Zackly.
DADT was a clever work-around. It was presented as an Executive Order, and it didn’t say gays cant serve. It just said, “I don’t wanna hear about it.” And this is perfectly acceptable in that once in the military you no longer have individual rights as civilians do. Why? Because we need to have discipline and cohesion to win battles and wars. No other reason.
Gays serve. I respect anyone who serves for their service, regardless. I have known drunks and wife-beaters and all kinds of people who were just wrong in their personal lives who served. Outside of their service, they still get judged for who they are and what they do. Inside the terms of their service, they are to be judged by their performance of their service.
So is the gay issue really the issue at hand? No. The Constitution is the issue at hand.
Were there gays serving in Washington’s army?
WHO CARES?
If we want to maintain this republic, we must maintain the rule of law. In this country, that’s the Constitution.
Gates in unelected and can’t be tossed except to toss this administration when the time comes.
Until then, Congress needs to be motivated, and other members of the military community - inside and outside the bureaucracy - to assert the proper jurisdictional rules.
Getting mad at gays in this case is stupid. It’s the trap the left has set for us. It’s easily avoided. The Founding Father’s left us very clear instructions. They fought for it with everything they had.
We deserve to honor that if we want to earn the legacy they left us...Not for the sake of tradition or patriotism, but simply because it’s right.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
I was thinking that my good FRiend xzins was right and that I just misunderstood you, and then I read this:
Gays serve. I respect anyone who serves for their service, regardless. I have known drunks and wife-beaters and all kinds of people who were just wrong in their personal lives who served. Outside of their service, they still get judged for who they are and what they do. Inside the terms of their service, they are to be judged by their performance of their service.So is the gay issue really the issue at hand? No. The Constitution is the issue at hand.
Were there gays serving in Washington’s army?
WHO CARES?
I'll tell you who cares, CONSERVATIVES care about the demoralization of our military. CONSERVATIVES also care about the radical homosexual agenda that is being forced upon America and Jim Robinson has made it very clear that Free Republic WILL NOT be used to further that agenda.
Because of the blood issue mentioned above, I do not want gays serving in the military, period. So, the truth be known, I supported the old policy and not DADT. Dadt is just a compromise that makes the military a restrictive place for gays to serve.
The blood issue is a battlefield issue. It makes them a detriment in combat.
I don’t want any detriments in combat.
I don’t want quarterbacks with torn acl’s on my football team, and I don’t want gays in my military.
The purpose of the military is to WIN. That’s harder to do if you’ve got a group of guys running around infecting, potentially infecting, and ruining morale among the troops.