

Ken| 2.3.10 @ 4:13PM

Let me just say that if any one of the faggot-lovers on this thread ever so much as lays a finger on this soldier, I carry a Ruger LCP .380 and am not afraid to use it. I know many other good Americans think similarly.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 8:01PM

the only people who use the word "faggot" are unpatriotic, anti-American fanatics.

You know exactly who I am referring to.

Tina | 2.3.10 @ 4:57PM

Ken, your tough-guy talk doesn't impress - and neither would it for all the other "good" Americans whom you allege think similarly. I have no doubt that you could take me out with your gun; but that still doesn't scare me. Tough talk never does. The truly tough don't turn to guns as a first resort. If you really would like to seem strong, I suggest you state your case more fully and then back it up with statistics or other evidence. THAT gets people's attention.

Ken| 2.3.10 @ 6:27PM

I don't really care about "getting your attention"; I care about letting fag-lovers know where I stand in case they think they can get away with their degenerate crap in the military. Also, sorry, can't help but laugh at the name "Tina." What are you, a black lesbian?

Yves Bauer| 2.3.10 @ 6:12PM

"It's about agenda, gays are never satisifed, give them marriage and they will then demand sex with children"

God are you stupid? Do you know how stupid that comment is? I guess you never received higher education. For the sake of us all, I hope you are part of the old generation and when you die so will your fascist ideas. Gay people deserve the same rights as anybody else. I hope this issue will make it to the supreme court one day. EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY has given full rights to gay people? Why not us? Why do we lack behind almost everything compared to other western countries? Other western countries have a GOOD healthcare system- we do not.
We are retarded as a nation. This bitter political divide has crippled us. We are the laughing stock of the world. People in Europe and Canada laugh at us because they resolved those problems a long time ago. Healthcare consumes 17% of our GDP and continues to rise- and we have MILLIONS who are uninsured. In OECD countries everyone is ensured and healthcare consumes between 4-8% of GDP. We are a joke.

Otis my man!| 2.3.10 @ 9:08PM

Yves,

You sound very French.... Est-ce que ce serait ainsi?

victor| 2.4.10 @ 12:52AM

You need to read the stats about waiting times in Canada.
3-4 months to see a GP and 6-12 months for diagnostics, i.e. x-rays and mri's.

Al Wilson| 2.3.10 @ 7:06PM

Yves-This is the best country on Earth and the envy of the world with the best healthcare system. That is why people from all over the world go to the Cleveland Clinic for heart surgery. Your argument about healthcare is bogus. Go ahead and live in Canada or England and try to get a knee or hip replacement. The wait now is a minimum of 9 months to a year. If you believe millions are without health insurance it's because a lot of people opt out of it because they're young and take the risk without it and don't want to pay premiums. What about NAMBLA (gays that want sex with children). How come in all 31 states the people have voted so far, gay marriage has never won. Only the liberals in the court system have approved it against the will of it's citizens. I know many in the "younger generation" that dislike gay people and are not indoctrinated by all of the PC crowd as you are. They think for themselves. Lets face it, you are just another liberal drone. Look around, read and educate yourself.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 8:09PM

Al, nobody in the younger generation "dislikes gay people."

Think about that idea, disliking a whole group of people based on who they are, that's called prejudice. Pure and simple. No one is indoctrinated with any ideology. The younger generation simply understands that its not their business what people do in their home.

Now, pedophiles are a different story, because they prey on underage people.

But seriously, the talking point is not to "dislike gay people." Even Focus on the Family knows that. The talking point is that a small group of gays have some sort of agenda, and the rest are being led like sheep when they should be rehabilitated.

Remember: Never attack a large group of people. The talking point is that its a small, secret group of people with a lot of money and power.

al wilson| 2.3.10 @ 8:40PM

Jim- How nice to be a spokesperson for a whole generation and know what everyone of them thinks. The next time someone is taking a poll, they can speak directly to you. Fortunately, not everyone thinks like you or believes what you think is the truth. You are seeing the subject through a looking glass. Think about what you are saying-",,,,the younger generation understands that it is not their business what people do in their home". I hate to break it to you but you are not addressing the issue of gays as predators, because behavior is not left inside the home, it sometimes continues outside of it.That is the ugly truth that few people talk about. As one who was the victim of an attempted molestation can attest to. What you fail to see is that all gays are not alike and not all of the younger generation thinks the same way. What planet are you on? My "talking point" is that there is enough gays who live on the dark side. Why don't you man up and have the courage to tell us how you really feel without talking in zombie-like clichés.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 8:53PM

Well, "dislike gays" sounds like pure prejudice to me. Saying something about particular individuals is one thing, but making generalizations is another.

Now, I am aware that of course not everyone in my generation thinks the same way. And it was also a fallacy for me to say "no one" holds prejudicial beliefs. But the only reason I said that was as a rhetorical trick - that in order to defend your position you essentially had to defend prejudice, and accuse my generation of harboring it!

But the rest about a dark side, and your personal experience, those honestly are good points, but are no excuse for prejudice.

Ken| 2.3.10 @ 10:23PM

We're not interested in hearing about what a bunch of dope-smoking liberal college kids believe. There's a place for liberal trolls like you who want to defend gays, blacks, etc.: MSNBC.

Jim| 2.3.10 @ 10:34PM

"defend gays, blacks, etc."

Wait, did you just say what I think you said?

You call gays "faggots," and then lump them in with blacks, etc. That's pretty clear. That's really, actually is racism. So in other words no one needs to argue with you anymore.

Tina| 2.4.10 @ 12:01AM

Actually, Ken, Tina is my real name, and I'm a white, straight gal who fights for gay rights and gay marriage because my aunt couldn't legally her partner. You can check out my picture on my twitter page if you'd like. Not sure what you find funny about my name, but hey - whatever floats your boat!

Ken, I ask this in all seriousness - not trying to be sarcastic: were you lucid as you wrote your comment to me? You wouldn't have written your first comment if you weren't trying to get the attention of all of us! You wanted gays to know to stay away from you, which, given what you wrote and the hate and rage that runs beneath it, I would agree and recommend to not only them but to everyone. Who knows what you might take for "degenerate crap?" that really isn't?

Ken, there is something else to consider: it's often been said, and there's merit to it, that what we despise or find immensely irritating in others is really a reflection of what is in ourselves. You might want to consider why you feel the need to go so far as to call gays and lesbians "degenerate crap" - pretty strong language. Could it indicate that it reflects something you don't want to admit about yourself?

Tina| 2.4.10 @ 12:02AM

Whoops! Sorry, Ken - looks like it won't publish my website. It didn't appear in my comment above.

Tina| 2.4.10 @ 12:13AM

Al, have you been keeping up with world events in the past eight years? With the Iraq war, we alienated pretty much every country that first offered to help us. And then a whole bunch of other countries later.

Recently there was an article that came out and said that we were admired by several countries. Several countries does not, by far, equal "the envy of the world." It's fine to say that we're admired and/or the "envy," if you wish - but it's not fine to distort facts or use hyperbole to support your position.

Health care...all I can say is that the phrase you used with it is the exact same phrase I've heard by so many people...I wonder if you could use an original phrase. The reason I say that is that would then show that it's a thought of your own - it just helps your argument.

I gotta say - with the work I've done with volunteering to get gay marriage passed, I've seen angry arguments and unkind things said to each other, but it's dismaying to see that kind of stuff repeated here. Guys, believe me - I completely understand the anger and even experience it myself. But the thread becomes less of a conversation between groups of people with different beliefs than a way to at least air our thoughts so that we can figure out a way to come to some sort of resolution. In other words, it degenerates pretty quickly into an exercise in vitriolic mudslinging, and gets us...nowhere - as if it's the same as if you'd never said anything at all. And I don't like getting mud all over me. ;)

And now, I'll get off my soapbox. ;) Thanks for the read.

Tina| 2.4.10 @ 12:21AM

Okay - one more thing: Ken, when most of your comment post is filled with using slurs and derogatory language to describe others with little sound basis - when it's filled with mostly vitriol - your argument sinks really quickly into...I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it, and again, not trying to be snide here, but a joke of a post. In other words, it instantly becomes easy to just write off and/or ignore b/c there's little factual or supportive reasoning with which to support your argument. I'm willing to listen to what you have to say - but...there isn't much that you say, except to call others here and elsewhere names and assure people that your brawn - not your critical thinking or reasoning or thoughts or informing yourself of the facts and information out there - is what you have to offer to this discussion.

Tina Schrader| 2.4.10 @ 1:51AM

Margie, I wanted to say quickly that not everyone interprets the Bible the way you do - and you yourself don't follow all of the Bible's teachings - otherwise we'd be seeing you do some pretty harsh things to others - both taken from the Old and the New Testaments. Even other denominations who interpret the Bible literally disagree with each other, and with you. I'm Catholic, and our Church doesn't teach that the Bible should be taken literally. In truth, taking it literally is...rather silly, but however. So to use passages from the Bible that aren't even worded the same between your and someone else's Bible or to use those quotes as a basis for your view when the other person either is of another religion completely or an Atheist shuts down your discussion between you and that person right there. You can't expect your discussion partner to accept your basis when it has nothing to do with his/hers (and the disagreement in bases is a legitimate one - not like, "2+2=4! - No! "2+2=5!!!") I think I 'm quickly sinking into the waters of the nonsensical. ;) It's late. But anyway - that's really important to consider when you're trying to have a conversation that has a logial, rational and fair basis.

Mr. Guardiano, you wrote above,

"Should the U.S. military really be a “religion-free zone”? Most men and women on the front lines, I suspect, don’t think so. Prayer, after all, is known to be common amongst Soldiers and Marines who face the prospect of death or dismemberment in battle."

The military doesn't have to be a religion-free "zone" in the sense that no one can show or utter anything that involves his/her religion. It's like public school - I have no problem with after school prayer groups or kids bringing their Bibles to school or wearing religious t-shirts. What I do have a problem with is a school-wide sanctioning of a certain religious faith. For instance, For a public school, to have a Christian prayer said before a basketball game would be utterly wrong. I well know it's done, but it's very wrong.

Same with the military. As long as the institution itself doesn't officially sanction and align itself with any one particular religion or give preference to any one faith (and we all know that faith would be Christian, since, of course, this IS a CHRISTIAN NATION. Don't forget that. Don't deny it. Don't believe it), then I'm perfectly fine with soldiers praying out on the battlefield - I would be, too! But that's an INDIVIDUAL practice - not something done by the entire military because such religious practices have become part of the military's programs/events/traditions.

I'm hoping this makes sense. :) It's late. But I remember papers of W's regarding the Iraq War - and those papers had religious references to the Bible in them. I think that's wrong. They should be taken out. That meant that they were part of, then, the structure of the military.

Margie| 2.4.10 @ 12:25PM

2Pe 1:20 "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation.."

God doesn't regard Religion. Neither do I. I try and line up my thinking with His.
Exactly what is it that you disagree with, Tina? That homosexuality is sin and if you are in that lifestyle when you die, you will go to Hell?
That isn't my word. It's His. If you don't take that literally, you have a serious problem.
It isn't me that you take issue with.
It's Him.
You ought to get your thinking lined up with His.

Derek Leaberry| 2.4.10 @ 2:22PM

Leviticus is pretty clear on what the Lord thinks about homosexuality. And even a deist like Thomas Jefferson had some pretty anti-homosexual views.

Mark Long| 2.4.10 @ 4:20AM

DADT on its face is not about a state of being it is about an activity.

Could you imagine a DADT on gender or race? I don't think so...

In essence the homosexual lobby is pushing to get an activity affirned by the military just as they try to get the Boy scouts to do the same. It is all about sex -thats it...

BUT the homosexual lobby never mentions sex -why? Are we to assume there are stereotypical homosexuals? Are they fashion designers, artists and hair stylists? What makes homosexuals different from the norm? SEX

Now we are supposed to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend that the preferred sexual activity is not an issue? BULL !!!

Mark Long| 2.4.10 @ 4:35AM

To Tina Schrader:

The Constitution specifcally identifies religion as a right ; a protected activity. Homosexual activity on the other hand is not a right nor protected activity...

You do understand that when you warn against the military endorsing and or accomodating any religious activity on one hand while requiring they endorse a sexual activity on the other that you are turning reality on its head... You in essence want religion in the closet and homosexuality out and about in studded leather thongs.

Colin| 2.4.10 @ 9:50AM

Since military personnel have a right to sexual privacy, under current rules before entering a berthing compartment of the opposite sex military members must announce "Man on deck" or similar and wait 30 seconds before entering. This gives those who may be disrobed time to cover up. It doesn't matter whether the men or women involved are virtuous, would not actually be sexually attracted to those in the compartment, but about the rights of military personnel and the esprit de corps that should exist within a unit whose primary function is the defense of the nation, not the self-fulfillment of its members.

Therefore, will homosexual members announce before entering a berthing compartment "Homosexual on deck? "If not, why not? The sexual privacy rights of the same-sex members of that compartment will be violated, and unit cohesion degraded, just as surely as an opposite sex intrusion. The result will be that 2-3% of service members will end up having greater "rights" than the other 97% (note, I do not use the phony Kinsey 10%). This is absolutely NOT about rights, but about gaining societal approval for behavior that most of the world's population finds disgusting, whether on aesthetic, health or moral grounds. The logical next step is co-ed berthing, bathing and toilets.

Al Wilson| 2.4.10 @ 10:32AM

Tina- This argument that other countries have to like us is a liberal talking point. Did you forget that 8 years ago we were attacted and 3,000 people lost their lives? We became pre-emptive and took the fight to Iraq. We are defending this country. You get caught-up in semantics. Healthcare is just what it means. Many people that I have talked to that have traveled throughout the world say positively that our country is the best. Where would you rather live? If you noticed, I only talked about my real experience and I didn't throw any mud.
Colin- You are right when you say that gays are only 3% of the population because I remember reading a survey that was done about 12 yrs. ago and published on the front page of the NY Times.

Tina Schrader| 2.4.10 @ 11:57AM

Al, I only brought up the rest of the world because you yourself said that the world - you didn't specify which countries, you just said, "world." You're the one who brought it up. I never used the word "liked." I used "admired" - the synonym of "envy" - the word you used. So I guess you used a liberal talking point. Fair enough that you only talked about your experience. I stand corrected. :) But talking to several many people the world over, good as it is, still doesn't mean that we have the best. I'm guessing that there are still more people in Europe than whom you've talked to - people who love their system, as our friends and their friends do - and many more in our 6 billion+ people-filled world. In other words, you'd have to poll many, many more of them to get a reasonable estimate. Of course, our friends' opinion doesn't mean that my position is fully supported, either. The number of people talked to isn't a good indicator of something. It's easy to do b/c it's human and we all project our experience out onto the lives of others and issues concerning us. But the our-health care-is-the-best belief is a matter of opinion, too, and you're entitled to yours, so I guess there's not too much further we can go there.

Mark and Colin, your comments have merit & points worth of debate, but either deviate from a logical deduction or miss my point entirely - which, for the latter, must mean that I didn't state it well enough - that it's hard to know where to begin. If, after going over the point specifically we still disagree, well, then, we do. Right now I've got a headache to chase and stomach to calm; after that I'll be back! Thanks, guys! It's nice to talk to people who don't simply answer with the non-answer-comment "Screw you!" Hey - a person can say it, but there's not much one can do with it in terms of discussion, now, is there? :)

Tina| 2.4.10 @ 12:20PM

Oh - Al - Iraq: I started to write something about it but then erased it b/c that's a whole other HUGE can of worms and will take the discussion away from this, or at least I think it will. So it isn't that I forgot about it; I just disagree with you. I'm betting that you figured that already, though. :)

al wilson| 2.4.10 @ 1:59PM

Tina- Well I think that many nations admire our system. I would never use a liberal talking point because I am a Conserative. I addition, I could never poll over 100 countries. I think a lot of countries are envious of us because our system of capitalism works the best. How do you explain that only 300 million people out of over 6 billion create over 27% of the GNP in the world. Our country also is the most generous nation. Many innovations and discoveries that have benefited from our system of government have helped make the world a better place. Without us, the world would be a dull place. Again, where would you rather live?

Tina | 2.6.10 @ 7:41PM

Actually, Al, with all that I've seen in America the past several years, I've been entertaining the idea of Canada. :)

Pingback| 2.28.10 @ 5:33PM

The Intolerance and Bigotry of Openly Gay Military Service | NewsReal Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…U.S. Army” — stands soon to be replaced by warnings that servicemen who fail to affirm open homosexuality will be blacklisted and drum out of the service. In early February, I published a column and a blog post at the American Spectator, urging retention of the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. I argued that giving lesbians and homosexuals a specially protected legal status would…

Pingback| 3.13.10 @ 5:26AM

Disagree Without Being Disagreeable | FrumForum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Knepper. Alex published his account of this confrontation at Race42012.Com. I consider myself a strong cultural conservative. I support traditional marriage, oppose gay marriage and actively support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But “condemnation” isn’t part of my vocabulary. Conservatism, after all, is not about condemning; it’s about supporting and sustaining. Conservatism is about supporting and…

Military Man| 6.1.10 @ 9:10AM

I serve in the military now.. people are not born gay.. it's a choice of lifestyle.. so when my son or daughter sees two guys or girls who decided to kiss (even though the "Birds and the B's dont match up with them) what how do I explain that it's not natural (it's not men have penis, women have real vaginas).. I dont repeal don't ask don't tell.

vanhellslinger| 7.15.10 @ 12:41PM

GAYS IN MILITARY AND MARRIGE

Gay males and straight males have one thing in common, male aggression. Gay men are just as likely to be aggressive in their day to day functions as heterosexuals. It is a documentable fact of life, their desire for military service, gay priests that prey upon children, the “patient zero” types that actively seek multiple sex partners, MRSA stats show it. Patient Zero alone is considered the father of AIDS. Giving in to the gay movement will only boost their ego’s and encourages their growth.
Male aggression is a force in nature, exists in the gay males, and if allowed it can lead to them becoming the dominant alpha male force. We don’t enable alcoholics and drug addicts so why gays? If the gays had not been so sexually liberated in the 80’s the AIDs plague might not have surfaced until much later, maybe not at all. Homosexual males that have embraced that culture plus the natural force of male aggression is a bad combination.
Homosexuality taints the fellowship of man!
Whether it is on the sports field, in combat, camping in the wilderness or just everyday life the homosexual defiles the comradeship, sharing, and brotherly love we experience as moral and normal people. Bonding and working together as a team is turned ugly when homosexuality is present. The quality of life degenerates with the reality that you can’t trust your friend and neighbor with your children or yourself because he or she is gay.

The Gay Hendrick Schons and Their Cult of Hungry Howlers

Schon managed to deceive the scientific community for over two years with his bogus claims of organic computer chips. This was mainstream science and it should not have happened that long. So it has made me rethink about other branches of science. One in particular, was a recent story on the Gay Band of Thebes, which was being touted as a reason for openly gay service in today’s military. The claim is based on historical writing by Plutarch a Greek scholar and writer. The problem is, in comparison with life today, we would have a whole bee hive of media types to give us the real story. All we have is Plutarch and his story which would not have faired as well if the story was of cowardice before death,and if Plutarch wasn’t Greek. It is commonly known that if 100 people see a crime occurring, that there will be 100 different opinions about the appearance of the criminal and what actually happened. That the science of history is being served up dogmatically is for me a realization that there are more Hendrick Schons with an agenda of heinous proportions.
Oh, the cult of hungry howlers, that’s all you people that fall for any story that has been created by some Schon type, in this case it’s every gay blade that wants to believe anything positive about homosexuality.

THE SACRED BAND OF THEBES
The sacred army of Thebes is a bogus argument for a gay military. 300 hundred men and boys that were probably tortured to serve hardly represents a comparison to the American system. Ancient Greek men commonly practiced pederasty, or man and child sex. In other words the sacred band was probably a handful of dirty old men that brainwashed some young kids at an early age to be gay. Get over it, the gay army of Thebes was probably nothing more than a bunch of pedophiles and their score, child slaves indoctrinated and brainwashed to die for their masters. To bad we didn’t have the media services back then to give us the bois of all the soldiers, then we would know the real truth. Our paparazzi today would have had a field day in Thebes. Supposedly there was one slave for every citizen of ancient Greece. They even had something akin to a caste system for slaves, with the helots being at the bottom of the caste, they could be killed or tortured for any reason. Look at the story of Moses and Joseph in the Bible, the intricate and complex realities of human behavior mixed in slavery will always have it’s hidden agenda. By using the big picture of slavery and pedophilia as a measuring stick we can safely assume there is a hidden story of slavery, forced service, threats against families, etc, if the homosexual soldiers didn’t serve in the right manner during combat. I.E, if they didn’t die or kill the enemy and fled the battlefield they would have entertained a fate worse than death by combat. One small example of a 150 questionable couples that happened over 2,000 years ago and was reported by a limited and possibly biased reporter is not a good argument for a gay army today. Pressing men into military service is infamously a fundamental part of human history. So is glossing over history and the Sacred Band is the ultimate extreme glossy, a fruitcake named desire to have homosexual hero’s, that gays have falsely cherished for centuries. It is so typical for the liberal media to glorify the bad guys, we see it in the movies constantly, Jesse James, Billy the Kid, etc. and the gay community at large is another example, as most gays are despicable, degenerate rapists, and molesters. Of course their kind would worship the Sacred Band without question. Slavery, pedophilia, homosexuality and barbarism was the true nature of the ancient Greeks, added to compulsory military service would leave any normal minded person to see thru the veil of glittered history and recognize that in the real world of ancient Greece life had a deep dark ugly truth not being told to us.

GAYS AND SLAVERY
We hear more from the gay community these days, that discrimination against gays is the same as the racism of the slavery years. What is always conveniently left out is the fact; our Christian moral conservative right was instrumental in freeing the blacks. The ultra liberal homosexual deviant left was not the deciding factor in fighting to free the afro Americans, Christian moralists were the leaders in the abolition movement. White gays are behind this lie of a mental suggestion that gay liberation is the same force that freed the black slaves. It’s time we STOP THE GAY LIES! Deep Christian moral values freed the slaves, not liberal sexual degenerates. Look thru history the Caesars, Caligula and Diocletian both were sexual deviants and they practiced slavery. The liberals of today would embrace slavery if it was the popular thing to do, that’s what liberals do.
3-1-10
MORE DON’T ASK DON’T TELL
The gays really had it made with don’t ask don’t tell, they could eat and sleep with the straight guys, and their ultimate fantasy of seducing a “real man” was always nearby. With open gay soldiering there will be segregated barracks, dining and training. Security issues would create new animosities against the gays, a shortage of facilities could time limit usage and stimulate prejudices that don’t exist in the current system.

HOMOSEXUAL VAMPIRES ARE TAKING OVER THE WORLD

We are living in earth’s darkest hour, the years, months or weeks preceding Armageddon. Taking advantage of this horrific time, homosexual vampires are coming out of the closeted grave they have survived in for thousands of years. Using this cloud of darkness that is shrouding humanity the gay vampires are running amuck, sucking out the life blood of billions. The blood they drink isn’t real blood, but is the life force of thousands of years of culture, history, heritage, religion, and family. They have drained us all of a pint just with this gay marriage quest, and another with a gay military. As we approach world war the light of reason and sanity is fading from the minds of men who once would have not tolerated homosexual armies on the rise. Now normal men are confused by things like political correctness, technological advancement, diverse happenings, and overpopulation issues, they can’t fix their cell phones let alone understand global warming and gay marriage, and so they stand by idle not knowing what to do or say.
As Mother Nature, the other nature from Gods intelligent design, creates homosexual armies that serve as a cure for world overpopulation, we must ask ourselves, “do we want this cure”? Do you want nature to fix our problems of population without any input from us? Is nature creating nonbreeding humans? Do you want homosexual real life vampires draining your humanity and replacing it with a global liberalism that would make us into a planet of the sodomites? The rise of the new gay armies is evident with their new found political aggression. Gay marriage and adoption is only the tip of the iceberg, when they are done we may see the reincarnation of Caligula and perversion on every corner of the world.
When God destroyed Sodom it was the only recorded time in biblical history that God executed not only the men of the city but he killed the women and children as well. This is proof that God hated the homosexual enough that even their infant children were to be slaughtered. Liberalizing your hearts to homosexuals may bring great destruction on all mankind. There may very well be a greater enemy in the world, growing new found wings, the wings of a vampire! The gays are using every type of psychological brainwashing warfare tactic in their attempt to conquer us, and convert us to their lifestyle. They are a combination of religion and cult based in sexual cowardice that depends on the sex act as the bonding agent of peace. Sex is not a guarantee of peace, harmony and happiness, as we see in heterosexual relationships the proof by divorce and separation.
Gays in the military is an abomination unto God and man. If men must make war, let not their honors by defiled in death by homosexual innuendos. A gay army would require separate housing, as it would be unforgivable to barracks gays with normal men. The price for a separate army would be astronomical and unthinkable. We don’t house women with men and the same should apply. Gays under the current “don’t ask don’t tell” prove their true character by serving deceptively knowing they are liars and, nobody forced them to join. Even if gays can serve the cause of war, doing their job correctly their life outside of the battlefield is not in harmony with the family ethic. Gays are highly promiscuous and were considered the primary cause of the AIDS plague. Give them an inch and they will take the mile! Don’t forget Gaetan Dugas, patient zero, who in the early 1980’s had over 2,500 gay sex partners, and many were proven to be infected with aids.

It’s truly sad and bizarre that we have copyright/ intellectual property laws that can protect a song and dance cartoon, but doesn’t guard the sanctity of our marriage ritual. Even with a thousand years of evidence and ownership that clearly demonstrates heterosexual monopoly by creation and invention the system fails us. Obviously we need to upgrade.
The venomous attacks by the gay community, by taking advantage of the loopholes in our laws could have been avoided by following in the paths of such greats as L. Ron Hubbard, who created his own religion, and the Afro Americans that created Kwanzaa. You gays should have invented your own mating ritual system instead of infringing on the copyrights imbedded by thousands of years of culture.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE LETTER OF THE LAW VS THE MEANING OF THE LAW!

Are gays the only group that perverts and mocks Gods #1 commandment “Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and love your neighbor like yourself”? Probably not the only group, but the sure are at the top of the list. It’s pretty obvious the gays foul godliness and the wholesome life when they crack jokes about loving a neighbor in a gay way. It’s almost like they are looking to start a fight with normal people. Look at how they fouled the cowboy culture with their Brokeback Mountain movie. The American cowboy has been the backbone of right wing Christian heterosexual living for more than a century. The movie has probably only served one thing, an increase of violence between straight cowmen and gays. We will probably never know that stats on how many bar fights were caused because of that movie. Just the slightest provocation by someone that infers homosexuality will cause a fight, and the movie has only increased the likelihood of that factor.

IT’S NOT HOMOPHOBE IT’S HOMOABOMINO
Homophobe is commonly defined as a fear of gays and the gay lifestyle. However it is also a mental suggestion. The gays are suggesting that we be afraid of them, and also to tamper with our mental process. So in a way homophobe is a psychological attack against the straight world. We don’t fear the gay sex act, because we are naturally straight. Fear is a powerful tool of mental suggestion. Most gays don’t know the people they call homophobic well enough to justify the use of the word. Using suggestion to attempt to confuse the enemies mind was used in World War 2, and in the Vietnam War, Hanoi Hannah used propaganda and disinformation against American soldiers.
So I say tit for tat. They want to call us homophobic, (to harm us) and in return we should correct them by saying, we are homoabomino, or homoabominaters.
GAYS SERVING OPENLY IN THE MILITARY MEANS STRAIGHTS HAVE A LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHT TO SEPRATE HOUSING. YOU DON’T FORCE MEN AND FEMALE SOLDIERS TO BUNK AND SHOWER TOGETHER, SO EQUAL PROTECTION WOULD MEAN SEGREGATED BARRACKS FOR THE GAYS SERVING OPENLY. So let’s spend billions of dollars building new housing, showers, and toilets, and while were at it new uniforms for the probationary gay service members. After all this would be a new program and they should be distinguished form normal troops.
Once gays become legal to serve in the military the straights will have a new found “right” to demand separate housing. The segregated living conditions men and women enjoy currently will be the rallying point for more division.

The argument that other countries have gays serving openly in the military has been presented without any specifics. I’ve heard that in smaller countries the men train in the army during the day, and go home to sleep with mom and dad. America has the largest military in the world and should not be compared to the smaller countries. Some men training in the army barefoot and using dads old world war 2 rifle and happen to be gay is not a good argument for gays serving openly in the largest military in the world.

10-24-09
Homosexual predators are looking for young straight men that have not developed a strong moral fiber, and firm sexual identity. The basic training and advanced military training facilities are prime hunting grounds for preying gays who know there is confusion in the minds of the new recruits fresh from home. Do you want your son or daughter exploited by these vultures of human sexuality?
THE MILTARY VICTIMS OF HOMOSEXUAL PREDATORS ARE UNTOLD STORIES, LOST BECAUSE OF SHAME, DEPRESSION, AND FEAR. Someone must speak to congress for them. Those men and women were exploited/molested by gays learned a lesson from the school of hard knocks. They trusted someone who they believed was a friend and coworker, only to wake up and find themselves used and abused at an age and time when there wasn’t anyone to turn for support. They have carried this dark secret for decades and many will die rather than speak out. So we only hear from the soldiers that were never attacked by gay predators. They speak out, saying the gays were O.K., and that they did the job right. Unfortunately they don’t understand there are two sides to every story.

While we are at it let’s define exactly what kind of homosexual behavior should be permitted in the gay barracks. Will they be allowed to have oral and anal sex in the showers and barracks? What about more deviant types of gay sex, like feces and urine, and S&M?

Gays are trying to pass themselves off as being intellectually superior because they claim to practice and endorse metrosexuality and bisexuality. In truth intellectually superior people are those that contribute to our modern technology by inventing and discovering and innovating. Bisexuality doesn’t even exist! It’s more lies from the gay left. The proof is in your own body and mind. You can only desire and lust after one gender, it’s the natural way we function. Bisexuality can only happen as an act of deliberation, concentration and meditation. They make themselves perform bisexual acts for whatever reason is conjured in the mind of the offender. This isn’t being intellectually superior, it’s just a con, usually by prostitutes and other criminal types.

GAY MARRIAGE
The real reason God destroyed the homosexuals of Soddom has nothing to do with religion. God wanted to protect us from a group of people that mock all laws. Putting a gay man in prison is like putting a fox in a hen house. Can you imagine if we had coed prisons? A murderer or rapist, bank robber, etc. would be in hog heaven if he was doing 20 to life with a cellmate that looked like Marilyn Monroe. He’d have free rent, free food and medical care and a good looking lady. Homosexuals do not fear jail, in fact as we have seen homosexuality in prison is beyond commonplace. That is why some people say “homosexuality is a more heinous crime than murder”, because it mocks and laughs at all laws, and law and order is what we must live by.

10-15-09 The homosexual mafia is the largest and most unrecognized organized crime family in the world. They have the ability to transcend every way of life, race, religion, job, and family are all tainted by the gay underground. Lacking any fear of prison and encouraged by the knowledge they can overcome through attrition, extortion, lies and deceit, murder and mayhem the gay man is a monster in comparison to the mafias and street gangs we read about in the daily news. They live a secret life and even those in the “out”, celebrities, and working gays are despicable drug addicted alcoholics willing to bend to the will of anybody that professes allegiance to the gay cause, for the purpose of defending their sect. Gays may be hiding inside the real mafia or working at the FBI, they operate as doctors, lawyers and police officers, and they have one thing in common, a reason to defy the government, which is the protection of the gay world.
The most despicable homosexual propaganda suggestion in the world is “if a man is sensitive, and displays any artistic and creative abilities then he is obviously gay”. This is often used as an innuendo to undermine a man’s success in life. It’s pretty obvious these people will take over the world soon. Only a worldwide war on homosexuality will stop them, and we are to civilized to do that. It is understandable why God destroyed the gays at Soddom, he wanted to slow their conquest of the world.

GAYS DELIBERATELY SPREAD AIDS IN THE 80’S

So why are we kissing up to these fiends? Give them gay marriage, openly serve in the military, etc is a travesty considering the probability they did spread AIDS on purpose. If you were around in the 80’s you’d remember the enormous amount of antigay activity.
It is so obvious that some members of the gay community infected with AIDS went around spreading it to the straight world, that if you don’t see it, it’s because you nose is to big. Oh!, so they were just trying to protect their culture from the hate crimes. Spread AIDS to heterosexuals and children, killing thousands is O.K. because you are trying to protect your gay friends. Now we have “moved on” the typical liberal response, based on a mental deficit because they can’t or don’t want to remember the atrocity of homosexual monsters contaminating straight people on purpose So now it’s time to reward the gays with special rights. Ignore the fact that millions of people in America sincerely believe homosexuality is a disease out of control.

www.tencommandments.org “homosexuality is at least as heinous as a crime as murder”. Because of world overpopulation problems the gay population is multiplying in greater numbers. We must be prepared to safeguard our future in a post apocalyptic world. When God returns he must not see us as a Caligula-ized society. The gays are using psychological warfare tactics to spread their cult. Every time they use innuendos to suggest some celebrity is gay, or they call you a homophobe, or they say that anybody over 30 years old that isn’t married is gay, is mind warfare. It’s part of their plan to convert us. Look at gay marriage; have you ever seen a gay couple that has been together 60 years? We have millions of hetro marriages that have lasted 40, 50, and 60 years, but there is probably not one gay couple in America that has lived together in a marriage lifestyle for 60 years. The demand for gay marriage is just part of their conquest plans. “Smiling faces show no traces of the evil that lurks within” Undisputed Truth. It means that our worst enemy is sometimes the one we don’t see. Homosexuality may be a greater enemy than the Taliban. We have fought religious wars for thousands of years, but the war against homosexuality may be something new that is emerging from overpopulation.
S.I.M.P.L.E., surplus intelligent male population life elimination is a simple philosophy based on one simple fact. The fact is for thousands of years women have given birth to more male babies than female ones. Whether you believe in God or not it is still a biological and historical fact that all wars throughout history were fought primarily by men only. War, crime, suicide, drugs, etc all contribute to balancing the sex ratio. It’s the real reason God the Father destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, cities having an enormous surplus of males, and they all (except Lot) were worshippers of the beast. A male dominated world must be free of homosexual contamination to function as a civilized people.
The normal growth patterns that have kept our population balanced are out of whack because of global overpopulation. This problem can have a cancerous effect that would allow one group to escalate out of proportion. Nature may be trying to correct the problem of overpopulation through homosexuality. Unfortunately it takes intelligent design to repair a problem of this size. If we abide by natures fix the consequences may be a Sodomite planet. 10-18-09 We seem to think that things like women’s lib is an intellectual evolution. What a coincidence that at the same time women’s lib is, we are also experiencing world overpopulation, a factor in considering nondiscriminatory war. Nature is a real part of life, and it is entirely possible that gay populations may be on the rise to counter our overpopulation.

CULTUSRELIGOHOMOSEXUALARMATADISEASE

We can’t even find the right labels for these people. Individually they are not a cult, or a religion, or a disease, or an army. Combine them together and it appears to fit. The gay movement of today is a combination of cult, religion, army, and disease. Any one of them would set of alarms if it was some other group, but we just ignore any suggestion that gays are a cult or an army. So why doesn’t somebody invent or create a new designation for these people? They obviously embrace gayness as a cult/religion. It’s common knowledge many gays refer to us heterosexuals as “repressed homosexuals”. Supposedly we live in a world of fear, unable to loose the chains of oppression. Open up and accept their homosexuality as way to world peace, by sleeping with as many people as you can. As the gay movement grows they are easily implementing tactics that would be considered in some countries as psychological warfare. This “gay marriage” scheme is one such tactic. Gays have lived for thousands of years without marriage, so why all of a sudden are they looking for marriage? So they don’t have guns and rockets, you can still fight a war without, “the pen is mightier than the sword”. Edward Lytton.
Homosexuality may not be a disease one finds in the Merck manual, they are biased enough to not even refers to it as a disorder. Just remember Sodom a city ruled by homosexuals as a parable. When and if ultraliberals and gays become the voting majority we will see laws change until rape and incest and every imaginable type of despicable act is legalized. In the movie “The Island of Dr. Moreau” H.G. Wells. The creations were half man and half beast; in real life we are hiding our other half (the beast) deep within the walls of the mind. “All have sinned” Romans 3:23 means we are supposed to repress our lower base animalistic desires, not open up to them as the homosexuals preach.

Gay Marriage is all about “flaunting”, looking for attention, jumping into the limelight, even if it is only for 15 minutes of fame, it is what the gay mind craves. In rebuttal the gays cite the high divorce rate among straights, totally disregarding the nature, decided by thousands of years of patterns, and a culture with a hyper-serious intent. The sanctity of marriage sits higher up than the basal understandings gays associate with. The mockery of our institution is as juvenile as being “mooned” by roadside hooligans.
God help us if the prison population finds some loophole in gay marriage laws that helps them “get over” on the system. This will certainly help turn prison into a gay paradise.
Amen

6-19-09

Is homosexuality a more heinous crime than murder? Are gays a greater enemy than the Taliban or Al Qaeda? If so, how can it be demonstrated? It looks like one answer is popularity/propaganda potentials that could elevate gay movement. If they became very popular homosexuality could become a cult or even a religion. The idea that we as a people can find peace happiness and prosperity, to live in a crime and war free world is possible if we all sleep and have sex together is not that farfetched of an idea that the gays would support. Is it why God destroyed Sodom, because the gays took over the government and had laws that required strangers and visitors to their cities to have sex with the people of Sodom in order to be accepted? Should we allow the homosexuals the opportunity to advance their cult/religion and create a popularity front that will draw our world’s youth to their cause?

Fact: “In December 1973 this movement achieved a major victory when pressure groups succeeded in forcing the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses”. Safezone.slu.edu
Was the pressure on the APA some kind of extortion? Could it be challenged in today’s court system?

If you told a blind person or someone with kidney stones that their disease is a normal biological experience, and that they should accept and even learn to enjoy their disease, and not to seek a cure, you would more than likely get spit on. Homosexuals have used pressure tactics to force the APA to remove them from a disease status, is like the blind doing the same because they like their social security check more than sight. The difference is homosexuality is a perversion of deviant pleasure and being blind is not. They both are normal and natural biological occurrences, but being a common experience in nature doesn’t exclude them from being undesirable. Any desirability in homosexuality lies in the government’s unwillingness to lead and educate the people. It is a responsibility for parents that must be reinforced by the government to teach our nations youth that homosexuality is biologically wrong and is a disease in nature.

If you take away the religion, what is left behind is pure biology, nature, evolution, and where does homosexuality stand then? It becomes a natural enemy of the heterosexual, a biological force of competition, a foreign army, a predator that one must protect from.
When you add religion homosexuality is the power of evil, sin, lust and sexual aberration.
How can an intelligent heterosexual show any support for gay marriage, knowing that with or without religion gays are a type of enemy, something that you cannot in any serious contemplation stand in defense of?

ON GAY ADOPTION

Gays have had thousands of years to fine tune a culture of deception. They have passed on from generation to generation the ability to hide their homosexuality from family, friends, church, and community and even the work place. The lies and deceit come automatically and mechanically, and is a function that allows this segment of the population to blend invisibly. Unless one has lived within the gay community (as one of their own) then you can never really be certain of the full extent of their culpability.

vanhellslinger| 10.11.10 @ 8:31PM

The CDC just released it’s new statistics on gays and AIDS in America. Their conclusion is approximately 1 in 5 gay males in the U.S. is infected with AIDS, and most of them don’t know it or bother to get tested. The liberal mind has no shame, the audacity of demanding gay rights in the military. DADT should be repealed and replaced with what came before that “ no gays in the military at all”. God will prove himself true again as this plague will mutate and hybridize and a renaissance of death will befall the gays of promiscuity. This time the drug cocktails won’t protect them and MRSA (another gay disease) will breed with Aids to create a super plague. Bill Darrow of the CDC . From The Coming Plague, Laurie Garrett, 1994 “ And when Darrow’s team evaluated what seemed to put gay men at such risk, they found that men who always took the anal-receptive role were at a somewhat greater risk of infection”. Helping gay men roam around military bases at night to prey upon drunk and lonely soldiers to implant them with death is all wrong, evil, and should be stopped at all costs.
John Brown the abolitionist would have rolled over in his grave to laugh at the notion of civil rights for homosexuals. Sexual degeneration is not a right.

vanhellslinger| 10.11.10 @ 8:32PM

So Easy A Gay Man Can Do It

It really is easy to understand this simple metaphor “so easy a caveman can do it” is nothing more than sublime racist humor. When I first exposed the Geico ad on my “communism and the devil worshipping copyright laws” blog I mentioned it was the longest running mainstream racist joke. Now it doesn’t exist, they have taken the ad off or at least in this part of the world it’s gone. Good riddance! The logic behind my point was a “caveman” is synonymous to all and any primitive cultures. So easy a aborigine can do it, so easy a savage from the deepest and darkest Africa can do it, and of course the target audience, so easy a afro American can do it.
How about. So easy a homosexual man can do it? Doesn’t fit right does it? Where is the uncalled for discrimination that existed against the innocence of being a culture out of the mainstream? The suggestion that lesser educated people can learn the geico system lacks clarity when applied to the gay community, a people renowned for their cleverness and intellectual guile. Collectively the gays are not a primitive tribal culture and the discrimination against them should not be compared to racism. It is morality and the desire to protect the family unit from homosexual predators and nothing more is needed to understand why we cannot accept gays as candidates for promotion. If “gay’ is allowed to grow in popularity, to become leaders and mentors for our worlds youth then the CDC stats that now show 1 in 5 gay males infected with AIDS will read 4 out of 5 gay males are infected with something worse than AIDS.

Lerro| 10.27.10 @ 5:43PM

When I was a Sergeant in the U. S. Marine Corps, we were all the same. We had a saying that went, "Look at us. We are not White and We are not Black! We are all Green!" We were considered to all be the same. Well, now, no we are not. This new law will eventually totally destroy the Unit Cohesion. Politicians need to leave the Military alone.

explosion proof light | 11.15.10 @ 9:13AM

Actually, Abraham Lincoln was just as radical but in a different way. Ditto FDR.

Converse | 8.12.11 @ 4:08AM

is good

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|7 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|10 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|9 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|6 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|3 comments

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|5 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman

The Devils Koch

Marta H. Mossburg

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?