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 (61-70):
Its.me.Sam.
by Silver Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:22 PM
1 mom liked this

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

that right there says enough. 

and yeah... our gay military personnel are asking for 'special priveledges'.. like not being beaten up, not being harassed, not being demoted, being treated fairly, justly and equally as THEY RISK THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY.  how dare they.  why dont you go ASK a gay soldier what it is they want - how s/he wants to be treated as a gay soldier... get the truth not THIS hateful ignorant vomit.  no gay soldier is tryign to take religion away from anyone else.  this is just what every other hateful group has done to opress the group they hate... create fear and conflict when there is none.  
 

jessilin0113
by Platinum Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:23 PM
1 mom liked this
Apparently "exalt" means the same as "acknowledge". Not being able to ignore gays or treat them like dirt is such a burden. I weep for straight male privilege.


Quoting futureshock:

How is anyone doing this?

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


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Woodbabe
by Woodie on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Whatever...people in the military have to go against their religious beliefs in the line of duty all the time. Just ask the Mormon Corpsmen that have to work on Sundays instead of going to church with their families!

TheStepMonster
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I did see that - and my hats off to her.  Again - all it's going to do is take ONE.  Doesn't matter what has happened in the past.  

Quoting mikiemom:

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.







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.

TheStepMonster
by on Oct. 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Here's where it gets tricky though - he was reporting about a chaplain who was stripped of his authority. This chaplain was hired to do a job.  He was hired BECAUSE of his religious beliefs and training.  It is a requirement for the US Army that you be clergy in your denomination, which requires a certain amount of testimony of your beliefs.  I don't know what denomination this chaplain (supposedly) was.  And it's NOT easy to become a military chaplain.  I've known a few to go through the paces and it's tough.  The military knew his beliefs.  And put him in charge of a chapel.  For him NOW to be (supposedly) stripped of his authority over this chapel - is infringing on HIS rights.

Biggoted or not.  His beliefs being right or wrong.  You can not hire someone because they have certain qualifications (and in this case his beliefs lead to his qualifications), and then take his job because he's practicing those qualifications.  

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

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.


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.

PinkButterfly66
by Silver Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM
1 mom liked this

There are plenty of clergy that practice the same faith and are perfectly ok with the idea of homosexuality.   It is sad that he couldn't be more open minded and keep his job.

Quoting TheStepMonster:

Here's where it gets tricky though - he was reporting about a chaplain who was stripped of his authority. This chaplain was hired to do a job.  He was hired BECAUSE of his religious beliefs and training.  It is a requirement for the US Army that you be clergy in your denomination, which requires a certain amount of testimony of your beliefs.  I don't know what denomination this chaplain (supposedly) was.  And it's NOT easy to become a military chaplain.  I've known a few to go through the paces and it's tough.  The military knew his beliefs.  And put him in charge of a chapel.  For him NOW to be (supposedly) stripped of his authority over this chapel - is infringing on HIS rights.

Biggoted or not.  His beliefs being right or wrong.  You can not hire someone because they have certain qualifications (and in this case his beliefs lead to his qualifications), and then take his job because he's practicing those qualifications.  

Quoting PinkButterfly66:

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.



katzmeow726
by Platinum Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM
4 moms liked this

In other words, a gay person asking to be treated like a human being is equivalent to asking for special privileges.  At least to some people.

I love how those very people deny the fact that they see gays as lesser people, or as second class, and yet when they ask for basic rights, it is "a special privilege."

SMH...this is sad. 


Quoting Its.me.Sam.:

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

that right there says enough. 

and yeah... our gay military personnel are asking for 'special priveledges'.. like not being beaten up, not being harassed, not being demoted, being treated fairly, justly and equally as THEY RISK THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY.  how dare they.  why dont you go ASK a gay soldier what it is they want - how s/he wants to be treated as a gay soldier... get the truth not THIS hateful ignorant vomit.  no gay soldier is tryign to take religion away from anyone else.  this is just what every other hateful group has done to opress the group they hate... create fear and conflict when there is none.  
 


Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie Third Birthday tickers

Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie Third Birthday tickers

Daisypath - Personal pictureDaisypath Anniversary tickers
kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:16 PM
2 moms liked this

here's a thought... do you know how many heterosexual crimes are committed against female soldiers by their commanding officers?  A lot.  So one case of sexual harrassment by a man TO a man absolutely does not equal wanting special privileges.  This is pathetic and hateful drivel.

MonicaV1982
by Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I'm sorry I couldn't bother reading this baseless drivel.

kailu1835
by Ruby Member on Oct. 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


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.

I understand your POV.

Do you disagree that every person should be afforded civil rights?

I think it's funny that she thinks anyone who disagrees with homosexuality is being punished.  The only people ever punished are hate groups, and even then, they've got free speech on their side.  I guess she thinks hate groups should be able to spew their filth and get off scot free.

babiesbabybaby development

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)