Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

CREWS: Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges

Posted by   + Show Post


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.

by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Replies (51-60):
Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 10:33 AM
1 mom liked this
Religion has never been fully protected in the military, per USSC rulings. Sucks, eh? Sexual harrassment by any gender toward any gender should NEVER be tolerated in the military. Since GLB was discriminated against in the military for so long, it shouldn't be tolerated now. Is racism tolerated by religious leaders or anyone in the military? I should hope not! Same dif!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
candlegal
by Judy on Oct. 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM

LOL, of course

Quoting 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".


TheStepMonster
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM
1 mom liked this

Me, green.

Quoting 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.  I know they did.  I have done the research.  

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.  I absolutely agree with you, MM, but the point is - that even when "protesting" or "rallying" for something you agree wtih - you're not allowed to do that in the military.  And since BEFORE the repeal of DADT, service members have been pretty much been given alot of leeway in speaking out in support of DADT.  However, those opposed were told to stand down.  Again - BEFORE the repeal of DADT - service members were permitted to protest/speak out AGAINST military policy w/o consequences.  Yet, now, they're permitted to rally in favor of the repeal - whereas those opposed were told to stfu before the repeal (in support of current military policy) and now, afterwards.  

I guess also, the same could have been said for gays wanting to join - this is the policy - if you don't like it stfu and don't join. 

...

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.  I'm not saying I disagree with you.   You were trying to discredit the article by saying that you never served in a unit with an open door policy.

However, the article said this was an issue in the service's schools.  I live and have worked on Ft. Lee.  Dealt with MANY a student at the AIT School.  Prior to the repeal of DADT, men and women were housed separately - one of which reason is to prevent sexual activity ON POST.  (There's not a whole host of hotels around military installations for no reason...lol).  

I was just pointing out that prior to the repeal there was no need for an open door policy because men and women didn't share barracks.

NOW - I'm not saying that I'm niave enough to believe that it didn't happen.  It did - between hetero & homosexual couples.  However, the open door policy is not only to prevent sexual activity between same sex couples (which sex is still a no no during AIT or A school - same sex or not) but also to protect them.  And like you said above - you don't like the military's policies - don't join.

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.  Agreed.  And this is one of the MANY issues that need to be resolved prior to the repeal of DADT.  Because honestly?  I could also see a chaplain saying approving/blessing/marrying of a homosexual relationship is in violation of article 125.  

...

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.  See, and the same could be said the other way - if you don't like it, move on, and don't join the military.

My fear isn't really for those just enlisting.  My fear is for those like an aquaintance of mine.  Nineteen years she has served in silence.  She is ONE year away from retirement.  She is an officer.  She is widely respected.  However, her CO is not very fond of the repeal of DADT.  And she knows it.  So she STILL serves in silence.  Because she knows that one wrong move, and she CAN be made the example of.  

The repeal of DADT has not been court/CM tested yet.  The SCOTUS has refused to overturn cases that come up from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.  Time and time again.  They have recognized the authority of the Military Courts, and only in procedural cases - have the reversed.  So, we'll see where this REALLY stands once someone pisses off a bigotted CO.  


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





grey ribbon

During the month of May, I wear my gray for Brain Cancer Awareness in memory of my momma (BM).  She fought her battle from May, 1988 - October, 1998.  Love and miss you much.

paganbaby
by Teflon Don on Oct. 2, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Bump

Grainia
by Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting 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

Wasn't that a plot line in M.A.S.H.? There really are no original thoughts anymore. /smirk


SilverSterling
by MrsSilverusSnape on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM
4 moms liked this

I saw this on Facebook and thought I would share

futureshock
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM

How is anyone doing this?

the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks,

mikiemom
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I don't know if you read in the news but I attended the pin-on ceremony for an open Lesbian whose Partner pinned on her star, she is the first openly GLBT General Officer in the Army, I'll see if I can find the news Article. - Nobody here openly had a problem with it, just like you wouldn't hear anyone openly complaining about African American Generals or Female Generals. It will take time but the bigots will be run off.

Quoting TheStepMonster:

Me, green.

Quoting 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.  I know they did.  I have done the research.  

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.  I absolutely agree with you, MM, but the point is - that even when "protesting" or "rallying" for something you agree wtih - you're not allowed to do that in the military.  And since BEFORE the repeal of DADT, service members have been pretty much been given alot of leeway in speaking out in support of DADT.  However, those opposed were told to stand down.  Again - BEFORE the repeal of DADT - service members were permitted to protest/speak out AGAINST military policy w/o consequences.  Yet, now, they're permitted to rally in favor of the repeal - whereas those opposed were told to stfu before the repeal (in support of current military policy) and now, afterwards.  

I guess also, the same could have been said for gays wanting to join - this is the policy - if you don't like it stfu and don't join. 

...

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.  I'm not saying I disagree with you.   You were trying to discredit the article by saying that you never served in a unit with an open door policy.

However, the article said this was an issue in the service's schools.  I live and have worked on Ft. Lee.  Dealt with MANY a student at the AIT School.  Prior to the repeal of DADT, men and women were housed separately - one of which reason is to prevent sexual activity ON POST.  (There's not a whole host of hotels around military installations for no reason...lol).  Ok - been there done that - oh and I spent much time in the guys dorm in Korea as well,

I was just pointing out that prior to the repeal there was no need for an open door policy because men and women didn't share barracks. they need to worry more about Sexual Assault in the military than they do stopping someone from being with their gay partner.

NOW - I'm not saying that I'm niave enough to believe that it didn't happen.  It did - between hetero & homosexual couples.  However, the open door policy is not only to prevent sexual activity between same sex couples (which sex is still a no no during AIT or A school - same sex or not) but also to protect them.  And like you said above - you don't like the military's policies - don't join. I agree but Open door policy is a violation of my privacy, it's now a way to solve the problem.

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.  Agreed.  And this is one of the MANY issues that need to be resolved prior to the repeal of DADT.  Because honestly?  I could also see a chaplain saying approving/blessing/marrying of a homosexual relationship is in violation of article 125.  article 125 needs to be repealed, It is actually a violation of the UCMJ to have any sex outside of marriage, adultry is a felony.

...

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.  See, and the same could be said the other way - if you don't like it, move on, and don't join the military. same could be said for women or african Americans. GLBT have the right to be in the military, bigots just have to deal with that just like they have to deal with having women and non-white's in the military. I work with a woman who was originally in the military in the 60's, according to her everyone one of the arguements used in the article were used as a reason to not integrate women and african americans into the military.

My fear isn't really for those just enlisting.  My fear is for those like an aquaintance of mine.  Nineteen years she has served in silence.  She is ONE year away from retirement.  She is an officer.  She is widely respected.  However, her CO is not very fond of the repeal of DADT.  And she knows it.  So she STILL serves in silence.  Because she knows that one wrong move, and she CAN be made the example of.  ffor some reason, I can't get the link to copy, google Lesbian open army general and the story comes up.

The repeal of DADT has not been court/CM tested yet.  The SCOTUS has refused to overturn cases that come up from the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.  Time and time again.  They have recognized the authority of the Military Courts, and only in procedural cases - have the reversed.  So, we'll see where this REALLY stands once someone pisses off a bigotted CO.  

 

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

 


 



Lurion
by Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM

The Washington Times is a Republican newspaper, not a legitimate news source. 

This is an OP-ED piece, which means it is someone's opinion, not a journalistic news story. 

Never fails to amaze me how many people out there can't distinguish one from another. 


Quoting rfurlongg:

Yep. I followed her source link. Washington times.


Quoting iamcafemom83:

Is this a real article?


PinkButterfly66
by Silver Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM
2 moms liked this

So this retired chaplain thinks it is ok to openly discriminate against gays because it is in line with his religious beliefs.  Funny, I've read the bible and I can't find anywhere that Christ said to do that.  As for the serviceman who was being harassed.  That falls under Title VII.  It is against the Amendment to sexually harass anyone in the workplace.  If his commander didn't take the complaint seriously, he is in violation of Title VII.  Women have been dealing with sexual harassment from men in the work place for decades.  It sucks (I experienced as a teen) and nobody should have to put up with it.  

And I highly doubt that couples are going to make out or "do it" in the barracks.  That is against military regulations and if any members of the military (hetero or homosexual) did that in barracks they would be (and should be) disciplined.  

I'm sorry that the good colonel is such a bigot.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)