CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges

Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.

At an officer training service school, a male serviceman sexually harassed another male serviceman through text messages, emails, phone calls and in-person confrontations. The harassing male insisted the two would “make a great couple.” The harassed serviceman reported the harassment, but the command failed to take disciplinary action.

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman.

The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.

This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.

This outrageous social science lab experiment could have been easily prevented. The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty has worked closely with members of Congress to enact legislation, which has already passed the House, to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those they serve.

Even more outrageous is that we have to ask Congress to protect freedom of conscience for chaplains and those who serve in the military. The fact that Congress excluded a religious freedom protection amendment (authored in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom), to the repeal sends a clear message that our current leadership does not consider, much less respect, the constitutional implications of their actions while they bow in allegiance to the powerful and aggressive lobby of those who supported the repeal.

Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

source

[mikiemom]

Do some research, they had the same issues when they allowed African americans into the military and when they opening allowed woment to serve. They had the same issues when they allowed women to serve on ships.

Quoting TheStepMonster:

FTR...I have always been pro-gay military service.  I was opposed to the repeal of DADT the way they went about it, out of fear for homosexuals serving in the military.  Article 125 is still there, is it not?  And by participating in homosexual acts, purely by the way the UCMJ has sodomy defined, US Military personnel are going against their enlistment oath.  Which, in and of itself is court martial offense.

I think DADT should have been appealed - I just think they went about it way too fast, and did not address some of the concerns that have been addressed in this article, which needed to be addressed prior to.

Quoting mikiemom:

 

Quoting candlegal:

 

Toleration doesn’t cut both ways

The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration.

The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.

Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.

Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Yes, if service men and women can't get on board with the current policies they need to get out of the service, this goes for all rules.  When DH served in the Navy - he wasn't allowed to speak out - ONE WAY OR ANOTHER about ANY of the US Armed Services policies.  That is the issue. that is all part of being in the military - if you don't like the sit down and stfu - don't join the military.

...

Service members engaged in homosexual behavior protested a service school’s open-door policy for all students that prohibited the closing of room doors for the purpose of hiding sexual behavior. The protesters claimed that they had a right to participate in sexual behavior with their same-sex roommates. I was never in a unit with an open door policy, that seems to violate a whole host of privacy rules.  There may not have been an open door policy because chances are, women and men were kept separate - therefore not a need to have an open door policy.  All people should be given a bit of privacy, I think the open bay theory that the military has takes away a persons basic righs.

A senior chaplain was stripped of his authority over the chapel under his charge because, in accordance with federal law, he proclaimed the chapel to be a “sacred space” where marriage ceremonies would only be between one man and one woman. too bad so sad, again if the man can't get on board wtih current policy.  I guess if the US Military wants to have run over chapels (churches), then we need to do away with the whole "separation of church and state" that so many love to declare there is.  Can't have it both ways.  And yes, to be a Chaplain in the US Army, you have to be a clergy-person in your declared faith.  They should not be required to perform ceremonies that go against their faith.  And while in the military chaplains follow the military rules first their religion second. Another case in piont, christian chaplains are not allowed to harrass atheists or pagans etc they are not allowed to enforce their religious beliefs onto anyone. Military chaplains are not forced to perform any ritual for any person ever.

...

Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality. It has I work at the Pentagon and other military sites, it is not propoganda.  Apparently it is - because there are hitches.  People losing jobs, etc. Yep, get over it or move to another job.

 

Col. Ron Crews, a retired Army chaplain, is executive director for Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

source

 

[Euphoric]

 This is an awful article.

[brookiecookie87]

No I am sur she means the Constitution. I know I swore an oath to Protect it myself. I imagine the other branches do it as well.

Quoting candlegal:

Who is it that is trying to forbid gays to serve?

I believe you might mean the Uniform Code of military justice.

Quoting lancet98:

Which constitutional right is it that forbids gays from serving in the military again?   I have the constitution in front of me and I can't seem to find it.

[caito]

ewwwww

[yourspecialkid]

 My dh has a friend who is a base commander.  He has a gay transvestite in his wing.  The guy wanted to wear female uniforms, was denied..then threatened to sue.  They just gave in to avoid the publicity.  The guy is no longer deployable.  IMO, if you aren't deployable..unless it is for a short term thing..you should be discharged.

We knew there would be lots of issues.  No one was listening to those trying to resolve them before the repeal.

[Aislinn]

Quoting candlegal:

Who is it that is trying to forbid gays to serve?

I believe you might mean the Uniform Code of military justice.

Quoting lancet98:

Which constitutional right is it that forbids gays from serving in the military again?   I have the constitution in front of me and I can't seem to find it.

 Women and men break that code more often than gays. Guess we should kick out the women, too? Give me a break. And NOW people like YOU want to talk about tolerance? Give me an even bigger break. You only want tolerance when your side starts losing. Then you are all about the "tolerance".

[brookiecookie87]

There is a HUGE difference in believing in your religion and discriminating against others.

If there is a Chaplain who wants to discriminate against a group of people he should be removed from the Military where he can practice his discrimination in private with other people who believe what he does.

Quoting gsprofval:

Isn't it amazing, but still discriminatory that homosexuals can be protected (and that's ok), but people who believe it is wrong are punished? That's discrimination in the highest form.

I've worked with a military chaplain and he was truly a man of God; he should be allowed to have his beliefs and not be forced to comply with same sex marriage if he goes against his religious beliefs.

[Aislinn]

Quoting yourspecialkid:

 My dh has a friend who is a base commander.  He has a gay transvestite in his wing.  The guy wanted to wear female uniforms, was denied..then threatened to sue.  They just gave in to avoid the publicity.  The guy is no longer deployable.  IMO, if you aren't deployable..unless it is for a short term thing..you should be discharged.

We knew there would be lots of issues.  No one was listening to those trying to resolve them before the repeal.

 The US Military got suckered on that one, IMO. Instead of shooting yourself to avoid deployment, dress up like a woman. Sounds fishy, that is for sure...lol

[brookiecookie87]

Quoting rfurlongg:

This article reads like the white supremacist op/ed of the 50's only it is about hetero supremacy. Like so many from the 50's I hope he grows and learns to view those with a different sexual orientation with compassion and worthy of equal treatment. Not seperate but equal, but truly equal.

I could have not wordered that better. Great post.

[ashellbell]

This was what I was thinking.



Bigoted OP is bigoted.

Quoting slashteddy:

Go figure. Female service members are raped, harassed, and sexually assaulted every day, but no one in the military cares; let a male harass another male and "It's all the gays' fault!"