Posted on 08/26/2012 9:10:36 AM PDT by scottjewell
President Obama's expansion of gay rights in the military, including on-base same sex marriage and wearing uniforms in gay pride parades, would be radically yanked back in a Mitt Romney administration, according to Republican platform positions taking shape in Tampa and OK'd by the candidate.
"We're pushing back," said Elaine Donnelly, of the conservative Center for Military Readiness. "This is pretty big."
While one subcommittee was tightening anti-abortion and "traditional marriage" language that won praise from the Family Research Council, a national security team moved rapidly to pull back expanded gay rights derided by critics as "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Law."
New language included rejecting "the use of military as a platform for social experimentation," and a demand that the military provide "objective and open-minded" recommendations to the president on personnel policies.
The brass has been criticized for bowing to Obama's move to expand gay rights in the military.
Other language included affirming "cultural values...team cohesion, including intra-military special interest demonstrations" that Donnelly told Secrets was meant to stop same sex marriages and wearing uniforms in gay pride events, two hugely controversial changes under Obama.
The GOP also OK'd language blocking attempts to remove Bibles from military facilities; would exempt women from ground combat units and infantry battalions; and support for the Defense of Marriage Act. The GOP votes on the platform Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention.
Could we get a strong position against politically correct promotions?
“The GOP also OK’d language blocking attempts to remove Bibles from military facilities; would exempt women from ground combat units and infantry battalions; and support for the Defense of Marriage Act. The GOP votes on the platform Monday, the opening day of the Republican National Convention.”
**
This is a preview of the Romney admin? Unreal..
I hope they “push” it right back to the way it was before DADT and we followed the UCMJ - not some radical, politically-correct social experiment.
Translation: GOP accepts gays in the military.
The mission of the military is to defend the country not to join a gay retreat.
This is yet another special "right" for the perpetually aggrieved. Decent soldiers are prohibited from wearing their uniforms for political events. Those agitating for gay "rights" are the exception to this rule.
“Translation: GOP accepts gays in the military.”
I don’t follow how you get that from what is written.
You're right on the money, as it's no place for limp-wrists and dykes. OTOH, you KNOW some asshat Lawyer will jump right in and scream for "Equal Rights" for sex deviates, but we need to confront this deviency both in the Military, AND, in Public.
Sex habits have NO STANDING in Courtrooms, IMHO, as a Defense OR an Excuse.
However, the GOP Platform will not call for a ban on gay service members and the expulsion of all current Sodomite members of the US Military.
The Republicans have already given in on the Sodomite Agenda.
Buck McKeon, House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Says Gays In The Military Issue Is Settled
By DONNA CASSATA 06/21/12 02:24 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Thursday that allowing gays to serve openly in the military is a settled issue that he won’t try to reverse even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency in November and the GOP captures the Senate.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California said his focus is on restoring money for the military after the latest round of defense cuts – a planned reduction of $487 billion over 10 years that could nearly double if Congress fails to avert automatic, across-the-board cuts that begin in January. Pressed on the divisive issue of gay rights that roiled Congress two years ago, McKeon said he wouldn’t revisit it.
“We fought that fight,” McKeon told defense reporters at an hourlong breakfast interview. He said his goal is to “get the things that our war-fighters need.”
The committee chairman said other GOP lawmakers might try to reinstate the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” that was in effect for nearly two decades. “That’s not something that I would personally bring up,” he said.
He recalled that in 1994, when Republicans took control of the House after 40 years, there were high expectations for ambitious changes. “They expected us to pull off miracles. That’s not how things work. I’d rather focus on money for defense,” McKeon said.
It would be unwise to suddenly make illegal what was legal - people have rights too. But we can make the environment less inviting by formalizing the PDA expectations most of us have respected for years. Defending DOMA would keep military people from getting homosexual partner rights/marriage, etc. One small pet-peeve I have is that people who are HIV positive are given a waiver and kept in instead of being medically boarded. If you can’t serve worldwide, you shouldn’t be allowed to serve.
Why do people get extra “rights” in the military based on what sexual acts they engage in? It’s pure lunacy and stupidity.
Homosexuality is now openly paraded in the military. The only way to fix this is to give a Dishonorable Discharge to everyone who took advantage of the policy and participated in the mischief. They have to know that misconduct will have consequences, even if it has political support.
Otherwise, the policy could be shifted back and forth depending on who is President, continuing to wreak havoc on military culture and discipline.
“If someone is an open homosexual in the military, that causes all kinds of problems which we’ve only just begun to see.”
You cannot kick them out because people now know their preferences. Attrition is the best and most legal hope.
I also thought they were supposed to uphold a certain decorum while in uniform. No PDA, no public drunkenness, etc. Seems to me just being at, let alone in, a gay parade would be demeaning to the uniform.
Yes, you can. And you have to.
How could you get rid of them with Attrition? First, you would be accepting the premise that they should be tolerated. Then, all you could do is try to make them uncomfortable. The debate would become, "How do we best accommodate homosexuals (mischief makers) in the military?"
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.