Problems relating to removing gays from the military and Social Security (Welfare abuses) {Vanity}

Cronos ^ | 2-Jan-2011 | Cronos

[Cronos]

The removal of "Don't Ask, don't tell" causes problems, we know that. When the GoP comes back to power it can re-instate it or make it "No gays in the military" namely how it was BEFORE DADT. However, IMHO there are a couple of problems:

1. This will take 2+ years, by that time, gays will be entrenched in the military. Do we throw them out? If yes, then expect long court cases

2. What of the "closet" gays like the guy who leaked the WikiLeaks?

I believe that the Dem's think that this is such a tricky and non-pc move that we will have no choice since they've already allowed gays in the military.

===================

I tied this to the Welfare State (my pet peeve) because I believe similar problems are there in this matter. We all know that SS is bankrupt, and in Western Europe it's even worse. The entire system is based on the idea that future generations pay for the current generation and the money is kept by government.

This is flawed because :
1. Govt will always be greedy with our money (which becomes "theirs" and they feel they need to "wisely use" it)
2. Govt is incompetent with money -- especially free money like this
3. I believe the welfare state destroys the family (my personal belief)
4. As populations shrink and we live longer, the original premise no longer holds true.

If we cancel out SS tomorrow and say "ok, whatever you've paid in, you'll get whatever we can pay back to you now" -- it won't work because:
1. The govt has no money -- it already spent it and spent our own "pension" and our childrens'
2. People will say "what about me?" and riot

What can be done but a blanket roll-up of welfare?

[Cronos]

Sorry for the vanity -- ignore this if you wish, but I think it's a valid set of questions

[markomalley]

As far as the first question is concerned, I don't see it as being realistically possible to reverse the repeal of DADT, much less going to a pre-DADT state...barring Divine Intervention of Biblical proportions (think Sodom and Gomorrah).

The problem is that there are civil rights at issue here. And since the psychiatric community has deemed deviant sexual proclivities as being perfectly normal and the subsequent societal acceptance of that declaration, particularly within the past couple of decades, it would be difficult to come up with some rationale that will stand up in court to remove the "civil rights" of these flamers.

The only basis that could be used for doing so would be if the APA would reverse themselves and once again identify homosexual proclivities as a psychiatric deviation. But what would cause the APA to do so? See above: it would take Divine Intervention on a Biblical scale...and then, only maybe. Sure, government intervention might be able to force the issue with the APA...but government intervention on such a thing wouldn't exactly be conservative, would it?

That's why I am as distraught over the DADT repeal as I am: it was a tipping point for our society's acceptance of immorality as the norm and without severe chastisement from the Almighty...chastisement that is utterly unmistakable and incontrovertible...society won't turn back.

[wastoute]

In regard to SS, it can be dismantled in a controlled fashion or abruptly. We can choose. Unfortunately, our window of opportunity to do so is closing.

[Cronos]

I agree — it was a tipping point. Though I am more optimistic (probably stupidly optimistic) that it can be reversed to pre-DADT

[Lucky Dog]

At issue is the repeal of Section 654 of Title X of the U.S. Code. This law, on the books since 1993, states (in part): "The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

Repeal of the 1993 law noted above did not repeal the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951.

Uniform Code of Military Justice [excerpted]:

Article 125.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The oath taken by every president on first entering office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. [emphasis added]

US Constitution [excerpted]

Article I

Section. 8.

Clause 14: [The Congress shall have Power] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Note that Congress has prohibited sodomy in the military through the UCMJ. All of the extraneous uproar concerning the repeal of the 1993 law is just that unless Congress takes the additional action of changing the UCMJ. Military commanders, including the “Commander-in-Chief,” are obligated by their oaths of office to enforce the rules and regulations made pursuant to laws (UCMJ) promulgated by Congress for the US military.

The foundation of US military law was the British Articles of War. In fact, our first military justice codes, the American Articles of War and Articles for the Government of the Navy, predate the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

From the 1749 Royal Navy Articles of War [excerpted]:

If any person in the fleet shall commit the unnatural and detestable sin of buggery and sodomy with man or beast, he shall be punished with death by the sentence of a court martial.

The act of sodomy has been condemned in various legal codes for more than 3,500 years. Specifically, English language, military justice codes have criminalized sodomy for hundreds of years. This prohibition is, and, has been, in place for good reason.

Sodomy is morally and religiously offensive, if not repugnant, to the overwhelming majority of the military’s population as well as the civil populace. Consequently, allowing the unrestricted practice of sodomy within the ranks of any military organization would be detrimental to the good order and discipline, hence military effectiveness, of that group.

As a result, condoning the open practice of sodomy is extremely unwise militarily, completely apart from any religious or other aspects. However, there are other practical reasons for prohibiting the practice of sodomy with the military.

The military serves as its own blood bank. Consequently, any contaminant to the blood supply in an organization that potentially requires massive quantities is incredibly unwise.

According to the FDA: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[homosexual practitioners or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Some proponents have attempted to disguise the issue of sodomy by using the term sexual preference. According the APA, sexual preference is a term that refers only to feelings. No one can know the sexual preference of another human being unless that person engages in some behavior that reveals such. All behavior by mentally competent adults, especially in a military setting, is subject to regulation. Currently, lawful regulations (UCMJ Art. 125) exist that prohibit homosexual behavior in these settings.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (As previously noted, the term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the voluntary behavior of a mentally healthy, adult human being.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal (whether civil or military) regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis rather than a voluntary choice, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a voluntary, behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, not the currently observed proportion of the population.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source. Once again, the logical conclusion is that homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice.

Without a change to the UCMJ eliminating the prohibition on sodomy, it appears the policy will revert to that which existed before 1993. Homosexual practitioners, if discovered (provably) engaging in sodomy, will be subject to court-martial. Consequently, there will be no time required for the troops to “get used to the change.” The only way this situation can be averted is for the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath to support the Constitution and issue illegal orders not to enforce the UCMJ.

[meatloaf]

Excellent post! I wonder if the idiots in Congress realized they did not finish bending over for the sodomites just by repealing DADT?

[verity]

The idiots in Congress will do ANYTHING to remain in Congress.:-(

[Bean Counter]

Understand that the Republican controlled House of Representatives cannot by themselves re-ban homosexuals from the military. There is a new policy being put into place that passed the Congress and was signed by the President into Law. In order to repeal that law, and/or replace it with something else would require another bill, approved by both houses of Congress and signed once again by the President.

Keep in mind also that the Military is beginning implementation now, which will probably include a major revision of the UCMJ at the very least, and there is no way to just stop the process once the Military has been given their orders by the Civilian leadership.

Not a simple task to reverse or even change this, especially not with the Executive and the Senate still in the hands of Liberals, Socialists and Neo-Communists who want nothing less than to do as much damage to the US Military as possible.

These are more of the consequences of losing an election.

[Vaduz]

Almost ANYTHING except the right thing.

[Sherman Logan]

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient 
to complete the offense.

Depending on the definition of sodomy used, it is likely strict enforcement of this policy would require the prosecution of a large minority of the heterosexuals in the military.

[StonyBurk]

Sodomy is NOT a civil right. Gen.Colin Powell wrote in 1992
that comparing skin color to homosexuality is a convenient but invalid argument. And that sexual Orientation is behavior based choice where skin color is not. Alveda King,whose father and uncle (Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.) were murdered because of their skin color has said ( Washington Times ,@1998 1999,
that to include gay rights as a civil rights issue would be the death of civil rights. Dr.Robert Spitzer has published in 2003 a report on sexual Orientation and Therapy that runs counter to the APA ruling of 1974. And there is a growing body of scientific and academic work that agrees with what Dr.Spitzer has belatedly come to admit. Only those mere politicians who gain from their ability to divide and distract the people and the Reprobates who would have us all be as Sodom would agree it is a civil rights issue.Nobody has any “Right” to enlist in or to serve in the Armed Forces valid law affirms homosexual behavior is NOt compatible with Military service.

[barb-tex]

I am glad that DADT kept all the Queers out of the Military. Like banning incandescent Bulbs exposed us all to mercury. Fluorescent Bulbs provide 90% of our lighting, and what happens to the broken tubes? Queers have always been there and there wont be a great flood of them because of repeal. I don't think that the repeal will change much.

[meatloaf]

Term limits for everyone! The sooner the better!

[Grut]

Yup. I will pay ten dollars cash American to the first person who can tell the difference between a bomb crater left by a gay and a straight pilot. Bonus points for male/female.

There may be problems with allowing openly gay military members, but until they actually arise and are so widespread that they can't be dealt with on an individual basis, all this huffing and puffing sounds like the dire warnings that integrating Blacks and, later, women into the combat arms would prove disastrous.

This is a ship that has left port and at this point there's neither a way to turn it around, nor any demonstrated need to. There may be, some day, but for the time being the objectors need to get their heads around the idea that they have lost and move on to other things.

[Just mythoughts]

When God says the act of homosexuality is an abomination, and there is no other cause to claim this nation is the most blessed and protected nation in all of recorded history, some of US do NOT dismiss lightly when perverse minds jut out their chins and try to poke a finger in His eye.

[StonyBurk]

What it will change is it will remove a recognized article in the law to remind them their lifestyle choice and behavior is not natural-and not compatible with military service. IT will send a message to Commanders that where they once followed the lead of Men like George Washington and encouraged others TO the distinguished character of Patriot -it should be our highest glory to laud the more distinguished character of Christian.”Now they look at the Christian as unfit and laud the Reprobate.They will hesitate in prosecuting inquiry of violations of Article 134.And that will foster divisions and bad feelings among the ranks.