RSS
 

Archive for the ‘DADT’ Category

Its The Few And The Proud, Not The Queer And The Fabulous

29 Sep

We said it, didn’t we? All of us knew what was going to happen after DADT was repealed, and sure enough, here we are. Now that the repeal is officially in effect, what do we have but the trannies and the cross-dressers trying to get into the military.

Let me just make one thing clear. Right away, for the people who are going to jump all over me. Oh, you’re a bigot! You’re a hate-filled homophobe! WAAAAAAHHHH! Its the same ridiculous arguments over and over again. So, in the words of our president, let me be clear. No one, and I mean no one, cares about gays serving in the military. It has nothing to do with their honorable service. What it has to do with is where repealing DADT will take us, and we’re already seeing that. If all that would happen is that gays could serve in the military (which, of course, they already could), then fine. Most people know who the gays in their units are anyways. And while I have said this over and over again, it still doesn’t seem to sink in to people’s thick heads. So let me say it again, loud and clear. Pay close attention. I do not care if gay people serve in the military. That is not the point and it never has been. This is about the politics, the agenda. That is what has so many people angry. Things like this, which so many of us knew would eventually come up.

The gay rights agenda-pushers surely weren’t going to be satisfied with just letting DADT be repealed, something which is being broadcasted far and wide now. Did anyone really believe they wouldn’t start pushing for things like this? If you did, then the joke’s on you.

With homosexuals now able to serve openly in the military, the gay rights movement’s next battleground is to persuade the Obama administration to end the armed forces’ ban on “transgenders,” a group that includes transsexuals and cross-dressers.

“Our position is that the military should re-examine the policy, the medical regulations, so as to allow open service for transgender people,” said Vincent Paolo Villano, spokesman for the 6,000-member Center for Transgender Equality.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which pushed to end the military’s gay ban, is urging President Obama to sign an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on “gender identity.”

It had wanted the order to happen on Sept. 20, the official date “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as the gay ban was called, ended via repeal legislation signed by Mr. Obama.

SLDN’s goal is contained on a Web page with the headline, “Working toward transgender military service.” The page states that a decision to remove the ban must be made at the Pentagon. “Relationships between transgender organizations, medical associations, and military allies will be crucial for advancing this issue,” it says.

Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Clearly, the issue was never honorable military service.

Now, here’s the laughable thing: that anyone could possibly believe that there is a place for transgenders and cross-dressers in the military. Allow me to explain.

The military is not a social experiment, which may very well be the most infuriating thing about all of this. It also is not all-inclusive. Not everyone can just waltz in and join. There are standards that must be met, and people are turned down from joining every day. Likewise, there are people currently serving who want to reenlist and cannot. This is because the military is not some kind of social club that anyone can just come play in. The military is structured the way it is for a reason. We need the best and the brightest, the strongest fighters and the fiercest warriors. (And by fierce, I don’t mean Tyra Banks “that outfit is fierce!” fierce.) Conformity and discipline rule in the military. Individuality is not promoted or encouraged. And it is that way for a reason. In the Marine Corps, for example, it doesn’t matter who in your unit went to boot camp at MCRD Parris Island or MCRD San Diego. It doesn’t matter where they went to SOI or where they’ve served before. You’ll know that the Marine you’re fighting with has the same training, the same skills, and the same discipline you have (in theory, anyways). There is a reason that service members can only have certain haircuts, can’t have visible tattoos and earrings and have to wear uniforms.

Explain to me how that works with cross-dressers and trannies, hmm? How does that uniformity and conformity work out when you’ve got a cross-dresser standing in formation?

The military does not exist to validate someone’s lifestyle, and it isn’t there for everyone to join if they want to. Some people get turned down. Deal with it. What is important is that we have the strongest military in the world, not that people with an agenda to push get to feel included. People who join the service need to be doing so because they want to defend their country, not because they want to force an agenda and fundamentally transform the military. This attitude that the military is for everyone is ludicrous, and the line needs to be drawn somewhere. All right, fine, DADT was repealed. Whatever. How far is this going to go? Clearly, as I stated before, this is NOT about honorable service. It is all about the agenda.

And let me save some of you some time. You don’t need to go around calling me a bigot and a homophobe (I already know that’s coming, its the most tired argument in the book, and holds about as much weight as screaming RAAAAAAACIST! whenever you don’t get your way). This has nothing to do with having a problem with cross-dressers and transgenders. I really could care less about what someone does in their own time. You want to cross-dress, go for it. The issue at hand is military service. And I am sorry, but there is no place for transgenders and cross-dressers in the military. Period.

 
1 Comment

Posted in DADT, Marine Corps News

 

Marine Corps Times: We’re Gay, Get Over It?

14 Sep

When DADT was repealed, I took a lot of heat — and I mean a lot — for writing that, although I didn’t agree with the repeal, I thought we should have faith in our military that it would be handled in the best way possible. I do not agree with repealing DADT. I am hopeful that once we get a competent Commander-In-Chief, that it could be reinstated. And it’s issues like this arising that are the very reasons that I was against DADT being repealed. I have no problem with gays serving in the military — I don’t think anyone cares if they serve. No one doubts that a gay Marine can serve just as honorably as a straight Marine can. Honorable service was never the issue. The issue was exactly what we’re seeing now: gay rights being shoved down the throats of service members. The beauty of DADT was that it allowed the military to remain neutral on gay rights. Gay marriage, for example, is an issue that the military will be forced to take a stance on now. And no matter what they choose, people will be angry. If a gay soldier is married, will their marriage be recognized? Will they get benefits? What about straight Marines and gay Marines showering and sleeping together? These are situations that don’t have easy solutions. But the repeal is over, it’s been done, and all that can be done now is wait and see how this will affect the military. I still feel that way. But my mind may be starting to change… especially after seeing this on the cover of the Marine Corps Times.

Speechless. When I saw that, I was absolutely speechless.

This month, on the 20th, the repeal officially goes into effect. And this is how the Marine Corps Times is choosing to showcase that. My husband came home last night and told me about seeing this cover, and I am fuming. My blood is literally boiling.

It is one thing to repeal DADT and to let gays to serve openly. It is quite another to flaunt it, to shove it down our throats like this. Why is it, I wonder, that we need to know who is gay and who isn’t? Why do our faces have to be rubbed in it? I really don’t need to know who in my husband’s unit is straight or gay, but for some reason, I guess we simply HAVE to know. We not only must know, but we are apparently required to approve of it.

And I’m curious: why are we the ones being told to get over it? It seems to me that the exact opposite needs to happen. Why is such a big deal being made out of the fact that there are some — gasp!! — gay service members? It has absolutely nothing to do with the job they have to do, so why is it being made into such a big issue?

On that note, one of the most offensive things about this headline is the implication that the military is inherently homophobic. Apparently, being gay is something that makes all of us in the military community terrified and/or angry. It’s infuriating, and that a newspaper that is supposed to be dedicated to the Marine Corps would take such a stance is outrageous. It’s a disgrace to the Corps and everything it stands for. Have they forgotten the Corps values? Honor, courage, commitment. What is presented on this cover is not honorable in the least. It’s a cheap, divisive, and disgraceful ploy to get attention.

One of the most divisive parts about this is that it separates Marines into two groups: gay Marines vs. straight Marines. Aren’t they all just Marines? Everyone goes through boot camp and are made into Marines. There’s not a separate process for gay recruits and straight recruits. We don’t differentiate between black, white, Asian, or Hispanic Marines — yet here we have the Marine Corps Times pitting gay and straight Marines against each other. They should be ashamed.

I haven’t read the issue yet. But on their website, the Marine Corps Times states they they have interviewed gay Marines about the repeal. I’m curious: will they be interviewing straight Marines to find out what their opinions are, too? Or are they solely promoting the viewpoints of gay Marines with an agenda to push?

I will say right now that if I had a subscription to the Marine Corps Times, I would be cancelling it. As it is, I will never purchase another issue unless and until an apology is issued. If you agree, then feel free to contact their staff.

Gannett Government Media
6883 Commercial Dr.
Springfield, Va. 22159-0500 USA

1-800-368-5718
1-703-750-7400

Andrew DeGrandpre, Managing Editor:
adegrandpre@militarytimes.com

Tony Lombardo, News Editor:
tlombardo@militarytimes.com

Gidget Fuentes, Bureau Chief:
gfuentes@militarytimes.com

The Marine Corps is owed more respect than was just showed to it by the Marine Corps Times. They should be ashamed, and an apology should be issued and the story retracted. This is a disgrace.

 
28 Comments

Posted in DADT, Marine Corps News, Media

 

Hysterics Over DADT Repeal Are An Insult To The Military

21 Dec

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

There have been a lot of different responses to the news that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been repealed. President Obama is planning to sign the bill this week. Supporters are touting it as a victory for civil rights. Before the Senate passed the repeal, critics continued to voice concerns, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Some have continued to voice those concerns — others, however, have taken those concerns one step too far. At what point does concern turn into hysterics, and when does it becoming insulting to our honorable men and women in uniform?

My husband is currently serving in Afghanistan in the Marine Corps. He loves his country and the Corps. His MOS — military occupational specialty — is an 0311, an infantry rifleman. This is a combat MOS. Like many Marines, he wasn’t a fan of repealing DADT. The number one concern I have heard from many Marines around Camp Lejeune was how the repeal would affect unit cohesion, although there are many other issues that come into play. The benefit of DADT has been that it allows the military to remain neutral on homosexuality. Now, the military will have to reconcile service with the gay rights agenda. How will the military now be forced to handle a gay soldier in a relationship? Will they be forced to approve of gay public displays of affection? What about those in the military who aren’t comfortable with their children seeing two men kiss while they’re doing their grocery shopping in the commissary? How will the military be forced to handle a gay soldier who gets married in a state that allows gay marriage? Will gay spouses receive military benefits now, too? And what about the gay servicemembers who aren’t married because their state doesn’t allow it, but are in committed relationships — do they qualify for benefits, too? Will gay and straight servicemembers be allowed to sleep in barracks together? What about when a unit is deployed, and the men are forced to sleep in even closer quarters? What will happen to the soldier or Marine who is uncomfortable with sleeping next to a gay man?

There are a lot of questions and concerns about repealing DADT, and no easy answers. The beauty of the system was that it allowed the military to remain neutral on each and every one of these issues. The military didn’t approve or disapprove. Now, the military is forced to take a stance, and in many instances, I fear it will be in favor of gay rights, giving special treatment to gays. I also am not a big fan of politicians using the military to basically conduct a social experiment, especially when we are fighting two wars.

Obviously, I am not a fan of repealing DADT. My feelings on the matter were very close to those of General Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. However, now that the repeal is passed, there is only one thing to do, and that is accept it and move on. Adapt and overcome. While there will be many tough decisions to make, and the adjustment period will undoubtedly be difficult, I have no doubt that our servicemembers can and will adjust. Adapt and overcome.

Today, I logged onto my Facebook, and saw the following in my inbox.

Change your profile picture to black to mourn the death of the United States military as we know it.

How widespread a meme this is on Facebook, I don’t know. But it’s far from a rarity. Joseph Farah, as an example, wrote an article trumpeting the “fact” that servicemembers will be apparently be quitting the service in droves, so upset will they be over the prospect of — gasp!! — serving alongside gay men and women. He’s even urging them to do so. Apparently, there are some people who just can’t fathom that our men and women in uniform might actually be honorable people who will be able to rise above sexual orientation. This infuriates me.

There have been many people expressing a similar opinion, and I find it to be a massive insult to our military. The rhetoric — on both sides of the issue — has been massively overblown.

The question I have for the people who feel this will destroy our military is this: do you think all of the men and women currently serving are so severely homophobic that they cannot continue to serve their country with honor?

If your answer to that question is yes, then shame on you.

General Amos has pledged to support the repeal, doing the honorable thing. (Funny how so many of our servicemen and women tend to do that, huh?)

“Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people,” said Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, in a prepared statement released Sunday.

… “As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines.

“On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years.”

Gen. Amos disagreed with the repeal and fought it every step of the way. It passed anyways, and so he is putting service before his own objections. Many Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will likely do the exact same thing. This must be shocking to the people who think so little of our military that they won’t be able to survive serving alongside gay men and women. (Imagine how shocked they would be if they ever found out that many times servicemembers already know who in their unit is gay, and don’t care.)

As of right now, the military will be writing the rules on the new policy. And so far, it looks like many of the concerns I, and many others, have are being addressed.

No public displays of affection. No separate bathrooms. No harassment and no special treatment.

… What if a recruiter refuses to process recruits who say they are gay? What about a sailor who requests a new sleeping area to get away from a gay roommate? Can a service member file a complaint against a chaplain who preaches against homosexuality? And can a gay or lesbian service member get leave to travel home when their partner is ill?

In each case the recommended process is careful and deliberate. The recruiter and the sailor should be counseled about the new rules — but in both cases commanders have the authority to approve a move if they believe it’s necessary in order to maintain unit stability. And, yes, chaplains can still preach what they believe.

The health and social benefits, however, are a murky area that Pentagon officials say they are trying to work through.

In some cases, service members may be able to designate a same-sex partner for benefits. In most cases, however, they are treated much like unmarried heterosexual couples. So, same-sex partners will probably not be able to share on-base housing, and commanders don’t have to make allowances for same-sex couples when making duty assignments around the globe.

Does this mean all the questions are answered and the concerns are addressed? No, but it does look like this is being handled (for now) the best possible way. Perhaps we should wait to go into a rabid panic until there’s actually a reason to panic, and we aren’t quite there yet. Unless, of course, you have no faith in our military.

Why is it so unbelievable that the military would be able to figure out the best way to implement homosexuals serving openly? As the wife of a Marine, I find it deeply insulting to our men and women currently serving with honor to suggest that the mere addition of gay men and women will somehow make our entire military crumble. Understand this: the vast majority of heroes in uniform are better than that. The few that are not won’t last.

The New York Times recently ran an article interviewing a handful of Marines. Most of them, not surprisingly, were just fine with the repeal, although they expressed some reservations about — you guessed it — serving in combat. (Personally, I wouldn’t let the final word on that be several boot Marines who haven’t even graduated yet from the School of Infantry.) My guess on the combat situations? Yes, there will be reservations and the men will be uncomfortable. But if the gay troops prove themselves in combat then I guarantee that those reservations will disappear. When you’re fighting the enemy, you aren’t worried about who the guy next to you is sleeping with. You’re worried about whether or not he’s a good shot and if he’ll have your back in a firefight.

Our troops have been able to defeat some of the worst kinds of evil throughout history. When our country was founded, our military started with a small band of ragtag patriots who were able to overthrow an oppressive empire. Since then, they’ve encountered unspeakable evils and enemies that seemed impossible to defeat, and have come out on top almost every time. We have the greatest military the world has ever seen, yet a small group of people set on hysterics over the DADT repeal would have you believe that this same military can’t overcome gays serving alongside straights.

What an insult to our men and women in uniform, who as I am writing this are fighting thousands of miles away to defend our country and our freedoms from another unimaginably evil enemy. They deserve better.

Our troops have overcome much worse than the repeal of DADT, and given time, they’ll adapt and overcome this too. It’s too bad that we can’t have the faith in them that they have earned, and so richly deserve.

 
9 Comments

Posted in Commandant of the Marine Corps, DADT, Marine Corps News

 

Gen. James Amos to be the next Commandant?

15 Jun

I’ve signed up to be a Family Readiness Volunteer with my husband’s unit, and part of the requirements for this are taking certain classes. LINKS is one of them. I took the class last Saturday, and it went over basic Marine Corps info that any USMC wife should know, even without taking a class. I felt like I wasted an entire day, because I already know what duty is, what chevrons are, and what an LES looks like. I know what PCSing is and what all of the enlisted ranks are. I know that the scarlet stripe in the dress blues is not just a red stripe, but that it symbolizes the blood spilled in a specific battle (bonus points for anyone who can name that battle in the comment section). I know who the Commandant is and I can name you off a list of famous and influential Marines. Sadly, this is not the case with most wives. I feel that it is part of my duty as a Marine’s wife to know as much as I can about the Corps. It is my job as well as his to fully immerse myself in knowledge so as to better serve my husband, my country, and the Corps. Not all wives feel this way, I guess, but bless those women who go to these classes completely ignorant of all basic USMC knowledge. They’re trying to learn, which is all that matters.

When asked who the current commandant of the Marine Corps is, I was the only one who knew. (It’s Gen. James T. Conway.) I find it kind of important to know who the commandant is. Not all wives do, I guess.

With that little rant over and done with, I saw the news today that it is looking like Gen. Conway’s replacement has been selected. It seems that Gen. James Amos will be the next commandant of the Marine Corps. He will be the 35th commandant of the Marine Corps, and the first Marine jet aviator to be named commandant.

Gen. James Amos is expected to be named the 35th commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, sources told Defense News on Monday. If nominated, Amos could become the first Marine jet aviator named to the top post, and he would alter recent custom by becoming the first assistant commandant in several decades to succeed his immediate boss.

A source confirmed that the White House has received the nomination from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who made the choice with the blessing of Defense Secretary Robert Gates. An announcement of the nomination will come from the White House, and could come as soon as this Thursday, the day the executive branch habitually releases personnel statements.

Speculation has been building about the successor to Gen. James Conway, who retires in September. In addition to Amos, other leading candidates were thought to be: Lt. Gen. Joe Dunford, commanding general of I Marine Expeditionary Force and commander of Marine forces in U.S. Central Command; Lt. Gen. John Allen, deputy commander of Central Command; Lt. Gen. Richard Natonski, commander of Marine Corps Forces Command; and Gen. James Mattis, commander of Joint Forces Command.

Some sources are pointing to Dunford as the nominee for assistant commandant, but that move has not been confirmed.

Amos commanded the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing from 2002 to 2004 during Operating Iraqi Freedom and subsequently led II MEF. He also commanded the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and served as the deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration. He has been assistant commandant since July 2008.

There are some reservations about Gen. Amos. His background as a jet pilot is under scrutiny, considering we are fighting a ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has led troops in Iraq, but not in Afghanistan. And he has less experience in counterinsurgency than some other candidates. This is in sharp contrast to Gen. James Mattis, considered by many to be brilliant when it comes to counterinsurgency. Lt. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr, expected to be nominated as assistant commandant, is an infantry officer. Personally, I would think that Lt. Gen. Dunford or Gen. Mattis would be the best for the job, but I’m sure that Gen. Amos is capable. Gen. Conway has done a great job as commandant — his overhaul of the awful KV network into the wonderful new Family Readiness Program was fantastic for the families of Marines — and so Gen. Amos has big shoes to fill. Gen. Conway also opposes repealing DADT. Gen. Amos’ position on DADT is currently unclear. There are rumors that Gen. Amos has been chosen by Defense Secretary Gates solely because of his position on DADT, and I certainly hope that isn’t the case. The Marine Corps needs a commandant chosen for his military leadership, not for where he stands on political issues. If — and that’s a big IF — this is true, then shame on Secretary Gates.

Gen. Mattis, meanwhile, is pleased with the selection.

Mattis said via e-mail to Politico he “could not be more pleased” that his “shipmate and friend” would lead the corps.

“By all means quote me: Tamer Amos and Fighting Joe Dunford will be the best possible team,” Mattis said, using nicknames for the two officers.

Defense Secretary Gates has apparently been looking for someone to return to the Corps’ sea-service traditions of amphibious assault, and Gen. Amos supposedly has innovative new ideas on how to take the Corps into the future of amphibious warfare. It certainly looks like the next commandant has been chosen. I wish him good luck — and hope that he was chosen for the right reasons and not for stupid little political games.

 
5 Comments

Posted in Commandant of the Marine Corps, DADT, Marine Corps News

 

DADT repeal passes the House

28 May

Last night, the House passed an amendment to repeal DADT on the annual Pentagon policy bill.

The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The provision would allow military commanders to repeal the ban. The repeal would permit gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military for the first time.

It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill, which the House is expected to vote on Friday. The repeal would be allowed 60 days after a Pentagon report is completed on the ramifications of allowing openly gay service members, and military leaders certify that it would not be disruptive. The report is due by Dec. 1.

The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.

Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.

… Like the House amendment, the Senate measure, which is expected to come up for a vote soon, would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.”

… [c]hiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have objected. In letters solicited by Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they urged Congress to delay voting on the issue until after the Defense Department completed its report.

… Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, the No. 3 Republican in the House, accused Democrats of trying to use the military “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.”

Other Republicans said the military was a unique institution and its rules sometimes had to differ from civilian society.

“We are dissing the troops, that is what we are doing,” said Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

Republicans also questioned if the military leaders who would make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the ban.

I do not have a problem with gays and lesbians serving in the military. I don’t even have a problem with them serving openly. However, the difference is that I am a civilian. The military operates completely differently than the civilian world does, and it should. Most servicemembers I know are against repealing DADT, and that’s enough for me. I don’t think I’m arrogant enough to tell the military what to do, unlike these liberal politicians.

What bothers me is that Democrats are already assuming that this is done and passed. It seems obvious that the Department of Defense is going to be pressured to bring back a report supporting the repeal, and this vote just makes it worse. Gay rights activists have already been assured that the repeal will work out. This is a social experiment, and the military is not a little liberal social experiment pet project. This isn’t about making our military stronger or better, this is about a liberal gay rights agenda. And that is wrong.

Ben Smith noticed the same thing.

It’s worth pausing to note the degree to which military service has replaced marriage as the public focus of the gay rights movement, and what a canny strategic posture that has been. Gays and lesbians have now spent months demanding something that’s less a right than a burden or a duty — demanding to be able to service and, potentially, die for the country. It’s a fundamentally patriotic stance, and it will offer a moral high ground to the movement for equal treatment for same-sex couples on questions like immigration and marriage.

How convenient, huh?

Gay men and women already serve honorably in the military as is. This debate has been rephrased to make it sound like this is some kind of civil rights issue, when it really isn’t. If a lesbian wants to become a Marine, she can. DADT allows the military to remain neutral on gay rights. That’s a good thing.

See, liberals never like to think long-term. It’s like universal health care. They think, “Gee, everyone should have health care!” and so blindly rush to pass universal health care without ever stopping to think about the long term repercussions. It’s the same with DADT. The military will now be forced to approve of gay rights whether they like it or not. Gay couples can now go to the commissary and hold hands and kiss in public. It doesn’t bother me, but what about some other military wife who is there shopping with her children? What if she doesn’t want her kids to see two gay guys making out? It isn’t always like the civilian world where you can just choose to go elsewhere. You might be stationed somewhere that shopping elsewhere isn’t an option. What if its in the DEERS office? What happens when some kind of flaming drag queen joins the military? Most Marines I know don’t mind serving with gay men, but a drag queen who cross dresses in their off time might be a little different. Someone could be understandably offended by this, but they are forced the accept it. And how comfortable will our troops be living in close quarters with someone who is openly gay? Sleeping next to them on the ground? Living in the barracks with them? The military is forced to accept and approve all of this. This is what I mean by forcing the military to abandon the neutral stance that DADT affords it.

What about gay marriage? Gays are allowed to get married in several states. How long will it be before some married gay man or married lesbian sues the military to have their spouse receive military benefits? To have their marriage recognized by the military? The military will no longer be able to remain neutral on these issues if DADT is repealed. The military will be forced to recognize and approve of gay marriage eventually, I can assure you of that. Gay rights activists aren’t going to stop at DADT. They’ll keep pushing.

All of these issues are going to come out by repealing DADT. There might be a time to deal with repealing DADT, but right now is not the time. We’re in the middle of fighting two wars, for cripe’s sake. Yet the House can’t even wait to vote on the repeal until the joint chiefs have finished assessing the situation? That alone just goes to show you that it is not the welfare of the military that these politicians are worried about. They’re pushing a gay rights agenda, simple as that. This is about making a statement, doing another little liberal social experiment. And that should bother anyone who cares about our troops. Our military does not exist for liberals to tinker with.

Like this blog? Favorite me on Milblogging!

 
14 Comments

Posted in DADT