The Politico is running an article of either breathless naivete or conscious dissimulation:
The national debate over gay marriage is threatening to spill over into the military, as activists from both sides of the volatile issue work to influence the Pentagon’s policy toward gay and lesbian service members and their families.
Gay activists who succeeded last year in repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that barred gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military are now pushing for full benefits for their partners. And that’s creating a backlash from conservatives in Congress who opposed repealing the ban and had feared it might lead to the military’s recognition of gay marriage.
The national debate over gay marriage is not “spilling over” into the military – this is no accident. The repeal of DADT had much less to do with any open right to serve than it did with federalizing the national debate over gay marriage, thereby taking it out of the hands of state legislatures. The military will, by logical steps and measures, be required to treat all formalized partnerships as equal under military law. Military law is federal law, and it will be used as controlling federal precedent in civil law.
Paeans to the patriotism of those who would serve if only they could chat about their private proclivities in the workplace was never anything much more than smoke and mirrors. The real prize has always been the tax code, shared benefits, etc. In fact, “there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities associated with marriage.”
To pretend otherwise was a momentary tactical necessity for the gay rights movement, but for the news media to portray this as anything other than an ultimate, even if incrementalist destination is mere puffery.
The barricades of the culture wars were not battered down. They were bypassed.
Your not wrong as far as you go, Lex, but there is much more. Just as important, imho, is the desire to forcibly “queer” the force in the same way the feministas sought to do with women serving in combat–all an effort to de-legitimize and destroy the last bastion of “hetero-normal,” straight white male “cultural hegemony.” NEVER underestimate the power of ideology to override even the almighty dollar, if push comes to shove. (Of course in his case they both nicely, conveniently, dove-tail)
this is a historical playbook–first the blacks were integrated into the force and gained civil rights; then women served in combat and their rights were expanded; now the gays seek federal benefits. If we left it up to the states, blacks would still not be allowed in certain states to mingle with whites off base. My state still has a law on its books that denies interracial marriage and allows property to be kept for whites alone–of course the federal law preempts those peculiar institutions.
while i am not thrilled with diluting the marriage meaning , access to government benefits through this route makes absolute sense. When a gay wins the medal of honor for sacrificing his or her life for fellow soldiers, this argument will seem quaint.
James/
The question is NOT about the individual merits of this or that soldier/airman, etc., but upon the overall effect of mass insertion of gays openly practicing their lifestyle on the combat capabilities (en grosso mondo) in terms of unit cohesion, motale, retention of key personnel and effects on recruitment of enlisted personnel where the influence of parents is great. Not to mention the all but inevitable cancerous institution of affirmative action quota systems (both formal & unofficial, back-channel) for promotions and assignments that we already have in great, undeniable, evidence with women & minorities. If not, CDR Salamander would not have a “Diversity Thursday” section, n’cest-ce pas? I repeat ad nauseam the fact that NOT A SINGLE STUDY EXTANT has shown the inclusion of women in the combat arms or the allowing of gays to serve openly improves the combat capability of the armed services ONE WHIT. Indeed, ALL have pointed the other way–differing ONLY in the percentage of degradation to the combat arm in question. Homosexuals comprise only approx 1.7% of the US pop. We are reducing the force anyway, so why entertain ANYTHING that will degrade the force? Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Remember, the armed forces have NEVER YET lived with openly gay service members. Past experience with DADT is NO GUIDE to the effects numbers of openly serving homosexuals will have on the force!
these arguments sound like the historical arguments against blacks serving in combat and degrading fighting performance. I, like you, share anathema to a lot of the affirmative action and political correctness issues in the militaary. I also assume that gays have served in the military for a long time (under DADT or earlier) and there are no studies indicating a deterioration in combat effectiveness from this hidden cohort (in fact the military is more lethal today due to volunteers and higher education standards along with complex weapon systems).
Yes, you’re right, James, there are no studies showing deterioration due to the HIDDEN cohort. But the studies referred to were considering the effect of OPENLY serving homosexuals.I guess you didn’t read my last two sentences..
At the end of the strategic campaign, and the path via DADT is merely the most possible point to be breached. Despite the fact that “civil union” would have provided all the legal rights, the better strategy is to get it tagged as “marriage” and than all road blocks are instantly cleared in one fell swoop. Honestly, I’ve been impressed with the strategic thought process, while not buying into the outcome, when other paths have been available by going to your local lawyer to execute the documents to provide for medical and financial decisions, as well as to whom you can leave your “stuff” to.
you can decide who you want to have your “stuff’..but don’t forget..your ‘junk’ belongs to the TSA..
Everybody deserves to pay alimony. It’s only fair.
Off topic, but just watched our host’s Right Coast Compadres launch a flight of two Hawker Hunters followed a few minutes later by two of those overly noisome Flying Triangles he is grown so fond of. Someone must be having an “Old and Older” party somewhere out over the blue and wavy…
Gay marriage is just one more link in the long chain of institutionalized discrimination from which this country has been freeing itself since the 1700′s.
Every time you hear someone say “gay marriage” or “gay rights” mentally replace “gay” with “nigger” and see how tenable their position appears now.
Now, can we please move on to a contentious issue of substance and worthy of debate, like national debt or the tax exempt status afforded to organized religions?
Humble, traditional marriage has long been considered one of society’s foundation stones, and we redefine it at uncertain peril. The only reason the state has any interest in regulating this particular contract is that it is seen to represent the best circumstances in which to bring to maturity the rising nation. Absent that organic ability to create new taxpayers and bring them safely into full citizenship, private living arrangements are not and ought not to be of interest to the state.
As for taxing religious organizations – or any other non-profit – the power to tax is the power to destroy.
And if you don’t like what’s on the menu, you are free to start your own restaurant.
“And if you don’t like what’s on the menu, you are free to start your own restaurant.”
What Spider Robinson used to refer to as offering someone “an invitation to the world.”
Well put, sir.
Humble1310/
I’m afraid your argument/logic is faulty. Integration of blacks had NOTHING to do with sexuality. The analogy to blacks is false in that regard, although holds true for the charge about their abilities. Human sexuality makes it a WHOLE different ball-game–not to mention the extent to which for some, religious prohibitions/teachings come seriously into play. Again, my arguments are NOT about individual abilities, but all about the macro effect of the open presence of homosexuals on the force as a whole..
Only the most naive would deny the inevitability of pressures/advocacy–to include the legal arena–for homosexuals to get their “fair share” of promotions, assignments, etc.
I believe you are incorrect. Marriage is something that people have been describing for centuries. It is not just a legal definition. Society has an absolute right to license behaviour which it feels promotes social success and continued existence of society. We don’t give blind people a license to drive. There is no logical or compelling reason to give homosexuals a marriage license. Openly encouraging people with mental problems to form pseudo pair bondings is a sign of social mental illness.
Equate “gay” with “nigger”? Funny, gays want to be called “gay”. Don’t think the other is widely true.
The biggest red herring is equating skin color with behavior.
As for your mania to tax religious organizations, where in the First Amendment does it mandate that the Government must prove that God doesn’t exist?
Urr,
Use that one fucking word on Nameless’s site and I’ll guarantee a swift effortless invite to the world. That little toad is death on that word. He’s all cutesy with his Thursday trash but actually spelling out the n word kills him.
Front porch trash.
God, growing up as an Army brat watching my high school soccer team mates carefully look around down there in Huntsville to see if any “n” were around when they told an off color joke. I laughed out loud when Nameless put the hammer down on me.
But you. You actually used the word! Good for you. Here I thought you were just a lame ass pussy.
Damn, Curtis, bitter much? Don’t obsess over the past, dude.
Feel free, BTW, to drop the N-bomb, even if that disrespects my black friends. It fits in quite nicely with the other language in your post. Elevates the discussion nicely.
And, no, I don’t call the women I work with “bitches,” the gay folks “faggots,” or the Mexicans “wetbacks” or “beaners.” I consider avoiding terms of insult a form of respect. YMMV.
Casey,
Take it as a given. I never in my life used that word but I was not afraid to spell it, as Mark Twain did and it makes laugh that the free and the brave are too terrified to actually spell the damned word. I spelled it at Nameless’s site and was promptly banned for life. URR gets tongue from Nameless so I was surprised when he spelled it too. Most people are just as chickenshit as you are won’t spell the word out of nothing but fear. Umm, American Classics, by Twain. Whossname? Jim? The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. You didn’t read them growing up?
It’s like you using the “g” word or the “f” word. What a complete loser.
Makes me laugh but the absolute shear fear of writing the word bugs the shit out of me. It is a word!
I let my little brother find us an apartment on first arriving in San Diego. He found us a pretty good apartment on 1st Ave, in a place called Hillcrest. Two guys sharing an apartment fit right in. I don’t actually have any of the phobias or prejudice you blindly assigned to me.
I think, possibly, if you read “The Honorable Peter Sterling” you might know who/what I am. It’s certainly what I strived to be since I read it. It is a very very old book.
I’m not afraid to spell the words and why should I be? I never use them in conversation and never would.
I don’t think you know any fags. You clearly never sat in your living room listening to a bunch of them call each other bitch. I’m pretty sure you don’t know any Mexicans, not that they depart from civil english unless it’s Spanish and I’m pretty sure you don’t know many blacks.
This is all about money and who can qualify for Federal benefits.
Way back in the stone age these benefits were ment for widows that had spent their life in the home raising children and contributing to their community.
I would say that a majority of Americans don’t even know this anymore and judge who gets benefits by an entirely different standard… Your partnership can’t possibly produce children? No problem…Let me direct you to the SSI office.
…Mission Creep…
Greetings:
But, almost seriously, don’t you all think it more important to advance the much more critical berthing and bathrooms issue. I mean, almost seriously, too, that the Navy came up with separate accomodations for the lady sailors subsequent to their arrival, so why not a little something for the boys who really really like boys and the girls who really really like girls. Maybe they could call the areas Bradley Mannings or Norton Sounds.
DO youz guys need another shovel ??? Two, perhaps ???
Maybe slightly off topic, but I sat in on an eye-opening meeting with some high level leadership the other day. As much as DADT repeal was red-teamed for at least a year, there are still things coming up that no one though of. Specifically on the agenda at that meeting were 1) how to shape policy to prohibit cross-dressing, and 2) barracks policies throughout the fleet saying members of the opposite sex shall be out by 23:00 (or whenever)(leadership is determined to come up with a policy that will prevent homosexuals from having a “home field advantage.”)
My personal favorite was long ago in the late 80′s. My EN2. My CPO were in the gulf at the time. The Base cops tracked a woman into the BEQ. Against the rules. When they broke down his door he was changing out of his dress and heels.
This was such a yawner. I don’t care, make sure he makes it to 0700 muster in the shipyard.
Red herring at best, dangerous slander at worst. Please name a state where you have evidence that is the case, citing the evidence.
When traveling in the south during the early 60s, it was nothing to see restrooms marked “Men, Women and Colored.” I asked my mother about that all she told me was to be quiet about it. Some things just were.
Miscegenation laws were overturned in the 60s and any segregation is now defacto not De Jure, and is done mostly by Blacks themselves. The main reason few people want blacks around is the crime that follows teh lower class Blacks. I’ve known many professional Black Men that moved among whites because of the crime issue. I personally know of no place in the US where Black and White are not allowed to mingle, nor any place with the inclination to prevent it by law.
I’m still amazed at how the gay community, despite its protests to the contrary, wields so much power and influence despite being a tiny part of the population (I’ve never believed the 10 percent myth). I remember Sasha Baron Cohen’s Bruno character said when he visited Alabama that “being gay is the new, coolest thing.”
Just watching TV, that is true to those in the Northeast, Pacific Northwest and California, but not so much to people in “flyover country.” We’re all a bunch of hayseed hicks who need our betters to regulate our sugar intake, curb our petroleum-fueled excesses, ensure a women’s right to infanticide and by Jove, make sure that the precious little animals are never harmed.
I knew this whole gays in the military bit was a dodge. I figured this was their grand strategy to federalize something that isn’t marriage. Why do we need to change the definition of what’s been a cornerstone of our civilization since the beginning of time? They were allowed to serve, but they just couldn’t be open about it. Why weren’t civil unions enough unless there is something else lurking under the surface of their agenda?
And I agree that this is more social engineering designed to attack the final bastion of masculinity. Sometimes I think the only men that feminists like are kept ones who do what they’re told from their Amazonian betters with “product” in their hair or those who are those oh-so-cool gay friends.
Grizzled, they are looking to have their mental illness accepted, and blessed, no less, as normal. We all know Fighter Pilots (and Pilots of all types) are not “normal” so why should we accept queers as normal?
And, before anyone says something, I know “typical” is the better word to describe what Fighter types are not, I’m simply being a bit facetious.
But I guess this goes hand-in-hand with our moral decay. I once entertained thoughts that we were a center-right nation. I doubt it now. Homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, cops are evil, criminals are just victims, yadda-yadda-yadda. I could go on and on, but the culture war was a slaughter. The forces of darkness (and I hate to sound like a Bible-beater) have already won. The only thing left is judgement. Just don’t turn back and look lest you become a pillar of salt.
Our nation’s debt is more a function of our failed moral compass and our cloudy discernment than anything else.
And no, QM, I’m not normal. As my wife would say, normal with me left the station a long, long time ago.
But what homosexuals are is a crime against nature. I don’t hate them. But I hate the sin. I don’t think the Almighty likes it much, either. It’s not marriage. They can’t become one flesh, procreate (naturally without surrogates) and raise godly children. So it’s not marriage. Call it civil unions. Call it what you will. But marriage it is not.
Grizzled Coastie/
Fie on you! You’re just a patriarchal, hetero-normal, culturally hegamonic homophobic bigot! Don’t you know any better? Now get back in your cave so that your troglodyte views won’t sully the enlightened of this world. You know, all those “progressives” with “The Vision of the Anointed.” So much for YOUR eyesight!
And, as I said, no Pilot is normal, but VX was also a Fighter Pilot, so that pretty much sums it up, Nicht Wahr?
I thought there was an unwritten rule that there are three topics that are not allowed at the dinner/wardroom table;
1. Women
2. Politics
3. Religion
At some point passions overcome manners and the hairy chested finger pointing and name calling begins….making my visit to the dinner table uncomforatble. Time for me to change channels and let this subjct cool off.
that’s uncomfortable and subject……
This isn’t the mess, but we are on first name basis here. I’d equate it more to the bar where any subject is fair game. Although, we do know, that some don’t play the game fair, but that’s another subject.
Well,
I’ll admit, you guys don’t get my first name but then, I never used it. I use my middle name and have all my life and you got it.