On December 8, I wrote this:
Of the two issues, its difficult to determine which is the most important.The GOP can kill DADT and the Dream Act, if they have the will. If they don't....
.The GOP has the ability to kill both in the Senate. But do they have the will?
The fringe nutters running Congress are moving these now at warp-speed. The GOP can filibuster either or both in the Senate, and force both up for consideration next year if they are of a mind to do so.
Pushing both into the next session would, effectively, kill both of them, since the House is now GOP controlled.
If they don't take this step, then what that means is, frankly, that they support this
legislation.
They may huff and puff, but at the end of the day, the question is this: does the GOP really oppose either?
Because they can stop both if they do.
Will they?
The repeal of DADT is the next step in the slippery slope.
Americans in combat will die because of it. It's going to cost billions to implement. And soon, if not immediately, Gates is going to announce that the military will recognize gay marriage.
This is a train wreck. I'm ending my support of Scott Brown over this, who now will be a 1/3rd term Senator before he's kicked out in 2012, or whenever he's up again.
This is yet another example of politics spilling blood. And this time, a large portion of that blood will be on GOP hands because while we could have put a stop to this... we didn't.
It looks like they did manage to kill the DREAM Act. But while the DREAM Act was an abortion of a bill, people weren't going to die over it, like they will die over DADT.
In this case, some might say "Well, half a loaf is better than none."
Not in this case.
The House GOP ought to begin, in earnest, the repeal of the Flaming Gays in the Military Act.
Let's remember, people: ultimately, there is no Constitutional right to serve. Caving to the left on this crap is inexcusable... and the "reasoning" behind it is non-existent.
.
Could you provide a link to a rational debate against gays (or anyone else) in the military (or anyplace else)? This is a serious request - I've only ever heard the religious argument.
ReplyDeleteGoogle is your friend, Martin.
ReplyDeleteBut likewise, I have yet to see a rational argument FOR homosexuals serving... particularly when those in combat are horrified by the idea.
I'm hamstrung by having served 9 years in Combat Arms, something the vast majority of those pushing this fringe-left agenda are typically not cursed with.
I won't bore you with the mundane details of the E-6 squad leader who attempted to nail me back in 73... I just remember, some 37 years later, that it was the kind of situation where, in a combat unit, failing to go along to get along could get you dead.
That's a huge argument against it for me.
The military discriminates every day in dozens of ways, and no one gives a rats ass because, at the end of the day, there are two issues that I have yet to see addressed:
First, as I stated, there is no Constitutional right to serve. By anyone. Gay or otherwise.
And second, no one forces anyone to enlist.
Don't like the fact that you can't be "out" in the military? Well, don't enlist.
You also can't have sex with subordinates.
You also can't engage in adultery.
You also have dozens of rules of personal conduct that you can't violate to serve.
Those things are conditions of service. And the military is responsible for making it's own rules... much like they're responsible for the arbitrary rules concerning height, weight, vision, hearing, skin diseases, single parents and any number of issues that if ignored, WILL result in reduced combat capabilities.
My only concern is the completion of the mission. I have never played a religion card in my concerns over this.
But in the combat environment, I am here to tell you: people are going to die, quite needlessly, over this politically correct bullshit... and when they do, those mostly non-serving asswipes behind this will have their blood on their hands.
Martin, can you give any logical or sane reasoning that this issue should be of more importance that doing something to bring down unemployment, get the economy back on track, seal the borders, lower the national debt that is stifling millions of people currently?
ReplyDeleteCan you give any logical reason that appeasement of a couple thousand is more important that relieving millions of Americans?
If you had made any effort at all in research, you would see most arguments against Gays in the Military are not based upon religious reasons, but based upon unit morale and cohesion.
In fact, I have yet to find an argument against Gays in the Military based upon religious reasoning.
But, since you say your request is a "serious" one; Straight Troops Must Shower With Gays, Says DOD Working Group
Defending ‘Don’t Ask,’ In the military, open homosexuality harms unit cohesion.
Gays in the Military: Obama’s social experiment would have devastating effects on the finest military force the world has ever known.
Repealing "Don't Ask" Will Weaken the U.S. Military
US Marine Commandant, Gen. James Amos On DADT
Maybe that will get you started.
I don't know if you have ever served in the Military, or if you have, if you ever saw front line combat duty, but I have.
This opposition has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with protecting our Troops lives. They don't need any more distractions or anything that might harm their morale in any way.
As we have repeatedly said, the Military is not a social club for social experimentation.
But, it appears some are just going to have to find that out the hard way.
Here's a few hundred more words to help:
ReplyDeleteAs everyone knows, the bill to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law that bars gays from serving openly in the military passed the Senate today. Naturally, President Obama will sign it into law and most likely within the five days he promised to give Americans prior to signing ANY legislation into law. And I'm in complete disagreement. The following are my opinions about the DADT repeal and why I think it was/is a bad idea. These thoughts are my own personal opinions and are not the opinions of any branch of government or unit in the military.
First of all, many Senators and Congressmen apparently changed their minds about the policy after the so-called poll was released in which the media and legislators claimed that 70% of troops supported repeal. But, if anyone actually read the report, they would have seen a different outcome:
Q41 Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together (knowing a fellow troop was gay)…Mostly negative or equally negative/positive 84.1%. Positive 15.9%
Q43. Was the effect on the unit’s morale [having a gay leader]…Mostly neg 46.1% Mostly neg 9.1% Equal neg & pos %44.8%
Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact on unit's performance.
Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust if DADT is repealed.
Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers with homosexuals. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence]. NOTE: I don't care how much a troop disagrees with gays, violence should NEVER be a part of the dialogue.
Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. (One half million troops will QUIT the service early, destroying our national security.) NOTE: I don't personally believe that this many troops would leave, but if it were only 5%, the military would lose 100,000 troops. I would be among the 5% if certain aspects of implementation take place.
Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. (Destroying recruiting efforts.)
Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact…9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.
Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about permitting open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.
Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.
Interestingly, I never read ANY of those stats in the media. I never heard Secretary Gates or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff quote them either. I didn't hear the President or members of Congress panning this poll on us using these numbers. All we ever heard of was this mysterious number that 70% of troops thought repeal was a glorious and great idea.
I don't appreciate the fact that military leaders and elected officials have misrepresented a study that wasn't presented to Soldiers in a fair and open way. The "poll" that was conducted was not widely disseminated, contrary to what has been reported. As a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer I was never made aware of this poll and could not inform my troops of it either. As a matter of fact, I haven't met ONE Soldier that took the survey either in support of or opposed to repeal. In my 16 years of military experience, I have only met a handful of people in support of gays serving openly in the military. I don't know how the questions were posed and how the poll was conducted, but it is NOT representative of the military services in which I serve.
Where does it end? Where do we, as a country, draw the line to what is acceptable behavior in this country? If we legitimize homosexual behavior in a professional force, it will cause undue hardships on the NCOs and officers responsible for trying to make such a policy work. Think it's just me saying this? Look at the questions above again. Will the next step be that we allow cross-dressers in the military? If a male shows up in a female uniform, how do we deal with that? Will we allow familiar relationships that are currently illegal (incest)? Will we allow polygamy? Who is our government to decide which forms of sexually deviant behavior are acceptable and which are not? If we allow homosexuals to serve openly, we should also allow polygamy, incest, and dare I say it, bestiality. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that one form of behavior leads to another, cause I'm not. What I'm saying is that if you legitimize one against the other, you have created turmoil.
ReplyDeleteIncidents of sexual harassment will go up. Leaders will have to deal with that and it will be a further distraction to our combat mission and pre-deployment activities. And yet, our benevolent leaders – instead of focusing on passing a budget to pay our troops and keep them supplied and trained – put this offensive policy at the forefront, holding vote after vote after vote until they get the results they want. In the meantime, the military is left trying to figure out to pay for training sorely needed in preparation of upcoming deployments. The shell game becomes a distraction to the mission because we want to play politics will sexual preferences.
It isn't just a matter of disagreement with the activity. I personally have to shower in an open shower with other males every morning after PT. To say that it's absurd that gay men won't gawk at other naked men is saying that they aren't normal. In "normal" sexual attractions, the sight of a naked body belonging to someone of the opposite sex is a natural thing to stare at. Are gays more capable of handling themselves than straights? I don't think so. According to those trying to repeal this policy, gay behavior is just as "normal" as straight behavior. So, why can't straight men and women shower together? Why can't straight men and women dorm together the way gay and straight men will be forced? If it's so natural and the "truth" being reported by proponents of repeal is that there is no way gays will care that they are surrounded with naked bodies of the sex to which they are attracted, then why are heterosexuals separated? Is it because heterosexuals aren't normal? The argument is absurd in its context.
This report states that 24% of our troops would leave the military service immediately or sooner than expected if DADT is repealed. It isn't because they (or I) find homosexuality wrong. It's because the military will force all of us into accepting Homosexuals as normal. We will be forced to go along with a behavior we find immoral. If we express disagreement with a homosexuals lifestyle, we will be subjected to disciplinary actions under and new Equal Opportunity Program.
Frankly, I don't care that I have to shower with other naked men. I'm secure in my masculinity and would find it flattering to be sexually attractive to both sexes. Talk about mojo! I don't care that Gay Joe next to me brings his boyfriend to the company Christmas party. What I care about is that when I cringe seeing them kiss I would be subjected to EO complaints. And if that becomes the case, THAT is the day that I submit my discharge request – retirement eligible or not. I will not sacrifice my standards, morals, or beliefs for a politically correct, sacrosanct policy that just makes people feel good about themselves.
The Service Chiefs of three services, in an unprecedented break in service protocol, went over the heads of Mullen and Gates earlier this month and communicated directly to the Congress their concerns about changing this policy, saying that such a move could add unnecessary stress to the force. It is my hope that all four men would request retirement publicly in protest of this dangerous policy. Since these men will be directly responsible for sending our troops in harm’s way, their mass resignation would speak volumes about their concern for the men and women that they lead. Unfortunately, in today's political environment, we probably won't see that from them anytime soon. The General Boykins and General Sheehans of the Army are long gone.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Defense has been asking for Soldiers' opinions on the policy. I am responding to their query. These are my personal opinions. As a leader, I will treat everyone based on performance and merit. I have personally known two gay Soldiers in my career. The latest was definitely not what the gay community should point to as a symbol of why repeal is a good idea. The other made a conscious decision NOT to act on his feelings and remained celibate and single for religious purposes.
My comment:
There is precisely zero sound, reasoned arguments in favor of having homosexuals serve in the military at all. And this kind of experimentation will result in the loss of troops, the loss of morale, the loss of some unit effectiveness and the loss of lives.
I do hope those shilling this crap are happy.
All of the info mentioned above is found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.soldiersperspective.us/2010/12/18/dadt-repeal/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=dadt-repeal
Thank you for the opinions and links.
ReplyDeleteObviously, "gays in the military" was a cusp issue during our generation, hence the awkward compromise of DADT. It seems, however, that our children are more accepting, and their kids will probably think grandad was being silly back in the day.
Our military is NOT a private enterprise - it is one of America's socialist manifestations so the U.S. Constitution applies to its members. Discriminating service due to sexual orientation would fail Supreme Court challenge but since the tide was turning anyway that avenue has been kept in reserve.
I agree that more important issues (to non-gay me) are pressing!