-
Who’s Politicizing Benghazi?
May 9, 2013 | 6 comments
-
A Tale of Two Teams and Two Stars
January 10, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Mitt Romney Just Got Himself Elected President
October 3, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Obama to Gays and Hollywood: Show Me the Money!
May 9, 2012 | 13 comments
-
Ruinous Obama Austerity
May 9, 2012 | 2 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last spring, after the Family Research Council President Tony Perkins had been disinvited to an Air Force prayer luncheon because of his support for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I wrote a piece called “The Intolerance and Bigotry of Openly Gay Military Service.”
My warnings were ignored and even dismissed by many conservatives as overblown. But Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has confirmed my worst fears today by calling for the dismissal of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.
Amos’ crime? Like Perkins (who is himself a former Marine), Amos had the audacity to speak out in defense of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And, in Cohen’s warped view, this constitutes impermissible “bigotry,” or “one step short of being a bigot.”
“The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry,” Cohen writes. And “this is what concerns me about Amos. His views are on the record…. His subordinates know what he thinks of gays.”
Of course, Amos never said anything disparaging about gays per se. He simply fulfilled his constitutional duty, which is to give his best professional military advice and counsel to policymakers and the public.
Cohen doesn’t want to admit it, but homosexual dynamics within small-scale military units are inherently problematical and disruptive. Amos had not choice but to point this out and to state the obvious.
But Cohen is absolutely right about one thing: There certainly is bigotry at work here: intellectual bigotry and intolerance from leftists like him who cannot countenance dissenting points of view.
Indeed, I’m reminded of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s famous line: “Though liberals do a great deal of talking about hearing other points of view, it sometimes shocks them to learn that there are other points of view.”
Cohen’s column, though, isn’t so much aimed at Gen. Amos as it is the next generation of Marine and military leaders. His column is a warning: If you dare to dissent from the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy on homosexuality, you will be branded a bigot and deemed unfit for military service. Traditional conservatives and religious believers need not apply. Keep your warped conservative views to yourself.
So it is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated Perkins’ own Family Research Council, a widely respected Washington, D.C. public-policy organization, a “hate group.” As Pat Buchanan explains in his column this morning:
The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s — homosexuality and abortion — is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress…
Only in secularist ideology, [however], is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry…
Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia.
But as Buchanan observes, behind traditionalist beliefs about homosexuality,
lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.
The problems with openly gay service are exacerbated by the nature of military life, which is hierarchical, bureaucratic, and government-run and –administered. Indeed, as J.E. Dyer has observed at Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog:
Gays can already serve in the U.S. military; repealing DADT isn’t about allowing them to [serve]. It’s about endorsing their sexual orientation in military operations and culture.
The course of hands-off neutrality is not an option in these realms; their unique character is to require affirmative policy. Civilians should start by understanding this.
The quiescent tolerance they think of in relation to their own lives must translate, in the military, into endorsement and administration of an explicit position.
One question that will have to be answered, Dyer notes, is
whether eligibility for promotion or command will be contingent on explicit support for homosexuality. The issue will be forced by lawsuit if by no other means.
A 20-year veteran with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan may not be comfortable, for example, endorsing “Gay Pride Month” or participating in scheduled military celebrations of it.
He may be charged by a gay subordinate with creating a hostile work environment or ordered by a senior officer to get onboard with gay-pride celebrations.
Perhaps his chain of command would back him up and force the issue to a higher level. The serious question remains: what does this have to do with warfighting readiness?
As Perkins himself explained last spring, after he had been disinvited to the Air Force prayer luncheon:
Unfortunately, this is just a precursor of things to come in a post-“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military. This legislation would more than open the armed forces to homosexuals; it would lead to a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality…
Richard Cohen and the liberal-left establishment, of course, don’t disagree. Political conservatives and religious believers, they decree, better learn to shut up and censor themselves if they want to serve in our brave new military.
But Cohen and the Left needn’t worry: I’m sure they’ll be plenty of reeducation and sensitivity training to ensure that our military personnel think the right and appropriate thoughts. The “gay rights” advocates will make sure of that.
View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John R. Guardiano
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/21/dadt-and-left-wing-intellectua
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Consternated Conferences
- Hannah and Her Friends
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
9th ID| 12.21.10 @ 1:02PM
God help us...
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:31PM
Now that you Repuglicans can't scapegoat blacks anymore, you want to scapegoat gays.
But you wont get away with it.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 2:07PM
Tell us Alan, in all of your VAST military experience, how DADT was "scapegoating" gays. This oughtta be good.
gravelagitator| 12.21.10 @ 4:31PM
I assume you are going to rush down and enlist now that it is safe, right Al(ice)? What about Bootcamp? Are all the rump rangers going to shower up with the men so they can get wood over the "smorg ASS board " or will the peter puffers have to clean up with those yucky girls so they won't get overheated? Just wondering how you Dung o crat's will handle the situation.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 5:41PM
To paraphrase:
"old enough to bleed, old enough to butcher."
Smirking weasel| 12.21.10 @ 5:59PM
C'mer, ya l'il sow.....bacon fer breakfast tomorrow!
Seriously, though, the pandering of most of the high level bureaucrats in the militarcracy on this
issue, along with the 'disinviting' of Perkins noted above and the multicultural pandering post last years on-base turkey shoot by the Muslofilth Hassan simply confirms what nearly all 'conservatives' are in pathological denial over: the US military is as degraded, morally corrupt and hostile to traditional fundamental values of America and the West as any other branch of the Federal government-and just as incompetent, as seen by the flailing about in Iraghead and Affag(sic)istan- and as worthy of contempt and distrust by the citizenry as any other segment of our ever-growing blob.
darcy| 12.21.10 @ 10:08PM
You're a bigot, Alan Brooks -- you have an irrational and very ugly bigotry toward Christians and their personal beliefs.
Bigot. Bigot. Bigot. Every single homophiliac is a BIGOT against Christians.
Bigot.
Karl Schneider | 12.24.10 @ 3:38PM
gravelagitator: It's my sad duty to inform you that you're an ignorant, knuckledragging piece of shit.
sflbib| 12.22.10 @ 9:11AM
"But you wont get away with it."
This threat kinda makes the author's last point that lawsuits will follow.
Alex 0_0| 12.22.10 @ 2:20AM
Guaradino's obsession with homosexuality is a sure sign that he is himself queer, in the manner of Ted Haggard. How long before he is outed? I give it 2 years.
Kritz| 12.23.10 @ 5:06AM
Where to start with Guardino’s repulsive screed?
With the creepy arrogance of a tinpot commentator who starts off sniveling that the blogosphere (even conservatives!) has ignored his previous effusions?
Or his truly sad opinion that calling a bigot a bigot is somehow warped?
How about psychosocial grand master Guardino going on to state as incontrovertible fact that “homosexual dynamics within small-scale military units are inherently problematical and disruptive,” an assertion he makes with no authority whatsoever, issuing the diktat ex cathedra from the same part of his body that tightens up whenever he thinks of what gays do with each other in bed.
Guardino’s right on one thing, though: “leftists” are generally intolerant when they see their fellow human beings denied justice solely because of what they are, as if one’s inborn nature was something the majority gets to penalize you for. One thing WF Buckley didn’t say when he complained about liberals’ amazement that there are other points of view is that it’s not amazement at all: it’s humanity. It’s a bit more than an intellectual disagreement when someone’s “point of view” is that a whole segment of society is to be scorned, and shunned, and punished.
The “prevailing left-wing orthodoxy” (by which I presume Guardino means the view that gays are people too, and deserve fair treatment) does have a certain in-your-face element to it. Yes, if you’re that kind of a bigot, keep it to yourself. Kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” for peckersniffs.
With regard to the substance of Guardino’s post, it’s full of red herrings, red flags, and red meat. In other words, poppycock. It is not the military’s job to “endorse sexual orientation” of any sort, whether that be heterosexual, homosexual, or nonsexual. The notion that extending the same unconcern to licit homosexual unions that it extends to licit heterosexual unions constitutes an existential hazard to military effectiveness is not only shrill, self-important nonsense, but is also unsupported in fact by military organizations around the world that already “allow” gays to serve unremarked.
I could go on. However, I’d like to end with one area where I agree with Guardino: this is the beginning of a zero-tolerance policy toward anyone who disapproves of homosexuality. It joins zero-tolerance policies toward anyone who disapproves of black people, of women, or of those who don’t share the same religion.
And about time.
Margie| 12.21.10 @ 1:04PM
“The Marines of today know that virtually the entire Republican Party stood up for bigotry,” Cohen writes.
In the words of Austin Powers: "Yeah, baaby."
That's what it's all about, isn't it?
THE HOMOSEXUAL VOTE.
And so the Left's continual destruction of America has now come to our military.
Pete2| 12.21.10 @ 1:04PM
All they'll need is a tour in Afghanistan, where it seems, rampant homosexuality and pedophillia is prevalent among the Afghan culture and especially in it's military. This is nothing new as it was noted prior to even the Taliban takeover that the warlords loved little boys. Drudge Report has a link to the Washington Examiner about this but it's old news anyway. It's really a mideast culture thing among the "religion of peace". TAS is behind the times on this one and why hasn't this site reported on that in the past?
Chuck Anziulewicz | 12.21.10 @ 1:16PM
More hysteria from John Guardiano ... and for the second day in a row, no less! I hope he won't be too disappointed when all the problems he predicted to happen because of the repeal of DADT, don't. All of our allies have successfully and uneventfully integrated Lesbians and Gay men into their militaries without problems. And most American military personnel already say they serve or have served with Gay soldiers without any problems.
I think it's also important to note that when young men age 18-25 register for Selective Service, they are not asked about their sexual orientation. And I suspect that if the United States ever finds itself in a major military conflict that requires reinstatement of the draft, the issue of Gays in the military is going to be the LEAST of our worries.
A qualified soldier should not be at risk for losing his career simply because of who he's dating on his own time. Under DADT, if Sgt. Mike is dating another man off-base, and his commanding officer is informed of this and asks him about it, Sgt. Mike can either lie or tell the truth. Either way he is jeopardizing his military career.
Hold all soldiers to the same standards of professional behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, and the military will be able to do its job just fine.
dc| 12.21.10 @ 1:27PM
Hey Chuck, maybe you haven't noticed, but the military forces of "all of our allies" don't amount to a hill of dogshit as actual fighting forces, with the exceptions of their various SEAL/Ranger analogs. Is that fact because they've allowed open gay service, or is open gay service a symptom of a larger cultural rot, an unwillingness to be serious about killing enemies, and a devotion of resources towards social engineering rather than the hard business of finding, fighting, and killing those who are very serious about doing us harm?
You probably don't give a crap whether more US soldiers die as a result of this gross misallocation of resources and priorities; much like your Dear Leader, the weaker the U.S., the better it looks to you. Which foreign power would you prefer to serve, asshole? Of course, you may not have a choice, and if that power is Islamic, they'll stone people like you publicly. Enjoy and don't complain, because enlightened, self-styled superior beings like you set it in motion. No consequences? Just wait until the gay discrimination lawsuits start and actual men start leaving the military rather than putting up with orders to swear fealty to a vile, unnatural lifestyle and hedonic culture utterly incompatible with serious military duties.
Wayne | 12.21.10 @ 3:54PM
Yes, and why is it that our troops are in Europe protecting their forces?
I know what it is like in the military will gay drill sergeants. It is no picnic, I assure you. And in todays world, a soldier complaining about being harassed by gay bullies will be the one punished for be homophobic. That my friends is the new army.
John Guardiano | 12.21.10 @ 1:51PM
Mr. Anziulewicz,
There's no "hysteria" here, just an honest and forthright explication of the issues.
You essentially re-posted your same canned talking-points comment that you had written in response to my piece yesterday.
But that comment doesn't address the issue at hand in this post, which is intellectual bigotry and intolerance. Do you believe Gen. Amos should be fired?
As for the problems that will result from openly gay service -- as I wrote yesterday, many of these problems will be swept under the rug and never be seen by the public. However, these problems will be real; and they will sap morale and undermine readiness.
But the problems are often more subtle than you suggest. I don't think there will be big fireworks or demonstrations.
Instead, we'll get military leaders censoring themselves and changing their behavior to accord with the new strictures. We'll get the softening and undermining of the warrior culture, which makes the combat arms less attractive to young men.
These problems will be real and serious, though not as perceptible and measurable as you suggest, thus allowing you and other advocates to confidently declare victory. But it will be a hollow, unnecessary and pyrrhic victory.
Regards,
John
JP| 12.21.10 @ 2:16PM
The problems with gays in the DOD will be swept under the rug in the same manner problems with females serving in the military are.
David W| 12.21.10 @ 1:19PM
Unfortunately John you are basically spitting into the wind on this now. It is too late (unless the cowardly Republicans can repeal the repeal). What you and the others who believe the same as I need to do is now work to protect the military members from the crap that will soon exist within the ranks (will one be courtmartialed if one refuses to march with his/her unit in a gay pride parade? Will any comment, no matter how insignificant, cause disciplinary action? and so forth). I have worked for one company where they are very proud of their support for the homosexual employees (having a gay celebration day at the office). Imagine if I had worn a shirt with a "no gay" sign on it to show I did not support this being forced on me. I would be fired I am sure.
It is possible that most homosexuals will not behave any different. It will be the small minority who will probably be the ones causing all of the problems (just like it is a small number of hard core liberals who are screwing up this country).
John Guardiano | 12.21.10 @ 1:36PM
David W,
I don't disagree with you. However, it's important, I think, to call out intellectual bigots like Cohen when they demand that one of our top military leaders be fired for running afoul of left-wing orthodoxy.
One of the biggest problems with openly gay service is the thought control and coercion that likely will be forced upon our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. And, because of the hierarchical nature of military life, our men and women in uniform won't able to do much about this other than just take it.
That's why it's important for those of in the civilian world to speak up and to shine a light upon this problem.
Regards,
John
DRed| 12.21.10 @ 3:14PM
While I disagree with you entirely on the repeal of DODT, I think you're right to call out Mr. Cohen. Gen. Amos gave his professional opinion. His bosses disagree with him. As long as he can still follow their orders faithfully, there's no reason to fire him for giving his opinions, and as far as I can tell there's no evidence suggesting Gen. Amos can't fulfill his duty. I'm sure this isn't the first time in his career he's had to follow orders he disagreed with.
David W| 12.21.10 @ 7:55PM
One good thing that will come out of this (only good thing) is that Harvard and other elite colleges will have no excuse to keep ROTC off their campuses. With the DADT no longer the law, these lefty colleges have no excuse to keep ROTC and recruiters off of campus.... Unless they decide to come up with some other excuse (which they will) or the young socialists decide to protest and block access.
Unfortunately, the lack of backbone shown by Gates and the upper military command (except the Marines- hoo rah) and certain Senators I bet the defense department won't even bother to force the point.
JP| 12.21.10 @ 2:19PM
John,
None of these problems will be addressed until we suffer a defeat on the battlefield. That is many will die before anything is done.
I am reminded of the Prussian Army and its revlutionary reforms done in the wake of its disasterous defeat at Jena in 1806 to Napolean. I fear we must suffer the same. The bureaucracy, the political correctness, and social apathy is just too strong in this country to fight.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 2:28PM
This PC crap in the military is nothing new. There has been "diversity training" in the service for quite some time. The beginning of it started some time after Vietnam. I'll relate this story that my Dad told me about this nonsense.
During Vietnam, my Dad was one of two dentists on the Saratoga on Yankee Station. My Dad lost shipmates & good friends. Guys that flew off the boat & never came back. He also saw some pretty horriffic injuries. After Vietnam, my Dad was stationed at Annapolis. One day, he had the honor of working on Cdr. Jack Fellowes, a former guest at the Hanoi Hilton. He & my Dad got along very well, to the point where they even went & had drinks at the O Club later that evening.
A few weeks later, the word comes down from the powers that be that officers in all depts. were to undergo "sensitivity training." My Dad & Cdr. Fellowes were in the same "class" for this training session. At the front of the room, there was a civilian contractor with a reel to reel tape deck. He then told the assembled officers that this training would involve them having to hear things that they would find offensive & then discuss these things in a "rational" manner. He then played the tape on the reel to reel. The tape was of Hanoi Jane Fonda & her radio broadcasts from Hanoi & some of her more choice anti American screeds. Cdr. Fellowes stood up to leave the room. The civilian then told him that attendence of this class was mandatory & that he would be reported to his superiors if he didn't stay. Fellowes walked quietly to the front of the room, picked up the reel to reel from the table, & smashed it on the floor into a million little pieces. He then told the civilian that he could report him to whoever he wanted. That he would sit Captain's Mast if he had to, but that he WOULD NOT listen to Hanoi Jane (my Dad told me the story with all the good swear words in it, but I'm just posting it in family friendly form). As he walked out of the room, the crowd of assembled officers stood up & clapped for him as he walked out.
This new crap with DADT being repealed is cut from the same cloth as those classes back then. Same social engineering tactic. So now, in addition to ALL the OTHER sensitivity training our troops undergo so as not to "offend" anyone, they'll have to have THAT MUCH MORE of it. Last I checked, the job of the military was to kill our enemies. Plain & simple. Its not to promote liberal ideas of "social justice."
Here's the skinny on Capt. Jack Fellowes (he retired as an O-6):
http://blog.usni.org/2010/05/0.....s-usn-ret/
darcy| 12.21.10 @ 10:20PM
Inspiring story, NavyBrat.
Who has the strength of character anymore to stand up for what he believes is right in the face of adverse consequences? Not many. We see now the culmination of all the thousands, the millions, of times individuals have failed the test of courage.
Americans need to grow a spine. But first they have to know what they believe -- too few really care what's right except to go along with the flow and not rock the boat. Pragmatists and cowards. Pathetic.
We deserve what we're getting.
9th ID| 12.21.10 @ 2:41PM
I really hope, for the sake of national security, that the strategy of having governors refuse to implement the repeal of DADT and defunding the DoD program gain traction. Short of a major disaster, we will have to do what we can to delay this until Obama's veto pen is removed in 2012. BTW, if Amos really held to his convictions he would resign in protest to honor our troops.
Milton Quaffalot| 12.21.10 @ 2:57PM
" Like Perkins (who is himself a former Marine)..."
There is no such thing as a former Marine.
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 3:02PM
Unless your name is John Murthafurka
red patch | 12.25.10 @ 5:37AM
what a disgrace to the Corps
MarkJ| 12.21.10 @ 3:10PM
One of the armies that DADT opponents liked to use as an example of "inclusion" was the Dutch Army.
My riposte was, "The Dutch? Oh, you mean the guys who enabled the worst massacre in Europe since 1945?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
NavyBrat | 12.21.10 @ 3:14PM
Not to mention that when I think of militaries that could even REMOTELY be compared with ours, the Dutch don't even make the list.
Someone please tell me the last offensive action that the Dutch have taken since the train incident in the 80s.
Sam| 12.21.10 @ 8:29PM
How bout Israel? They know how to deal with their enemies- the despicable cretins who would attack little girls and attach bombs to children. If they have had no issues with gays serving in the military, we shouldn't either.
9th ID| 12.21.10 @ 9:12PM
Israelis don't deploy combat arms units overseas and for a year at a time. Many also return home every day. As they become more secular they are having increased problems with their military. No example for us to follow...
DRed| 12.21.10 @ 10:44PM
Israel is certainly not becoming more secular.
9th ID| 12.22.10 @ 11:02AM
Wrong...
MKS| 12.21.10 @ 4:56PM
Sexual orientation may or may not be inherent; it doesn't matter much. Homosexual acts are chosen behaviors. Equating race and homosexual activity is a bogus line of reasoning - attempting to cast the noble mantle of civil rights over simple wrongs. General Amos spoke with courage and conviction, and I appreciate his forthright stand.
MIKESED| 12.21.10 @ 6:27PM
Much agreed! MKS, you have made the best point with the fewest words! With the repeal of DADT, its going to start making the straight, natural born soldier, marine, airman or seaman feel less for being who they were meant to be. Repealing DADT puts a stamp of special priority on all homosexuals in the military thus making their fellow serviceman(woman) feel pressured to tip toe around or somehow reach a better level of service than what they have already achieved and earned. And, with the fact that there are several service members who disagree with a homosexual lifestyle and see it even as something morally wrong, they are being forced to accept something they dont agree with. So whos personal beliefs are actually being infringed on? I am disgusted with the current administration pushing their agenda through, saying its what the American people want when they never even ask what we want. Who's constitutional rights are really being affected? And in all honesty, if i was in the military, i wouldnt feel comftorable serving in close quarters with a gay sevricemember cause i would feel demoralized and even physically uncomftorable. I am not a homophobe, i dont have a mental disorder, I just dont feel comftorable being looked at or thought of in an un-natural way. You better believe thats going to be an issue in the future as well. The one who doesnt want to accept a fellow service members homosexual orientation as the right way of living, is going to be bashed and called a lesser human being, just for standing up for what they believe in. Repeal of DADT is a bad call.
Ryan| 12.22.10 @ 10:25AM
You're completely missing the point. Nobody gives a fuck if you don't like gay people or that you're "uncomfortable" around gay people. How "uncomfortable" do you think a gay person is going to be around you anyway? The point is, you can believe what you want. Nobody cares. The military is going to treat all soldiers equally. Despite what you think, there are not going to be any "gay pride parades", and gay soldiers will continue to do what they have done right along. Fight and die for their country.
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 6:12PM
"the US military is as degraded, morally corrupt and hostile to traditional fundamental values of America and the West as any other branch of the Federal government"
Islamics despise gays as much as you do. When Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran, he ought to know; you can quickly realize why there are no more of the overtly gay in Iran.
9th ID| 12.21.10 @ 9:16PM
Your Muslim friends routinely kill gays. The best we can do is to try and convince you of the serious problems with gaydom to save you from yourselves.
ironhorzmn| 12.21.10 @ 8:36PM
Anyone who's been in the military during or after 'Tailhook' knows how our military has been beaten into politically correct submission by Pentagon elites like 'DACOWITS', a feminist working group whose entire job was to defend women in the military AGAINST equal treatment and equal standards.
And many fine men over decades have been sacrificed upon their altar.
Now here we go again.
Repeal of DADT has opened the door to activist gays pushing the boundaries even further while THEIR advocates in the Democrat Party threaten, coerce and intimidate anyone who would dare stand up for discipline and equal standards.
One word of disapproval, one inconvenient order and you'll find yourself standing tall before your CO who's already received his marching orders from Obama's commissars.
You'll be guilty before you enter the room.
'It's deja vu all over again'.
Tom| 12.21.10 @ 11:46PM
The bottom line is, this repeal will, in the future, discourage the right people from joining the military in the first place. People who believe that the purpose of the military is to kill our enemies, not to "mirror society" or "celebrate diversity". Those on the left will see this as a great thing, and the rest of us will know better. It's anyone's guess which side will do better under a Chinese thumb....
Henry| 12.22.10 @ 7:14AM
What were the rerasons given for repealing DADT? I can't think of a single one.
9th ID| 12.22.10 @ 11:04AM
Pandering to the radical gay activist lobby who would never serve their country in the military...
Richard Keefe | 12.22.10 @ 7:17AM
The most ironic (read: "hypocritical") thing about the Southern Poverty Law Center is that NOT ONE of its top ten, highest paid executives is a minority.
http://wp.me/pCLYZ-67
In fact, according to the SPLC's hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, despite being located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's home church, the SPLC has NEVER hired a person of color to a highly paid position of power.
Some "experts"
Ryan| 12.22.10 @ 10:11AM
Reading some of these comments, I would think we were headed back to the dark ages. Very little in the way of fact. Just fear and hate drivel from a bunch of useless backwoods shit heads. DADT is gone forever. Next up: Gay marriage. Equal rights for all Americans. If you don't like it, too bad. You're on the wrong side of history. Get a life.
Reg | 12.22.10 @ 11:33AM
Navy Brat - Your Dad probably did my teeth as a Plebe. I knew CAPT Fellowes and dated one of his daughters. Now is the time when we need men and women more like him and Ned Schuman and the rest of those quiet warriors. I do not trust the new crop of elected officials to do anything they have said they will do. They will prove to be more of the same. Once I retire, I'll likely go live in Central America......
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:43PM
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
(Change *** to www)
***.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
***.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
***.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
***.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
***.gaychristian101.com/
***.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template;=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
***.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
***.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
***.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:43PM
Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:48PM
You might want to research the "family research institute" before you cry about why this organization has no credibility. Besides the fact that they distort facts regarding homosexuality, spread blatant lies, and shown immense anti-gay bigotry, Dr Paul Cameron was once head of this organization. Yes folks, you read it right, the guy who was THROWN out of various organizations including the APA for UNETHICAL PRACTICES.
Furthermore, the FRI SUPPORTED THE DEATH PENALTY FOR HOMOSEXUALS IN UGANDA
http://bluewavenews.com/2010/0.....mosexuals/
The FRI Also has been a center for fraud.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....61575.html
That is the reason why this organization has no credibility and it's generally considered BIGOTRY.
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:54PM
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asociation and American Psychiatric Asociation have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:54PM
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Sane_Man| 1.12.11 @ 12:38AM
Imagine if that poor man's 'life partner' had not indulged in such an unnatural and disturbed lifestyle. It's not surprising that mental illness runs high among members of the GLBT community, even in 'tolerant' countries like the Netherlands. His lifestyle probably contributed to, or directly caused, his suicide. If not for living that manner of life, perhaps he might still be alive today. All that the deceased man’s mother had left was his ashes after that lifestyle claimed her son’s life. Sad story.
shadow_man| 12.23.10 @ 2:55PM
And finally, you wanna know the reason why homophobes are labeled as bigots? Because there is no valid reason to hate on them. Prove that homosexuality is wrong. Be warned though, i have yet to see a reason by the anti-gay side that i haven't been able to easily refute.