Gays in the Military was not about Gays in the Military

Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been officially repealed

The strategy gay advocates inside government used to allow gays to serve openly in our armed forces was revealing (Yes, it was an inside job). The fanfare, the open advocacy of the gay lifestyle, indoctrinating the troops into the gay agenda and criminalizing dissent, carving out another protected, special-rights group for gays.  The government did not have to do all that to simply allow gays to serve.

The Department of Defense, with the concurrence of Congress and the President could simply have removed all laws from the UCMJ that criminalize homosexual acts and been done with it. Period. But no, this was not about gays in the military; it was about nationalizing gay marriage and shoving the acceptance of homosexuality in everyone’s faces and forcing us to bow down at the rainbow altar.

Gays in the military was about federalizing gay marriage by first boxing in the DoD. Step 1 is complete, now comes step 2...

NORFOLK, Va. — A gay rights group kicked off the repeal of the U.S. military's ban on openly gay troops with a protest outside the world's largest Navy base that called for an expansion of benefits for gay and lesbian military members.

"Same sex couples can't live on base together, they don't have medical benefits, they don't have travel allowances, they don't have housing allowances. They don't even have the right to be notified if their partner dies in battle." (Gazette.com)

Nor do unmarried opposite sex couples. You've got to be married to get those bennies, and the advocates know that. They have pitted the federal government against itself. In the name of fairness, DoD must now grant these benefits to every boyfriend and girlfriend. That will never happen.

Here's what will happen: A phalanx of well-funded lawyers will bring a suit against the federal government, forcing the DoD to accept gay marriages (Which are five times more likely to involve infidelity than hetero ones) and treat them the same as traditional ones.  And they will win.

* Late breaking news!  Now the trannies want in on the deal.  I don't know about you, but if someone can't find their gender with both hands I don't want them handling explosives and having other military members rely on them for mission success.
...................................
I have no problem with gays serving, but Western Hero co-blogger Hugh Farnham does, creating an editorial split.  Here's his take:

With the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, many military bases are getting copies of LGBT newspapers - for free. This is to help the gay base population to adjust to the new order of things. Hugh Farnham thought he'd help them out with this  (Right click and download to embiggen):

Sexual Liberty vs. Religious Liberty

America's post-modern fetish with all things gay has culminated in an inevitable absurdity: 

Petitions to Sesame Street demanding the marriage of Ernie and Bert.

Gay mania has gone beyond granting gays their god-given rights, and has now entered the territory of publicly-enforced morality to the point of binding our consciences.




Tim Dalrymple examines the potential consequences of New York's gay marriage law:

The religious liberties and conscience rights of individual professionals and business owners, Nimocks says, are in particular peril. Since they do not fall beneath the "religious umbrella" the law creates, wedding planners or florists or clothiers who decline to offer their services to same-sex couples may face lawsuits or other forms of government pressure. Marriage counselors and adoption attorneys, if they are not employees of a religious group, also could be accused of illegal discrimination if they do not serve gay couples.

Even those beneath the "religious umbrella" may be less protected than they would like to believe. In spite of the conscience provision, there are "huge gaping holes" in the language of the law, says Nimocks. Ultimately, the long-term consequences of the law are unknown. Yet gay couples will take offense if they are not offered the same services traditional couples receive, and the same well-funded activists who pushed the same-sex marriage bill into law will continue to make their case in the courts and in the statehouses. (Tim Dalrymple - Liberty's Loss)

Before anyone seeks recourse in the trite and inapt comparisons to the Civil Rights movement of the 60's, lets recall that this is an issue determined solely by how people have sex, a private act that's nobody's business but the practitioners'.

The state rightly does not enforce Christian morality, but it does declare the moral goodness of being gay and forces the rest of us to pay obeisance to this moral pronouncement upon pain of punishment.

So why was Rick Perry's Christian rally wrong, but government forcing everyone to accept homosexuality is OK?

Gay New York

New York has approved gay marriage in that state. I don't agree with gay marriage, but they did it the right way. I believe it is a states rights issue and that it should not be decided by mullahs in black robes at the federal level.

My opposition to gay marriage is definitional 

There is no society in the history of mankind where gay marriage ever existed.  This is a post-modern theft of the word.  Advocates counter that gay couplings have been observed in the wild among apes, but simians also throw crap at each other, so I don't think that is a valid example to point to. The term marriage has always had a specific meaning, and it should not be changed. Call a gay relationship whatever you want,  protect gay rights in contract law, but don't call it marriage.

A Victory for Polygamy

Can anyone keep a straight face while telling me Muslim advocacy groups will not bring lawsuits to strike down polygamy bans? Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has a robust history. What makes marrying someone of the same sex more valid than a man marrying two or three or four women? Or a woman marrying multiple men for that matter. We've struck down a standard and now have nothing to take its place, so it's anything goes for the cultural vandals. The next ten years should be exciting.

A Dangerous Blow to Religious Liberty

The New York Legislature, God bless 'em, insisted that churches should not be coerced into doing anything against their beliefs. While I applaud the good intentions, it sets a dangerous precedent, in that the state legislature is granting by law a right to a church that the state has no right to grant.  Freedom of religion is a preexisting right recognized in the First Amendment to the constitution.

According to the Founding Fathers and The Constitution they authored, religious liberties come from God, not a politician. If a legislature can grant rights to a church, it can also take them away, and that is the Trojan Horse. The law should be struck down because it pretends to grant the God-given right of religious liberty that has already been guaranteed by the First Amendment to The US Constitution.

This is another shot over the bow of religious liberty.