Meanwhile, disaster: homosexualization of military will go to vote in Democratic majority Senate
Andrew Stiles writes
at The Corner:
DADT Repeal Moves Forward
December 18, 2010 11:59 A.M.
The Senate voted 63-33 for cloture on repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, all but assuring its passage.
Six Republicans voted ‘aye’—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Mark Kirik (Ill.), Scott Brown (Mass.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio).
Retiring Sens. Jim Bunning (R., Ky.) and Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) were no-shows, as were Sens. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.).
[end of Corner post]
The cloture passed by four votes because of the support of six Republicans. The names of those six Republicans will live in infamy.
- end of initial entry -
Debra C. writes:
Is this perhaps a disaster that is more easily overturned than say, the Dream Act would have been? That’s what I’m hoping for, at any rate. For truly, such a policy wars against decency, weakens our military, offers no rational argument against women also sharing showers with men (won’t military wives love that!), and is a direct assault on the moral values of the majority of Americans—in that it at once undermines protestations to homosexual marriage. Another step in the parade of nominalism, n’cest-pas? And the destruction of the family proceeds apace.
There is no near term prospect for the repeal of the homosexualization of the military, since the next Congress will have a Dem. Senate and there will still be a Dem. president to veto any new law repealing the old.
Eventually I think it will be repealed, but not until after much damage, disgraction, and harm to the military and our society has been done.
Doug H. writes:
I certainly hope you are right that this will eventually be overturned. Admiral Mullins is an utter disgrace as are many of the top level commanders. I am so thankful my career was not infected with this abomination. There are many horror stories I could tell of sexual assaults by gays against their fellow airmen. To think the greatest military in the world has never been defeated in a heads up battle and this may tear it apart.
Many people use the excuse that this is allowed in other countries. It drives me nuts when I hear that. How dare they compare anything in the greatest country on earth to some lame other country that doesn’t even have a serious military. That is like saying, “A Volkswagon has a cup holder, Porsches would be better cars if they would just include a cup holder in them.”
Max P. writes:
One of the main arguments used by supporters of the DADT repeal is that homosexuals have and are serving in the military, and most have done their jobs as well as any other service member. Therefore it does not make sense from a military readiness standpoint to remove these productive members if and when their sexual orientation is made public. What these supporters fail to grasp is that there is a tremendous difference between serving in the closet and being open about one’s orientation, and that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals have kept their orientation hidden.
If the standard for people to serve openly is now based on whether similar or like-minded folks have done so privately in the past, then what other groups of people are we going to allow to openly serve? Would we allow racists and bigots to openly serve? After all, racists and bigots have served in every war we have ever fought. Racists and bigots wrote and signed our founding documents and won our revolutionary war. Racists and bigots continue to serve on the front lines in the Middle East. Yet despite their great service, they are not allowed to serve openly, except of course for Major Nidal Hasan. Someone who knows might correct me on this, but I thought I read that white recruits with rebel flag tattoos are no longer allowed to enlist. I also recall an episode of the PBS series Carrier in which a white sailor was forced to wear a scarlet letter R for uttering a derogatory term. Now he was not kicked out of the Navy, but I don’t think it helped his chances for promotion. Can anyone in the Navy enlighten us to this policy, and whether he would be dismissed if he were a repeat offender.
I am sure anyone reading the above paragraph would think it makes sense not to allow racists and bigots to serve openly. After all, we can’t have soldiers lynching other soldiers, or shooting them like Major Hasan. It’s a given that if a racist or bigot inflicts physical harm on another soldier, or refuses fight alongside someone, then he should be kicked out of the service, except of course for Major Hasan. Just as it should be a given that with the repeal of DADT, a homosexual soldier who continually makes unwanted advances towards other soldiers should be given the boot. That will remain to be seen, and given the way things are going, I’m not sure the groper would be the one admonished.
But what about guys who read the blogs of, and share the views of, Larry Auster and Steve Sailer? Must they remain in the closet? What about the guy with a rebel flag tattoo? What about the guy who found that Navy STD poster that Mr. Auster displayed a few weeks ago offensive? What about a guy who doesn’t support open borders? These guys don’t seem like a threat to others, yet I doubt they can serve if it is known that they maintain these views.
Therefore, to suggest homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly now because they have served in the closet in the past is no more valid to repealing DADT than it would be to allow racists and bigots to openly serve based upon the tremendous contributions of racists and bigots in the past.
This is a terrific argument, which I’ve never heard before.
I find this incomprehensible. When I was on active duty with the Army in 1964-65 it was a court martial offense resulting in dishonorable discharge to be caught in a homosexual act. Even two men sitting fully clothed on the same bunk was forbidden. There is nothing to be gained by opening the door to homosexual behavior in the services and much, too much, to be lost. I would not be surprised by a mass failure of re-enlistments over this. Then where are we?
James P. writes:
It is true that gays have alway served in the military, but they have always done so under conditions of “don’t tell”—i.e., they kept their sexuality entirely under wraps and focused on doing their duty. Therefore the argument that we have always had gays in the military is irrelevant to repealing DADT, because we are changing the conditions under which they serve from “strongly discouraged to tell” to “strongly encouraged to tell.” Gays are already allowed to serve if they are willing to do their duty without flaunting their sexuality; therefore the only purpose of repealing DADT must be to allow them to flaunt their sexuality.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 18, 2010 12:31 PM | Send
Why should we not require gays to make the sacrifice of “don’t tell” in order to join the military? Heterosexual males in the military are forced to keep their sexuality under wraps, or face penalties for “sexual harassment.” Furthermore, heterosexual men sacrifice time with their wives and children in order to serve. If homosexuals are truly interested in military service, and not advancing their political agenda, they should be willing to accept the strictures of DADT. Of course this is not the case—and the left is happy to advance the homosexual agenda when it damages the military, which they consider a bastion of whites, males, conservatives, and Christians, as well as an instrument of American Imperialism.
Blogger Whiskey makes some excellent points on the disastrous results of repealing DADT, In particular,
Gays, are not, by and large, respectable, middle class, sober, and staid men who merely like to have sex … with other men. They tend to be like Bobby Trendy than John Wayne. Gay men are largely, flamboyant, emotional, flighty, and lacking in any real discipline. They are poor security risks (being ruled as Manning shows, by emotions and pique) even if they are serving openly. Gays are in short, far closer to one giant hissy fit from betraying their country over a break-up with a Drag Queen, than they are from John Basilone style sacrifice.