US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

theage.com.au via g2mil.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | John Files

[Destro]

US generals, admiral come out of the closet - flag fag officers

By John Files

Washington

December 11, 2003

Alan Steinman, Keith Kerr, and Virgil Richard. Picture: New York Times

Three retired US military officers - two generals and an admiral - who had been among the most senior officers to criticise the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for homosexuals in the military, have revealed that they are gay.

The three - army Brigadier-Generals Keith Kerr and Virgil Richard, and Rear-Admiral Alan Steinman of the Coast Guard - said the policy had been ineffective and undermined the military's core values - truth, honour, dignity, respect and integrity.

[Quix]

Rear Admire-all?

[Quix]

More reliable research says it's more accurately in the neighborhood of 2% of the population.

[Chief Inspector]

I agree with you about this. This isn't junior high. That's what most of the posts on here sound like. Here were three men who served honorably and well, and people say they shouldn't even have been there. Why do people care so much about whether someone is straight or gay? It's this kind of thing that gets a dozen gay translators (of Arabic and Korean!) thrown out for nothing else. Stupid, stupid.

[Imal]

Just remember: When you point a finger at someone else, you allow three of the impeccably manicured fingers supported by your limp wrist to point back at yourself.

[leadpenny]

Whatever it is I doubt we'll ever know the truth. People would lie to themselves and others on any survey.

[Quix]

True.

But I think there was some clever cross verification on 2-3 studies. I don't recall what sort.

[steplock]

It would be nice if they could "lose" their pension checks for several years....

Clinton Appointees - who else?

[Lucky Dog]

On the contrary, these men apparently did NOT serve honorably unless they were celibate as far homosexual relationships were concerned. Unfortunately, their own statements indicate otherwise.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) specifically prohibits sodomy (homosexuality). Our Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to establish the UCMJ.

Any sexual activity, except rape is purely voluntary. Consequently, the inescapable conclusion from their own words, is that these officers violated the UCMJ by engaging in sodomy. Since they swore and oath to support the Constitution, and this document is the ultimate source of the UCMJ, these officers intentionally, and dishonorably, did not keep their oaths. Beyond multiple leadership, moral and religious guidelines that were violated, if these officer’s statements about their behavior do not indicate dishonorable performance, what does?

[steplock]

The problem with these clintonian era appointees (the president must approve flag rank) is that they are NOW degrading the military.

I don't go around bragging on bedding my wife (which is NORMAL) and I sure as hell don't want these pukes bragging on their abnormal sexcapades.

Don't dare tell me that gay is normal - if it were they could reproduce - Even if you don't believe in G_D, believe in science - homosexuals couples cannot reproduce, and if left to nature they would naturally be extinct.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) specifically prohibits sodomy (homosexuality).

Sodomy is an act that can be performed by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. The military no longer bans homosexuals from serving so long as they do not act upon their desires. It is possible to be celibate regardless of one's inclinations.

[Lucky Dog]

You are correct, sodomy in the UCMJ is not just homosexuality. However, homosexuality is definitely covered in Article 125 of this code. I assume that your comments were intended as a reinforcement to mine, were they not?

[Rummyfan]

Why do people care so much about whether someone is straight or gay?

It's that gays make it an issue, not straights. They say all they want is to be left alone, yet everywhere you look they flaunt their homosexuality publicly.

[Cvengr]

These officers joined the military in the 70s. They are far from honorable. To take their example, existing lieutenants can commit the most foul and heinous criminal activity with sincere hope that the military will never hold them accountable for their violation of orders and still rise to the highest ranks available in the military.

IMHO, these flag ranked officers should be taken out and shot.

[gcruse]

What a perfect screen name. If you ever have to reregister, consider hidebound, blinkered, and lockstep.

[gcruse]

IMHO, these flag ranked officers should be taken out and shot.

That's gratitude for ya.  They served in the ranks that prevent
exactly that from happening to you.

[Cvengr]

Nope, they never did. They threw that respect away when they can't even control their own deviant lusts. They are lower than human trash.

[Looking for Diogenes]

However, homosexuality is definitely covered in Article 125 of this code.

How so? It looks to me like homosexual kissing or mutual masturbation would not be covered by Article 125. And homosexual tendencies certainly are not. If these oficers had not performed sodomy it looks like they would not have violated this article.

(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.

[Lazamataz]

Perhaps now Col Hackworth will finally be able admit the truth now as well.

Hack talks faggy, but he ain't no fayg.

[fourhorsemen]

It was ok when these 3 "men" violated said values by being liars? and potential security risks?

You are certain others knew they were gay?