Here in the State Department, gays have a perch from which they are untouchable. Once they have tenure they can be incompetent and still use complaints and character assination of people they don't like through EEO. The problems they create are one of fear in the ranks by straights where we dare not cross them - for they are militant, petty and mean when angered and use all form of weapons, e.g., rumors and EEO. Again at State our expierence is different, we have people who walk about like Hollywood Hair Dressers, flaunting their sexuality, mocking the normal sense of sivility that would be considered professional non-sexual conduct; they can do this specifically because we make an exception. We avoid confrontations, and tip toe in the closeted sense around gays trying not to offend them (being a Republican is an offense in the political correctness sense here in the Department and being an R indicates you are against Gays in liberal circles).
But there is one bigger problem is one in which the State Department has fostered a situaiton where they have a category of family member called Member of Household (MOH). An example of the MOH benefits can be drawn from the fact we have here at State Department Post an openly homosexual junior foreign service officer living with a Brazilian male; the office is shortly going to deploy to a combat zone and during his one-year absence (prior to gong to his follow-on assignment), his MOH boyfriend will continue to live in government leased housing (about $130K a year), be entitled to employment as any other family member, etc. Straight orientated foreign service officers are not giveng these "rights" for hetro different sex boyfriends or girlfriends, and I think this another form of charity the Country cannot afford. While my wife is friend's with this MOH as he is literally one of the girls and a likeable person, it is the financial angle to which most object - where is the line item funding for this from the Congress and Senate (or is this another unfunded obligation?).
My objection to gays openly service can be initially touched upon in the paragraph above, but there one other area that concerns me as well. That is the consideration that we have an Islamic block at the UN or within the world about 67-69 nations in one religous group where being openly gay is a crime in their nations and we send Openly Gay Diplomats (in the future Gay Military personnel). Do these nations and the adherents of Islam see the West and America once more as a decadent perverse society that by our very essence seeks to offend the pure? If we cannot deal with very question within our government and society, have we the right to export our morality or lack there of, into other societys? I do not see this as sending a Black Mayor from Atlanta (Andrew Young) to an Apathid South Africa for we were allied with a Deklerk Government, but rather in just this one instance of Islam at a stage of religious intollerence by those so inclined. So based on this one situation alone I beleive it is within the rights of Nations to reject our diplomate/politicians and military from interaction with their society's on the basis of religious and legal grounds. Were these nations to arrest and/or expulse from their country's openly gay diplomats, or refuse military assistance it would make our diplomacy and protective umbrella unable to deal with today's negotiations or tensions.
I could go on but one can get the sense there is more to this issue lurking below the surface.
I am curious where many FISCAL conservative's stand on the Entitlements the State Department is throwing money at to allow FSOs to have lovers live in hosing they are not occupying, or the fact that gays can now compete against wifes/husbands and they do complian through EEO when their lovers are not hired as the best qualified.....
It is my belief that we can ill afford the "trail by fire" in the diplomatic arena and we definitely cannot afford the "unfunded obligations" Hillary has imposed at the Department of State NATION-WIDE.
Russia, China, N Korea...have gotta be pinching themselves. They gotta be asking asking themselves “ is this some kind of set-up?....this is just too easy”. Laughin their asses off. Sad.
Good point, needs to be emphasized.
What you are describing at State is the overhauling of the Government, department by department, by a homosexual political cabal. I'm sure there are underground writings and gloatings about these petty, dark little triumphs by the perpetrators.
These kinds of political "movements" tend to end badly when the conspirators run out of rope. Then comes society's strike back, and a settling of accounts.
Good points.
For the record - I believe that the US Government should only recognize heterosexual marriage (and their legal children) as a Member of Household.
Here’s a question - How much time will drill instructors and military commanders have to spend learning how to deal with sexual orientation issues? What makes our military so good is the training. start cutting into that, and your cut into the effectiveness of our military.
I discriminate against homosexuals as often as I find them.
All I can say is you bring up a lot of really good points that I’m sure few in Congress closely considered in all of this.
I am sure that ALL do not like this policy premised handout by the leftists in power. It would be interesting if the numbers/dollars given out could be quantified and some news/media organizations would did and expose for all to see this corruption and theft...