General observations on just about anything.
If it passes I have a new name for it...
Published on May 31, 2010 By Nitro Cruiser In Politics

...but first some background.

Disclaimer: I'm really uninterested in another persons sex life (other than my wife that is), that's their business. Also having spent half my life in the military, I fully realize that gays have and are serving their country in that capacity, thank you (and all folks, past and present) for your service. I don't dislike people personally for their lifestyle. I'm sure most serve(d) honorably, and a few were trouble makers, just as their heterosexual counter parts.

What does concern me is the total disregard of the people currently serving in the military today. Not that it was sneaked in on a Friday, prior to a long weekend (again, a reoccurring theme with this administration). Not that it was sandwiched in with other more pressing items  and $$$ goodies for the military (it was). The Pentagon was to have its finding (consultation with military members) complete by December. This administration, for political expedience, couldn't wait that long. They have showed their total disregard for our military folks opinion, just as they have for the American peoples opinion on other recent issues. They are willing to force an issue without regard for cost (there always is a cost) or plan to implement.

Why the rush? Were the people that shouted Obama down, at the recent Boxer fundraiser, on the issue anxious to enlist in the military. Hardly. Why is this important to gay activists? Are they that concerned about our military? No. They realize the way to "normalcy" is through the military. Their means to an end, their agenda. It worked for minorities and it worked for women, so it will work for gays, right? Well being a minority or a woman is pretty much an inalienable fact, with little room for interpretation. It doesn't involve personal tastes in lifestyles (I can hear the disagreements now). What will be the next "oppressed" group after this one? Time, and anyone's guess, will tell.

If this passes, this will be the first time in history that a protected "special" group of people will be treated differently in the military. Different how? They will not have their own facilities, so they will cohabitate with the sex they are physically attracted to, with only their own sense of discipline as a guide.  The finial vestiges that "helped" people consider their actions (Don't Ask Don't Tell) will be gone. Rest assured, some deviants will be attracted that might not otherwise be. Is it worth even one unwanted incident? What if it is your family member? IMO, to utterly dismiss the sexual aspect of this issue is shortsighted and unrealistic. If someone told me that I would be living in close quarters, uninhibited, with women when I enlisted as a young man at the tender age of 17, I would have thought that was a benefit!

Whoa...hold your horses you say, men and women aren't allowed potential intimate contact on a daily basis in the military. That would be correct, but if that concept bothers you, why the double standard? How would you feel having some guy live in your wife or daughters (or a woman with your husband or son) military dorm room or barracks, shaving his face while she shaves her legs in the shower? I could tell you probably nothing would happen 90% of the time (there is fraternization now, and it is punishable), but there would be problems. Jealous spouses have left their soldiers, sailors, and airman just on suspicion. The opposite is also true. I understand that gays can be afflicted with these emotions, real or perceived, too. I don't foresee men's, women's or other's facilities on the horizon anytime soon.

What else can be exploited? Well let me give an example that many can relate too. When the presidents critics voice their opposition a bit too loud, what is one of the first counter accusations? Racism. And make no bones about it it is effective and used often (read some blogs and see for yourself). So what if a gay person doesn't like his/her evaluation? "My marks are low because you hate gays". Someone harasses you, you're just making the complaint up because you don't like gays. Do I believe this will be the norm? No, but it will happen and when it does it affects the effectiveness of a command.  The military is mired heavily in PCness lately the way it is. We can't afford this additional intrigue IMO, especially during two ongoing wars.

For any of its flaws, Don't Ask Don't Tell applied to everyone, straight or gay. IMO it protected both. This is decision is best left up to the personnel serving, not the politicians, not the activists. If this is something the bulk of our service people can adapt and handle effectively, I would humbly concede to them and the issue is done. Would the gay activists do the same? Can the folks asking for tolerance show some as well?  If it passes without military input, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"(DADT) will become "Look, But Don't Touch" (LBDT).

Remember, you heard the term coined here first.

UPDATE 05/24/2017

Since this post in now locked for 2 years for whatever reason (most likely due to its longevity). I wanted to add the (sort of) conclusion of the Bradley, now Chelsea, Manning story that erupted in the comments. As you may or may not know Manning was pardoned of his espionage 35 year sentence by departing President Obama. With the current leftest push for clamping down on claimed foreign involvement in US affairs, I find the leniency they provide proven traitors they sympathize with, fascinating. Anyway, now Manning is free to live his/her live with military medical benefits for the rest of his years, on your dime of course. More here.


Comments (Page 8)
16 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10  Last
on Oct 21, 2010

On Mash, remember they showed a guy who dressed like a woman?

While I don't believe that will occur each day, especially on duty. I expect it may happen off duty (cross dressing). It happens now, but I suppose it could escalate. I recall once a guy had on clear nail polish, which is OK for women but not for men. I believe more cases of this might happen and it will only serve to call it more attention on a unit level.

My main concerns are of course personal privacy (what does one do when the environment is not set up for a gender that doesn't exactly fit into the dominate two categories), and abuse of power and/or favoritism (both for and against gays). On the later, it's difficult enough with just men and women. If you give a bad evaluation, are you perceived as homophobic. If you give a good eval, are you perceived as bending to special interests. The problem might even be worse if the supervisor is the homosexual. Will gays helping to promote other gays be looked at as favoritism by heterosexuals. I just can't see an up side, that provides a better solution than DAFT does. I feel it actually provides some protections for gays currently serving. I can only conclude the ones that want it gone are those that want to shout it from the rooftops. The military is really a bad place to be flamboyant IMO.

I know the supporters for the repeal will offer other military up as an example. To them I ask, what studies have been done, and what are the results? Does the foreign military work under the conditions that the US military does? Some of them rarely deploy, and have personal rooms and facilities. Some have Navy's that are more like cruise ships with search radar and weapons. The US military is not a tiny part of the economy in relation to its size and capabilities as some nations military are.

I'm no longer a part of it and it's not my fight. I'd just like to see the majority of servicemen and women make the choice. If they want it dropped, so be it. When accommodations for a few are made at the expense of the many, it doesn't make sense. Don't equate this with Blacks or women entering the service because it isn't the same thing, not by a long shot. No one is keeping gays from serving. Remember the film "Full Metal Jacket"? The guy that didn't quite fit in at boot camp? Sucking his thumb with his trousers around his ankles while the company was punished for his inability to conform. Not an issue on homosexuality, but a pretty darn good example of special treatment in the face of a job that screams FOR uniformity. Any one that has served will understand what I'm saying, whether they agree or disagree with the bill, there was always one or two in the bunch that couldn't perform as expected. It's not the homosexuals that are performing to capacity now that worry me, it's those that might join for all the wrong reasons and create more problems, for others as well as themselves, than it's worth. And believe me this type WILL join, it's inevitable.

on Oct 22, 2010

ON AGAIN......OFF AGAIN!!!!


DADT Legal Seesaw: Now Judge Reinstates Ban on Open Homosexuals in Military

 

By Peter J. Smith

SAN FRANCISCO, California, October 20, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The legal seesaw over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” continues, now that a federal appeals has stayed a judge’s order and reinstated the congressional ban on homosexual service in the military.

A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday night granted the request of Justice Department attorneys to suspend the worldwide order of U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips, which made illegal for the U.S. to enforce the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and 10 U.S.C. § 654, the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service.

“The order is stayed temporarily in order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented,” states the one page order.

Phillips repeatedly denied the government’s request to stay enforcement of her ruling against DADT until the appeals process was finished. For a whole week until the appeals court intervention, the Pentagon had instructed recruiters to allow open homosexuals to sign up, while informing them that the legal situation with DADT could change at any moment

The 9th Circuit Court intervention means the Defense Department is now free again to investigate and carry out discharge proceedings under DADT.

Justice Department attorneys explained to the appeals court in a 25-page brief that President Barack Obama opposes the law, but believes that Congress should overturn its own statute. They added that numerous court precedents have found no constitutional difficulty with DADT and the 1993 law.

That process, they explained, demands that the Defense Department committee in charge of researching the effects on military readiness by abolishing DADT be allowed to complete its report, due December 1. 

The government’s attorneys also argued that Phillips’ decision should be reversed, because her worldwide injunction violates the principle of comity, as other district judges have ruled in favor of 10 U.S.C. § 654 and DADT. They said her ruling presumes to overrule those judges and U.S. law as it has developed in other U.S. circuit courts.

 See previous coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:

 Judge Denies Request for Stay on Ruling against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102004.html

 Judge Orders Military to Stop Enforcement of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10101213.html

 Federal Judge Deems Military 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Rule 'Unconstitutional'
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091002.html

 URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102107.html

on Oct 27, 2010

Archbishop lauds military service, calls for new Christian knighthood

October 27, 2010

In a brief lecture delivered October 25 at the United States Air Force Academy, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver praised military service as a potentially ennobling vocation and called for a new Christian knighthood.

“Military service is a vocation, not simply a profession,” he said, adding:

The word “vocation” comes from the Latin word vocare, which means to call. In Christian belief, God created each of us for a purpose. He calls each of us by name to some form of service. No higher purpose exists than protecting other people, especially the weak and defenseless. This is why the Church, despite her historic resistance to war and armed violence, has held for many centuries that military service is not just “acceptable.” It can also be much more than that. When lived with a spirit of integrity, restraint and justice, military service is virtuous. It's ennobling because – at its best – military service expresses the greatest of all virtues: charity; a sacrificial love for people and things outside and more important than oneself. It flows from something unique in the human heart: a willingness to place one's own life in harm's way for the sake of others.

“The Church needs men and women of courage and Godliness today more than at any time in her history,” the archbishop concluded. “So does this extraordinary country we call home in this world; a nation that still has an immense reservoir of virtue, decency and people of good will. This is why the Catholic ideal of knighthood, with its demands of radical discipleship, is still alive and still needed. The essence of Christian knighthood remains the same: sacrificial service rooted in a living Catholic faith.” “A new ‘spirit of knighthood’ is what we need now -- unselfish, tireless, devoted disciples willing to face derision and persecution for Jesus Christ. We serve our nation best by serving God first, and by proving our faith with the example of our lives.”

 

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

on Nov 06, 2010

More on the ongoing DADT saga...

Pentagon Survey on Homosexuality in the Military Flawed: FRC

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A recently “leaked” military survey regarding the effects of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the Armed Forces is deeply flawed, according to Family Research Council President and Marine Corps veteran Tony Perkins.

Late last month, news of a "leaked" Pentagon survey stirred media waters with the suggestion that a large number of service members were open to repealing the law banning open homosexuals from serving in the military.

But in an analysis released today, FRC said they found that the military member survey ignores important questions and fails to ask the central question of whether the current ban on open homosexuality should be overturned. It also fails to ask whether or not the respondent is a homosexual.

"Leading questions about a pre-determined result can hardly be called fair or scientific, which means Congress should greet this survey with a heavy dose of skepticism," said Perkins. "When only one-in-four service personnel even return the survey, this tells you something about the disregard most of those serving had for it."

Noting that a repeal "would have a drastic impact on unit retention, morale and readiness," Perkins called on Congress to "carefully scrutinize" the Pentagon's methodology and detailed results from the surveys, and discard unscientific or biased information. He also encouraged Congress to conduct its own independent survey.

Although a repeal is supposed to hinge upon the projected effect of such a change on military readiness, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen have already expressed support for the ideology behind overturning the law.

U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, together with a former army legal chief and a group representing over 4 million military veterans and other groups, have expressed support for the current law.

"Our analysis shows that the President and the Pentagon have ignored the true opinions of service members, instead paying lip service to the President's pledge to conduct a study whose results were, on the basis of the kinds of questions asked and those avoided, never seriously in doubt," said Perkins.

 URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110505.html

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

Perkin's quote at the end goes to what you've been saying all along....the opinions of service members have gone ignored.

on Nov 09, 2010

New U.S. Marine Head Opposes DADT Repeal

 

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C.,  November 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The new commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps has signaled his opposition to any repeal of the law that bans open homosexuals from military service, saying that he is concerned about harm to the corps’ combat effectiveness.

Gen. James Amos told reporters in San Diego that the repeal of the 1993 law against homosexuals serving in the military and the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy would have harmful effects on U.S. Marines in this wartime footing.

“There is nothing more intimate than combat,” Amos said. “In the infantry, we are talking about young men laying out sleeping alongside one another and sharing death and fear and the loss of their brothers.

"There's risk involved," Amos said about repeal of DADT. "I'm trying to determine how to measure that risk. This is not a social thing. This is combat effectiveness."

Amos is following in the footsteps of his predecessor Gen. James Conway. Conway, along with U.S. Army Chief Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, told Senators back in February that he feared a repeal under the current wartime circumstances would disturb a military already suffering from the heavy strain of fighting two overseas wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, both political appointees of President Barack Obama, have already expressed support for the ideology behind overturning the current law.

Gates formed the Pentagon's Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) back in March to "consider how best to implement a repeal" of the 1993 law (10 U.S.C 654) – indicating that any consideration of retaining the law was out of the question.

The CRWG’s findings are set to be released in a December report, when Congress is in the lame duck session. The U.S. Senate will likely vote again on the $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill (FY 2011), which includes amendments overturning bans on homosexual service and abortion on military bases. So far, the bill has been held up by a GOP filibuster led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10110811.html

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

All this is going to be very interesting as the Defense Authroization bill comes back to the lame duck Congress. What do you think?

 

on Nov 09, 2010

All this is going to be very interesting as the Defense Authroization bill comes back to the lame duck Congress. What do you think?

I'm still wondering why Gates is trying to jump the shark.

on Nov 10, 2010

I'm still wondering why Gates is trying to jump the shark.

My best guess is that Gates is a political devotee to Obama and is helping him deliver on his campaign promises to the homosexual crowd.

 

on Nov 11, 2010

Gates was in during the last administration. Seems odd.

on Nov 12, 2010

Gates was in during the last administration. Seems odd.

I know.

It could be that when it comes to homosexuality, Gates is a social liberal.   

on Nov 12, 2010

This article goes to what you've been asking for all along....that the troops themselves be asked the all important question.

Spin precedes release of military DADT report
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow - 11/12/2010 4:45:00 AM

 gays in military smallA Pentagon official working on the long-awaited report on the effect of repealing the ban on homosexuals serving in the military apparently has chosen not to publicly discredit news accounts he knows to be false.

 

 

 In the last several weeks, several mainstream media outlets have reported that the comprehensive survey due out December 1 will reveal that a majority of military service members are okay with the idea of homosexuals serving in the military.
 
But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), says she wrote a letter to Jeh Johnson, co-chair of the working group putting together that report, and inquired about the validity of that claim. Donnelly says she was not satisfied with the response.
 
Elaine Donnelly"He wrote back to me and told me that it was not true," she reports. "So my question to him was, well, why are you telling me? Why didn't you tell the media reporters when they asked for comment? And I never got an answer to that."
 
According to Donnelly, a second article in The Washington Post has since emerged with the headline that the Pentagon study reveals a low risk to ending "don't ask, don't tell."
 
"We can't judge what the troops think because the question 'Do you want the law repealed or retained' ...was never asked," she laments. "So what we're seeing now is a lot of spin [and] speculation directed to create the impression that the military is okay with what the president wants to do -- and that is to repeal the law."
 
But the CMR spokeswoman says if Obama has his way, the change would have a devastating effect on unit cohesion and morale in America's armed forces.

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

Following this article, there is a poll question

What's the most likely reason the Pentagon didn't ask U.S. troops the question:

"Do you want 'don't ask, don't tell' repealed or retained"?

 

on Nov 12, 2010

  • and of 1760 responses thus far, 87.61 % vote #3.

    on Nov 13, 2010

    Today from the AP, we learned that the Supreme Court has issued an order that DADT will stay, at least for now while a constituional challenge goes through the federal appeals process.

    The AP also noted that Associate Justice Elena Kagan did not participate. Kagan was US Solicitor General for President Obama before she was tapped for the U.S. Supreme Court.

    on Nov 13, 2010

    and of 1760 responses thus far, 87.61 % vote #3.

    That's what I would say. December is almost here, if the military "really" wants DADT repealed (and my gut feeling is the majority don't, for a variety of reasons), then who am I to say don't do it. I still personally believe it would be detrimental to future recruiting efforts, especially if it becomes the gay meeting place hot spot. That will turn off many young men and women that aren't interested in that or the associations that might be placed upon it, fair or unfair. I'm sure the LGT activists will use exploit its use, in a manner that "pride" parades and festivals push it out there in an "in your face" kind of way.

    on Nov 13, 2010

    This all boils down to the government playing social engineering with the armed forces forcing acceptance of homosexuality as normal. Why don't they ask themselves why the Federal Center for Disease control continues to bar homosexuals from giving blood.

    on Nov 14, 2010

    Why don't they ask themselves why the Federal Center for Disease control continues to bar homosexuals from giving blood.

    Good point.

    16 PagesFirst 6 7 8 9 10  Last