Reflections From a Murky Pond

It seems that various queer activist groups are having a hissy fit over the US Military’s new questionnaire regarding the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

To these groups’ collective consciousness it’s wrong for the Pentagon to even ask the men and women serving in the military how they might respond to openly gay servicemen.

Given the nature of such agendists, this isn’t surprising in the least, but it’s certainly worthy of note and derision.

Gay rights organizations are up in arms over a Pentagon survey on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” claiming that some of the questions put to U.S. servicemembers are “homophobic.”

The surveys, emailed to 400-thousand active duty, national guard and reserve forces includes questions like;

“IF A WARTIME SITUATION MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SHARE A ROOM, BERTH OR FIELD TENT WITH SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICEMEMBER, WHICH ARE YOU MOST LIKELY TO DO?

* TAKE NO ACTION
* DISCUSS HOW WE EXPECTED EACH OTHER TO BEHAVE
* TALK TO A CHAPLAIN OR MENTOR
* TALK TO A LEADER TO SEE IF I HAVE OTHER OPTIONS
* OTHER

“IF DONT ASK DONT TELL IS REPEALED AND YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH OPEN BAY SHOWER WITH A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBER…?_

* TAKE NO ACTION
* USE SHOWER AT DIFFERENT TIME

There’s also a question asking servicemembers if a gay or lesbian member moved into military housing with a same-sex partner, would they pick up their family and move out.

— Jim Miklaszewski
MSNBC’s First Read, July 9, 2010

That’s right; the agitators and professional grievance-mongers leading a large swath of the queer advocacy groups want people to believe that a questionnaire issued by the Pentagon to 400K+ members is homophobic because it asks military personnel how they might respond to the realities of living, serving, fighting, and dying alongside openly homosexual servicemen and women.

Yeah, I know; most claims of homophobia by queer activists are, like most claims of racism by Black activists or the claims of Islamophobia from Muslim vermin, something to be ignored.

Sometimes. though, ignoring such problems, like ignoring a growing tumor, just allows the cancer to spread unchecked. It’s sometimes necessary to cut or burn out the diseased flesh so that the body may survive.

Apparently our military, charged with defending the lives of the American people, isn’t supposed to be allowed to try to determine if repealing DADT will negatively impact national security and in what ways, if any at all, it might do so – or at least so these treasonous queer activists rant.

NOTE: As an American and a veteran I’m passionately and virulently opposed to DADT, as I’ve posted before on this blog.

[Sic] … Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

–- US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to “bear arms” was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, “except for sodomites,” which would have been the term used at the time.

— jonolan
Asking And Telling

That doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn a blind or forgiving eye to rabble-rousers and grievance-mongers from within the LGBT community who want to deny the military the right to determine how repealing such legislation and the underlying ban on openly homosexual people serving in the military it was meant to ameliorate will affect military discipline and operational efficiency.

Tags: America | DADT | Gay Rights | Heterophobia | Homophobia | Homosexuals | Law | LGBT | Liberals | National Security | Politics | US Military

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 11th, 2010 at 3:30 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

It seems many of the Liberals are outraged that President Obama included Professor Jonathon I. Katz in his “dream team” of scientists, mostly leading physicists and engineers, who’ve been charged with going  to the Gulf of Mexico to work with BP to stop the oil leak that’s contaminating the Gulf waters.

What is most telling is not that the Left is outraged but what specifically they’re outraged over in this matter.

What should be able to be considered strangely, the issue isn’t with Prof. Katz’s admitted lack of usefulness in dealing with the spill or its cleanup.

I was honored to be invited and enjoyed the experience. Did I have anything much to contribute? I think I have some ideas for how to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, but I don’t have anything very specific to offer on the present problems. It is very much in the hands of the real pros.

— Professor Jonathan I. Katz
St. Louis Beacon Interview

If Prof. Katz’ lack of qualifications to deal with British Petroleum’s catastrophic failure was the reason for the Liberal’s outrage I would take no issue with it. From the above quote I would guess that Prof. Katz himself would not gainsay their opinions. But the Liberals’ wrath and condemnation is not about Katz’s credentials or skills; it’s about his ideology and the fact that it doesn’t match their own.

Tags: Al Gore | Big Oil | BP | Climate Change | Gay Rights | Global Warming | Gulf Oil Spill | Katz | LGBT | Liberals | Obama | Oil | Politics | The Environment

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 at 2:42 pm and is filed under Politics, The Environment. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

For the first time in the 17 years since President Clinton signed 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) into law it will be addressed by Congress.

The Senate Armed Services Committee will address the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy Tuesday — the first time in 17 years the topic will be debated before a Senate committee.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen are slated to testify on the law, which bans openly gay Americans from serving in the military.

The hearing on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes in the wake of Obama’s State of the Union address last week, when he declared his desire to end the policy.

“This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It’s the right thing to do,” Obama said.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin has said repeatedly he “has never supported” the controversial policy, and other senators have expressed their opposition to it as well.

“The military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy is an unjust, outdated and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women,” said Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a statement. “I’ve been working with my colleagues in Congress and other leaders to overturn this wasteful and destructive policy. I am hopeful that President Obama will make this a top priority.”

Some Republicans, however, question the timing of the administration’s push to lift the ban.

“In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “why would we want to get into this debate?”

Personally, despite President Obama’s claim of desire to end this policy, I sincerely doubt that anything will come of it. It’s an election year, one that looks to be particularly grimly fought, and Obama no longer has enough political capital to make up for the hit that any incumbent would take for trying to repeal this law.

This is just a stageplay designed to pander to gays and the farther Left of the country and to give the Dems a chance to again paint the GOP as bigoted and obstructive.

To my mind that is a crying shame because Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

Tags: 2nd Amendment | Clinton | Congress | DADT | Gay Rights | Homosexuals | Law | Obama | Politics | Robert Gates | The Constitution | US Military

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm and is filed under Politics. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Truth in Media, or at least classic television? Quite possibly. American television was a lot different in the mid-1960s when ABC created and aired The Addams Family.

Solid Marriage – Sad When The Freaks Can Do It And You Can’t

I ask all those who are against gay marriage because “it will weaken the family” or “destroy traditional marriage” is this what you’re really afraid of? Are you actually just terrified that the queers will manage to do better than our – straights, that is – 50% success rate at having solid marriages – or at least ones that don’t end in divorce?

Come on. There are plenty of valid reasons to fight against the gay marriage laws that they have passed and continue to try to pass in various states. Most were either designed to infringe upon the religious freedoms and freedom of association of various Christian groups or were twisted by queers and the Liberals into doing so. But…it’ll destroy traditional marriage and the sanctity thereof? Please!

Tags: Defense of Marriage | Gay Rights | Humor | Lolcelebs | Marriage | Society

This entry was posted on Friday, October 23rd, 2009 at 8:31 am and is filed under Humor, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Today, May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court, in a 6-1 decision, upheld Prop 8. This is amazing news for fans of democracy, but a brutal defeat for queers and LGBT activists and organizers.

California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

The 6-1 decision was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one’s spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

Prop. 8 undid that ruling. The author of last year’s 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to approve a constitutional amendment redefining marriage to include only male-female couples.

— Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle

The actual issue before the justices was whether the voters’ had the power to amend the California State Constitution by initiative, or whether – as the homosexuals and their supporters claimed – Prop 8 legally required a two-thirds legislative vote or approval from delegates at a state constitutional convention in order to have reached the November, 2008 ballot.

It’s rather shocking that the California court didn’t fall victim to judicial activism and actually held firmly to the law and to the merits of the case before them, which was Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.

In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.

— Strauss v. Horton 5/26/09 SC
Majority Opinion of the Court

I would suggest to those who favor and/or support same-sex marriage that they gather signatures on petitions and submit them to the California Legislature so that a Constitutional amendment or revision redefining marriage as to be something other than merely “one man and one woman” can be brought to referendum vote in the next few years.

Tags: California | Defense of Marriage | Gay Rights | Homophobia | LGBT | Marriage | Politics | Religion | Society

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 at 2:17 pm and is filed under Politics, Society. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.