Posted on 01/28/2010 5:27:43 PM PST by DesertRenegade
President Obama’s address to the nation tonight provides a stark contrast to the reality that all Americans – not just gays and lesbians – are living,” comments Terry W. Hamilton. “The increasingly dominant role of government in the daily life of gays and lesbians under President Obama’s leadership has done nothing but put our community in jeopardy – from his support of the Estate Tax, instructing his Administration to defend the failed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy in court, to stifling small business development across the nation, all Americans should take heed to his overarching promises that are long on rhetoric and short on action.
Log Cabin Republicans national spokesperson Charles T. Moran, comments: “President Obama is more concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists than he is about the rights of gay and lesbian Americans who are putting their lives on the line every day fighting to preserve peace and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who operate small businesses that are the backbone of the American economy.”
President Obama in his address Wednesday night specifically advocated for a repeal of the discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, which he has reiterated on several occasions both as a candidate and as the President. In an alarming contradiction to his stated public policy position, President Obama has instructed his Justice Department to fight the only lawsuit in modern times challenging ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ of which Log Cabin Republicans is the sole plaintiff.
“Again, President Obama calls on Congress to do one thing, yet he instructs his Administration and his Justice Department to take the opposite action. Which way is it, President Obama?” comments Moran.
The case in question, Log Cabin Republicans vs. the United States of America, is the first direct challenge to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law filed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas. It is also the only contemporary legal challenge to this law to succeed at the district court level. One of the injured parties named in the case, Alexander Nicholson, is a former U.S. Army Human Intelligence Collector who speaks multiple languages, including Arabic, and who was fired because of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law just six months after 9/11. Another injured party in the case, listed simply as ‘John Doe,’ currently serves in the Armed Forces and would face a discharge if his identity were revealed.
For me it’s pretty simple: I consider any group that wants to weaken the US Military to be my enemy.
My post to another thread on related topic:
“It’s deliberate undermining of our military by the Leftists. They hate the military, and they hate the military professionals. The Leftists are siccing their pink, perfumed undies brigade on them. What could be more devastating to morale?”
Doesn’t quite fit on this thread, but is close enough.
There’s always negative consequences whenever the Democrats get involved.
It’s already legal — practitioners are just required to keep it a secret from their superior officers and fellow service members. This is an astoundingly idiotic policy. If you have trouble grasping why, just imagine if the military had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for adherents of the Muslim religion (any and all brands).
For me it’s pretty simple: I consider anyone who wants to weaken the US Military to be my enemy.
There are already gay people in the military.
That being said, I don’t think they the question needs to be asked, or not, etc.
It weakens the US military when it kicks out competent people who have language skills that are desperately needed and in short supply. Many of the jobs requiring these languages are stateside jobs that don’t involve living in barracks. They involve working in an office translating intercepted communications. I don’t want Americans — including American military service members — getting killed because our intelligence translators are months behind in translating intercepted communications, because needed staff has not been hired and has been let go, due solely to what their preferred sexual activities are in their personal, off-duty time.
what about a guy soldier and a girl soldier having sex in the laundry room? Is that not disruptive?
have you served I bet no other wise you would not ask that?
another thing
you said a guy soldier and a woman
well that is not disgusting as it is normal two men wanting to stick their penis up each others ass is not normal and they need mental help thinking it is
Exactly. Military service members are already subject to much stricter limits on sexual activities than civilians, and there’s no reason that concept shouldn’t be applied to gay service members. Tough to do that, though, when they’re all hiding their sexual orientation, per orders from on high.
“the troops don’t want to share showers and rooms with them now.”
and their blood
“If you have trouble grasping why, just imagine if the military had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for adherents of the Muslim religion (any and all brands).”
The FDA bans any and every homosexual from donating blood in the USA. Do you understand the reason for that and the tremendous threat it would cause to the military’s combat blood supply?
The military tests its members and prospective members for AIDS and hepatitis, and won’t let anybody serve or continue serving if they test positive. Face it, lots of heterosexual male service members frequent prostitutes and can easily get infected with HIV that way if they aren’t very careful. If there was a chronic shortage of blood for civilian use in the US, the FDA would change that rule and require additional testing of the donated blood instead — as it stands now, the additional blood isn’t needed and increasing the testing procedures would just drive up the cost of blood.
That does not address the issue. No one disagrees that homosexual males are at MUCH greater risk of AIDS than any other demographic. By inviting this sort of degeneracy into our military units only asks for major problems. The military would incur a HUGE extra cost of AIDS and STD testing every single day. If a homosexual soldier were to test negative and then go to a bathhouse the next night, bingo - he contracts HIV. Then he puts his fellow soldiers at risk in any type of combat where they might come in contact with his blood. It’s just common sense not to increase this risk by recruiting active homosexuals into our military.
That silly. If a heterosexual soldier tests negative for HIV and goes to a whorehouse the next night, bingo, HE can contract HIV too. The general population of homosexual males is not a proxy for the population of homosexual males who have the qualifications and inclination to join the military and also pass HIV screening at entry. The general population of homosexual males includes men who are drug users, alcoholics, undisciplined lazy bums, and various other qualities that would disqualify them from military service regardless of their sexual orientation. Those categories of unqualified men are also by far the most likely to be HIV infected.
And please note that I’m not advocating a policy of no restrictions whatsoever on military service by active homosexual men. Combat and submarine settings, for example, would clearly be problematic. On the other hand, it’s perfectly clear that having active homosexuals providing urgently needed translation services while working in office settings can save lives, both military and civilian, and thus barring them from military service is just self-defeating stupidity.
“If a heterosexual soldier tests negative for HIV and goes to a whorehouse the next night, bingo, HE can contract HIV too.”
LOL, you can’t be serious. Are you aware that the percentage of males who contract HIV from females is approximately 0.000021% while homosexuals are about 86%. That makes homosexuals statistically hundreds of thousands of times at increased risk. Do you really want to make such a silly argument in favor of that lifestyle choice?
“it’s perfectly clear that having active homosexuals providing urgently needed translation services while working in office settings can save lives, both military and civilian, and thus barring them from military service is just self-defeating stupidity.”
The current policy has been working fine. Do you understand that your suggestion of separate pink barracks, separate homo shower areas, etc would involve a huge added expense and hassle for the military? You agree that active sodomists are incompatible with military service on ships or submarines. Do you see that it also applies to close quarters barracks and shower facilities? We would never propose having young male soldiers shower with nude females. Why is that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.