lol Well no matter how gay the military becomes, I doubt that will happen. I do expect the media to sideline the hugs and kisses from husband, wifes, and kids upon military homecomings and focus heavily on the homosexual embraces, even if it's a tiny percentage. It's basically a license to show more of this life style to the public.

In your original article you wrote:

As for me, I've already made it plain that ending the DADT policy is Congressional lunacy. Now, there is no way to stop a homosexual from coming on to a subordinate and living on a ship run by homosexuals would be a nightmare. The worse part of tolerating homosexuality is the disease factor. These are reasons why I will advise my 22 year old son against entering the military. I want

In a lame duck session days before Christmas break, Congress passed it without ever once taking into consideration the sexual aspect of this issue.

I do find it interesting that since DADT was repealed, it didn't revert to what was previously there. For example: Prohibition. Now here we are with no plan, no guidance. just the happy happy joy joy feelings of defeating the "terrible" Clinton era policy. What now and how much will it cost? An other rudderless government initiative that wasn't thought out prior to enacting.

My husband told me today the DOD already has a think tank going on this....they've already started to float policy ideas at the DOD level, and determine how this will affect the military, and what can be done to mitigate any problems.

I wouldn't want that job. 

It won't be easy.

This is the mark of the Obama, Pelosi, Reid administration. They don't really care about the military or the negative effects this will have, they are gving payback to their powerful homosexualist base.  

The only thing I've seen so far is a list of want won't be happening: Separate bathrooms, accommodations, and things like that.

The aftermath of the repeal........

---

---

THE GAYING OF AMERICA

Officer refusing homosexual training program reassigned

No punishment, new job, broad support from fellow officers, commanders

---

Posted: January 07, 2011
10:10 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Military training manual

The Army National Guard officer who refuses to cooperate with the Obama administration's plan to force open homosexuality on the military is not being punished.

On the contrary, the lieutenant colonel, whose identity is being protected at his request, is getting exactly what he asked for: transfer from a command to a staff position so he will not have to order troops to undergo the Pentagon's pro-'gay' indoctrination.

"Today is my last day in command," said the career Army officer. "From now on I'll be a staff officer without a bunch of people working under me, so I won't have the moral conflict with having to enforce this new policy on them.

"It's not punitive, the state is actually standing by my position. I've worked with some really good commanders over the years and we have a good rapport."

The officer, who formerly commanded a battalion-sized unit, has strongly held religious beliefs that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, and he thinks the military will be damaged severely if it implements the Obama administration's plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly. He said many of the men under his command share his views.

While his identity is known within his chain of command and his state's National Guard administration, the officer believes he has not been identified yet by the Department of the Army. Nearing twenty years in service, he wants to remain anonymous in order to protect his pension for his family's benefit.

"When I retire I will speak on the record. I don't know how much I can do before that. Sooner or later I'm going to get told to shut up. If I continue to make statements, it might become a witch hunt. I don't want to lose my retirement unless it comes to the point they tell me I have to attend the [pro-'gay'] training."

Many fellow officers are applauding him for the stand he has taken, the officer told WND.

"I've had nothing but support from all those in my unit, in my state, everyone that I've talked to. A lot of people have called me to voice their support for my position … a lot more men would take my position but they're not as close to retirement.

He added the men in his chain of command are sympathetic to his position opposing the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy banning open homosexuality in the ranks.

The officer criticized the U.S. Senate harshly for voting to repeal DADT, accusing them of "contempt for the Constitution" and hypocrisy.

"The only real argument the senators made for repealing DADT is that we're losing all these potential soldiers who could be filling all these critical roles in our military. Well, what are they talking about right now? They're talking about making large cuts in the military. Were they just pulling the wool over our eyes, just making the best argument they could while knowing this was coming all the time? To me It's so hypocritical.

"The more they step outside of their Constitutional limits, the more the nation is being polarized. These guys have contempt toward the Constitution.

"Our allegiance to the Constitution has to be more important than our loyalty to a chain of command, and conscience has to be important when following orders."

The officer sent WND an email explaining his position in detail. Excerpts follow:

"Commissioned officers take the following oath: 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.' Notice that the oath demands allegiance – not to one's commander, not even to the president or to a government administration – but to a set of ideas, embodied in a document called the U.S. Constitution. This is not by accident. The oath omits allegiance to men because our founding fathers recognized that some men would go astray due to lust for power, and the logical outcome of a military force with allegiance to a man is eventually a dictatorship. If anyone doubts this truth, I encourage them to read the Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler or his oath for public servants.

"Loyalty must be subordinate to that allegiance to the Constitution, and must be tempered by one's conscience. To be a good commander, one must exercise loyalty both up and down the chain of command. This demands the ability to internalize command decisions, orders, and policies, and at the same time, to stand up for one's soldiers within the context of mission accomplishment. As soon as the DADT policy repeal became law, I realized that I wouldn't be able to show loyalty to my chain of command in this one area as the new policy is forced on the military. I have the greatest respect for my chain of command, so I forwarded my request to be relieved prior to the change so I would not have to be disloyal. To those who simply think soldiering is about blindly following orders without consulting conscience, I recommend that they educate themselves about the case of a man named William Calley, the former Army lieutenant convicted on 22 counts of murder in the My Lai massacre.

"Let me be very clear that in a combat situation, I would risk and even forfeit my life if necessary, for ANY American soldier, regardless of race, gender, national origin, or even what my religious beliefs designate as an immoral lifestyle choice. At the time of this writing, the practice of sodomy is a violation of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is therefore considered an immoral lifestyle choice.

"Contrary to the assumptions of many in the pro-homosexual camp, those who share my sentiments do not hate homosexuals, but we do, just as ALL prior generations, recognize the homosexual lifestyle as counter to natural law and immoral, and destructive to good order and discipline which are crucial in a combat unit.

"There are those who see this as purely an issue of discrimination, which they believe is unfair in any segment of our society. 'Discrimination' has become a word that always connotes something bad. I would say to them that discrimination is not only necessary, but crucial in our military. The military has always discriminated and if we are to remain the world's premier military, we must continue to do so. Currently, the Army discriminates against those who are, by regulations, too old, too weak, too fat, too slow, too short, colorblind, asthmatic, diabetic, and a whole host of other disqualifiers. …

"True, there are certainly closeted homosexuals already in the military. There are also definitely closeted child/spouse abusers, pedophiles, adulterers, rapists, and I would guess even murderers in the military at this instant. Should we also change the UCMJ to make those activities legal? The truth is, the answer that most would give to that question is also the answer that most would have given to the question of allowing open homosexual service a generation ago. Do we continue to allow our moral compass to drift just because loud 'progressive' minorities that support immoral behaviors convince us that those behaviors should be considered 'mainstream?'"

Read more: Officer refusing homosexual training program reassigned http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=248585#ixzz1AlH4dxGT

Interesting. I wonder how many are conflicted between their beliefs and their personal responsibilities. I'm quite sure they all don't have the options this officer has available to him. After all it is about a concession for a life style not a physical attribute.

"Army! Navy! Air Force! Marines! What a wonderful way, to meet the man of your dreams!"

I understand that the Army is, indeed, enjoying the benefits of an influx of gay recruits, since the repeal of DADT. Problem is, they all want to be stationed at Ft. Dix and Ft. Leonard Wood.....

I hear loads of funny jokes about this all the time. Then I realize that this force that won two world wars and sent fear in the hearts of our enemies has been reduced to a punch line. Sadly.

That was a good one though. Many more to come I'm quite sure.

Oh ya...and how do we do that?  Sensiitivity training 101.

Yup, the Army is getting ready for them too. 

Entire U.S. Army to receive gay sensitivity training by the end of the summer...even if they're on the battlefield

By Daily Mail Reporter
The entire U.S. Army will receive gay sensitivity training by the end of the summer, according to a military spokesman.
Combat troops currently deployed in Afghanistan will also be trained while they are in the war zone rather than when they return to their bases on American soil.The Pentagon's training programme follows on from the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' ban which required gay troops to hide their sexuality. 

Programme: The entire U.S. Army will receive gay sensitivity training even combat troops currently deployed in AfghanistanPresident Obama signed a bill last year to end the ban but it will stay in place until the secretary of defense decides the policy will not interfere with combat readiness.

Robert M Gates has said gays will be able to declare their sexual preference openly within the army before the end of 2011.
Army Command Sergeant Major, Marvin Hill, said no unit would be exempt from taking the programme that will teach gay rights.
'I have heard about the training that will be forthcoming to the battlefield,' he told Pentagon reporters via a teleconference from Kabul.

'We will take our directions from the Department of Defense, from the secretary of defense, the chairman, as well as the service chiefs of each service.
'Our plan is to take their direction, and we’re going to execute that training right here on the battlefield.

The first step: President Obama signed the bill repealing the ban of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military known as 'don't ask, don't tell' last year

'Our goal is to not allow a unit to return to home station and have the unit responsible for that. 'While we own those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we’re going to execute that training on the ground. We hope that it will have little impact on their combat and security operations here.'

What the actual programme involves is not yet available to the media, but a spokesman for the U.S. Army, told MailOnline that there would be 'structured lesson plans'.

The training will be broken down into three sections. The first section is for specialists like chaplains, lawyers and investigators.

The second is for commanders in the field.

The third is for the rest of the force - 2.2million active and reserve troops.

Before the programme was announced Sergeant Hill, who has been an ardent advocate of the repeal, said on Washington Watch in December: 'If there are people who cannot deal with the change, then they’re going to have to do what’s best for their troops and best for the organisation and best for the military service and exit the military service, so that we can move forward - if that’s the way that we have to go.'

Some have not been so keen however.

Elaine Donnelly, who heads the Center for Military Readiness, called the move to train combat soldiers engaging in daily battle 'ridiculous'.

'It’s absurd because the military has more important things to think about in that dangerous part of the world,' she told The Washington Times.

'For the administration to say this is more important than even with the troops we’re trying to train in that part of the world, I think it shows flawed priorities at best.'

.......................................

A conservative military advocate wants to educate voters about potential GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul who was one of a handful of Republican members of Congress who voted last year to repeal the law that banned homosexuals from military service.

 Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) officially announced the formation of a 2012 presidential exploratory committee during a recent event in Des Moines, Iowa. An exploratory committee allows Paul to raise and spend money toward a 2012 candidacy. Paul finished fifth in the 2008 caucuses and has visited Iowa seven times since.

The Texas congressman is a favorite among libertarians and enjoys strong backing by many tea party supporters. In addition, The Associated Press reports he spoke at a rally for Christian homeschool advocates at the State Capitol last month.

 Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center of Military Readiness, says however that Paul supported President Barack Obama and homosexual activists with his vote during last year's lame-duck session of the 111th Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" -- the law excluding homosexuals from serving openly in the U.S. military.

 "People should know that Ron Paul voted for gays in the military in 2010," Donnelly states. "I think he should be held accountable for that vote. Certainly anyone who supports the military should question his support of the armed forces with that vote on his record."

 Donnelly believes the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" should be an issue in the upcoming presidential campaign.

 the saga of DADT continues....

A conservative military watchdog says the United States Military Academy was right to deny a former cadet readmission to the school because she's a homosexual.

Katherine Miller left West Point in August, halfway through her stint at the Academy, saying she could no longer lie about her sexuality. So when she recently applied to rejoin, officials at the U.S. Military Academy rejected her application. They explained that the repeal of the policy that bars homosexuals from legal military service, which was accomplished by the 111th lame-duck Congress, has not yet gone into effect -- and will not do so until 60 days after the president and senior defense advisers certify that it will not hurt the troops' ability to fight.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), agrees with the Academy officials' decision, as she does not think Miller is eligible to be a cadet at West Point.

"West Point told her what they should have said right from the beginning -- people who are homosexual are not eligible to be in the armed forces, and certainly not eligible to receive a tax-funded college education when one is not eligible to serve in the armed forces," Donnelly contends. "That is a privilege, not a right."

So she hopes Congress will hold more hearings on the issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military and ultimately convince President Barack Obama that certification of the new law would not be in the best interest of the men and women in uniform.

This is an action alert from the American Family Association...

The Navy is the first military branch to authorize homosexual "marriage" and allow gay sailors to get married in Navy chapels. It is currently instructing Navy chaplains on its policy for performing the ceremonies.

The directive came from an April 13 memo issued to all chaplains, in which the Chief of Navy Chaplains, Admiral Michael Tidd, said the Chaplain Corps was revising its Tier I training manuals to include "a chaplain may officiate a same-sex, civil marriage" and "the chaplain is, according to applicable state and local laws, otherwise fully certified to officiate that state's [gay] marriage."

Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told CNSNews.com, in its haste to "hustle-in homosexuality," the Navy may be violating federal law - the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Under DOMA, the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between "one man and one woman."

"The administration and various states may be operating as if DOMA doesn't exist, but the Navy and Marine Corps and all the Armed Services are sworn to obey the law, which this new instruction violates," he added.

...............................