Skip to comments.Air Force Veteran Relieved of Duties for Disagreeing with Homosexuality
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:12:22 PM PDT by lowbridge
A 19-year veteran of the Air Force said he was relieved of his duties after he disagreed with his openly gay commander when she wanted to severely punish an instructor who had expressed religious objections to homosexuality.
I was relieved of my position because I dont agree with my commanders position on gay marriage, Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk told Fox News. Weve been told that if you publicly say that homosexuality is wrong, you are in violation of Air Force policy.
The Liberty Institute is representing the Christian airman in case the Pentagon decides to retaliate.
Are we going to have a Dont Ask, Dont Tell policy for Christians so we dont get harassed for our beliefs? attorney Hiram Sasser asked Fox News. Heres a guy who wants to have his religious liberty and serve in the military. He shouldnt have to believe in gay marriage in order to serve.
A spokesperson for Lackland Air Force Base public affairs told Fox News Monk was not punished and that he was simply at the end of his assignment.
"They did have a disagreement, but supposedly, they agreed to disagree," the spokesperson told Fox News. "But the wing commander said there was no punishment.
Monk has served as a first sergeant at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio since 2011. He recently returned from a deployment and discovered he had a new commander an open lesbian.
In one of our first meetings, she was talking about her promotion and she mentioned something about a benediction, Monk told Fox News. She said she wanted a chaplain but objected to one particular chaplain that she called a bigot because he preached that homosexuality is a sin.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Ah, yes! Tolerance is for thee but not for me.
So the gay commander must support “Empire Today”. (next day carpets for the uniformed).
” he disagreed with his openly gay commander “
so the commander was in drag then?
I retired from the USAF in 1995 and haven't really kept up on the military life. With this new "don't ask/they'll brag" policy, does the military recognize the transvestite and/or transsexual lifestyle, allowing guys to wear women's uniforms and visa versa?
Just disgustingly curious...
There's going to be a lot of "agreeing to disagreeing" going on.
He's got something in mind.
We'll find out what that is as soon as he starts using all those martial law EOs he signed.
Whow! Whoa! Whoa! How can a 19-year old be a veteran? An typical USAF enlistment is 4 years. So, did this Airman enlist when he was 15? I doubt it.
Ot, has political correctness changed the definition of veteran? So, now someone who has gone through basic training is now a “veteran” of boot camp?
I’m OOOLLLDDD Air Force, and I thought retirement began at 20 years, not 19. We have some squiggly Air Force administration people speaking about 19 year retirements??????? Queerdom is reigning in America....Heaven help us.
Ah, I misread the article. He was not a 19-YEAR OLD, but, rather, someone who had already served for 19 years. Still, in my day (I am 62) one did not earn the title of veteran until after one had separated from the military (i.e., via discharge or retirement). I served in the USAF from 1970 to 1974. Ergo, I am a veteran. However, I was not a veteran in 1973.
Welcome to the Ubama military.
Welcome to Ubama’s America.
Im OOOLLLDDD Air Force, and I thought retirement began at 20 years, not 19.
Generally, except under extreme conditions, someone at 19 years TAFMS is considered in “Sactuary Status.” They may retire at 20 years with no problems. At times, someone is told to drop their papers or face courtmartial.
I joined in 2006 (active-duty Army) and was told by my Drill Sergeant during Basic Training that we were all Veterans.
He isn’t a Veteran, but a “veteran” of 19 years. Everyone after completion of duties is a Veteran. The author choose poor wording. Retirement is still 20+ years.
But the real question is why someone would sign up in 1994, when our sink Emporer in chief was President.
I wouldn't go near the military during Clinton's term, but I'd get out as fast as possible under Obama.
I’ve been wondering about which uniform clothing standard they would use for tranies, men’s or women’s? Also if someone classifies themselves as questioning, can they mix and match from both?
To add: the situation in the article for this thread may be a jumping of the gun. The first step is active promotion, and the shaming into silence of those who disagree. Formal disciplinary measures for those who continue to disagree will follow.
Well, times have changed. When I served it was pretty clear one was not a veteran until one separated from the military. Oh, one could be considered a veteran of an action or a battle, but that is a specific distinction. To me, a veteran is someone who has served and separated. For instance — and I don’t know how it is today — one would not qualify for veterans’ benefits through the VA until one separated from the military. At least, that’s how I remember it. Again, it’s been almost forty years since I separated.
Neither Chaplains nor Generals have the power to amend or nullify how God defines what is sin.
I would transfer off that boat so fast it make their heads spin. Talk about bring a curse down on a boat like that gees. Those old crotchety sea chiefs must be turning back flips down in the goat locker. Lol
Gays said all they wanted was to serve their country and they’ve said how would their “love” impact heterosexuals in the military.
So now the truth is out and what gays want is absolute groupthink.
When I was in the USAF (1966-1969) each year we were required to go in for a reading of the military laws against homosexuality. Then we had to sign a paper showing we had read the laws on it.
While in Basic at Lackland, we had to pull KP at the OUTPROCESSING homo barracks for people being kicked out.
We were told we would see things that were not to be talked about! We were not to laugh, snigger (Opps can I say that?)
We saw plenty! Our DI assistant told us that at night things went on in that barracks that would make you sick! Now they are the norm.
Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, March 14, 1778.
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778) Lieutt. Enslin28 of Colo. Malcoms Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismissd the service with Infamy.
His Excellency the Commander in Chief (George Washington) approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
My father - a 30 year Navy veteran & Pearl Harbor survivor - used to ay that the reason that homosexuals weren’t welcome in the military was for their own safety. He said that if the other sailors found out that one of the guys was queer (his terminology), they would throw him off the ship.
Not now, I guess.
Hopefully a conservative Republican congress and president can significantly reform the military so its focus is again on national defense and not social engineering.
Constitutionally, congress has near absolute authority “to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military.” And while these powers have been eroded by the presidents and the Supreme Court, congress can again assert their authority.
They should start doing this by instead of ordering the military to adopt any social engineering scheme, that every officer and NCO in the military should be individually and anonymously polled as to whether *existing* social engineering schemes are truly working, or if they have been ordered to say that they are, even if they are not.
Such *existing* social engineering schemes should be rated as to whether they have improved military readiness and efficiency in training and in combat, whether they are neutral in effect, or whether they have harmed the ability of the military to wage war.
The first thing that should be asked is whether there are racial problems in the military, if they exist then do they damage readiness, are they addressed promptly, and are remedial efforts proportional and acceptable.
Next is gender, specifically the performance of women in active duty roles. Are there roles where women perform better than men, worse than men, or are generally unable to perform, or worse, where they prevent mission accomplishment.
Next is religion and the lack thereof, and if there should be a minimum number of personnel in a command for a religion to be recognized and resources provided for it.
The largest category is sexuality of all kinds. What is acceptable, and what interferes with unit readiness and morale. Does there need to be, in effect, a marriage program for senior personnel?
Here we go.......
Conservatives should never use the terms “good luck” or “gay marriage”; both are contrary to Scripture.
The truth may be "out" as you say, but the American people don't know that at all.
The right is going to lose the fight over acceptance of homosexuality, period. Gays have been a persecuted minority and this has made them smart. Hopefully the right wing will be able to do the same when we are soon the persecuted minority.
We’re going to have to learn a new game, it’s that simple. Democracy has surprises for conservatives. We fight for economic liberty and a host of social liberties reap the benefits, sexual libertine excess not the least among them. Henry Ford gives America cheap transportation and 5 generations of passion clogged youngsters park on Blueberry Hill. I did it, you did it. There are laws to progress and if we don’t understand them, the future will kiss us goodbye.
I joined the USAF in 1956 and I am puking right now.
After 180 days on active duty, a person is considered a veteran, provided they haven’t been convicted of a
violation of UCMJ articles.
The truth may be “out” as you say, but the American people don’t know that at all
SAd but true.
This news item is why I refuse to join the surrender the social issues crowd cause gays won’t be happy until the whole world embraces their groupthink.
No matter what one may be forced or coerced into saying, perversion is perversion. Homos will never be normal.
It figures a poofter like Ubama would demand a faggot military.
He told me that the recipient of the gay guy's advances chased the guy out of the barracks and the gay dude got close to being thrown off the ship, like you said.
In his words he heard: "You F#$@ing faggot! If I get my hands on you, you're dead!"
Times have changed.
Now the recipient would be thrown off the ship for being a "bigot".
Sorry, but how is good luck a violation of Scripture?
To answer some of your questions.
1) Racial problems have taken a backseat to sexual assaults. Things are not like they were in the 60’s, 70’s, and early 80’s. They are too busy trying to fix the sexual assault epidemic.
2) They have conducted all kinds of studies and have all the answers. Women can do fine in some jobs but can’t take the pounding of sustained combat. That stuff you have to carry is just too heavy. Even the women I see working out at the gym every day is no match for the average guy much less Haj.
3) Most are religious are not fanatical like homosexuals about it. Most people keep their religion to themselves.
4) Sexuality, whatever the heck that is, has no place in the military. Marriage was always unofficially discouraged for the lower ranks. This made sense because a single guy could be put in the barracks with a roommate, saving money.
I agree with those answers. However the purpose of the exercise is to make the military admit to the truth, instead of just toeing the p.c. line. If enough senior personnel are willing to anonymously tell the Pentagon that while it can order them to say it’s true, it doesn’t make it true, while it won’t persuade the higher command, it may very well persuade a Republican congress.
F-—ing Communists, man.
They’re inside the fence.