Article

2007-03-14 Home Front: Culture Wars

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-03-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 don't back down, Peter

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-14 00:53|| 2007-03-14 00:53|| Front Page Top

#2 I've got no particular view on the moral dimension, but the practical good-order-and-discipline argument about the special situation of the military seems still a very solid position, and I wish Pace had stuck to that. Seems like a very solid Chairman - I just think s**t like this is a pointless distraction. Rather have him get in hot water for being blunt about strategic issues - would sucker the Dems into even broader responses, most of which would only redound to the country's benefit at the polls down the road .....

Posted by Verlaine 2007-03-14 00:59|| 2007-03-14 00:59|| Front Page Top

#3 Concur Verlaine. Purely prejudicial to good order and discipline - enough said.

Rep. Meehan is also a liar - most of us mil guys don't want openly gay folks serving next to us in uniform - period. Our lives and jobs are already difficult enough w/out that stupid distraction.

Posted by Broadhead6 in Iraq 2007-03-14 02:23|| 2007-03-14 02:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Gen. Pace is not creating this pointless distraction. The MSM and idiots like Rep. Meehan are. This resembles the excessive attention given to Abu Ghraib in order to divert attention from the really important issues of the WOT. If we lose this war, homosexuals will be subject to severe discrimination and judicial murder. Is that what the MSM and Meehan support? Apparently.
I found a new term [new to me, anyway] on the Burg the other day -- Lawfare, which refers to the manipulation of the legal system by fifth columnists to serve the purpose of weakening the defense of the West and promoting its downfall. We need another term for the kind of manipulation of public attention and redirection of purposes this kind of phoney "media uproar" serves -- Newsfare; Mediafare; B*S*fare?

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-03-14 02:48|| 2007-03-14 02:48|| Front Page Top

#5 Agree. Meehan would be the last person to condem Islamic stoning of homosexuals. Proving once again that Christian hating liberals are more bent on defeating Christians at home instead of fighting for freedom from Dhimmitude.

Just watch, gay RINOs like Malkin and Allahpundit will lather up over this one. Like Coulter's speach, not a big deal unless you haven't got anything better to do. Like report on WWIII.

Posted by Icerigger 2007-03-14 06:50|| 2007-03-14 06:50|| Front Page Top

#6 gay RINOs like Malkin and Allahpundit

??

Jeebus

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-14 07:26|| 2007-03-14 07:26|| Front Page Top

#7 gay RINOs like Malkin...

Michelle is a thespian?

Posted by SteveS 2007-03-14 09:06|| 2007-03-14 09:06|| Front Page Top

#8 Thespian like the 700 who stood with and died with the Spartans at Thermopylae.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-14 09:12|| 2007-03-14 09:12|| Front Page Top

#9 Part of the issue involved is what I have to label as dishonesty upon the part of the advocates of gays opening serving in the military. Its playing lose and fast with truth and the record.

First, it is not just policy. It is policy implementing law. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution reserves upon Congress the power to make the laws of the land and naval forces. That power is there for a reason. The writers of the Constitution still had not only the experience of the king but of also the nightmare of Oliver Cromwell in their thoughts. In the confrontation known as the English Civil War, the scripted first part was that of the crown versus Parliament. However, after Parliament was victorious they insisted upon disbanding the Army without pay. That lead to the second part of the civil war and the Army in charge of England for a period known as the Commonwealth. Oliver Cromwell ruled England till his death. So when the writers of the Constitution got around to the issue of the new American Army, they made the President the commander-in-chief. However, they retained the power of the purse, the approval of officers, and the making of the law.

That law is implemented in Title X United States Code. Subsection of which is known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the Punitive Articles of the code is Article 125, Sodomy. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Now while some argue that straights may also engage in some form of sodomy, the nature of our law calls for reasonable doubt. Therefore a pair of heterosexuals behind closed doors is granted such doubt while a same sex couple could not logically be granted any doubt. However, the military being different from civil society also have to abide by Article 78 Accessory After the Fact Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Thus, the compromise of Dont Ask, Dont Tell (DADT), because under military law, if you know you have to tell and act. This is Congress law. Those in the military establishment may like it, but it is not their law. I doubt that other than the most antagonistic individuals would want to establish a principle that the uniform military should disobey law imposed by Congress that is their Constitutional power to do so. That is why it is not like blacks or women. Segregation was policy not law. A president could alter policy, he can not alter law*. Women are still facing limitations within the military establishment because of laws in place. We are still working our way through that one too, but in the halls of Congress.

Second the advocates ignore that heterosexuals are routinely discharged, punished and courts martial for their behaviors whether it is adultery, fraternization, or sexual harassment. Does the name Kelly Flynn ring a bell? Even if the policy were altered, gays would still be prosecuted for the same offenses that straights are. However, be assured they will just as loudly object, claiming that they were unfairly targeted. Its not really about equality. Its about power. Power to impose what they want to do, not to meet the standards that all others must conform to. The military suppresses heterosexual behaviors because it does destroy unit cohesion. Those of us whove been in a unit where one squadie has been engaged in extra curricular activities with another squadies significant other can attest it is a quick way to lose control. Combat depends upon covering the other soldiers back with your life. You fight and die for each other. When sex comes into play it creates competition not cooperation. Combat is no time for a Springer episode. So we repress the behavior. It is no different than all the discipline we expend to suppress another basic human behaviors of fear and flight. The battlefield is the most pure Darwinian environment we have in this world.

Right now, the military is altering historically long association with camp followers. Side note, look up the source of the word hooker. It is interesting that now straights will find themselves facing Article 15 punishment and even discharge for associating with a prostitute while at the same time others in the general community are pressing for open acceptance of activity between consenting adults. Do you grasp the fundamental contradiction of these actions? Further suppression of hetero activity was posted at Strategy Page:

The U.S. Army prohibits troops married to each other, when overseas, from being alone together, kissing or showing any PDA (Public Displays of Affection.) Violations can be punished by court martial. Unmarried troops are also forbidden to engage in this sort of behavior. Last year, a female reservist, serving near her husband in Iraq, had enough, and fired off an email to her congressman. As a result, the army relaxed the rules. As a practical matter, there is a lot of sex between troops (with many pregnancies to prove it), although they know better than to engage in a lot of PDA. The unofficial army policy is to let it go if the sexual escapades of the troops dont get into the news and embarrass the brass (which can do serious damage to a commanders career). So much for straights serving openly in the military.

The third dishonest point of the advocates is in the raw numbers of those discharged for homosexuality. Since the behavior no longer has the stigma that it had forty years ago, it is seen as a means to quickly get out of the service. Females have always had the pregnancy out. Now, young men see this as a means to not honor their contract. It works. Many straights are in those numbers just not gays. That abuse of the system is not grounds to alter the law. To quote from Henry V, by William Shakespeares Band of Brothers Speech [Act IV, Scene III]-
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy be put into his purse;
We would not die in that mans company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

Now has this communication said gay should not be permitted to serve? No.
As noted by other communications, gays have served honorably under the existing standards of service. Just as those entering the Catholic priesthood take a vow of celibacy to conduct their work and labors, many gays have forgone their personal sexual drives. Yes, a good number of priests have failed, some spectacularly. However, unless someone can come up with hard numbers and not opinion to show otherwise, it appears the general population of priests are able to achieve their calling in life without breaking those vows. The terms and conditions of service are known both to those seeking the priesthood and those seeking to serve in the American military. Those terms have to be complied with until Congress changes its law.

I want honestly. However, Im very tired of the misrepresentation and distortion of the facts by the advocates. Im tired of the emotional arguments which basically are I wanna, I wanna. I want the consequences thought through. If Congress changes the law and gay serve openly, then what is going to happen when the first gay couple married in some trendy state shows up at the housing office asking for equal consideration to family housing? Going to restrict family housing to those with children and make all others live off post? So, the barracks rats figure out the by getting a piece of paper from the civil government is all they need to establish a lawful marriage even though it would be an asexual relationship. That is a non sexual couple. Now they apply to get out of the barracks. At what point did the command structure lose control? However, these are things no one wants to address in their race to make someone happy.

* Commissioned Officers in the US Armed Forces take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They, unlike the enlisted personnel, do not take an oath to obey the President. Our officers are taught that unlike the Wehrmacht which swore an oath to obey the Leader, they swear to the instrument of the nation. A Presidential order to alter the law would place the officer corps in a dilemma. To uphold their oath, the order being in contraction to the law, would require the officers to disobey the President. Not good. To obey the President would mean that they will follow the orders of any leader. Enter Caesar. Not good. The third choice is that unable to continue to serve, they will submit their resignations. Now, during time of war with everyone needed as they are, this is very not good. So how many officers and senior non-commissioned officers are you going to lose along with their years of experience in return for how many gays?

The debate is for Congress. From the look of the makeup of the legislative branch, that is unlikely to occur unless the advocates come up with far better arguments, better answers and understand that equality means just that , not a special class exempted from the discipline as it is administered to others. That hasn't happened yet, because they don't have the answers.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-03-14 09:24|| 2007-03-14 09:24|| Front Page Top

#10 Malkin is gay? No Way, she walks heavy in her tennis. she ain't gay I don't follow Allah pundit so I wouldn't know or care very much for that matter.

I am for maintaining GOOD ORDER in our SERVICES though, it's Constitutionally mandated to defend America against our enemies and defend our interests abroad. BTW no where in our founding document does it mention the DemoCrap party.

Watch out for the social engineers who call themselves progressive liberals, lol "progressive liberals" means they'll destroy everything decent and good here in America if we let just them.

Our Vigilance is the key. We used to be few because we were disconnected. Fortunately we are now many, which makes our job very much more doable, a little vigilance, voting in every election and some financial contributions. In lieu of that physical help for the election process or helping your canidate out .

It's too important to ignore our adversaries ladies and gentlemen we're in this fight for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

Posted by RD 2007-03-14 10:01|| 2007-03-14 10:01|| Front Page Top

#11 Michelle is a thespian?

I have had vivid dreams to that effect.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-03-14 16:34|| 2007-03-14 16:34|| Front Page Top

#12 Michelle is smokin' hot and has brains to match. Anyone criticizing her is just plain crazy.

Posted by Mac 2007-03-14 17:58|| 2007-03-14 17:58|| Front Page Top

#13 Nice essay, Proc. Laid out the argument very clearly. I agree. The military needs to enforce the rules it has with no preference for homosexuals. If they can't do what is required, throw them out.

Posted by Mac 2007-03-14 18:00|| 2007-03-14 18:00|| Front Page Top

#14 Pace should point out that as a general it is his duty to win battles with as few casualties as possible, and to help him to accomplsih such difficult tasks he needs the favor of higher authorities, unlike democrats and queers who don't have a duty to win anything, which shows, therefore they can earn the wrath of said higher authorities. For those of you who are both conservative and gay, don't tell, please. Deal with God on your own.

Posted by wxjames 2007-03-14 19:46|| 2007-03-14 19:46|| Front Page Top

#15 As a gay man (I've been with my partner for almost 15 years now), I want to say that I think that Gen. Pace's remarks were perfectly legitimate and reasonable. They asked him what his personal opinion and he expressed a quite traditional Christian view in a perfectly reasonable manner. He didn't say he wanted gays drummed out of the military. Quite the contrary, he seemed supportive of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, probably the best compromise gay people could hope for. Everyone in the military makes many sacrifices, and to ask gay people not to act in ways that cause (or even could potentially cause) group disharmony is a rather small sacrifice. Those who disagree don't really understand the mission of the military.

I also want to express my indignation at the hypocrisy of my supposed advocates. They are the ones being "outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful" towards an honest answer to a question about a personal opinion. And is Rep. Meehan aware that a lot of good people can't hack the stringent requirements of military service? The military should not be obligated to change to meet the needs of people who aren't up to the challenge. Far from it.

I've also must say there are many thoughtful responses in this thread. Procopius's essay, in particular, is a ray of clarifying light in a sea of MSM sludge on this topic.

If I were to ever meet Gen. Pace, I would shake his hand and tell him that some of us get it and appreciate his service. Hell, I'd salute him, but I'm not sure if that is appropriate from a lifelong civilian. Perhaps it wasn't the "smartest" thing for him to say, in terms of his career or the military bureaucracy's needs. But I hope our society comes to respect those who speak the unadorned truth as they see it over those who say what they calculate will make them more popular. Someday maybe.

Posted by ryuge 2007-03-14 19:57|| 2007-03-14 19:57|| Front Page Top

#16 Ryuge - thank you

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-03-14 20:14|| 2007-03-14 20:14|| Front Page Top

23:57 Verlaine
23:53 mac
22:31 Sneaze
22:28 Sneaze
22:27 Sneaze
22:27 Col. D. Snaud
22:24 Chiper Threreger8956
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 Sneaze
22:18 Chuck Simmins
22:14 Chuck Simmins
22:13 Sneaze
21:57 Delphi2005
21:49 twobyfour
21:46 3dc
21:44 delphi2005
21:44 3dc
21:38 Anonymoose
21:28 regular joe
21:27 Delphi2005
21:22 doc
21:18 xbalanke
21:12 Frank G
21:06 ed