Since first enacted, under Bill Clinton in 1993, the policy known as 'Don't Act, Don't Tell' has governed the way the Services have handled the inevitable inclusion of homosexuals and lesbians. Essentially, the policy recognized what all of us have known, that some in uniform have not been as forthright about their sexual proclivities as others. On the surface, the policy was there to promote order and discipline in an environment where these are not just hallmarks but crucial to mission success. It also gave silent consent to those practicing homosexuality to continue to serve as long as that practice was kept in private.
Gleaning any number of politically engineered surveys with specifically crafted questions aimed at people in uniform has provided a seemingly mixed accounting of perceptions of these sexual practices and both sides of the argument have used the data to sway the argument one way or the other.
While I am sure this engineering of craft gives some sense of power to the ideologues using the results, literally everyone in the argument seems to not have understood the ultimate price that will be paid for this gaming.
Societies throughout time have struggled with this issue. It is not new and we are not more advanced because President Obama will be signing a piece of paper this morning that will put us on par with the likes of Sodom, Gomorrah, Sparta, Pompei, the Roman Empire, ancient Greece, et al. But once again we are witnessing our government's failure to consult the annals of History to see the fruit of their decisions. Each of these aforementioned societies fell into ruin after having followed the same course of action our Congress and the White House just took. It is also worthy to note, that almost every vote, and every signature given to repeal this policy has been given by men - and women who have never donned a uniform in defense of this nation; Men and Women who on the low end of the scale receive $174,000.00 a year to safeguard not only our physical security but our moral underpinning as well.
The surveys given to the Warrior community that seemed to suggest the vast majority will welcome this policy change have been ever so cleverly crafted in a way that caused the respondent to consider whether or not he hates the person rather than the practice. Adm Mullen refused to answer Senator McCain's question on this issue because the Admiral knew of the deviously designed disingenuous structure of the questions. These questions were specifically designed to produce a result that upper echelon leadership could live with and to persuade proponents of DADT to 'move over'.
In their rabid zeal to darn the fabric of American society, they have thrust onto our military yet one more untenable item to deal with and this, during a time of war. If anyone thinks this will not have a detrimental effect on the state of morale and effectiveness across the board, you are naïve and foolish. This is especially true in a Service as intense and masculine as the Marine Corps. I have long believed that the axiom 'the Marine Corps builds men' to be inaccurate. The fact is men come to the Marine Corps and the Marine Corps trains them to be the finest Warriors the world has ever seen. Members of all of the other Services will tell you something similar. But I am convinced that men who come to the Marine Corps, a service that promises pain - in large quantity, are answering a clarion call. They don't join because the Marine Corps is a 'tolerant, all accepting' organization; it is because the Marine Corps squares off with danger - and destroys it with men genetically pre-disposed for the rigors of intense combat.
If Congress wants to 're-structure' something, they should look into their own souls and do a little re-tooling there. This latest unconscionable act by this morally stunted government will prove to have been one of the decisive nails in the coffin awaiting the sarcophagus - and the grave of this nation.
It should give pause to us all to consider the eventual plight of each and every nation in history that has openly traveled this route.
Members of Congress should glean the pages of history; secular and Biblical to see what happened to those men and women who have set their nations on the course this sitting government just has.
Semper Fidelis;
John Bernard
Truer words were never written, John. The morally bankrupt denizens of the once-hallowed halls of Congress are gleefully driving Obama's overused car analogy off a cliff.
ReplyDeleteWe all hope that the recent election results will lead to a return to common sense and fiscal responsibility by our Congress, but I doubt anything significant will happen until the CinC is removed from power in 2012.
Until then, we just buckle up and hang on. Have a very merry Christmas, John. Semper fi.
N8RV;
ReplyDeleteThanks and the same to you and yours. In the meantime; our currently serving Warriors would do well to 'gird their loins' - for real.
SF
jb
Amen!
ReplyDeleteHistory unacknowledged is history repeated-thank you for the history on this matter..
ReplyDeleteI know that every military person I know did not agree w/ the compromise of DADT and
do not want openly practicing homosexuals in their ranks...
as to the post below-I do pray that those like Allen West will stand strong...
May you and yours have a Blessed and Peace-Filled Christmas-
Carol-CS
Very good post. Nothing good will come of this.
ReplyDeleteWhen DADT was initially passed I opined it merely set up a straw man to be knocked down sometime in the future by gay activists and their sympathizers. It was a completely unnecessary piece of legislation.
I can only speak from my own experience in the sub force, but the sexual preferences of others was never an issue as long as they "kept it in their pants". As an example, on my second boat we had a senior enlisted sonarman who was gay. Everyone knew it, he didn't hide it but he also didn't push the issue. What he did when home in Staten Island was his business, while onboard and underway he was completely professional. Therefore nobody gave a damn. End of story.
The repeal of DADT is a way to continue using our military as a sociological petri dish. That is plain reprehensible and without any merit.
The time will come when we'll all regret this.
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Jeff;
ReplyDeleteThanks again and have a great Christmas.
SF
jb
Carol;
ReplyDeleteThe more things change; the more they stay the same. The evolutionists would do well to keep that in mind. We are no better or worse than any of our predecessors in history and are subject to the same moral laws, laws of nature and the God who commands it all.
I have a theory that men don't like consulting history because they don't want to know what penalty they are facing for their immoral and faulty decisions - and sin; as though they can hide or sidestep the inevitable. Such is the state of blindness of the morally corrupt.
Have a great and Blessed Christmas!
SF
jb
Subvet;
ReplyDeleteI to did not want to see DADT. It was just a wedge in a locked door. Sooner or later thhis was going to come to this. As you said, we all knew homosexuals were in the Service but they were quiet and professional. This repeal is about the left, the morally stunted and flamboyant winning the right to flaunt their proclivity.
The left will not be satisfied until they have removed every vestige of what we, as Americans, had hoped we were from our very souls - and certainly from the history books.
As far as this issue is concerned; can you say S-P-A-R-T-A?
SF
jb
Sadee, Sadee, Sadee;
ReplyDeleteYou have obviously never served in an organization where everything about you is 'exposed' to the world around you. You, as a woman would declare any man that made unwanted advances toward you to be in violation of one law or another and yet demand, from your unknowing position of safety, in your home, that men be subjected to the unwanted gaze and advances of other men - in a Barracks and in the communal shower conditions they are often forced to live in.
The fact is, under DADT homosexuals were allowed to serve - 'unmolested' and without scrutiny. The only reason they, and this morally stunted government want it to go away is because they want to be able to flaunt their proclivity in the faces of those who happen to know the 'plumbing' wasn't designed to work that way.
You don't have to believe in a Sovereign God or his word to understand that kind of lifestyle is a perversion of the natural intent. Usually atheists also are protective over animals even beyond humans and will yet defend something as unnatural in the animal kingdom as a male on male sex act.
It is unnatural; it is a choice and it is immoral to force on men and women who by virtue of their oaths place their very lives in danger and at the 'disposal' of their governments.
By the way; you may not know this because I suspect you do not know the history or writings of the United States Constitution, but, there is no recognized or protected right of any American to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States.
There are standards that are to be followed. It just so happens that this sitting bunch of reprobates have decided that allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve is not only right, but now mandated.
By the way; you can't make your particular understanding of right and wrong become universal or force the God of this universe to submit to your vision of what that should be. It is suppose to be the other way around. If you really and truly want to test your beliefs in an objective way, then read Romans, chapter 1 and allow yourself to remember that these writings are considered the inspired word of God.
By the way; the Islamists you so often try to protect, observe the death penalty - by stoning, for any openly practicing homosexual. Not only do they not allow them in their military or in their society, they believe they should all be killed by stoning - world-wide.
In any case; you should never expect someone to do something you have not, and will not dp yourself.
jb
It's only a matter of time before we have new uniform regulations so the transgeners can wear the uniform of their choice.
ReplyDeleteQ;
ReplyDeleteThe Dead in DC have not begun to consider the practical ramifications of this decision. This was exclusively about those 'in power' telling everyone how they will think - and act.
Some of the problems;
1. Men and Women are kept in separate Barracks because of the 'likelihood' of fraternization. It is entirely beyond reason to think every Man and every Woman will remain celibate during their time in Service and so, we segregate. Now that we have Men and Women with a proclivity toward 'relations' with their own sex, have any of the Dead considered what that means for the Barracks? Do you want to make a wager as to how long it will take before there are class action suits for discrimination based on 'sexual orientation'/segregation?
2. As many Barracks still use single room/multiple shower heads, how fair is it to place men - or women in an environment where they will be glared at? Considering the very nature of human interactive relationships and the 'traditional' method of courting/dating; how is a young PVT or PFC suppose to put up with unwanted advances made in the privacy of the Barracks? Again; the Dead in DC have not considered what they don't know and one of the many things they don't know is that Hazing has been on the rise for years now. Can you imagine what kinds of perversions are likely to be introduced into that already sick practice?
3. Being as this is now 'just another normal expression' of sexuality and individuality, have the Dead considered how they will handle the eventual situation where the 'third sex' decides to cross dress, or wear make-up? After all; if Women are allowed to and you have now thrown open the doors for all desires, proclivities, and leanings as normal; how can you deny someone - anyone the right to add a little 'glow' simply as a means of expressing themselves in their own sexuality?
What is next; disappearing weight standards? Height, eyes, etc? Claims can be made that any and all current standards that deny someone from serving to be unconstitutional.
Another thing I find interesting is that every single thing a person can dream up is somehow or another a Constitutionally protected right. WAKE UP CALL: There is no right to serve in uniform anymore than there is an implied right to be a Police Officer, a Teacher, a Carpenter, a Plumber, a Millionaire. There are standards for everything and the standards are generally drawn up to be in the best interest of the field of endeavor and those served by it; not the rights or interests of the individual who decides he/she/he-she, who wants to 'join'.
These are just the practical implications. The Spiritual implications - both for the individual and this nation are nothing short of apocalyptic.
SF
jb
I served honorably in the USMC Infantry (Tip of the Spear Baby!) for a long time, on and off. I have participated in multiple front line infantry combat operations and actions. I can say with absolute certainty that homosexuals serving openly in front line combat operations will absolutely cause huge moral problems.
ReplyDeleteWhen a serviceman is on “the line” one of the first things you lose is personal privacy. For example, during combat operations, which can last for months at a time, there is no such thing as a private place to perform personal hygiene. As a result, personal hygiene is performed subtly, but openly. However, it wasn’t a problem, because everyone participating in said operations was the same gender and to everyone’s knowledge, a heterosexual. This is no longer the case.
This is a huge deal; men serving in combat operations have enough to deal with, without forcing them to expose themselves to known homosexuals, who have made is abundantly clear that even though you may be of the same gender, you are looked upon [potentially] as a sexual object. I for one would not feel comfortable taking a shower with a known homosexual. In fact, I would not shower with a known homosexual.
Let me put it this way; How would YOU feel if your superior told YOU, that YOU are now required to bathe, and use the bathroom in full view of the opposite sex on a daily basis? Wouldn’t this make YOU feel violated? I can tell you that it most certainly would make me feel violated if I had to do the same with women, or homosexual men!
This brings us to rear areas, outside of front line combat operations… Financially this is going to cost the US Government millions of dollars, taxpayer’s money! Think about it; new housing, and bathroom facilities for the “third sex”. New programs, new medical concerns… I won’t suggest I know everything this will entail, but the financial implications are enormous. In a time of protracted recession, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT!
Finally this brings us to the matter of faith. Conservatively, 80% of the US Military are Christians of one flavor or another. I can tell you, having been there, that there are very, very few atheists on the front lines. I’d say that among infantry line units, less that 1% are anything but a practicing Christian to varying degrees. Put simply, our faith proscribes that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination against Man and God. Now, “The Hill” has legislated that American military service members will tolerate this indignity, or else…
I am sickened, I am frustrated and I fear for the future of my nation and its children. This will come to no good end, and I just pray that the new group headed to “The Hill” have the fortitude to draw back the repeal of DODT, pray with me, please.
John, this whole scenario irks me no end. I'm a retired Marine MSgt and have no doubt I served alongside both gay and lesbian Marines during my 21 yrs in uniform. DADT served both sides well enough, but it's the politicians and public (who have no business deciding any of this in the first place), who feel things need to be changed.
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality in general is more accepted today than in years past, but the general population still doesn't consider it acceptable behavior, and it pisses me off that 'they' want to use the military to help make it more so.
I wrote an article about it back in March. With your permission I'll put the URL here.
Marie Anne;
ReplyDeletePlease do.
SF
jb