Military's gay ban is unconstitutional

[larkin31]

Possibly you really do think that. But I don’t see how you could.

By repealing DADT, the government is saying, as an official act, that there is no distinction between heterosexual relationships (which all non-homosexual soldiers have had throughout the ages) and homosexual relationships.

No, it is not. It would be stating that the US military accepts the service of men and women without regard to their private or stated sexual orientation, whether they are gay or straight. Sexual standards of conduct would still be in place and would be equitably enforced.

It will be as clear a message to society as could possibly be imagined that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivelant; just two variations of “normal”.

No. It would mean that both gays and straights are equally capable soldiers or marines and that both would be held to the same standards of conduct rather than unequal standards.

In an age in which parents are fighting (and often losing) to keep their children from having to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” or some other homosexualist propaganda imposed on them by some governmental unit or other, does anybody who has attained the age of reason actually think there won’t be additional propaganda about “G.I. Joe and his spouse, Ken” when DADT is repealed?

Seems silly, but what is the big deal? You do recognize that there are gay soldiers, right?

Does anybody truly believe there won’t be uniformed soldiers in gay rights parades, or citations that “Well if the military is okay with it, why not adopt it in other ways in society, like marriage”? Does anybody actually think the next thing after DADT will not be post housing for one’s “other” and spousal allowances, homosexual couples at official functions, etc?

So? What are you afraid of? This is about being fair and just, not “normal.”

Here we are, in what is possibly the most orthodox Catholic site on the internet, and yet we do see some affirm abortion, fetal stem cell research and “homosexual marriage”, notwithstanding that all are considered extremely immoral by the Church.

The Church, for better or for worse, is well behind modern culture on these sexual matters.

 

[TMC]

The Church does not teach us that governments should endorse homosexuality.

It is not an endorsement, and no reasonable person will think it is an endorsement. Is the government endorsing Wiccan by allowing Wiccans to serve, endorsing fornication by allowing promiscuous heterosexuals to serve? The answer to each of these is “no,” and everyone knows it. It will be the same with homosexuality.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, it is not. It would be stating that the US military accepts the service of men and women without regard to their private or stated sexual orientation, whether they are gay or straight. Sexual standards of conduct would still be in place and would be equitably enforced.

No. It would mean that both gays and straights are equally capable soldiers or marines and that both would be held to the same standards of conduct rather than unequal standards.

Seems silly, but what is the big deal? You do recognize that there are gay soldiers, right?

So? What are you afraid of? This is about being fair and just, not “normal.”

The Church, for better or for worse, is well behind modern culture on these sexual matters.

I think your last line says it all. I realize that one who thinks government promotion of homosexuality as the “modern” view is just fine, will not think it’s anything but…well, just fine.

You describe yourself as an agnostic. That does sort of leave you with the popular culture as your moral source, doesn’t it, you having no other. Unfortunately, Larkin, you and I do not, and cannot, have a common view of what is good or bad for a society. So there it is.

 

[larkin31]

It is not an endorsement, and no reasonable person will think it is an endorsement. Is the government endorsing Wiccan by allowing Wiccans to serve, endorsing fornication by allowing promiscuous heterosexuals to serve? The answer to each of these is “no,” and everyone knows it. It will be the same with homosexuality.

Indeed. Well put.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I say, this has turned out to be an interesting thread.

 

[kenofken]

Possibly you really do think that. But I don’t see how you could.

By repealing DADT, the government is saying, as an official act, that there is no distinction between heterosexual relationships (which all non-homosexual soldiers have had throughout the ages) and homosexual relationships. It will be as clear a message to society as could possibly be imagined that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivelant; just two variations of “normal”. In an age in which parents are fighting (and often losing) to keep their children from having to read “Heather Has Two Mommies” or some other homosexualist propaganda imposed on them by some governmental unit or other, does anybody who has attained the age of reason actually think there won’t be additional propaganda about “G.I. Joe and his spouse, Ken” when DADT is repealed? Does anybody truly believe there won’t be uniformed soldiers in gay rights parades, or citations that “Well if the military is okay with it, why not adopt it in other ways in society, like marriage”? Does anybody actually think the next thing after DADT will not be post housing for one’s “other” and spousal allowances, homosexual couples at official functions, etc?

The current government would surely like to impose homosexual “equivalency” in every way in this society. DADT is one of those ways, because it is a radical government that wants to change society in many ways; that being one of them. The homosexual lobby has a lot of clout with this administration, and it will get it done in every way the two of them can manage. DADT is only one of those ways.

I am just thunderstruck that people who argue (here and elsewhere) that, well, there really is no significance in official government affirmation of things; that it has no societal effect. Here we are, in what is possibly the most orthodox Catholic site on the internet, and yet we do see some affirm abortion, fetal stem cell research and “homosexual marriage”, notwithstanding that all are considered extremely immoral by the Church.

Yes, I know. “You can’t impose your morality on society”. I have heard that one a million times if I have heard it once. That argument would work for murder as well as homosexual proselytizing. But you can certainly do it negatively, and it happens all the time. Governments can certainly have a negative influence on the mores of a society, and history (including our own) is replete with examples of it. And so, if a person advocates the promotion of homosexuality by superimposing it on a heretofore revered institution like the military, then he is free to do that as a citizen. As a Catholic, however, I cannot favor something that my Church teaches (and I believe) is is immoral, and I cannot favor the government endorsement of that thing. I cannot personally approve government affirmation of homosexuality any more than I can approve its affirmation of abortion or fetal stem cell research. Nor should any Catholic. I’ll grant, there are those who do.

It would be refreshing, I think, if homosexual promoters really were just honest about it and said their objective is to equate, in the minds of the public and particuarly the young, that there is really no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. But I’ll grant it is easier to eat away at public mores around the edges than it is to come clean and just say they’re just as okay with “Barbie and Suzie” as they are with “Barbie and Ken”, in every way, and that they really want to teach that to children.

But again, never fear. This president has promised his homosexual activist constituency that he will repeal DADT and he will make good on that promise. Why hasn’t he done it yet? Well, we still have two wars going in Islamic countries, and he’s a bit sensitive about creating negative images of U.S. soldiers in that area right now. Maybe he’ll repeal DADT before he has withdrawn from those wars. Certainly, he will do so after.

I remember reading long ago about the plight of parents in Eastern Bloc countries, particularly Poland, timorously awaiting that day when they felt they finally had to tell their children “No, what the government is telling you is all lies.” We’ll get there too, and government affirmation of homosexuality as “normal” is just one of those lies.

Protestants, atheists, satanists and pro-choice people all serve in the military and can do so quite openly. Does the government’s failure to throw them out constitute and endorsement of all these things? Does the Catholic faith really require its adherents to demand a government program of discrimination against all people whom the Church can’t “endorse.”?

 

[Aquinas62]

When I joined the Military at 18, I was a very naive 18, coming from a catholic home, hearing war stories from my dad and uncles and grandpa, WWI WWII and Korea, and watching ww2 movies, I had a real rude awakening when I saw the real thing, my idealism and patriotism was almost destroyed by my experiences. this was over 30 years ago. I just could not believe that my uncles and dad served with people like that. Rude, unschooled, and just plain mean. I know things changed when The Gipper took office and many changes were made, and the services all started recruiting a higher caliber of men.

The fact is, most servicemen are not saints, and the language, crude behaviour and downright nasty comments heard on a daily basis, really shattered my idealism quick. Let’s disabuse ourselves of this notion, as it is not reality. That said, some of the finest men I have ever met were my superiors, and they taught me what it really means to be a soldier. I can’t say I was really cut out for military life, but I served 2 tours and was discharged honorably.

I have no beef with gays in the military, I served with a few, and counted some as friends. I do have the sneaking suspicion that the powers behind the movement, see this as just another front, a way to start forcing upon all of us acceptance of a lifestyle that I and many others find troubling. I see it coming soon, where evaluations, which mean a lot to someones career may well depend on how much he supports the gay agenda… He or she will have to hide who they are, to serve. That is what I think is the real agenda there, it is to change the military culture.

BTW there is no 1st amendment rights in the armed forces you do not have the right to say anything you want to. It has been common law that the military has a unique mission in the government, so the 1st amendment does not apply there. you serve under the UCMJ, which takes precedence over active duty military.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Protestants, atheists, satanists and pro-choice people all serve in the military and can do so quite openly. Does the government’s failure to throw them out constitute and endorsement of all these things? Does the Catholic faith really require its adherents to demand a government program of discrimination against all people whom the Church can’t “endorse.”?

First of all (again) the government does not “throw out” homosexuals, or discriminate against them. You know that. It only sanctions those who do not keep their private lives private. In the previous posts (and working only with the numbers a supporter of DADT repeal provided) it was demonstrated that the numbers affected adversely by DADT are miniscule, even among homosexuals themselves.

Governmental acceptance of overt homosexuality as a policy is, indeed, an endorsement of it, inasmuch as it is an endorsement of the simultaneous expression of one’s identity as a military person and an active homosexual. Clearly, that endorsement will lead to further endorsement of social relations within the military and military benefits like spousal benefits. That’s so obvious, it hardly needs to be said. That’s a heavy endorsement the society (with some very few exceptions) has so far refused to make, in terms of legalizing “gay marriage”, etc.

So, in responding to your last, heavily spun question, I will respond this way. The Catholic Church (and therefore faithful Catholics) does not favor official governmental affirmation of immorality. No, it doesn’t. Those who, like yourself it seems, have a big problem with that, should consider that in endorsing what virtually all societies throughout history (not just Christians) have held to be immoral, the government is imposing its own standard of morality. If, as an agnostic, you think active homosexuality is just as moral as heterosexual relationships, then it is you who are wanting to impose your morals on the nation. Those, like me, who accept the status quo in things like DADT are not trying to impose anything on anyone.

But perhaps more directly answering, I will say “yes” my approach to civil governance is very much influenced by my moral beliefs. As a Catholic, those beliefs are informed by my Church. As an agnostic, yours are (I take it, since you have announced no other sources) informed by popular culture. As a probably more conservative fellow than you are, I prefer to consider the judgments of millenia to have a generally greater claim on my adherence than those some popular person announced the day before yesterday. But regardless, both of us take our mores, however obtained, into our approach to considering what civil society ought to do and ought not to do. There is no difference between us in that respect.

 

[larkin31]

First of all (again) the government does not “throw out” homosexuals, or discriminate against them. You know that. It only sanctions those who do not keep their private lives private.

ONLY gays have to keep their private lives private. THAT is the discrimination.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

They may be equal to your US Army but not the US Armed Forces. Also, the British Royal Marines follow the DADT “plan” and will actively discharge those with a lifestyle incompatible with military life.

Just because it’s popular in society does not mean it’s compatible with military life.
Semper Fi

You are wrong they are equal to the United States Armed Forces.

So lets see the Royal Navy allows homosexuals to serve and the Royal Marines don’t first I heard about that.

Doesn’t the Royal Marines fall under the Royal Navy?

BTW on these boards is a young lady and her brother is a full Colonel in the United States Marines he’s not upset as most high ranking NCO’s or Officers he said if they have homosexual serve it’s not a big thing we have a code of conduct we go by.

Usually the people I hear that say homosexuals and not compatible with military life are people that never served or low ranking and have only served a few years and only in combat arms units.

GARRYOWEN!

 

[Ridgerunner]

ONLY gays have to keep their private lives private. THAT is the discrimination.

Then perhaps, Larkin, the solution to this (nonexistent) problem is to ban all soldiers from talking about their sexual practices. Discussing the details of one’s private life is mightily discouraged in many work places.

Let’s think about “discrimination” for a moment. Just saying something is “discrimination” tells one nothing at all, though I’ll readily grant that for some it seems to carry a heavily negative connotation. If you ask Mary and not Susan out for a date, and if you know Susan, you’re discriminating. If some rough looking person comes to your door and seems rather anxious to come in but you don’t allow it, you’re discriminating. If you choose to go to a nice neighborhood to eat in a restaurant rather than in some horrible, seedy place, you’re discriminating. If the Air Force won’t take somebody for jet fighter training because he/she has a defect in hearing one frequency, or is taller than they like to see, that’s discrimination. If the Army won’t take somebody with flat feet, or a criminal record, that’s discrimination. If the Marines won’t take somebody who had one MIP, that’s discrimination. If an employer won’t allow a male employee to show up in a dress, or a female employee to show up in leather, that’s discrimination.

“Discrimination” is mightily overblown as a cause in this society, precisely because it isn’t a cause in itself. It’s just a word that people use to stop discussion and to avoid using their brain; like calling someone a “Nazi” or a “racist”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Usually the people I hear that say homosexuals and not compatible with military life are people that never served or low ranking and have only served a few years and only in combat arms units

GARRYOWEN!

Well, that’s kind of disturbing in itself.

 

[donsnow]

Then perhaps, Larkin, the solution to this (nonexistent) problem is to ban all soldiers from talking about their sexual practices. Discussing the details of one’s private life is mightily discouraged in many work places.

Let’s think about “discrimination” for a moment. Just saying something is “discrimination” tells one nothing at all, though I’ll readily grant that for some it seems to carry a heavily negative connotation. If you ask Mary and not Susan out for a date, and if you know Susan, you’re discriminating. If some rough looking person comes to your door and seems rather anxious to come in but you don’t allow it, you’re discriminating. If you choose to go to a nice neighborhood to eat in a restaurant rather than in some horrible, seedy place, you’re discriminating. If the Air Force won’t take somebody for jet fighter training because he/she has a defect in hearing one frequency, or is taller than they like to see, that’s discrimination. If the Army won’t take somebody with flat feet, or a criminal record, that’s discrimination. If the Marines won’t take somebody who had one MIP, that’s discrimination. If an employer won’t allow a male employee to show up in a dress, or a female employee to show up in leather, that’s discrimination.

“Discrimination” is mightily overblown as a cause in this society, precisely because it isn’t a cause in itself. It’s just a word that people use to stop discussion and to avoid using their brain; like calling someone a “Nazi” or a “racist”.

Sometimes, discrimination is quite necessary for the well being of the individual and/or community. For example, this Administration sure needs some economic discrimination.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Well, that’s kind of disturbing in itself.

Well Ridgerrunner, I’m going to back up and regroup on that statement, I typed it up real quick and I was replying to a Jarhead that slammed the Army and as Dogface I’m going to slam back. So don’t take it seriously; it’s all in fun.

 

[larkin31]

Then perhaps, Larkin, the solution to this (nonexistent) problem is to ban all soldiers from talking about their sexual practices. Discussing the details of one’s private life is mightily discouraged in many work places.

Let’s think about “discrimination” for a moment. Just saying something is “discrimination” tells one nothing at all, though I’ll readily grant that for some it seems to carry a heavily negative connotation. If you ask Mary and not Susan out for a date, and if you know Susan, you’re discriminating. If some rough looking person comes to your door and seems rather anxious to come in but you don’t allow it, you’re discriminating. If you choose to go to a nice neighborhood to eat in a restaurant rather than in some horrible, seedy place, you’re discriminating. If the Air Force won’t take somebody for jet fighter training because he/she has a defect in hearing one frequency, or is taller than they like to see, that’s discrimination. If the Army won’t take somebody with flat feet, or a criminal record, that’s discrimination. If the Marines won’t take somebody who had one MIP, that’s discrimination. If an employer won’t allow a male employee to show up in a dress, or a female employee to show up in leather, that’s discrimination.

“Discrimination” is mightily overblown as a cause in this society, precisely because it isn’t a cause in itself. It’s just a word that people use to stop discussion and to avoid using their brain; like calling someone a “Nazi” or a “racist”.

I agree. But the military acknowledges fully that it admits gays and that gays make soldiers as well as heteros do. SERVICE, isn’t the issue. The discrimination is MERELY on public knowledge of being gay. That’s it. In other words, the military acknowledges that being gay has nothing to do with quality of service, but that acknowledging being gay is a deal breaker, while acknowledging being hetero or profligate or adulterous or into under-aged young women is not.

THAT discrimination is not tolerated nor justified in the rest of society governed by today’s laws. It will soon no longer be tolerated in the military, either.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Then perhaps, Larkin, the solution to this (nonexistent) problem is to ban all soldiers from talking about their sexual practices. Discussing the details of one’s private life is mightily discouraged in many work places.

Yeah, well, I already said that earlier, and often. (Including about other work places)

 

[Aquinas62]

Stan, your comment about soldiers who are low ranking and in combat units, maybe if DADT is repealed, will affect them more than anybody else in the Military.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Stan, your comment about soldiers who are low ranking and in combat units, maybe if DADT is repealed, will affect them more than anybody else in the Military.

I mainly made that statement to take a jab at a Marine who sort of put down the Army.

Anyway when I was a Pvt E-2 in a combat arms unit it didn’t affect me.

I’ve emailed a couple of posts I made on this thread to all my retired military friends and some active duty everyone that has emailed me back basically said so what it’s no big deal if they get rid of DADT

 

[Aquinas62]

Stan,

I respect your opinions on DADT, as you have walked the walk (served) in the armed forces and in a combat unit. it is some of the other posters here who’s opinions I cannot respect.

I just don’t want to see a “gay battallion in uniform” in a pride parade. I dont want my military to be used in that way. Did you read my personal experience a few posts back?

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Stan,

I respect your opinions on DADT, as you have walked the walk (served) in the armed forces and in a combat unit. it is some of the other posters here who’s opinions I cannot respect.

I just don’t want to see a “gay battallion in uniform” in a pride parade. I dont want my military to be used in that way. Did you read my personal experience a few posts back?

Thank you brother and yes sir, I have read it and respect your opinion too.

You know as well as I do under Article 31 there is a lot of stuff people can’t do like be in a porn movie, can’t be in Playboy—if I remember an Air Force Sergeant a few years ago did pose in Playboy and she good in trouble for it.

Like here in Killeen we have this Café that some hippies own and they protest the war and few active duty people get face time in the local paper these soldiers can get in trouble doing it I don’t know if that have because nobody really cares.

The great people that serve in our Armed Forces today are volunteers just like the founders of our military and you know that the majority of soldiers are professional.

Yes we are always going to have some knuckleheads that do the wrong thing but what you’re describing? How are we going to have an entire homosexual battalion? It’s not going to happen man.

I can spit and hit Fort Hood that’s how close I live to the largest military installation in the free world and the people that I talk to are active duty, retired, and spouses the majority of people tell me they don’t care let them serve it’s not a big deal.

Like I said before if people that want to volunteer to put their lives on the line for my freedom—charge the hill and kill the enemy baby; because that’s what’s it’s all about—I Salute and pray for them.