Tweet
The NYT has an interesting article on a subject many of you probably figured we’d see with the prospect of DADT repeal – religious objection to serving with openly gay and lesbian service members.
There is a G.I. Rights Hotline that counsels soldiers who want to leave the service for a variety of reasons that may or may not fall under conscientious objector status. Some calls related to DADT have started coming in. J. E. McNeil takes some of these calls.
Ms. McNeil got a hot-line call that raised a new issue: the caller said he considered homosexuality an abomination and wanted to be a conscientious objector because he could not serve in the military alongside gay soldiers.“I told him I wasn’t trying to criticize, but he was already serving with gays, since there’s lots of gays in the military now,” said Ms. McNeil, the executive director of the Center on Conscience & War, a nonprofit group that supports conscientious objectors. “He said, ‘Yes, but now if they come out, they can be forced out. But if homosexuality is actually allowed, I will be housed with somebody who’s sexually attracted to me.’ ”
…”This is just the beginning,” Ms. McNeil said. “When the other shoe drops and the policy actually ends, I think we’re going to get a lot of these.”
In the “don’t ask, don’t tell” cases, Ms. McNeil concluded that there was no legal basis for a conscientious objector claim.
The legal standard, she said, is that the person must be conscientiously opposed to participating in war in any form, based on a sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief. And the person must have had a change of heart since joining the military, when the person signed a form saying he or she was not a conscientious objector and did not intend to become one.
I’m sure there were service members who tried to use this to not serve when integration was ordered, howeverI think we will see the right wing bible beating fringe take conscientious objector and try to run with it anyway.
80 Comments
Projection, much?Every time I hear one of these “I shouldn’t have to do (x) because I shouldn’t have to be around someone who is sexually attracted to me if I don’t welcome it” I hear massive projection – this is clearly how these men treat women, at least in their own minds.
As soon as they are sexually attracted to someone, that person becomes their property and available to be treated however they want. It never seems to occur to them that someone could be attracted to them and not act on it, or that acting on it might mean a polite approach taking no for an answer – it must mean obsession, harassment and rape.
This isn’t really surprising.There seems to be no myth more prevalent among heterosexual men than the idea that each and every one of them is an irresistible sexual magnet.
Funny how this works… last I checked Jesus hated war, and he was a pacifist, ‘turn the other cheek’ and such. Cherry picking the scriptures could be turned into a recognized sport, with the huge numbers playing.
yeah, keep believing that…Or, you know, NOT attracted to the one guy, specifically. I’m gay, but that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to every guy that walks by me.
Guys like that are pretty safe. It’s a good bet that bigotry is a turn-off for all gay men. Even moreso for lesbians.
Seems like a fair trade to meCan’t think of any organization that wouldn’t be improved by replacing the bigots with us LGBT folks.
Total BS argumentI’m so sick of the GOP and some in the media trying out all these ludicrous talking points. 100% of fundamentalist Christians believe that Jews are going to burn in an infinite Hell for denying the divinity of Christ. They are crystal clear on that as well as believing that Jews murdered their Lord. Now how in the heck are you going to tell me that they would have no problem sleeping, showering, and working 24/7 alongside sinful, hellbound Jews – but can’t possibly handle serving with openly gay soldiers?
Why are gays superior?I’m serious. All these concerned het soldiers seem to be acknowledging that gays and lesbians have always had more self ocntrol. In its so-called study of DADT, why isn’t the Pentagon investigating why gay and lesbian soldiers have shown superior self-control than hets for all these decades?
One more sign thatthese people have already lost. Their arguments get more and more ridiculous.
Actually, what they just dont seem to realize…The two wars are winding down. Soon the military will once again draw down. Those who so strenuously object and say “I can’t work with those people” will find that they are more than welcome to leave. In fact, thats been done in the recent past when woman started to make major in-roads in to the military in the 90′s. A lot of ‘men’ insisted that they objected on relegious and moral grounds and some even went in front of news cameras to voice those objections. That was during a draw down and in every case they were dismissed as unfit for military service.
There are still people who object to working with people of color, women, Jew’s, Muslim’s and the list goes on. They typically come in for a 4 year stint and leave. After all it is a volentary force. You don’t want to play, we’ll find someone who will…
This sounds almost manufactured to me…Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the whole “we’ll be unable to recruit and retain enough people if open service is allowed” argument is based on things like the above happening–the Christianist Fascists objecting to serving with one of “THEM” and thus leaving the forces in droves. This incident smells to me kind of like the case a while back where they were fighting a trans inclusive law as a “bathroom bill” and the objectors hired a man to dress as a woman and walk through the lockerrom of a club. I think this is more manufactured outrage than actual.
I did some draft counseling back during Vietnam,and McNeil is perfectly correct. The standard for CO status is a deep-seated religious/ethical objection to war of any kind, under any circumstances, no matter the reasons for waging it. That must be FULLY documented by testimony from ministers, verifiable anti-war activities and such. An objection to serving side by side with gays, however strongly felt it may be, simply won’t cut it. A lot of people seem to think that acquiring CO status is an easy way out of military service. Not so, not at all. Especially since, as we all know, these fundie yobbos have a hard on for war against Islam. One slip about that from one of these tribal yahoos and the jig would be up.
And in any event, CO status doesn’t automatically get you out of military service. The Pentagon dealt with a lot of COs (again, this was during Vietnam, when the draft was still in effect) by simply assigning them to non-combat duties. You know–clerical duties and the like. And of course there’s no chance whatever that they’d meet any gay soldiers that way. Right.
No kiddingPseudo-Christians love picking out specific quotations while missing the context of the entire book.
The book itself is psychotic in nature though.
Agreed. It’s a patriarchal attitude.
There is still a need for draft counselorsI’ve been working with others for the last 30 years, explaining what CO status is and how to document it in the event that the draft is activated. Remember, mandatory registration was reinstated in 1980 as a “response” to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan; President Carter was worried that US forces would need to be mobilized in response. There are occasionally bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, and draft boards have existed since at least 1992.
As it stands now, all men — citizen and otherwise — between the ages of 18 and 26 must register with the Selective Service and must keep their registration current (you are not allowed to move or even change your phone number without notifying the government in a timely fashion.) Failure to register and keep your registration current can result in a federal felony with up to four years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.
In actuality, no one has been prosecuted for failure to register with the SS since 1986; the current carrot is that people required to register cannot receive any federal or state assistance of any kind without proof of current registration. In other words, if you want to receive a Pell Grant, subsidized student loan, state scholarship, unemployment benefits, government sponsored job training, anything, you have to be able to prove that you are registered with the Selective Service and that your registration is current.
Documenting conscientious objection can take a period of years. Since the early 80s, when I faced the need to register, I have been working with others to document my own CO status and helping others to do the same. If the draft were to be activated, you might have only a few days to grab your portfolio (with copies, of course: draft boards tend to lose such things when they are under a quota) and prove your objection.
I wrote up a FAQ some years ago; I should get it updated and reposted to the web. But in general, you want to get dated letters from clergy, teachers and other community leaders vouching for your views against war. You want to write editorials to your school and local newspaper, and get cuttings (with the name of the paper and date of publication clearly marked) describing your objections. Write essays on pacifism for school projects, and keep copies. Keep a notebook of rallies, lectures and similar events that you attend; in some states, it is possible for a notary public to sign and date a “venue” document attesting to your presence at a particular event on a specific date and time. Putting materials on the web can be helpful, just keep in mind that draft boards have to be able to prove that your objections are a long-term belief and not something cooked up after getting your induction notice; getting verifiable dates on the web can be very tricky. Keep two complete portfolios, one with the originals and one with copies; if you have to use the portfolio, BRING THE COPIES. Some draft boards tend to “misplace” your portfolio, which can cause you your exemption.
In the past, there have been two kinds of conscientious object, those with O status and those with O-1 status. Status O objectors are those who are willing to serve in the military but not bear arms: by tradition, these men are given the extraordinarily dangerous job of medical corpsmen, a job that often meant going out onto the field of battle to retrieve the fallen and injured and bring them back for medical treatment. Status O-1 objectors are given alternative service as civilian contractors. Status O personnel are entitled to full benefits and pay after they leave conscripted service; Status O-1 personnel do not, as they have not endured the same hardships as other draftees. There is no guarantee that a reactivated draft will have these categories. In either case, conscientious objectors still served out a period of involuntary servitude to the military-industrial complex.
So QScribe, I hope you have not completely given up the draft counseling: there is still a need for it.
If anyone is interested in current Selective Service registration law, visit the SS’ website
The selfishness of these f-ing bigots is way past astoundingThey are totally ignorant of what “conscientious objection” actually means, of the kind of sacrifices that actual COs had to make. But then, I have come to expect willfull stupidity from Talibangelicals: it seems to be a mandatory part of their “deep seated religious beliefs and training.”
None of this means a new kind of “CO” status couldn’t be created….
Stranger, more reprehensible things have happened. Who imagined that a part of Obama’s “support” for “repeal” would include forcing our allies in Congress to trash the five-year old Military Readiness Enhancement Act? [Some people STILL believe that's what's up for a vote in Congress.]
With respect to everyone who’s made rational points, one of our Movement’s self-limiting problems is that we keep underestimating our enemies’ irrationality, and that of people generally.
“Sure, most Americans remain uncomfortable with The Gay, but they’ll never believe ____, or ____.”
Well, if common sense and fairness prevailed the ban would have disappeared decades ago. ENDA, t-inclusive, would have passed decades ago. Prop H8TE and Maine 1 would not have passed, and federal DOMA would have been ruled unconstitutional, overturning all state version in the process.
Do the math: it’s only been seven years since sodomy laws were overturned-which required the Supreme Court reversing its own earlier ruling, and in the military, at least on paper, even the servicemember partner in a married heterosexual couple can still be sent to federal prison for five years for participating in any kind of intercourse with his/her spouse save “vaginal.”
Yes, it’s unlikely that they would clutter “conscientious objector [to participating in war]” regulations. BUT where is it written they can’t create a unique policy?
Where it IS written that they’re paying attention to such nonsense is in the finally unveiled despicable push poll.
ITEM:
Options include:
ITEM:
Options include:
Of course, Paid-to-Lie Pentagon Shill, excuse me, Pentagon Spokesperson Geoff Morrell has been screaming: “Pay no attention to those questions behind the curtain! We are NOT considering any kind of segregation. Not no how; not no way!”
Then WHY brings such things up, Sparky?
BOTTOMLINE: “Certification” of “repeal” requires maintaining “standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.”
They could claim such attitudes threaten such standards enough to justify segregation of gay servicemembers or to justify not allowing open service, therefore, not stopping discharges entirely.
DADT is an irrational, poisonous policy by definition, from which all kinds of polluted waters already flow. We could see some major flooding in December.
Latest concern-troll meme:
Once again, a step toward LGBT equality will open the floodgates and chaos will ensue. “Dogs and cats living together!”
Tell me, what kind of religion is ok with you flying across the world to shoot and kill people in their homeland in a war started by lies? But let a soldier play a Lady Gaga album in his tent, and that’s just too much?
A fucked up one.
I hope you’re right
But I seriously doubt it. I think we’ll be in the status quo for years, and deadlines to pullout, like the “Gitmo will close in a year” promise, will get broken.
“You can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant”And I, I walked over to the, to the bench there, and there is, Group W’s where they put you if you may not be moral enough to join the army after committing your special crime, and there was all kinds of mean nasty ugly looking people on the bench there. Mother rapers. Father stabbers. Father rapers! Father rapers sitting right there on the bench next to me! And they was mean and nasty and ugly and horrible crime-type guys sitting on the bench next to me. And the meanest, ugliest, nastiest one, the meanest father raper of them all, was coming over to me and he was mean ‘n’ ugly ‘n’ nasty ‘n’ horrible and all kind of things and he sat down next to me and said, “Kid, whad’ya get?” I said, “I didn’t get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage.” He said, “What were you arrested for, kid?” And I said, “Littering.” And they all moved away from me on the bench there, and the hairy eyeball and all kinds of mean nasty things, till I said, “And creating a nuisance.” And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the bench, talkin about crime, mother stabbing, father raping, all kinds of groovy things that we was talking about on the bench. And everything was fine, we was smoking cigarettes and all kinds of things, until the Sargeant came over, had some paper in his hand, held it up and said.
“Kids, this-piece-of-paper’s-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say-pertaining-to-and-about-the-crime-I-want-to-know-arresting-officer’s-name-and-any-other-kind-of-thing-you-gotta-say”, and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said, but we had fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils on the bench there, and I filled out the massacre with the four part harmony, and wrote it down there, just like it was, and everything was fine and I put down the pencil, and I turned over the piece of paper, and there, there on the other side, in the middle of the other side, away from everything else on the other side, in parentheses, capital letters, quotated, read the following words:
(“KID, HAVE YOU REHABILITATED YOURSELF?”)
I went over to the sargent, said, “Sargeant, you got a lot a damn gall to ask me if I’ve rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I mean that just, I’m sittin’ here on the bench, I mean I’m sittin here on the Group W bench ’cause you want to know if I’m moral enough join the army, burn women, kids, houses and villages after bein’ a litterbug.” He looked at me and said, “Kid, we don’t like your kind, and we’re gonna send you fingerprints off to Washington.”
——————
Sorry, but this whole “gay people aren’t moral enough to join the army” schtick was done 50 years ago, and by much funnier people, too.
That’s about the sense of entitlementthat straight men have always felt toward any object of attraction they might be able to see not-in-street-clothes, as well as the fact that they’ve actually had the sex-segregation of our society reinforcing that notion: LBGTs of course, generally grow up living side-by-side with people we might or might not find sexually attractive: in a sense, straight people are used to being fenced-in by external forces and as a result tend to be off and running if the gate opens. LBGTs have in a sense, never relied on such restrictions and inhibitions. If anything, learned caution and restraint from being very well aware that not everyone in the locker room is a potential sex partner or something.
Especially because they’re the same peopleWho’ve always called conscientious objectors cowards and traitors.
Now they want to flee battle cause they’re scared some gay person will see their behinds?
Oh, bring it. :)
Good Luck…Good luck trying to pull that Conscientious Objector bologna during war time…they won’t let you out either way. That’s my experience and I don’t think the military is going to become any less shady during wartime any time soon.
That struck me too!That the RW, which absolutely, would have called Christians who objected to killing “cowards” and “liars”, will doubtlessly rail behind these folks as have God on their side.
Well, if we can trade these sunshine patriotswho don’t want to serve their country, just their little book, for LGBT soldiers who want to serve their country for all the right reasons…
…then I hope each and everyone of them gets their discharge.
Alas, I’ve been hors de combatsince the onset of my disability two summers ago. (My one and only bit of activism since then has been to speak at the county council hearing on an inclusive nondiscrimination law for the entire county. That, plus mouthing off here, of course.) I have talked with a few gay kids about the draft and how to deal with it, but my physical limitations prevent my doing much more. But it’s great that you and a lot of others are still in harness. I assume the Friends are still active in draft counseling as well; they were invaluable allies back in the day.
You’re right about that.I don’t have any trouble at all imagining someone (I name no names) being a fierce advocate for some sort of get-out-of-jail-free “conscience clause.” And I agree that it seems unlikely. But who would have thought, eighteen months ago, that we’d hear an administration spokesman send up a trial balloon about segregation?
Just you waitSome asshat Senator will introduce a bill to allow these offended fundies to quit the military. And without any loss of benefits.
My response This person shouldn’t flatter themselves thinking someone (anyone for that matter) would be attracted to them.
And they’ll probably get medals, in the bargain.“The bronze cross, with oak leaf cluster, for bravery in the face of the homosexual agenda.”
I’m SuspiciousThe timing is too impeccable….want to bet that the Peter or our friend Brian de NOM made the call?
“I’m a TeaBagger and can’t serve with ‘coloured people”It is against my beliefs”……same idea, and only a step away….
Quoting from a Grant Morrison comic book:Character 1: “Alright, you poofs are OK, I just don’t wanna shag one.”
Character 2: “Nobody’s asking you to.”
Character 1″ “… Why not? What’s wrong with me then?!”
Good. Let ‘em leave.We don’t need their kind in the military anyway.
Logic FAIL
With DADT in place, this turd still may or may not be housed with a gay soldier who may or may not be sexually attracted to him, and whom he may or may not be able to sense is gay.
But given the ego and fear behind Soldier X’s comment, I’d wager he thinks he’s God’s gift, and that everyone must want his candy. And if his queerfear surpasses what he has been trained to deal with in combat, then it sounds like he’s already got some serious psychological issues and may be eligible for a General Discharge. Ms. McNeil should have told him to try for that.
No, I think not.I think they honestly believe that the only thing holding us back is the knowledge that if they found us out, they would (they think with impunity) beat the crap out of us.
Apparently, the fear of punishment is all they think is keeping them from being rapists and murderers.
Shouldn’t that be a fig leaf cluster?
There are no conscienticious objectors Not in our military, just cowards. This is a volunteer military, you know what you signed up for. If you have deeply held religious or moral beliefs against killing, why on earth did you enter the military? These lowlifes should be forced into mine clearing duty as a punishment for their sniveling cowardice.
Don’t even get me started on this guy. ”Don’t wanna serve with homo” is not a conscientious objection. Why is this “man’s” sergeant not punching him in the stomach repeatedly? Who the hell is even asking him for an opinion? This is a military not a goddamn town hall meeting. Toss him in jail, he will be delighted to find out there are no homosexuals in prison.
I see the LogicMy point was during my time in teh Army, it was almost impossible to get KICKED OUT for seriously breaking the rules. Theyd slap A15s all over the place but you werent going anywhere except ED followed by going directly on patrol. The people I knew who seriously had objections to what we were doing in Iraq were laughed at by the COs and set back to their SGT, IF their SGTs ever even listened to them to begin with. These people can go ahead and try their Conscientious Objection bullcrap, it will either get them kicked out (unfit for duty) or just thrown around to work someplace else. Hell, I knew people who told our COs they were gay in efforts to get out of Iraq…only one succeeded in getting kicked out, his partner had to remain in. It’s just that shady folks…those 7 core Army values are a sham these days.
It’s not that easy to claim conscientious objector. Let them try and not be a team player, they’ll catch on quick, it won’t work. It is all a red-herring to detract the DADT talks.
BahahaI’ve heard it said that the biggest symptom of a lack of comfort with one’s own sexuality is thinking that everyone of the same gender wants you.
Yeah, reallyWe need to stop acting like military decisions are made by committee. The Commander in Chief has to stand up already, and the people who work FOR him have to suck it up and do what he says. That’s how the military works, that’s how it’s always worked.
TechBear and QScribe are rightIt’s worth noting that COs’ spiritual objection need not be capital-R religious as such, so the “Jesus says I can’t serve with sodomites” is even less valid. Nor is anything that smacks of expediency, and a distaste for a DADT-free military is expendiency. Those who are curious about the latest reg can check out DoD Directive 1300.6 at
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/direct…
Still, it needs to be a deep-seated belief — and a specific objection to war. Not to anything else in the military. The NYT got that much right:
Simply stated (summarizing a lot of case law here), the objector might not need to be a member of an organized sect, or even religious but the objection must be deeply grounded in deeply held beliefs. The objection cannot be limited to a particular conflict, i.e., the objector must object to war in any form. The objection must be sincerely held. The objection can crystallize after entry into military service. The objector will have the burden of establishing the claim but then the burden of disproving it falls on the military.
Footnote: The Conscientious Objector Central Committee was a good resource in the Bay Area (objector.org), but unfortunately it seems to be dormant at the moment.
I feel a meme coming onPam rightly senses that the Bible-overload crowd will pick up on this. It might get even worse: you’re going to be hearing this CO talk, usually in distorted versions, if Glenn Dreck and his ilk get hold of it and start spinning it. The talking point will probably be one of two falsities, either (1) that servicemembers can CO their way out on this issue, or (2) that this is a sign that DADT repeal will adversely affect morale. Be advised.
It’s just enough to make the OWH squirmier than ever. They’re already in eek-a-mouse mode now.
Doesn’t say much for our military’s battle readiness, does it?
I think that this will backfire. Nobody – not one single troop serving in the armed forces – is going to want to stand up and admit that they are too scared to serve with gay people.
It’s one thing to fill out anonymous surveys and have other groups speak for you, but another thing entirely to stand up – can you imagine a Marine standing up – to say that he was too frightened to serve in the military anymore because there might be a gay man in his bunkhouse?
He would be ridiculed.
Not gonna happen.
LOL
probably true for the militaryBut you may still hear this nonsense on Fox, most of whose talking heads never served a day in the military anyway. And it may create enough noise to spook the OWH further.
Of course.It’s not like anyone might change their moral stance on war based on actually experiencing it, right?
No disrespect…
But history proves you fundamentally wrong, even though they might not use the word “afraid.”
See 00:40 point in 1993 news story below:
SureBut it is something to consider very seriously before signing a contract and accepting money. At any rate, homophobia is not a conscientious objection.
I have to say…I agree here.
The folks that would say such things are often the least attractive, in no small part due to the mind of mindset that leads them to say such things.
I would disagree with the “there are no conscientious objectors” statementThere are: as proof, I offer up DoD Instruction 1300.06, which outlines the official policy with regards to men and women who, during their terms of enlistment, have a sincere change of belief. Although based on a policy put in place in 1971, when there was still a draft, the policy remains in effect. It is very difficult for an active servicemember to get a CO transfer or discharge, as you might imagine, but does happen.
I know that NISBCO is still activeThe National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors is now The Center on Conscience & War, and they are doing the same work they’ve been doing since for 70 years. The Friends Service Committee is still going strong and can certainly point you in the right direction.
In practice, that’s not true.In reality, people can sign up for the military with only an idea of war, or any of a number of pressures and motivations behind them, and only thereafter have their revelation that they just can’t conscience war in any form. It’s not an easy case to make, even for the sincere, though.
Sometimes contact with actual violence can do that to/for someone, when the mere concepts don’t. It does happen, and part of the reason there is CO status is cause you don’t want people going into battle with unloaded weapons and such. (Or, for that matter, too much sympathetic coverage of the protests pacifists would raise.)
In some ways,that wouldn’t actually be bad: one reason there is a CO status is because it’s really bad for morale to have pacifists among the troops: it’s a stunt, obviously, but if people really want to improve unit cohesion, getting the bigots out might be a good thing.
Bless the American Friends Service Committee…
My own was one of the asses they saved during the Vietnam War as recruiters and draft board representatives never bothered to mention “conscientious objector” status when they spoke to high school students.
The midwest draft counseling/antiwar group I worked with used many of their educational materials.
Given that I’d been called “queer” since the 4th grade, I was shocked when induction center personnel and through to the Surgeon General of the US refused to believe I was gay…or were doing a little passive “stop-loss”….but I ended up having to go to the induction center to refuse twice [not showing up was a SEPARATE offense], and was later arrested and jailed overnight by the FBI after being indicted by a federal grand jury for having committed the FELONY of “refusing to submit to miitary induction.”
I was resigned to go to prison, but, in a bizarre aspect of Selective Service regulations, by the draft board “reopening” my file to consider my CO application, the induction orders I’d violated were retroactively cancelled thus, to the shock of the federal attorney who had not been consulted, neutralizing my indictment. I ended up working in nonprofit civilian jobs for two years to meet my CO service obligation. COs could also go in the military if they chose, as “noncombatant” medics, etc., but I realized that would, nonetheless, be a part of the “war machine.”
No and yes.Yes, you’re right that a homophobe is not a conscientious objector. But are you now backing off from your claim that anyone who has joined the military must be a “coward” rather than someone whose moral sense has genuinely changed if they decide that war is unacceptable? Your “very serious consideration” is a crock — you’re requiring people to “consider” how they may change in the future based on experiences they haven’t had yet. This is only a rhetorical flourish short of a demand of clairvoyance.
the Fierce Avocado might not realize the implications before he signsThe current CO procedure is cumbersome and requires a thorough discussion with each servicemember to establish the genuineness of their belief. So, if this idiocy does go through it might either:
(1) create a bureaucratic nightmare, or
(2) provide a “get out of Iraq or Afghanistan free” for soldiers whose main motivation is simply saying whatever they need to, to get out of a nasty situation, or
(3) both.
maybe that’s the problem with the Fierce AvocadoHe didn’t serve in the military, so he might not be used to the idea that an order is an order, not a request, and that any commander, including the Commander in Chief, should expect military people to obey him.
OR………….
He COULD just be a ballless wonder; so full of hot air that he ultimately must come down….say around November 2012.
Have you ever seen the movie, “The Gay Deceivers”?By today’s standards it would be horribly stereotypical, even though the writer/director was himself an out gay man.
The story goes that two straight friends get drafted and try to get out of it by claiming to be gay. The Army doesn’t buy it and puts the pair under surveillance. In a desperate effort to avoid induction, they move into an apartment in the gay ghetto and try to present themselves as a gay couple while maintaining relationships with their fiancees. In the end they are discovered by the two army guys doing the surveillance; the twist at the end is that they are actually gay and working to keep straight men out.
Very dated but still very funny.
“he thinks he’s God’s gift, and that everyone must want his candy”In my experience, that’s most straight men. Not all, not by any means, but a good, solid majority.
BULL’S-EYE!
Not only that,but there have been any number of stories of kids who’ve been sucked in by military recruiters on the promise that they would never be sent to a war zone.
It’s not 1993 anymore. We’ve been at war for almost ten years. And it’s not a Navy war.I remember the Navy hysteria back in 1993, especially the “think of the submarines!!!” Never mind centuries of bad jokes about the behavior of Navy crew members. But the Navy doesn’t have that kind of clout right now. We’ve been fighting two land wars in deserts for a long time. Thousands of young men and women have come home in caskets, and many thousands more are permanently disabled. I don’t think that gay panic has the same resonance now. Sadly, we had no idea in 1993 how horrific things would get. It’s too bad that it took this to recognize how pointless and foolish it is to be homophobic.
But he can’t come in here! He’ll see everything!!! He’ll see the Big Board!!!!That’s precisely the point.
But he can’t come in here! He’ll see everything!!! He’ll see the Big Board!!!!That’s precisely the point.
“I don’t think that gay panic has the same resonance now”????
Yeah, that’s why Obama froze discharges five minutes after he was sworn in and Congress repealed DADT in February 2009.
a regular Wizard of Oz, maybeAll words and smoke. He should get on better with Congress, which is full of characters with no brains, heart or courage.
I still think he’s the Fierce Avocado. Looks pretty, but goes soft when you squeeze him.
our source was the New York Times …The Fierce Avocado is going to believe that our military was trained to conscientiously object if they get in a jam?
they hate us for our shower curtainsAnd of course we won’t have segregation under this president, will we? Ah, Jesse Helms, that thou would be alive to see this hour!
they predicted the end of the UK military tooAnd then they got over it real quick. Worth re-posting this cover story from their Soldier Magazine:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…
And there’s this story from last year. Notice that one of the people interviewed is a Royal Navy Lt. Cdr. who heads up the RN lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender forum.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
I can go on all night….it’s my favorite movie.Major T. J. “King” Kong: Goldie, how many times have I told you guys that I don’t want no horsing around on the airplane?
Ok, I might be a little optimistic here, I admit. I was sure that nobody would ever vote for W, too.
I don’t agreeI personally don’t agree with homosexuality, but I will say this…This subject as with so MANY other things has nothing do with a person’s ability to perform a job, drive a car, vote, raise their children or fight for their country and should there fore have no legal bearing on ANYTHING.
Cho Yung Tea
“Don’t agree with homosexuality”?Is that like not agreeing with brown skin?
OR….he might have gotten in office and realized that just because the asses controlling key elements of the military and Praetorian Guard may indeed be asses, they still actually have leverage on you.
No, Obama hasn’t lived up to promises, but neither has he had the popular support to back them up.
We should know this much: those who are against us lie, cheat, manipulate, and threaten force. And use it, if rebuffed.
Some of this is not about Obama thwarting the will of the people, it’s about generals thwarting the will of the people.
This isn’t something that is necessarily best-worked-out in the open, but you can’t expect a President to stand for it if the people won’t.
All that aside, I wonder if we’ve been ‘Jesse Jacksoned.’ A Christianist in liberal and civil rights clothing.
Really, Cody.Then I’m sure you won’t mind presenting yourself as gay for a few years and seeing how life goes?
“They’re trained to do it. It’s initiative.”
No.It’s like not agreeing with reason and intelligence.
I am not in favorNo. Since 1993 when the policy was enacted, the military has dismissed over 13,000 service men and women due to sexual orientation – including medics, fighter pilots, and Arabic linguists.
At the current rate, we are losing about 2 soldiers EACH DAY due to sexual orientation. This makes absolutely no sense at a time when our military is stretched thin fighting two wars, and struggling to recruit new personnel.
iRenew