Conservative Lawyer David Rivkin Wins Prestigious Award: WAPO article predicted the failure of DADT

Former White House lawyer, David B. Rivkin, Jr. is having quite a run. On the heels of his national success planning and leading the lawsuit by 26 plaintiff states challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Rivkin is being honored as one of the best law firm writers in America.

The prestigious 2011 Burton Award for Legal Achievement has been awarded to Rivkin for his Washington Post article, “Why the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy is Doomed,” which ran in the Feb. 13, 2010 edition.

The article, written by Rivkin and his Baker Hostetler law colleague Lee A. Casey, explained in detail why Congress could no longer mandate discrimination in the armed forces based on sexual orientation, especially when senior leadership in the military did not see “a significant threat to unit cohesion.”

Here we go again. The Model Penal Code of 1962 (I STRONGLY URGE EVERYONE TO LOOK IT UP) was published by the American Law Institute, a collection of lawyers, judges and legal scholars, was the BEGINNING of the END of laws against SODOMY, ADULTERY and FORNICATION. Trouble is, for all the CONSTITUTIONALISTS out there, I can't find that stinking American Law Institute... you guessed it... ANYWHERE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION or ANY STATE CONSTITUTION. Did citizens elect them ? No.

So State legislatures SAPPILY go along with it under the guise of STANDARDIZATION ????

Someone please point out to me where in the U.S. Constitution the RIGHT TO SODOMY is guaranteed ? The pursuit of happiness ? Moral perversion is not happiness. And by the way, that phrase is from the Declaration. In the 14th Amendment ? Equal protection clause they say. IF THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST SODOMY, EVERYONE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW, which precisely upholds the equal protection described in the 14th Amendment. CRIMES ARE NOT ALLOWED - THEY'RE CRIMES. Equal Protection does not mean that people who want to break the law need to be protected from prosecution. When morality laws were repealed by the States we started down a slippery slope because what was once illegal was now only immoral, but legal. Once that is the case, i.e., these acts were legal, suddenly the 14th Amendment could be used to cause the government to actually have to protect, thereby ENCOURAGE, immoral acts. Now through the media and the public education system, the far left has convinced most people that the immoral acts are no longer immoral. They're ok, just a matter of personal choice.

So our military, when they were forced to IMPLEMENT DADT, was also going down a slippery slope (of course, clinton knew this), since with the passage of some time, the immoral acts would have to be openly accepted, as they were legal acts according to U.S. law. Thus we have the discontinuance of DADT and the inevitable sodomite-friendly military. While this gives reason to cheer for Constitutionalists who are ambivolent to sodomy, for those Constitutionalists who want a return to the wisdom of seeing sodomites as unfit for service, it simply moves them even further down the slippery slope to lunacy.

Left-wing presentations of military history ALWAYS offer copious amounts of propaganda which attempts to delude us into thinking that sodomy was widely practiced throughout history by the militaries of nations and city-states. In truth, before Christ, mankind was awash in sin, being not part of the elect, God's children, and, accordingly, were often hordes of morally bankrupt savages. From the time of Christ onwards, Christian nations have all been aware of the sins of the flesh, as the word of God was brought to them and their leaders. The yardstick of right and wrong was thus aligned with Biblical doctrine. History has proven since that Christians nations have all institutionally attempted to act righteously in accordance with Scripture. When a military or a nation has failed in righteousness, they have experienced dramatic failure economically, politically or militarily.

The PRIMARY reasoning for banning immoral acts or sins of the flesh in the military, as in civilian criminal law, has always been the unrighteousness of the acts themselves. The sins of the flesh, as ALL unrighteous behavior that is ungentlemenly or unbecoming, was analytically known by our military to lead to unit incohesion, but what has been forgotten is that this incohesion is the effect, not the cause. Any unrighteous behavior, i.e., favoritism, cheating on tests, lying, spreading false rumors about others, etc., creates unit incohesion. George Washington famously ordered his men to not speak profanely - was that to enhance unit cohesion ? I ask you that - the reader - as a rhetorical question for your own private consideration. Why would George Washington not want his men to speak profanely ? Did he fear the repurcussions to unit effectiveness ? That is, of course, not what he feared. The leadership of the Congress and the leadership of the military has forgotten lessons of the past.

It is an extremely sad day when I must say that until our military, and, indeed, our nation, returns our code of laws to a reflection of Biblical morality, we are facing inevitable and terrible consequences. A righteous, God-fearing military will know victory; any other will ultimately not, as their nation pays the heavy price for mocking God.

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.