The camel’s nose
Since I get in trouble every time I write about this, I’ll do it again. It seems that there’s a new executive director of OutServe-SLDN, the lead lobbying group for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and he/she says the battle isn’t over yet. From Stars & Stripes;
“There is a tremendous amount of inequality still,” said [Allyson] Robinson, a 1994 West Point graduate and longtime rights advocate. “We have (the Defense of Marriage Act). We have families of military gays and lesbians not able to access basic support and benefits. The reason we’re still fighting on these issues, even after repeal, is because we have not yet achieved our mission.”
[…]
Robinson, who commanded Patriot missile units in Germany and Saudi Arabia during the 1990s, served five years in the Army and lived for 30 years as a man before transitioning to a transgender woman. She also worked as a Christian minister, and admits that her personal life has confused and alienated some colleagues.
While gay and lesbian troops can now serve openly in the military without fear of dismissal, transgender individuals — troops with “gender identity disorder,” under Defense Department regulations — are still banned.
So, we were told before the repeal that Don’t Ask, Don’t tell was standing in the way of gays serving their country, because that was all they wanted to do, but they couldn’t honestly because they had to hide their gayness. OK, so now that particular barrier to service has been removed,, the bar for the rest of us has been moved. It’s not about selfless service at all but, it’s about benefits. So instead of being honest in the first place, the Gay movement is just changing the definition of selfless service to mean selfish service. Not, what can I do for my country, but rather what can the government give me.
Like most Americans, I wasn’t opposed to gays serving openly in the military, but I suspected that there was a wider agenda at work here. It’s not about service at all but rather about encoding acceptance of a deviant lifestyle in our system of laws. But, it’s like the Iraq Veterans Against the War turning suddenly on the war in Afghanistan after the war in Iraq was ended – no the gay organizations have to shift their fire to another goal so they can continue to survive even though their initial goal has been reached.
Maybe accepting gays in the military hasn’t disrupted the good order and discipline like many expected, but who can deny with a straight face that accepting trans-gendered people into the military wouldn’t have an adverse effect? The myriad adjustments to the physical presence of transgendered people would be just the tip of the iceberg. And who wants to sit through the resulting power point presentation?
Category: Military issues
“We have families of military gays and lesbians not able to access basic support and benefits.” So, the parent of a military gays has no access to basic support and benefits? How about the child of one? I mean, it couldn’t have meant families. I think it meant same-sex spouse or something.
Well, one can only hope that this moronic crap is rolled back to the pre-DADT days and we can get on with the business of war fighting.
Will this Idiocy ever end!? I am tired of being told that I HAVE to except deviant behavior, to do otherwise will get me fired. I do not and can not force my straightness on any one, don’t force the other crap on me! If gays and lesbians realized this, I could probably find a sympathetic cord,,,maybe.
Oh, guys, they just want to be treated like human beans.
Just consider it an odd form of birth control.
And remember: they don’t like being stereotyped, but they do want to be free to stereotype everyone else.
“It’s not about selfless service at all, but”. . . . . . it’s about “lip” service.
It’s not about service at all but rather about encoding acceptance of a deviant lifestyle in our system of laws.
I would acknowledge the truth in that statement except that it doesn’t go far enough.
Here’s an idea: why not just give them their very own MILDIV-LBGT division?
They can all flock to that. No one will care what they do (or who) and the rest of the force can go back to being straight and proud of it.
@7. I like the idea but it’s that separate but equal problem that arises. On the other hand, there is no Constitutional prohibition against discrimination against LBGT or, for that matter, XY or Zs.
Maybe the article should have been labeled “the camel’s toe”
No such thing as a slippery slope they always say when some one of another opinion states that moving this line will not be the end. Even after time and time again we have all witnessed the ever moving line. This is the re-education of us all. Right is wrong and what you are thinking is not what is real. They will get rid of everybody who remembers what it used to be like and all the rest will think that this is how always was. A lie is now the truth.
What Robinson fails to realise that it is DOMA from keeping the spouses of homosexuals from recieving benifits. Also that children of homosexual service members still recieve benifits. Who would of thought, the Military having to obey Federal law.
I believe that several of us had stated in past threads that the end of DADT would not end the cause, because we knew then that it had nothing to do with service, alone, as the goal. That was just the first battle. The supporters on here that attempted to take us to task wouldn’t admit the truth, or they were just easily duped, but now we see it for what it really is about…….money and bennies.
I hate being right all the time, but when a bunch of wet behind the ears upstarts run their pieholes as though they think they have the answers, even on social issues, I’m reminded how wrong they end up being, all the time, and how they never pull a mea culpa for their arrogance, ignorance, and plain old stupidity.
I think they should be forced to watch or attend nationally televised straight pride parades.
Then they could find out what it’s like to have something you don’t want jammed down your throat.
“This is the re-education of us all.” Well, it’s the attempted re-education of us, that’s for sure. But there is resistance. Some of us do it quietly, explaining to our children why was taught in school today was WRONG. Others sit through the training classes, alternatively suppressing nausea and laughter at the ridiculous stuff taught. The LGBT have their victories but those victories are ALWAYS IMPOSED, not won through the collective hearts and minds of voters.
Do you really mean to say you didn’t know this was about the money?
They are hollow victories. They have no enemy but themselves.
For myself, all this mess goes back to mission effectiveness and needs vs wants. “We the people” should not be paying for anything which does not directly and positively impact mission effectiveness. Period. That includes medical needs, food, housing and some level of warm and fuzzy to keep the troops happy.
Everything else (stuff they want above and beyond actual needs) is the responsibility of the individual members to buy. It is not the responsibility of the citizens of this country to pay for my bad choices or those of others.
From a post a couple of weeks ago, I am still trying to figure out how someone wanting an artificial pregnancy, for instance, is the responsibility of anyone other than the one who wants it. If someone is so screwed up that they actually feel that they must bear a child to be a complete human being by whatever extaordinary means it takes to accomplish it, the expense for doing so is just not my responsibility. It’s frankly none of my business if that is what they want to do, but by insisting that I pay for it they have made it my business.
All just to say – all this stuff is in the same category. It is an unnecessary distraction from the war-fighting business.
Sadly AirCav I know what you are talking about. I have 4 beautiful young children and I always get the dirty looks when I send in the OPT OUT form back to school for sex ed. I educate my children on life issues, I need the school to focus on math. Or in my point, maybe more spelling and grammer. I stand shoulder to shoulder with you though.
Cripes! The LGBT community makes up about 3% of the U.S. population, but with the media exposure they get, it would appear to the outside world that 80% of our country is gay. What gives? Clearly there’s more to the agenda here, because heaven knows no one wants to serve their country just for the patriotism and sense of duty to do so. (sarc)
@19, when you raise badly spoiled children, this is how they repay you.
@1 It means exactly that, the same sex spouse. Since that arrangement is not a legally recognized federal spousal union the military is not obligated to provide access or support.
Should same sex marriage become a federally recognized right then the military would be obligated to provide the same benefits of spousal support that heteros receive (or don’t) these days.
I took the article to mean that is the next step for these folks, to get their marriage rights recognized on a federal level the same as heteros currently.
It’s interesting for me to consider that while gays being married causes me no great agita I am absolutely opposed to hate crime laws. There should be no extra penalty for beating the p1ss out of a gay victim than a straight victim. What those laws were really addressing was a lack of enforcement of standing laws in certain jursidictions..ie; cops not arresting people who beat up gays or prosecutors and judges not appropriately prosecuting and punishing assault regardless of the victim. Thus, the advent of the hate crime laws.
I don’t want any victim, including police victims, to have more weight in a court of law than any other random citizen. Hate crime laws diminish the rights of some while elevating others to a special legal status.
If the judicial system in certain jurisdictions fails to prosecute because of the status of the victim the appropriate response is the removal of the those refusing to do their job because of the race, creed, or sexuality of the victim.
@4.
Very true.
I want to shout (sing) my opinion but cry foul when someone else says something I disagree with.
I see that everyday here on campus, especially from that particular group.
Why not perpetuate social sterotypes and divisions to justify our place? It is easier than pursuing equality and social unity.
>>The LGBT have their victories but those victories are ALWAYS IMPOSED, not won through the collective hearts and minds of voters.
Exactly this is the agenda in a nutshell. And if people don’t think they are going to continue to use imposition of their “rights” as a bludgeon against other’s rights – they are sadly mistaken.
I am disapointed that folks don’t understand.
Getting rid of the half baked DADT, was a step and part of the stratagy to have equality. It is a moving of the line, the same line that had blacks as cooks only, or not able to serve.
Marriage equality, with DOMA gone should fix a lot of this, and we will be a better country for it in the end.
So, since it’s all about the bennies, you’ll give yours up so that it won’t be… right?
Come on, equal pay and benefits for equal service. No more, no less. Don’t let it become anything else.
“It is a moving of the line, the same line that had blacks as cooks only, or not able to serve.”
BS detector needle broke on that.
@25 –
Exactly. If one married couple gets bennies, then all should. If neither do , then it isn’t an issue. I am sure that all the married couples getting bennies will give them up to make sure that the two lesbians that are married can’t get quarters / spouse ID & healthcare.
Right?
2-17, how so? Every argument made against non-heterosexuals in the military was made against blacks, asians, jews, pick-your-discriminated-group.
Every. Single. One.
@PavePusher – Exactly, that is the sad / funny thing about this. It is nothing new, it is the same language, same discriminiation.
@28. Well. I. will. tell. you. He. who. equates. a desire. to. have. his. deviant. sexual. practices. with. the. horrendous. deadly. tortuous. treatment. of. Black. Americans. is. either. ignorant. or. pretending. to. be.
To put it as succinctly as I heard when the LGBT first attempted to make the silly argument you are attempting to make, “You can’t equate your sin with my skin.”
Run your argument by an old school, Southern civil rights era minister or preacher.
You may see another side.
Every one should have equal rights, not special rights.
That being said, I am having a difficult time equating gay rights with civil rights as seen in that era.
@ 28 … you left out the Irish!
“Every one should have equal rights, not special rights.”
Since special means unique and not shared by all, I’m still waiting for how gays are getting, much less wanting special rights.
Apparently the biological makeup of a fellow citizen is simply more than some can bear to stand, to the point that they believe it is somehow being forced upon them.
Just like skin color.
BTW … check this out:
Charles comes to work sporting a tailored blue grey suit acsented by a stripped red tie. He is a good worker.
Charlette comes to work wearing a nice conservative red dress topped by a blue wool sweater. She is a good worker.
They are the same person and it happening more and more in government.
I can’t stand both of them!
What one prefers in terms of his or her object of sexual desire and what one’s skin color is are not equivalent.
Really. So your heterosexuality is not as an integral part of your as your skin color?
It certainly is for me….but then again, base sexual desire is only one part of one’s sexual orientation.
“Since special means unique and not shared by all, I’m still waiting for how gays are getting, much less wanting special rights.”
Homosexuals are getting special, unique rights with “same sex ‘marriage'”. Currently, all homosexuals can (and always have been able to) get married: Homosexual man to homosexual/heterosexual woman or homosexual woman to homosexual/heterosexual man. So homosexuals have (and always have had) the same marriage “rights” as anyone else.
What they have been pushing for is the new, special “right” of “same sex ‘marriage'”, which results in (1) a redefinition of marriage to suit their lifestyle (ie, they want it redefined for same-sex couples, but are against redefining it for polyamorous couples or polygamy) and (2) special “rights” for same sex couples only.
Special “rights” come into play for “same sex ‘marriage'”, because only homosexuals can take advantage of “same sex ‘marriage'”. A heterosexual cannot get “same sex ‘married'”, however, a homosexual can get married (and always has been able to… ie NJ Governor McGreevey) and “same sex ‘married'”.
So yes, homosexuals are getting a new special “right” with the creation of “same sex ‘marriage'”.
In actuality, the group with special rights regarding marriage are heterosexuals. They have always been able to marry the gender that they are biologically predisposed towards. This obvious majority has throughout history imposed a legal and moral restriction on the ability for gay men and women to enjoy the same status.
The arguments against gay marriage mirror the arguments against interracial marriage.
The rights and benefits available to those who are married under the law are identical whether they be same sex or opposite sex, so the rights maintained under the umbrella of marriage are not ‘special’ for any party.
“A heterosexual cannot get “same sex ‘married’”, however, a homosexual can get married..”
Incorrect. Under marriage equality, if a straight man or woman desired to marry a same sex partner for whatever reason [in this case, there is surely no compelling social norm to adhere to against one’s biology], then they would certainly be able to do so.
Finally, restricting marriage may fall within one’s moral parameters, but doesn’t pass the test of favoring individual liberty.
CI: that is correct. And in most jurisdictions – and by Federal law – herterosexual marriage is a special legal status accorded to the male-female union. The Constitution does not prohibit conferring such special status in cases where doing so benefits the society at large and the state in particular. It’s why the poor are exempt from paying income taxes.
Further, conferring benefits on one group and denying the same to another is not unlawful, provided there is legitimate justification for doing so. Were that not the case, progressive taxation and means-tested benefits would be unlawful. They aren’t. The justification for doing so re: heterosexual marriage is that cost avoidance to the state in raising the next generation of citizens.
What’s being requested here isn’t equality. Rather, what is being requested here is a societal change to confer legitimacy on those who do not wish to live according to society’s norms. That’s asking for far more than tolerance.
spike11b: you are equating voluntary conduct (sexual conduct) with inherited characteristics (skin color, ethnicity). Discrimination based on the latter is in general unlawful. Discrimination based on the former is not and never has been.
And please spare me the “sexual orientation isn’t voluntary” bogus argument. Barring rape, ALL sexual conduct is voluntary – hetero or homo. And I’ll observe that heterosexual couples living together in general do not qualify as “married”.
Here, the Watergate-era phrase “Follow the money” comes to mind. YMMV.
@Hondo – I agree with your post excepting the distinction between sexual conduct/activity and sexual orientation. It indeed has been lawful throughout history, to regulate sexual activity…..though a Conservative lens would deem that regulation to be incompatible with the tenet of individual liberty.
@41: I agree with the tenet of individual liberty, however, when in uniform, you fall under a different set of rules. You know that. If we’re going to just go all nutsy fagan and if it feels right; do it, then I propose allowing adult siblings be able to get married and carry either on military benefits. Or adult mother-son, father daughter, etc. I mean, you can’t control who ya love; right? Why should the government be able to restrict my individual liberty in that respect, also? I mean, if we’re going to lose our minds, let’s do it good and proper. If we’re going to change everything for a very small minority of the population, let’s take it to its logical conclusion and make sure that an even a smaller minority is covered.
Don’t you dare judge me with your moral compass, either, because you have no right to oppress me and my rights.
@OT – “Don’t you dare judge me with your moral compass, either, because you have no right to oppress me and my rights.”
I’m not sure if this was a general statement or directed towards me, but I’ve judged nobody. Nor do I argue against this sort of process being conducted in a rational and measured course, especially regarding the uniformed services.
But are you implying that this issue oppresses you or restricts your rights somehow?
Conservatives view law and regulation as incompatible with individual liberty;
Anarchists oppose all law and regulation;
Ergo, anarchists are the ultimate conservatives.
Huh?
@43: No, CI, it wasn’t directed at you. It was the general statement/argument that I have heard many times from those that support gay marriage/ repeal of DADT. Now, with this latest attempt to move the goalposts, it reflects the continuous onslaught of what the goal is. I say let’s just remove the goalposts altoghether and simply go to the lowest common denominator, because the same argument works for any and all social abnormalities.
The difference between a conservative and an anarchist is that the conservative recognizes that society has a right to impose reasonable limitations on individual freedom. The anarchist does not.
Coincidentally, that is also essentially the difference between a mature adult and an immature fool. The former realizes that the world imposes consequences on their actions and acts accordingly. The latter does neither.
Hondo: And I’ll observe that heterosexual couples living together in general do not qualify as “married”.
Unfortunately, yes they do. It’s a common law marriage, in which they form a live together for the purpose of forming a household and a family. It’s recognized as marriage, and it’s as old as the term ‘common law’. Doesn’t require a ceremony or document. Also, common law marriages which split up can qualify for a form of alimony called ‘palimony’.
@46. Yes. Award yourself 10 points. Now, for the bonus round. You will agree that not only is it the conservative who recognizes that absolute freedom is unacceptable in ordered society and that reasonable limitations must be imposed but that all good citizens recognize this need. How are determinations of reasonableness to be made, such that the society, as a whole, accepts and respects those determinations?
Ex-PH2: in many if not most jurisdictions there is a period of time required before a cohabiting couple enters into a common-law marriage. Three years is common, but the period varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Further, time spent in cohabitation is not the sole criteria; the couple must also publicly hold themselves out as husband/wife and must desire the union to be permanent. The couple must also meet other criteria for a lawful marriage: willful entry into the union, legal age or parental consent; sound mind, etc . . . . When all those criteria are met, a common-law marriage becomes effective.
I don’t have ready access to the figures, but I’d guess the vast majority of heterosexual couples living together do not meet common-law marriage criteria.
2-17 AirCav: well, that varies rather dramatically from society to society. Here’s my take:
1. In a tribal society, it is determined by collective tribal mores and customs.
2. In a authoritarian dictatorship, that determination is made by the ruling individual/council/oligarchy. This includes theocracies and absolute monarchies.
3. In a democracy, the formal determination is made through the legal process. In a constitutional democracy, the constitution establishing the government generally provides a guarantee of certain rights that cannot be infringed by legislative fiat.
4. Socialist governments seem to act as a blend of authoritarian and democratic, with the tendency trending towards authoritarian over time.
5. In all cases, when there is enough of a disconnect between the majority public perception of what should be allowed and what is demanded by a minority or by the ruling individual/group – you’re asking for trouble. From my layman’s study of history, when such a disconnect persists over time and becomes severe enough the result is generally violent.
The above is a general discussion and is not intended to apply specifically to the issue raised by Jonn’s article above.