Skip to comments.Marine Corps: Study gay ban but don't hurt force
Posted on 02/24/2010 9:48:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON The Marine Corps commandant said Wednesday that the ability of U.S. troops to fight and win wars must trump other concerns as the nation considers whether to let gays to serve openly in the military.
In testimony before a House committee, Gen. James Conway said he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban. But he also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military's ability to protect the country.
"That's what they have been built to do under the current construct and I would argue that we've done a pretty good job bringing that to pass," he told the House Armed Services Committee.
"My concern would be that somehow that central purpose or focus were to become secondary to the discussion," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I feel for the men and women who choose to serve in the PC diversity-mandated services of today.. especially when we are involved in a war for our very existence and to save a society many others see as corrupt and becoming more so of late.. sadly, it is Not the Change many voted for ..
Good Luck to the Commandant and USMC.
In other words, "NUTS!"
When considering the phrase a “Cock-a-doodle-do Marine”.. I get the feeling its not talking about a Rooster..
The General didn’t get the memo.
Doesn’t he know that the military is no longer a fighting force, but a social experiment?
Conway is a great soldier and will not compromise force readiness for the sake of PC. I worked with his son, they are a great military family.
I question the sanity of anyone who would volunteer to join a military that would even consider this, let alone lay down his life to protect a decaying nation of self-destructive socialists and immoral filth.
**Marine Corps: Study gay ban but don’t hurt force***
When I was in the military (1966-1969) no one wanted to be around anyone they even though might be a homo.
I believe someone in the past has posted a thread about George Washington having some men drummed out of the service for being too feminine.
“But he also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat if it meant tampering with the military’s ability to protect the country.”
Bet that went over like a B****** at a family reunion.
John M. McHugh, Secretary of the Army, went off the reservation and said something very similar during yesterday’s hearing, as did the Army Chief of Staff, Casey. Obummer and Gates couldn’t have been to pleased.
I called my Congressman and two Senators yesterday with the same comment—don’t repeal “don’t ask don’t tell”.
We are running a military, not a social experiment. The cohesiveness and effectiveness of a combat unit is the number one priority, not making everyone aware of a person;ds sexual preference.
Please call your representatives. They pull this stuff until someone stops them. They try this stuff because they think no one will object.
It's not 1966. While I'm completely opposed to the idea of allowing gays to serve openly, I think DADT is a good compromise. As a guy who has helped to process hundreds of homosexuals out of the Navy over two dozen years, I can tell you that the only ones that are getting kicked out are the ones who want to get kicked out.
On balance, there are probably thousands of homosexuals who serve, and it's not really a secret to anyone that they're gay. But, they don't make an issue out of it. Most people just ignore them, and most of the younger troops have the attitude that's reflective of "what you do in the privacy of your own home, is your own business".
That will all change - for the worse - when we have two service men walking hand and hand to the base exchange, or decide to come to mess night as someone's date dressed in a some black cocktail get-up. It will be a mess.
This stuff started in 1968 when I was in, 1965-1968. You could not reprimand some one because it might be racist, unless he was white, then full bore, Hispanics excluded of course, they were somewhat white.
Leave it to the Corps to inject sanity into the discussion.
“As a guy who has helped to process hundreds of homosexuals out of the Navy over two dozen years, I can tell you that the only ones that are getting kicked out are the ones who want to get kicked out.”
That says it all (and it is my understanding, as well). I don’t think you can ask any more from the military than is already being done. Serving openly will only work if order and discipline can be maintained and it sounds like gays already have that.
A quick first read suggests the article is basically an agenda-driven a hit piece by ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Gen. James Conway said he supports a Pentagon assessment to determine how to lift the ban.
Incorrect, the effort underway is to help the Congress determine whether, not how.
In this regard, there is no doubt as to the view of Gen Conway, USMC, if not the other service chiefs.
(Gen Conway) also suggested that civil rights ultimately would have to take a back seat
He suggested no such thing, at least not in this context. There is no civil right to insist on sharing government provided, intimate living quarters with members of the opposite sex.
Christopher Preble, head of foreign studies at the Cato Institute think tank, said that the service chiefs recognize that change is inevitable (t)he military should not find itself so out of step with the public at large
Inevitable? By what means does Preble know what the chiefs recognize in this regard?
I will put money on what the public at large would say if the vote was limited to thinking adults.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
More discussion on the topic of trying to destroy the military and advance the homosexual agenda in one fell swoop.
It’s not 1966.
I know but men still don’t want to work around homos. In 1966 we served KP duty at the homo outprocessing barracks once. We were warned of what we would see and not to have a reaction to it.
We saw plenty in the chow line!
There are two forces, maybe three, driving this agenda—the queers want access to males, the queers want whatever they seek, and undermining real men in the military. Queers writing hollywood scripts seek to portray queers as masculine men. We all know what queer males really look like and they don’t look and act like marines. The marketing of deviance continues.
You are exactly right, but the whole idea is to undermine the military.