THE "GAY" FORCE
December 20, 2010
Rushing to finish by Christmas, congressional Democrats worked into the weekend to secure Senate ratification of a new arms control treaty and to end the military's ban on openly gay service members as they neared the end of two tumultuous years of single-party government.
Legislation to keep the federal government running until mid- to late February was also on the agenda, a matter for negotiations with emboldened Republicans who will take control of the House and add to their numbers in the Senate come January.
President Barack Obama seized one legislative triumph in the lame-duck session as Congress voted early Friday to extend tax cuts and unemployment benefits. But there was also one major defeat for the President and the far-left leaders in Congress. The Senate has failed to invoke cloture on the "DREAM" amnesty act, effectively killing the bill. The vote was 55-41, five votes short of moving forward.
But the biggest item on the left's agenda to squeeze through was the repeal of the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." With the passage of the law to repeal DADT, President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation's armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.
Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.
Throughout the entirety of this debate I've had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I'm especially sure that President Obama wouldn't push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.
1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?
If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited "thing" for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don't engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don't, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?
2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?
Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn't go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the "sissy" out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.
3. Will base commanders be required to host "pride" events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation's cities each year?
There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any "pride" event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.
4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?
It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?
There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.
For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, "every other nation on the planet already does it," shut up!
None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.
I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.
In the hundreds of conversations I've had with those that serve in our nation's armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.
I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.
But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.
It was President Obama's doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.
We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.