Skip to comments.Kerry on Gays in the Military from 1993 --- Why is this not an issue?
Posted on 10/18/2004 3:27:35 PM PDT by TFine80
Mr. KERRY. It is my judgment that there should be no ban on homosexuals serving in the military. I testified to this point before the Committee on Armed Services, and I encouraged President Clinton to take action to rescind the ban.
I see no reason whatsoever that homosexuals serving in the military should be a threat to our national security, to the ability of our armed services to carry out their missions, or to heterosexuals who serve in the armed services. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, should be subject to behavioral requirements which prohibit sexual misconduct and which limit sexual [*S11206] activity to consenting adults during personal time. Those should be strictly enforced for all who serve in the military; there is no place in the Armed Forces for any kind of sexual misbehavior or behavior which intrudes on the privacy or rights of others.
The reality is that many homosexuals have served their country in the military valiantly and with honor. The difference between them and heterosexuals is that homosexuals have been forced to remain absolutely silent with respect to their sexual orientation or they risked being drummed out of the service. That is not fair, and that is not right.
It is clear that, despite my beliefs and feelings that homosexuals ought to receive equal treatment under the law, support does not exist for further easing the restrictions on homosexuals. I may not like it, but I am a realist and I can count votes.
Senator Boxer's amendment strikes the codification of the President's policy contained in the Defense Authorization Bill. That is not taking a step forward. It simply avoids taking a large step backward. The debate concerning the treatment that should be accorded in our society to gays and lesbians has just begun in earnest. I fully expect that, while popular sentiment will not turn around instantly, it will, indeed, moderate over time. As it does, the President of the United States should retain the ability, in consultation with the defense civilian and military leadership, to make adjustments in the policy regarding homosexuals in the military -- a capability which traditionally has been the President's. Codifying any policy etches it into stone. Of course it can later be altered, but with much greater difficulty. That is neither warranted nor desirable in this situation.
I am very hopeful that President Clinton will act at a later date, as he indicated he would, to ease the restrictions that remain under his order. Equity calls for it, equal application of our laws and constitution requires it, and the facts support it. If we do not remove the codification from the bill before us by voting for the Boxer amendment, the President will not be able to do this; only the Congress will be able to act to do so. That, in my view is unnecessary and unwise. I will vote for the Boxer amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to join in supporting it.
Mr. President, I think it is an enormous mistake to codify what has traditionally been the purview of the President of the United States and our top military commanders. They made a decision and now Congress wants to meddle. And by meddling, Congress is, in effect, making a political statement, and one that I think denigrates the Constitution and the full measure of citizenship in this country.
There are gays in the military today. There will be gays in the future. They have fought with distinction and served with distinction all through the past. They are in every institution in America. They are part of the class of American society. What Congress will do by codifying this is to, in effect, deny them the full measure of their citizenship.
Do you have the link to the Senate testimony?
I think it's becoming increasingly clear that since Clinton was our first Black president, Kerry wants to be the first gay president.
I got it off Lexis... I could post the poll Executive Session, but it would be very long. Maybe you could find it on Thomas.
Kerry was very active on this issue -- made many statements in commitee and on the floor. The other Dem Senators seemed to look up to him on this because of his 'war record.'
Considering the level of conviction or lack of conviction that Mr Kerry has for his religion, it may be that Mr Kerry's knees are not flat from praying !!
When they were found out in basic training because they could not suppress their sexual urges, they were remanded to a special barracks. I know because I pulled the guard duty.
Anyone can just fool around the Congressional Record or Com. testimony and find outrageous statement after statement...
I think one goal of Free Republic should be to find many of these before the election.
I agree with you, although once these statements are found we need to find a way to let those outside FR know.
Letters to the editor, e-mail FNC, Drudge, Rush, and send around to our personal e-mail groups who will in turn send to their people, etc. We can reach lots of people this way but it does take action, not just talking about it on FR.
This is a very good find tonight.
Steve Gill, Nashville's talk host mentioned this this morning, along with sKerry's flip flop of homosexual marriage.
Perhaps this is the reason that Kerry was removed from his Swiftboat then subsequently turned on the military and his country.
Perhaps this is why Julia Thorne, his first wife, became depressed and suicidal. (Gays do bear children for appearances.)
Is Teresa Heinz the perfect fag hag or what?
So what is left in the misconduct category?
And I am not surprised because?
Kerry may no have realized he was lying given his Congressional testimony in which he admitted to violations of the UCMJ. Additionally, he thought nothing of violating the UCMJ by meeting the enemy in Paris. He is either abysmally ignorant, and unwittingly a criminal or willfully a criminal. Either way he is still a criminal.