Saturday, December 18, 2010

DADT and the aftermath

The Senate decided to ignore the needs of the troops, the needs of our wounded in hospitals across the country, and the impact upon the services by forcing homosexual priorities upon the services. Why was the military chosen for this gay agenda goal? The military can be ordered to comply with no recourse for the individual soldier who is opposed, other than to resign.
There is no civil rights issue in this. Where is the prejudice against the homosexual soldier who does not openly flaunt their sexual proclivities?
What of the legal, religious, moral and morale issues associated with dealing with openly homosexual soldiers in one’s unit? Those issues are ignored. The secular state has decreed what is to be, and the military will obey . . . or else, the Joint Chiefs and others will be replaced with more amiable types who are more concerned about their careers than the troops’ concerns.
Art. 125 UCMJ
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Apparently, Art. 125 will be ignored from this point forward. Now, it will be every goat and sheep for themselves.
Yes, I recognize the contributions of homosexuals in the military. I remember that the most highly decorated enlisted airman in the USAF to serve in the Republic of Viet Nam was homosexual. Did his homosexuality make him brave? No, but his personal courage, his devotion to duty, to his country, and to his comrades gave him the ability to do what he did. He was a man who served honorably, nothing more, nothing less.
What is the problem, then with homosexuals serving openly in the military? Well, the idea of a homosexual in one’s unit, sharing one’s shower, the same latrine, the same dressing area, living area may make some uncomfortable. However, that is not the worst. The worst comes in two forms.
One is the second layer of DADT repeal. The political correctness will now be imposed. Penalties will be imposed for insulting homosexuals. Hate speech will become the lever to make a small minority much more powerful. The need to redress inequities in rank and position that do not now exist will be played out to the detriment of those more qualified. All of sudden, how good a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will matter not. It will be “Congress says there must be X number of homosexual 1st LTs this promotion cycle, or we don’t get the new whiz bang Taliban thumper deluxe!”
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda will be to eliminate “hate speech” by military chaplains. The Bible says what it says. How that will be reconciled will resemble the Canadian solution. Censor the Bible . . . and the Koran.
Working one’s butt off to be the best that one can be will not count. I will bet you that whose butt the general has will. Sexual politics of the male female variety are one thing, but male on male or female on female will open up a whole new dimension to this age old problem. What was once the venue of rumor will now be in your face.
The playful slap on the back, shoulder or butt that is common amongst male soldiers at times will now be regarded from a new perspective.
Yes, sex will play a new role in the military.
Then, there is the second issue. The morality and religious convictions of those troops whose religion dictate the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. These individuals will have the unfair choice of not accepting the lifestyle and giving up their military career, or to accept knowing that they are accepting something that is an anathema to their religion.
The figures given in the Pentagon’s so called study were flawed, and those who did the study knew it. Only a small fraction of the Army personnel sent the survey responded. The majority response was by USAF and Navy personnel. The two ground combat arms, the Army and the Marines, were not in favor of any change to DADT. The impact upon combat units will not be favorable with the imposed change.
This is not a matter of civil rights where the color of one’s skin was concerned. With prejudice in treatment and advancement were visible. This is now a matter of individuals who had before the repeal the same right to promotion and benefits and who were not otherwise prejudiced by their conduct, so long as they did not proclaim their sexual preference openly, the same as any heterosexual soldier, airman, sailor or Marine. Now, things will change.
Only by fiat of the secular state can one be forced to choose between religion and one’s military service.
Uncle Sam’s military will never be the same. Now, there is another layer of privilege based upon sexual preference. Just what our soldiers needed instead of new equipment, better weapons, and better support after they get home, more political correctness that puts soldiering second and CYA first.
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, this vote of yours will be remembered come reelection.