Posted on 12/20/2010 11:56:32 AM PST by LonelyCon
One week after warning the distraction of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” could risk Marines’ lives, Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, pledged to lead the effort to integrate openly gay Marines.
“I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps [Carlton Kent], will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines,” Amos said. “On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years."
Amos’ statement sent to reporters came Sunday evening, one day after the Senate adopted the repeal, capping a stunning, climactic day on the chamber floor.
Marine Corps leaders have shown the most resistance to repealing the 17-year old law. Former commandant Gen. James Conway said the Corps’ “pretty macho” recruits set them apart from other services.
On Dec. 3, Amos – who became the 35th commandant in October – and the chiefs of the Army and Air Force told Congress they did not want repeal now, based on the results of a DOD troop survey. The survey found Marines in combat arms units much more opposed to the repeal than other elements of the force, or the complete military.
[Snip]
Here is Amos’ full statement:
"Fidelity is the essence of the United States Marine Corps. Above all else, we are loyal to the Constitution, our Commander in Chief, Congress, our Chain of Command, and the American people. The House of Representatives and the Senate have voted to repeal Title 10, US Code 654 "Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the United States Armed Forces." As stated during my testimony before Congress in September and again during hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, the Marine Corps will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new policy. I, and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, will personally lead this effort, thus ensuring the respect and dignity due all Marines. On this matter, we look forward to further demonstrating to the American people the discipline and loyalty that have been the hallmark of the United States Marine Corps for over 235 years."
I'm speechless.
Which I guess is a good thing, since the last (and former) FReeper that tossed that out got a much different response from me.
In what post? I don’t recall seeing a post where you asked a question.
Gotcha. So you would obey an immoral order.
Guess what? There is an ultimate Superior Officer whom you will give an answer to some day.
I would not really wanna try and explain this line of reasoning to Him on that day.
But... that’s just me.
Yup! You want to jump off the cliff? Here let me give you a leg up!!
Not being a JAG, I wonder what is in the USMJ to trump the repeal, because before DADT, the military was tougher on homosexuals. DADT was a Clinton compromise.
Homosexuals don’t belong in the military because they’re sinners, but because they are mentally ill sex perverts. Their presence already is damaging, and when allowed free rein, it will be even worse. Infinitely worse.
Ten Reasons to Oppose an “LGBT Law” or Policy for the Military
The Center for Military Readiness ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608259/posts
Senate Testimony: European Militaries Are Not Role Models for U.S.
The Center for Military Readiness ^ | 3/22/2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608228/posts
Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High
FRC ^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608306/posts
In Support the 1993 Law Stating that Homosexuals are not Eligible to Serve in the Military
CMR ^ | July 23, 2008 | Elaine Donnelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608370/posts
“THE REAL PENTAGON POLL: 91% OF SERVICE MEMBERS REJECT HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS - 1 IN 4 WOULD QUIT”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635458/posts
“MILITARY: Marines lead opposition to repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635350/posts
“Mullen: Troops Who Balk at Change in Gay Service Policy Can Find Other Work”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2636350/posts
Jacquerie,
I do not have a church, God does, but I do not. Nor do I admit people into THE church. God does, but I have no say in it. Who does God admit? The Bible is clear that it is those individuals who recognize Jesus as the Son of God and who seek to do his will. Interestingly, the Bible also gives guidelines for “expelling an immoral brother.” (I Cor. 5) Therefore, if one is practicing a sin willfully with no intent to remove that sin from him/herself and further asking THE church to overlook it, even though everyone knows it is unacceptable to God, the Bible has authorized removal of that person until such time as they have repented and returned to God’s way.
It would seem we are authorized by God to make judgment calls? Would you deny that?
Sincerely,
Daisy Mae
I said no such thing. I said the Commandant of the Marine Corps (as well as every other officer) must support any LAW passed by Congress, no matter how personally repugnant they find it. That's the entire basis of our military - subservience to civilian authority. "We" are not the Commandant of the Marine Corps. "We" can and should oppose the repeal. The Commandant does not have that luxury.
I asked if you would obey an immoral order. You gave no answer.
I did indeed, just a few posts up from here.
Now you are comparing FReepers to the Westboro Baptist Church?
If the shoe fits, one might consider wearing it.
I suggest you read this. And re-think your pro-gay agenda.
I would suggest that, as has often been said here, it's JimRob's site and he can zot anyone he wishes, for any reason. I would further suggest that you stop trying to read my mind. I have no pro-gay agenda, and I never have. I do not support the repeal of DADT, heck, I didn't support DADT -- I preferred the older standard. However, that's not the same thing as saying that a service chief should openly defy the duly elected civilian authority of this country.
Here is the last time someone - besides Terabitten - made a favorable comparison between WBC and FR.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2644629/posts?page=64#64
It didn’t end well for adamjefferson. I wonder if Terabitten thinks he will be any luckier.
Don't agree. The dude could drop his papers and be on the beach sipping vodka tonics with full benefits if he wanted to. If he feels that homosexuality is not good for the Marine Corps then he should retire or fight it tooth and nail until drilled out of the service.
If you can get that out of what I wrote, then I'm afraid we can have no further civil discourse.
Good day.
Let me make this simple for you.
Copy and paste this into your reply:
______________________________________________
“I would not obey an immoral order.”
Signed,
Terabitten.
______________________________________________
It’s not hard. You can do it. Or if copying and pasting are beyond your abilities - just type it out yourself.
(Or maybe you want to make more remarks about us Westboro Baptist Church members (AKA FReepers)???
Now read a few posts down and see how I answered that poster.
I'm proud of myself today. I was able to maintain civility with those who -- through ignorance, gullibility, expediency, or cowardice -- side with the homosexualist agenda pushers in the military.
Oh, and IBTZ.
SA=Saul Alinsky
God does hate homosexual-—ity.
Not the person, the act.
No argument there, he could indeed do just that.
If he feels that homosexuality is not good for the Marine Corps then he should retire or fight it tooth and nail until drilled out of the service.
The time to argue was *before* the law was passed. He did exactly that - louder, in fact, than any of the other service chiefs.
For all we know, his retirement papers are coming tomorrow - wouldn't that make a heck of a statement? "We'll lead the way in implementing this policy... now here's my 2 week notice!"
Ah, got it. Thanks.
God does hate homosexual-—ity.
Agree entirely - along with every other form of sin.
What?!
1 Corinthians 5:9-11
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
Lose the Westboro Baptist comparison now.
Neither did the Quakers of Pa. Neither could they govern.
With all due respect, that verse, if anything, bolsters your opponent’s position. It simply says that we should not associate with those who call themselves Christian but are sexually immoral. In Verse 10, Paul explicitly states that he is *not* referring to people who do not claim to be Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.