Surprise! Gays want more.
ROS and VTWoody send a link to an article in the Houston Chronicle which reports that which we knew all along. That the repeal of DADT was not a goal, it was a first step towards the military acceptance of everything related to being gay;
“We don’t want to be the ones who are the wet blankets of the movement, but at the same time we also want to be the instigators of the movement,” Heather Cronk, managing director of Get Equal, said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C. “We’ll celebrate for 10 minutes and we’ll get right back to work.”
Protests, rallies and community conversations were planned by Get Equal on Tuesday in about a dozen cities across the country, including Boston, San Francisco and Laramie, Wyo. Nationwide celebrations marking the end of the policy commonly known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” were also planned by a variety of other groups, including one in downtown Norfolk.
A handful of protesters organized by Get Equal set up near Naval Station Norfolk before dawn with balloons and signs, including one that said “The repeal of DADT is not enough!”
Yeah, it’s not enough to have “equal rights” – they want special protections for their lifestyle and rights that won’t be afforded to heterosexuals. They want total acceptance of their deviant lifestyle. Gays want the right to be like mealy-mouthed Dan Choi and punch their subordinates in the chest without retribution and chain themselves to the White House fence in uniform without facing the charges in court.
Category: Military issues
“Yeah, it’s not enough to have “equal rights” – they want special protections for their lifestyle and rights that won’t be afforded to heterosexuals.”
I’ve asked before and cannot get anyone to give a lucid answer: what are the special protections/rights in question?
Well, it’s like this CI. Legally speaking, there would be (and are) no special rights accorded homosexuals when a statute or state constitution prohibits discrimination based upon sexual preference or, for that matter, gender identity. The law would apply equally to straights as well as twisteds. You know that and so do we. But what happens when a particular class of people are extended these legal protections? Are the members of the class placed on equal footing with non-members? No, they soon receive special consideration for hiring and promotions. They are given special considerations by university admissions offices. Ever hear of quotas—both overt and subtle? Employer tolerance of misbehavior out of fear of a discrimination complaint? Federal grant parameters that require certain minimum minority participation? School curricula that mandate special attention to certain groups? I could go on but I hope I have made my point. The gays have just begun because they want all of these things and more.
CI; see my reply in the thread on the certifying the repeal.
Well, CI, let’s start with housing and benefits. Before I married my spouse I was not entitled to either. They’ve already begun pushing for both for gay couples. Before you start with the whole “that’s why gay marriage should be legalized” talking points, that isn’t the military’s problem.
@2 – “I could go on but I hope I have made my point.”
I agree with your point. I don’t defend quotas in any form. But the solution for that problem set appears to be nothing less than a straight, male, white military.
@4 – “Before I married my spouse I was not entitled to either. They’ve already begun pushing for both for gay couples. Before you start with the whole “that’s why gay marriage should be legalized” talking points, that isn’t the military’s problem.”
Again agreed. Until or unless DOMA is repealed, gay married couples will not be recognized or receive benefits. This doesn’t really answer the question of special rights.
Special infers a benefit or protection not afforded to the whole. Even the quota argument is tenuous.
Well, that is the basic problem, isn’t it? Unfortunately, when dealing with what people WANT instead of what is needed, you can never please more than one person at a time.
Which brings us back to the question of why any gummint agency or employee is making any effort to provide anything based simply on what folks want. That concept is waaaaaaay outside the bounds of a legitimate function of gummint for this or any other life issue. Like housing. Or food. Or procreation.
@6 – I absolutely agree. The irony is that this is true for the opposing argument as well. It encompasses what that population wants.
“But the solution for that problem set appears to be nothing less than a straight, male, white military.”
I give up. You want to make a point? Fine, just don’t pretend that you want discourse and, when it is delivered, come up with pap like that.
If you had bothered to even infer a solution, I would have commented to those specifics. If the solution is to discard quotas of any sort, I agree. But tell me which party/administration or agency is going to spearhead the effort.
Ok, CI, here is what I wrote on that other thread:
“The thing that many here are forgetting, or aren’t focused on is that this is going to create another protected class within the military i.e. “I didn’t get promoted because I’m gay”, “I didn’t get that much sought after billet because I’m gay”, etc. The military is going to be spending a lot of time and resources to investigate each and every complaint, which will obviously be moved ahead in priority of other complaints and Commanders, who want to advance, will be in defense mode more than leadership mode because of it. They will be second guessing every decision on who gets an assignment or promotion. That’s not what the military needs to deal with, but now it is a reality. It won’t matter if the troop is sub-standard as much as it will matter if they munch carpet or smoke poles.”
You know it will be played out like this and so do I. There is your special benefit and protection you want to know about.
Do you believe it would be better to disallow gays to serve openly than to provide a solution for a problem that already exists?
#11 Well, we will see soon enough, won’t we?
Give an inch (of cock), take a mile.
#5- Special infers a benefit or protection not afforded to the whole.
That’s the point – they’re already pushing for benefits afforded only to spousal units when they aren’t entitled to those benefits under the auspice that they’re being discriminated against because they’re gay. It began with openly serving and is already expanding from there within 24 hours.
@14 – They’re pushing for an official recognition of marriage, which will then entitle them to those benefits. They’re not advocating form those benefits sans marriage….which would be a special right.
CI in #11: The solution was already in place. DADT was the best compromise of the time. What do you think the solution should be to the scenario I gave? It’s going to happen in that way, you know it and I know it, so stop pretending that this is about openly serving. They don’t want equal, they never have, they want preferential treatment and if you don’t give them what they think they are entitled to, then you are a homophobe and THATstigma will follow you around for the rest of your career in the military, they will make sure of it. Plus, any Commander that doesn’t do as they think will have congressional calls, because the first thing the little darling is going to do is get on the horn to their congresscritter and start whining about discrimination.
It’s not about being a soldier, sailor, airman, marine; it’s about being a gay soldier, gay sailor, gay airman, gay marine. I was na soldier, not a white soldier. My buddy was a soldier, not a black soldier; why do we have to differentiate now?
>It began with openly serving and is already expanding from there within 24 hours.
It is indictive of the dishonesty of their whole movement. Everytime they want something, their critic say but that will lead to xy and z and they cry “Oh no it won’t, you are just paranoid.” And yet, after they acheive that goal that is exactly what happens. Remember they ripped Santorum up and down when he said that Lawrence v. Texas would lead to gay marriage and yet within FOUR months after the decision the Mass. Supreme Court has made it legal. Four months proceeding the repeal, I saw opponents say that it wouldn’t lead to DOMA’s repeal. That these people just wanted to put a picture of their loved ones on a desk without fear of reprisal, and yet within TWENTY FOUR HOURS we see the escalation of their goals. Now how paranoid are we who think that homosexuals eventual goals is religious freedom? When does those perpetual victimization of less than 1% stop changing the rest of the 99%.
What’s really wrong with Gay marriage? And why does the government have to regulate it?
JMHO,
Unfricking believable.
So let me guess, now if you live in military housing, you could end up with some fruits living in the shack next door. Yeah, explain that one to your 3 year old.
What the hell is going to happen if an NCO decides that someone should be disciplined and given remedial training and they are gay? Now the NCO will face punishment for “singling out the gay guy”. BS.
>What’s really wrong with Gay marriage?
Because when a state can no longer decide who can legally married based on a compelling interest of the state then you can’t exlude anyone. And that there is a “Constitutional” right to marry, then you cannot exclude other groups such as familial, polygamous etc-nor should you. What compelling interest can a state stop two brothers from marrying if gay marriage is legal? They can’t reproduce so genetic link is out.. and if two brothers have a constitutional right to marry it is only a matter of time before a brother and a sister retain that right also. Polygamous unions actually have more basis in history and religious freedom than gay unions do.
Loving v. Virginia was decided the way it was because one group was specifically excluded from interracial marriage-whites. All other races in Virginia could intermarry. There was an exclusion. Currently homosexuals can marry with the same right as heterosexuals. With the exception of gay marriage states, no one has the right to marry the same sex, so there is no exclusion. The state doesn’t care if you love your spouse or even if you are attracted to your spouse. There is no check for sexual orientation on the marriage license.
>And why does the government have to regulate it?
Because they want federal benefits. And they want the word marriage so they can say that they are normal. That was the crux of the Prop 8 decision in California. California’s civil union laws afforded gay couples all the rights of state marriage, but did not give the name marriage. They wanted the name, because it had “societal” implications.
@CI,
EO currently applies to the five protected categories of:
race, sex, creed, religion, color, or national origin
Were sexual preference included, it would indeed create special rights not available to the whole.
Do you believe that sexual preference should be a protected category covered under EO?
I blame all this on the soccer mom’s
@21 – “Were sexual preference included, it would indeed create special rights not available to the whole.”
The answer to that question is going to be dependent on the individuals beliefs. If you believe that it is merely a behavioral choice, then you probably would disagree with it’s inclusion. Though this brings up the untidy logical disconnect where straight opponents of gay equality uniformly argue that they cannot in good faith change their sexual ‘preference’.
If you believe that this is a biological orientation, then you might be obviously predisposed to supporting it’s inclusion.
The Fed has already included it in civilian agency’s, including DoD for civilian…..so I don’t think it’s a leap that this will extend to the uniformed components.
@16 – “It’s not about being a soldier, sailor, airman, marine; it’s about being a gay soldier, gay sailor, gay airman, gay marine”
You realize that your assessment of your opponents motives are taken with as much skepticism as your own motives would be the them?
In other words, it’s difficult to base a cogent opinion on an issue based on what one opposing group says the other group wants. Not does, wants.
CI: Have I given a scenario that won’t be played out? No, because we have seen such instances take place. Congresscritters love to play social engineer and this has been played out with women who felt that they were being discriminated against because of their gender. We still see it happening today. What makes you think it won’t happen with gays? They have been just as forceful to get their “rights” brought into the mix. I love how you are downplaying it, but just because you are doesn’t make it so.
Ya we didn’t see this coming. (rolls eyes)
Coming soon to a military base near you, gay pride celebration days and marches complete with S&M outfits and very public displays of affection.
CI: Every so often, I am reminded that males and females see certain things quite differently. It’s sometimes rather like word disassociation, only it goes to thought process and perception. For instance, I say banana, she says dishwasher. I say blue, she says yogurt. My exchange with you reminds me of that. Are you a female?
There is a reason that woman are not on tanks. Generally speaking, physical demands are too much. (Heat rounds are fricking heavy.) Therefore, a woman would end up jumping from driver to gunner w/o being a loader. So the male troop would end up being promoted slower. Also, Personal hygene time on a tank in the desert is an open affair.
I know that homosexuals have been in the military and have hid it. Keep it that way. Can you imagine what it will be like living on a tank with someone who is openly gay?
EO in the Army is already out of control. This will only hinder soldiers from being soldiers.
This will destroy the force.
@24 – I’m not downplaying the likelihood, it will happen. The question is to what extent. The follow up is what net effect that would have on the military? Everybody likes to carp about this issue occurring with racial minorities and women, but I haven’t experienced a net degradation. When my wife was in uniform, she dealt with more of those issues than I [from a command perspective] and lost no faith and confidence in the Army.
A final thought following the previous questions is, what would have been your position during racial and gender integration? Should that not have occurred due to the likelihood of some service members using their biological status as an escape hatch for sub par behavior?
But I believe your concerned are valid. That’s the tenor of the discussion I think we should [and should have] had in the grand scheme.
I can’t say the same about “Coming soon to a military base near you, gay pride celebration days and marches complete with S&M outfits and very public displays of affection.”
CI,
What was your branch in the military? Have you ever been on a tank/Bradley, etc? Tankers are very professional troops, However, there is a certain amount of unprofessionalism inside a tank, that is very necessary to function in a combat environment. That is not possible with openly gay troops inside a tank. That is also why female troops are not on tanks.
“A final thought following the previous questions is, what would have been your position during racial and gender integration? Should that not have occurred due to the likelihood of some service members using their biological status as an escape hatch for sub par behavior?”
Actually, that happened from both sides during the racial and gender integration days. There were fights based on race and their were promotions, or lack of, based on race and gender.
What I’m getting at is that there was already a policy in place that, even though it was a compromise, worked to a point. Does having someone in the unit that is gay affect anything? Unless they tell you they are gay, chances are that you won’t know. The color of someone’s skin is different. They can’t hide it (Michael Jackson tried), so there is no getting around it. Same with females.
Now, we’re talking about sexual preference, not sexual orientation. I prefer women, so maybe the barracks, latrines, showers, should become co-ed? What’s the difference; right? The same arguments used to downplay the possibilities of two guys smoking poles in the shower should work for two hetero people of the opposite sex in the same shower situation; correct? If not; why?
All I’m saying about this is we’re just seeing the start and they already are demanding more. When will it end?
@29 – Army Infantry.
“However, there is a certain amount of unprofessionalism inside a tank, that is very necessary to function in a combat environment.”
That’s not un-professionalism, that’s military camaraderie and the morbid humor that salves combat stress. Infantryman are as professional as the rest, including towards Brothers who we knew were gay.
“That is not possible with openly gay troops inside a tank.”
Sure it is. It’s already been part of the equation. You seem to predicate your position based on emotional reactions of those who want to be accepted unconditionally but accept conditionally.
“That is also why female troops are not on tanks.”
If this drafts off of your previous comment regarding physical ability, you are incorrect.
@30 – “What I’m getting at is that there was already a policy in place that, even though it was a compromise, worked to a point.”
I didn’t have any gripe with DADT. I’m able to argue on grounds that I consider logical and just, because just as yourself, I am not involved in policy approval.
“The color of someone’s skin is different. They can’t hide it, so there is no getting around it.”
I concur. But ask yourself what the underlying reasons are that homosexuals should be forced to hide their orientation? The overwhelming answer I receive usually consists of subjective responses based on individual morality and emotional predisposition.
“Now, we’re talking about sexual preference, not sexual orientation”
I’m speaking about orientation, not preference. I prefer blonde women with athletic builds. My orientation is heterosexual.
“All I’m saying about this is we’re just seeing the start and they already are demanding more.”
Possibly, but I’m not personally concerned unless they demand rights and privileges not afforded to other service members.
When I first got to polk in 87, there was an over abundance of tankers. They stuck me in a mortar platoon for about a year and a half. There was an E-4, super trooper in my platoon that could smoke everyone in PT, weapons, just about everything. Everyone had a feeling he was gay, but it didnt matter. Why? Because it was never spoken of. He soldiered just like the rest of us. One night, we had a keg in the barracks and were getting pretty shit faced. He got drunk and wrote a letter to one of the other grunts confessing his “feelings” for him. No one ever brought it up the chain, because he was a bad ass troop and everyone respected him as a soldier. He ended up leaving for duty somewhere else because of that and for a time before he left, the platoon suffered as a whole because it clouded everything. It did effect the mission.
Not too many soldiers care about someones choices if they just keep it to themselves. Why do gay folks feel the need to tell everyone? Why cant everyone just be soldiers?
I thought it was interesting that when they introduced the leader of OutServe they said the group represents gay/lesbian/bisexual/TRANSGENDER soldiers. Did I miss something, because I thought only Thailand allows transgenders to join the military.
Yeah, well, it’s gonna make those port visits to Pattaya a LOT more interesting.
@32 – “It did effect the mission.”
Aside from the same dynamic occurring between male and female in the same circumstances, you’re still attributing the overall response to the reactions of hetero Soldiers.
“Why do gay folks feel the need to tell everyone? Why cant everyone just be soldiers?”
Exactly. Why should Soldier feel the need to tell others about their sexual orientation, or their weekend exploits between the sheets, or have their spouse meet them with a hug and a kiss upon redeployment, or want their spouse come to Landstuhl, or hold hands in the PX after duty hours….
You see where I’m going with this right?
Are you just arguing without actually reading, CI? That’s exactly what seems to be occurring. Yes, they are very much arguing for special benefits in the form of housing, etc even though they are not allowed to marry. To be notified as NOK, medical, housing- those are all benefits for which they are already lobbying, married or not.
@36 – “That’s exactly what seems to be occurring.”
Feel free to show where they are doing so irrespective of marriage recognition.
Let me also add that he attempted suicide prior to being reassigned. Not because of any hetrosexual bringing any shit down on him. No one ever gave him any heartache over it. He was humiliated. Why would he have been humiliated if he thought it was right to be gay?
If soldiers utilize DADT, then they would never discuss there off duty activities.
Whether people like it or not, this is a christian nation. Our values are based on christianity. The bible says it is wrong, therefore it is wrong. Alot of people are trying to change that currently. Our country was founded on those values. Why should we change our value system because hollywood, et al are trying to change culture into something it isnt. I am a libritarian, however, part of that is (in the privacy of your own home) If drugs are legalized, you still wont be able to smoke dope and drive a tank. Dope heads will still be ostrisized by the mainstream. Therefore they will most likely keep it to themselves.
[…] 21st, 2011 While I agree with Jonn Lilyea, whole-heartedly, that the Dan Chois of the world are-and should be- unwelcome in the military, the distinction is that he wants to be […]
However, there is a certain amount of unprofessionalism inside a tank, that is very necessary to function in a combat environment.
I plead ignorance, I spent most my time in the drivers hole… *whistling out of key*
@38 – “Whether people like it or not, this is a christian nation.”
That would of course be your opinion….and another topic entirely. Careful with leaning unquestioningly on ‘what the bible says’.
38 – I missed this first go around…possibly due to it’s misspelling.
“I am a libritarian”
Seriously? I can almost understand how some people can take a single issue and think I’m somehow a liberal….and I am trying hard to not emulate them. But seriously?
I’m not sure why you introduced drugs into the discussion. Chemically impairing your physical and mental capabilities doesn’t relate to sexual orientation.
I question everything. In no way do I blindly believe anything. I have, however extensively studied the bible and do believe the words written to be fact based on my studies and life experiences. The bible I read carries everything back to Greek or Hebrew. That way I know I am getting the actual meaning of the words written, not man’s opinion of the words.
Modern America may look down on christians, but that doesnt change how this country was founded.
But that is a subject for another time.
No one is calling you a liberal. I said I am a libertarian.
My guess is you have libertarian views as well. The only problem is that most libertarians define their version differently than each other.
I brought drugs into it because drugs are mostly looked at as wrong. Homosexuality is mostly looked at as wrong. Therefore wont be accepted.
As far as spelling, sometimes my fingers type faster than my brain can keep up.
@44 – “No one is calling you a liberal.”
I didn’t mean to imply that you had; one or two others however…..
I am a Libertarian. Mostly small ‘l’…I have disagreements with the LP.
“I brought drugs into it because drugs are mostly looked at as wrong. Homosexuality is mostly looked at as wrong. Therefore wont be accepted.”
OK…..murder and rape are considered wrong as well. Just as inapplicable [at least in my opinion] as drugs v. sexual orientation.
Not to mention the myriad of other issues across the social spectrum that were once considered correct or wrong until we realized the error in supporting or criminalizing them.
@Bulldog, is that a Tanker issue, the brain-housing group thing? 😉 JP, as an NCO and Team Sergeant, I do not care what Joe does on his own time, as long as the mission is not effected, Joe can still shoot move and communicate, and no one gets arrested. Sexual orientation does not matter, especially if they are one of those strong Gays that work out constantly, because they need to be able to pull teammates out of a burning truck, in all their gear, under fire, and get that buddy the aid they need. Thats what counts.
Murder and rape are not victimless crimes. Drugs unless forced on someone are a victimless crime. If someone wants to snort coke until their nose explodes, unless they commit a crime or injure someone else while on them, it is their problem. If someone wants to be gay, let them. It is between them and their maker. But, back to the founding of this country. It whether you want to admit it or nor was founded on christian beliefs.
This is going nowhere. IMO, it cant work for the military. Maybe I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it. If you were a grunt, you have to at least see my point about it.
It seems to me that what people, the media, and policy makers are not saying; what this all boils down to, is sex and the people having it, and fear. Why aren’t we all calling it for what it is? Try as it might, the military has never been able to stop its members from sleeping with each other. There are whole heaps of repercussions when two hetero servicemembers start getting it on, from physical (pregnancy) to logistical, moral and legal. And whether we choose to admit it or not, some of us who have served have either seen or heard of two servicemembers of the same gender having sex. Sex happens, and will continue to do so. Point being, the military as a whole has been working around the issue of sex between members for a long long time. The difference is, prior to the repeal of DADT, if you had sex with a member of the opposite sex it was dealt with as fraternization. I will assume that any caught having gay sex were discharged under DADT (?). The only reference point I have is the integration of females into certain military platforms. From personal experience, I was assigned to a ship that had only been integrated for perhaps 2 weeks. I was the first female in my department. And unlike all the men on the ship who had been given weeks of excruciating “sensitivity training” *shudder*, I was given no warning. It was an eye opening experience to say the least. It was beyond my comprehension at that point in my life that there were men who had -never- worked with a woman. I was met with reactions ranging from over the top sycophancy to outright hostility. And after a while you know what? I lost all respect for the fawners, the ones who would apologize for dropping an f-bomb, who went out of their way to make sure I was never ever “offended”. Those people were running scared. The several guys who told me to my face that I didn’t belong there, that it would be… Read more »
@46, must be a tanker thing. I blame it on the lead paint in the old tanks and asbestos mittens for the aftcaps. Hey maybe cryer can help me get some disability for that. 😉
@48,
You seem to be the exception to the rule. (male/female serving together)From your post it seems to me that you can dish it out and take it. Great.
What super EO training are the troops going to have to deal with to get them ready for what is coming and how much will that training take away from soldier training? Because of EO, I am still a white guy and black guys are now African Americans. Indians are Native Americans and if anyone says different they are racists.
(I served with a Crow Indian at Hood and he said he is an Indian.) What new words and sensitivities are troops going to have to deal with in order to talk to a gay soldier?
I went to PAC one day back at Hood and there were two black soldiers in there trying to describe what a soldier looked like so someone would recognize him. As soon as I walked in they stopped and started trying to describe this guy as “the soldier who has a skintone other than myself”. HUH?? I said do you mean the white guy? Are we in for that soon?
ROS, you do realize gay people can get married (to the same sex person they love) in multiple states, right? Maybe you don’t understand the legal framework of marriage and DOMA?
—–
When you all put in for benefits for your wives, moved her on base, took in more pay and took her to a Ball were you straight first and soldiers second?
#32- I am constantly amazed at how so many straight people don’t think they “tell everyone” about being straight. I guess all that tanker talk doesn’t involve talking about women or sex, right? You all practice DADT with your own lives, you NEVER say things that disclose your sexuality.