“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Radical Leftist Judge Attempts to Force Homosexuality on US Military

Gina Miller

Listen to the author read this article Get Adobe Flash player

The dictatorial federal judges must be stopped.  It seems that almost daily another lousy federal judge overturns the will of the majority of Americans, and this latest outrage is worse, because one demented woman judge has broken with long-standing judicial tradition and crossed the military’s own judgment.

Of course, by now you’ve heard that on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of California ordered the United States military to stop enforcing the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” regulation.  How dare she?!  “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a compromise to actual military law that forbids homosexuals from serving in the military.  The compromise allows homosexuals who might actually want to serve to be able to do so, as long as they keep their lifestyle choice under their hat.  Oh, but that’s not good enough for the leftist radicals.  They’re not happy unless homosexuals can “proudly” flaunt their sexual preference in our armed forces.  That’s sure to be just a wonderful aid in the defense of our country, as the homosexual left puts its perverted sexual interests above the interests of the security of America!

This seems to be a pattern with the Obama administration.  If they don’t get their way in Congress, they just get an activist judge to do their bidding by fiat.  That is not the American way, and we have to stop, not only the runaway judiciary, but also this radical left-wing administration.  One problem we have, is that for so long, many of us did not pay close attention to how the courts were being infiltrated and stacked with leftist radicals, a lot like terrorist sleeper cells, that are now in place, and under this new Marxist administration have been “given the signal” and are exploding their wicked, radical rulings on our unwilling country.  We must focus part of our attention on getting these judges removed from the bench–those who abandon the actual role of a judge as law interpreter and instead take on the unconstitutional role of law creator.

Latrine at Camp Bullis, Texas. Note the close quarters with other soldiers.

WorldNetDaily‘s report on this story notes that an appeal of this judge’s ruling is not mandatory and Obama’s justice department may allow the ruling to stand, but it remains to be seen.  The story also points out,

Last month, the Senate rejected by 57-43 a defense spending authorization bill laden with controversial amendments that would have promoted homosexuality in the military, permitted abortion on military bases and provided new ways for illegal aliens to become American citizens.”

So, the administration did not get its way, and less than a month later, this judge pops up with this bad ruling.

The WND story reports that the executive director for the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness, Tom Sears, said that the judge’s decision is the work of an “activist,” and the story quotes Mr. Sears as saying,

“‘This [ruling] is particularly egregious because it disregards the deference that is traditionally given to the military and to Congress by the courts.’

…Sears pointed out that the judge appeared to confuse the law passed by Congress in 1993 explicitly banning homosexuality in the military with Clinton’s executive policy, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

[Sears said] ”Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is not the law. The law states plainly that homosexuals are ineligible for military service, a point that is conspicuously ignored by this judge’s ruling. What they and other judges who oppose this policy have attempted to do is to characterize the policy as the law,’ he said.

Sears argued that the purpose of the law is not to create a right for homosexuals to serve.

‘The purpose of the law is to maintain the effectiveness of the military,’ said Sears. ‘In 1993 Congress conducted numerous hearings and studies and concluded that the presence of open homosexuality in the military was not conducive to good order, discipline, unit cohesion and morale.'”

Living quarters at Camp Bullis, TX; up to 10 or 12 people per hut

Robert Knight, senior writer for Coral Ridge ministries had even stronger words for Ms. Phillips’ terrible ruling,

“‘Outrageous. Unbelievable. Our armed forces are fighting the enemy overseas while this lunatic judge behind our own lines decides to throw a hand grenade right into our own barracks.  …The arrogance of this judge is stunning,’ said Knight, an expert on homosexuality-related political issues and a long-time leader in the fight against homosexual activism.

‘She has decided she is smarter than God, more than 1,163 retired generals and admirals who support the military’s policy, the hundreds of congressmen and senators who voted for the law in 1993 and generations of military leaders who believed that morality affects discipline and that homosexual conduct undermines military preparedness.'”

We’ll have to wait and see if the Department of Justice will appeal this ruling.  Ironically, on the same day this wacko judge issued her ruling, the Obama administration appealed another wacko judge’s ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage act.   It’s almost like the two events were coordinated–oh, surely not!  This administration can’t have it both ways.  We know one of their big desires is to see the homosexual agenda codified into law in every conceivable area of American life, and that’s what we must stop.

Shower facilities at Camp Bullis, TX, showering with up to 7 other guys

The need to fight the radical homosexual agenda can be a difficult topic address, because a number of us have friends or family members who have chosen the homosexual lifestyle, and though we may wish they had not made that choice, we still care for them.  But, we should not confuse the issues here.  Our love for our homosexual friends and family should not keep us from understanding the danger to the foundations of our American republic that the radical homosexual agenda presents.  The homosexual agenda is in sync with the Marxist socialist/communist agenda, part of which is the destruction of the family unit as the bedrock of society and the indoctrination of our public school kids to accept homosexuality as just another normal lifestyle choice, which it is not and never could be.  Another part of the agenda is the tearing down of national sovereignty, which includes the fracturing of our military cohesion.

We should not imagine that we are somehow helping our homosexual loved ones by supporting the radical homosexual political agenda, because whether we realize it or not, that agenda will ultimately hurt all Americans, including homosexuals.

Gina Miller, a native of Texas, is a radio disc jockey. She also works with her husband installing and repairing residential irrigation systems and doing landscaping on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


49 Responses to “Radical Leftist Judge Attempts to Force Homosexuality on US Military”

  1. I agree with Gina that this was all a setup, to be executed when all the stars were in alignment. None of these ridiculous liberal “decisions” of late would have been issued; none of the ridiculous arguments in these case would have even been made, had not the most liberal Congress and President been in place. The left loves that Obama is “defending” DADT, they know his “Justice” Department will limply defend the case; if not outright sabotage it.

  2. You’re rights, ‘Spouse. Our military is severely outnumbered right now, surrounded by people who only care about pushing a radical Leftist agenda, with the imperative of national defense, way, way down on the priority list.

  3. Gina – Be careful how you describe and emphasize the “choice” aspect of homosexuality. One does not simply decide to prefer their own gender sexually; that kind of dysfunction (like many kinds) comes about due to various painful circumstances beyond their control. So it’s less a matter of someone’s having “chosen the homosexual lifestyle” than of their *not* choosing to leave it. And, frankly, there are still too few of us even on the “right” who are giving them reason to make the right choice.

  4. Dont ask, Dont tell came about to protect the Homosexuals as some would join the Military and suffer if found out later. They are stupid to want to go back to what happens to them when they are found out. They are out of thier minds to want to broadcast who they are to a group of young men right out of boot camp.

  5. It’s in the upper ranks that our military is really at risk here, where an open homosexual officer in the chain of command has wide latitude in what he/she considers “acceptable” in the unit under their control. We now, if this atrocious court decision isn’t reversed, have an open door for homosexuals to push their radical agenda on a population almost completely under their command, with fewer options for appeal than in just about any other organization.

  6. I’m sorry DCM, but I look at it as I would look at any other sin, and there is always a point at which we choose in our heart to step over the line and put our hand to whatever sin it may be. Every human being has a “tendency” to sin–just pick your poison!

    Childhood sexual abuse can lead to all sorts of bad choices by the child once he grows up, even though it was not his fault that a grown-up “got at him” when he was a child; however, the child is responsible for his choices once he is old enough to be accountable. I completely under sexual disfunction, because I had certain things happen to me when I was very little, and I understand much more than you might imagine. I even understand how homosexuality begins, because I’ve been there and seen that spirit try to seduce me, but I said no to it. But things that happened to me as a child do not excuse any of my bad sexual behavior once I was older. I cringe when I remember some of the things I’ve done. Lord forgive me!

    No addiction is easy to escape, whether it’s a drug addiction, sex addiction (which homosexuality would be a type of), or any other addiction, but I stand by my phrasing that it is indeed a chosen sin.

  7. So what’s the policy on heterosexuals? On bisexuals? Doesn’t everybody warrant a “policy”?

    Okay, Obama repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (sort of):
    [ Source: http://gravelle.us/content/out-closet-barracks ]

    …while still being able to tell conservatives he DIDN’T:
    [ Source: http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p=2798 ]

    For a guy with no political savvy, this seems politically savvy.

    “Slick” Willy Clinton may have to surrender the title…

    -jjg

  8. Our Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus have all said it is time to find a way to end DADT. I guess that makes the current leaders of our military ah… activists, just like the Judge.

    Petraeus ? Who would have thought it.

    Also where in the Constitution does it say the Judicial system can’t or shouldn’t rule on military issues involving civil rights. Remember this judge did not conjure this case up, but the case was brought to HER through our legal channels. She had to make a ruling and it just happened to agree with what our military commanders are also saying

  9. Keep in mind that our military commanders are under a Commander-in-Chief who’s ardent desire and will is to abolish anything that goes against the homosexual culture. I’d say that this probably plays into their “opinions.” They’ve been fed this opinion at the risk of a career limiting move.

    Under a real, conservative administration where they could be more honest, I guarantee that they would not support open homosexuality in the military.

  10. What you are essentially accusing Sec.Gates, Gen.Petraeus and Gen. Mike Mullin of is all three lying publicly about how they really feel just to save their jobs. HMMM

    I would think perhaps Obama felt them out on such issues when he assumed office which is why they remained where they were. I like that scenario better than calling them liers

  11. I understand what you’re saying, but I just mean that no one chooses what their temptation (or addiction) will be. They can only choose what they do with that temptation (which I would say is basically the point you make).

  12. Liars not liers. Geez can’t spell anymore

  13. Call them Liars or equivocators, basically the same, whether you “like” that scenario or not. They’re human, and their careers hang in the balance. Not all upper military personnel are in favor, of course. But it would be inconvenient to name them.

    I think Gates’ reticence, however, is all too apparent, resisting any sudden, court-ordered repeal in favor of a “reasoned” and “well-study” repeal in the future after all repercussions are examined and dealt with. Translation: he hoping to drag his foot for as long as possible hoping for a saner legislature that would, at least from the legilative side, put their foot down. I believe it will be extremely interesting, with the advent of a more conservative administration, what we’ll hear from the top brass once the filters are removed.

  14. Well you make some very valid points. Very valid .. But what I hear from many conservatives is that if DADT is repealed then the morale and fighting ability of our troops will be diminished which equates to a certain loss of lives in battle.

    Can’t believe Gates, Petraeus, Mullen etc would needlessly let our brave troops die or get terribly wounded just to keep their jobs.

  15. Yeah, 80% don’t support “don’t ask, don’t tell ” because they support a complete ban on homosexuals in our military!

  16. I don’t think there is any doubt that some won’t enlist or re-enlist should the policy be scrubbed. I do think that the magnidude of this effect is largely unknow until the action is really put into effect, officially. This will initiate a very dynmic change, and anyone who casually assumes that the effect will be static, with little or no change in troop morale or retention, is seriously out of touch with reality. A repeal of DADT will not, as it’s supporters like to contend, simply let the already “gay” soldiers be open about it. It will also have the effect of pushing the goal posts down the field, much farther, as a large blank check is presented to those militantly homosexual in the ranks, and to those chomping at the bit to join and make their mark.

    We have already heard from supportive legislators that with a repeal, “tolerance” mandates must be implemented and enforced. Trash-culture entertainers, who are dubiously granted a soapbox to pontificate on this issue without any expertise, say that if you don’t like it “get out.”

    No, the upper commanders aren’t so gung-ho to eviscerate our military, but a small, militant contingent is. Nothing would make them happier.

  17. Our Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus are all bowing at the altar of political correctness, not what is right or what is best for the U.S. military. The days when our military leadership was filled with leaders (not followers) like Marine Corps’ Commandant Gen. James Conway are behind us; leaders are few and far between, these days.

    Peer pressure is a very powerful thing, and contrary to what we would like to think, leaders are not immune to it. In fact, in the hyper-political world of national politics, it’s worse than high school. Once an idea gets traction with the perceived “in crowd,” all must pay homage to that idea or risk being viewed as nerds. None of these people want to be seen as nerds.

    Pathetic? Yes. Sad? Yes. Cowardly? Yes. But true. Many people would rather die than be embarrassed…especially when they hold the illusion that no one will get hurt because of their cowardice.

    I will again remind you that our Constitution is a limited one. Where does the Constitution mention homosexual behavior at all? Where does it empower the judiciary to make law? It does neither.

    There is no constitutional right to military service. Military service is contingent on the ability of the military member to be a military asset rather than a military liability. As I have explained in excruciating detail multiple times before, homosexual behavior is an immoral and unhealthy behavior that proves a liability in the unique close-quarter environment of the military.

    I invite you to look at the pictures in this article and ponder the multitude of problems that are likely to arise from allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Please, be honest with yourself. Don’t dodge reality because it is unpleasant or not politically correct. Give it some honest consideration.

    The military is not obligated to accommodate an immoral and unhealthy behavior, especially when doing so hinders morale and military effectiveness.

    Our sexual pleasure is secondary (or even further down the line) to the need to defend our nation and our allies, and maintain the best military in the world. The desire for sexual pleasure should give way to military effectiveness; military effectiveness should not give way to accommodating an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice.

  18. It doesn’t matter how many or how few suport DADT (which is an asinine policy to begin with–we should return to pre-DADT military policy which simply recognized that homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service). Truth isn’t determined by majority vote, and issues don’t automatically get fixed by majority vote either.

    The facts remain undisturbed by polls: (1) military service is not a right; (2) homosexual behavior causes problems in the close-quarter living conditions in the military; (3) national defense is the top priority of the military, not making someone feel good about their immoral behavior.

  19. There’s the nitty-gritty. Good points, Bob, and a great, substantial post after my smarty-pants comment.

  20. You feel and say that repealing DADT will cause an immediate and dynamic change in troop morale and retention, but there is precedent for this and the facts don’t bare out your unproven assumptions or claims. Canada, England, Italy etc etc etc allow gays to openly join the military and guess what. Nothing happened.

    There was no loss of morale or loss of troop retention. Gays didn’t run around grabbing people in the showers or climbing into their bunks at night. The facts don’t bare out your assumptions that a small minority ( 2% ) or less of gays will bring a military down and affect how it operates.

  21. Actually, the defense authorization bill — the one that would have repealed DADT — had the support of the majority of senators. But it did not not have the support of 60 senators, which was needed to overcome the Republican-led filibuster.

    Majorities in both houses of Congress approved the bill, and the President was ready to sign it into law. But a minority was able to prevent the bill from becoming law. That’s not democracy, and you know it.

  22. Other countries did it, and…we may or may not have been told about anything that happened. The people behind this certainly aren’t going to go out of their way to make evidence of their mistake known, and neither are the “mainstream” media. Look at the astonishing health risks associated with homosexual behavior; instead of the massive public campaign to warn people of the dangers we should see, we have…silence.

    Consider also that we have seen an eagerness among our own lawmakers and various activists to punish soldiers who don’t gleefully accept this behavior in the ranks. When a soldier runs the risk of being branded a noncompliant, trouble-making homophobe for reporting homosexual harassment and damaging his own career, yeah, you probably won’t hear much in the way of problems or complaints. The powers that be are already making it known that the troops will like it, or THEY will be kicked out. Not the ones engaging in an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice, but the normal soldier who doesn’t cause any problems for the military and just wants to serve his country. How upside down!

    I saw homosexuals in the military cause problems when I was in the service, even when homosexuals ran the risk of being discharged. It defies logic and credibility to believe it would not be at least as bad and likely much worse if they are allowed to practice it openly.

    Ultimately, there is not a single, solitary reason why our military should lower its moral standards, cause problems for the troops, and create more logistical issues…all to make some people feel good about their immoral sexual practices.

    I cannot begin to express how completely asinine that is. Our culture has completely lost it’s mind.

  23. It is an existing part of congressional procedure, and thank God for it. With a bunch of Leftist socialist reprobates running our government, thank God for anything that helps preserve sanity and the integrity of our armed forces.

  24. I’m thankful for a reply from someone who’s actually been in the service for a period of time and have seen what problems homosexual conduct can cause. Homo-activists are completely divorced from reason; it’s always their way or the highway – at any cost.

    I have always contended that if homosexuals gain the “right” to be fully open about “who they are” in the military, they will be untouchable. With the current cultural zeitgeist permeating even our military, the burden of proof, as you say, will be on the sexually normal soldiers to prove misconduct by one of their homosexual barrack/shower/bunkmates. At the risk of being labeled a “homophobe,” this will be an impossibly high bar to achieve. Can anything more distracting be imagined?

  25. You have to be kidding!! You now demonize a minority legislative group, when it’s a tiny, militant, loud minority clamoring for a reordering of society to accommodate their predilections. Insane.

    Whatever happened to your “tyranny of the majority?”

  26. You’re absolutely right, ‘Spouse. And your point about how “distracting” it is is extremely pertinent and pretty close to central to the issue: our military members are there to concentrate on destroying the enemy, and any distraction from that diminishes our war making capability.

    Something you said reminded me of something I’ve meant to say on this topic but keep forgetting: the permutations that come with homosexuality. Remember, virtually every time you hear homosexuals refer to their movement, they refer to the “LGBT community,” meaning “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender.”

    If we allow open homosexuality in the military, our military will have to allow cross-dressing as well (anyone who says “No” will be an insensitive bigot who seeks to persecute homosexuals and is disobeying the law that allows them to serve in the military.

    It is also no stretch at all to envision our tax dollars going to pay for hormone treatments and surgery so that a military man can become a military “woman,” or a military woman can become a military “man.” In fact, if I were a homosexual who was dissatisfied with the sex God gave me, it would make great sense to do a 4-year hitch to get my treatments and surgery paid for. A number of people already join the military simply to get the college money (then cause the military endless grief when reality interjects and they learn they may actually have to go into combat and kill or be killed.

    No, there is every–and I mean EVERY–reason to keep things the way they have always been in our military (recognizing that homosexual behavior is incompatible with military service), and no compelling reason to do otherwise.

  27. So decisions decided only upon the voice of the people, full democracy, are only valid if you agree with them? Is the only factor in this how much one can degrade gay citizens and even soldiers?

  28. I’m not demonizing anybody. I didn’t say it was bad that a filibuster stopped the change in the law, just stating it as a fact.

    I was objecting to the implication in the article that the majority opposes gays serving openly in the military. That’s not what you’re saying, so I’m not arguing with you there.

    I actually happen to agree that some things should not be subject to a majority vote, especially the rights of minorities, especially minorities that evoke a lot of anger. Whether it’s blacks, or extremely conservative Christians (like you), or extremely liberal Christians (like me), or gays and lesbians (like some of my friends) — in our country, we don’t allow that anger to lead to the denial of those minorities’ civil rights.

  29. 1) The anti-gay side is about as deep of a minority on this issue as American politics can provide.

    2) Not being able to kick out a minority group just for their association (even just evidence of the orientation relative to their gender … no action / sex is ever needed) generally doesn’t fall under “Tyranny of the Majority,” even if we were talking about a majority here.

  30. The polls I’ve seen show support far, far less than that.

    But as I said before, even if 80% were the actual number of people stupid enough to support such folly, it doesn’t change one iota how bad an idea it is.

    What is right and what is practical are not determined by poll numbers or even majority vote.

    Of course, this is’t about what is right or practical, and military effectiveness is far down on the priority list here. The #1 priority for homosexual activists and their useful idiots is to legitimize an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice regardless of the cost to anyone else, including the U.S. military and the service members who form it.

  31. Ours is not a democracy. The United States is a constitutional republic. In our constitutional republic, only the legislature has authority to make laws. Judges do not have the power to make law; what this judge has attempted to do is illegal and the judge should be impeached for violating the oath of office.

    There is no constitutional right to serve in the military, there is no compelling reason to allow people to serve who consider practicing sexual perversions more important than military service, and every reason not to hinder the military mission with such appeasement.

  32. I’m curious as to where you get your figures that claim the vast majority of Americans are pro-homosexual.

    It isn’t the case and never could be, unless the current generation of majority conservatives dies off and all that’s left are the little Marxist-brainwashed generations of public school victims. Then, it may be possible to have a majority that “favors” homosexuality, because they’ve been programmed to do so and did not bother to seek the truth instead.

  33. Your words:
    “But a minority was able to prevent the bill from becoming law. That’s not democracy, and you know it.”

    Saying that democracy in our Congress has been usurped because an outcome you don’t like prevails IS demonizing. How many Bush judicial appointments were blocked by liberal Democrats in Congress throughout his 8 years in office? Supermajorities are Constitutionally required for certain items to move forward. Is that the usurpation of democracy?

    Contrived “Minority” groups (whatever that means – I like anchovies so I guess I’m a minority. Where are MY goodies?) are irrelevant in military operations and culture as Bob has mentioned extensively in prior articles. The only consideration is, or should be, the effects on military effectiveness and cohesion, not that someone’s “rights” might be violated or their feelings hurt, which is the sole argument of the homosexual activists.

  34. Please review the fact, if that’s not too inconvenient.

    1) Thirty of thirty states have voted to protect marriage as what it is, most by respecable margins. Even in relatively liberal bastions like California and Maine, the consensus is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Polls have suggested that even in liberal Massachusetts, man-woman marriage would prevail if a vote were allowed (but has been viciously opposed by activist.)

    This isn’t “anti-gay” except in an activist’s mind.

    2) Your presupposition that sexual proclivities are somehow protected in the constitution is, well, just stupid.

  35. What “comes off as looney” is your contention that I said, “If anyone doesn’t agree with me, they are brainwashed Marxists.” Of course, that’s not what I said, nor what I meant. I was talking about the actual public education system, from grade school through college.

    It’s too bad that you’re stumbling around out there in darkness and can’t or won’t see the Marxist indoctrination that is occurring in our public schools, and has been since the ’70s. That is no “looney” contention, it’s the truth.

  36. I’m very aware that some people loathe expressions of Christianity, the religion held by our founders and more than 80% of Americans today, the religious philosophy upon which our nation and government were founded.

    It must be unfortunate for them that the First Amendment of our Constitution protects freedom of religious expression.

    If they loathe Christianity so much, perhaps they should move to a nation that has rejected it, such as a Middle Eastern country. Perhaps they would find more freedom and a better life there. Or perhaps one that has rejected Christianity in favor of a more secularist philosophy such as North Korea, China, Vietnam or Cuba. There used to be more options for the dedicated secularist, but a lot of such countries (the Soviet Union, East Germany, the Soviet Republics, etc) have collapsed due to their moral bankruptcy. Still, there are options for those who truly loath the American way of life.

    It is, of course, natural for human beings to express their need to reach out to their Creator. It is unnatural, however, to want to stick one’s penis into a man’s anus. The very design and complimentary function of male and female sex organs makes it obvious even beyond religious doctrine that their use was meant to be heterosexual.

    I know some people find things like facts and reality to be a tremendous hindrance to what they want to do, but that’s just life in the real world. A person can insist on doing something immoral, unhealthy and downright aberrant, but other people are not obligated to play along.

  37. I’m very aware that some people loathe expressions of Christianity, the religion held by our founders and more than 80% of Americans today, the religious philosophy upon which our nation and government were founded.

    It must be unfortunate for them that the First Amendment of our Constitution protects freedom of religious expression.

    If they loathe Christianity so much, perhaps they should move to a nation that has rejected it, such as a Middle Eastern country. Perhaps they would find more freedom and a better life there. Or perhaps one that has rejected Christianity in favor of a more secularist philosophy such as North Korea, China, Vietnam or Cuba. There used to be more options for the dedicated secularist, but a lot of such countries (the Soviet Union, East Germany, the Soviet Republics, etc) have collapsed due to their moral bankruptcy. Still, there are options for those who truly loath the American way of life.

    It is, of course, natural for human beings to express their need to reach out to their Creator. It is unnatural, however, to want to stick one’s penis into a man’s anus. The very design and complimentary function of male and female sex organs makes it obvious even beyond religious doctrine that their use was meant to be heterosexual.

    I know some people find things like facts and reality to be a tremendous hindrance to what they want to do, but that’s just life in the real world. A person can insist on doing something immoral, unhealthy and downright aberrant, but other people are not obligated to play along.

  38. Consider that before a referendum gets to go “to the people” there often has to be approval by legislatures, subject to largely the same rules as other legislative actions (approvals by 2 consecutive legislatures (IA), approval by Assembly (MA), etc.

    Even when the people are permitted (throught a state’s constitution) to directly iniate a referendum (CA) it must first pass muster with numberous checks and balances (courts, rules of procedure, etc.)

    So the raw Democratic process is first filtered, and approved, through a “constitutional republic” mechanism BEFORE it’s implemented.

    Nice try, anyway.

  39. You are absolutely right that what is right and practical aren’t determined by me; I never said or implied they were. They are written in the Bible by the person who created the universe and human beings. Science, biology, logic and reason also make these truths clear.

    I’m not concerned with whether I “lost you” or not. The priorities and agenda of homosexual activists and their “useful idiots” is quite obvious to someone with even modest analytical skills.

    I merely re-identify the truth you so desperately seek to escape. You can choose to accept it or continue running from it, but you can’t say you haven’t been warned. I’ve fulfilled my obligation to the truth and to you under Ezekiel 3;18.

  40. No conspiracy is necessary when the overwhelming majority of a dynamic shares the same beliefs, goals and agenda.

    The “mainstream” media has glaringly demonstrated their shameless loyalty to liberal goals. as well as their willingness to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug.

  41. I’ve allowed a great number of gravely flawed “defenses” of homosexuality in the military, and have only deleted the ones that were totally inane or completely asinine. I have a minimum standard of engagement and readability to uphold for my readers.

    By the way, I should point out that refusing the privilege of military service to open homosexuals is not “oppression.” If anyone is “oppressing” homosexuals, it is themselves for considering sodomy more important than modifying one’s behavior in order to serve in the military. If someone considers it more important to engage in aberrant sexual behavior than to conform to standards which ensure good order and discipline in the military, then quite obviously such a person is not a good fit for military service.

    A good military member must be willing to put the military mission ahead of personal agendas, including aberrant sexual pleasures. The fact that many homosexuals are not willing to put the good of the military first renders them, by virtue of their own priorities renders them improper for military service.

  42. You have apparently been bereft of a good education as well as the wholesome association of good conservatives, because you should have been told this in school. Conservatives repeatedly attempt to educate ignorant souls such as yourself about this truth.

    I’m afraid I can’t comprehend at all the the point of the remainder of your paragraph, but at least you seem to grasp and understand that the United States is a constitutional republic.

    Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

  43. Sir, when you speak of the “rights of minorites,” you should not lump in civil rights-type struggles of racial “minorities” with the homosexual movement. There is no possible comparison. Homosexuals are given every conceivable “coddling” in American society, even at the expense of Christian’s rights who know what a dastardly agenda the homosexual movement actually represents.

    Even though I’m not talking about a “mob rules” type of situation, I do I maintain that a majority of right-thinking Americans opposes the “mainstreaming” of homosexuality in our society, and especially in our schools and military. And, unless you can prove otherwise, I’ll stand by my assertion.

  44. First, Madame, allow me to point out as graciously as possible that Cassandra is a woman’s name, and to request that you not address me as Sir. Thank you for your consideration.

    Addressing your point of what Americans believe about homosexuals in the military, here is a link to several years worth of polling data: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm. The most recent polls are listed first. They consistently show a clear majority of Americans in favor of allowing lesbian and gay people to serve in the military.

    In fact, they consistently show a clear majority of Americans opposed to any legal discrimination against gays and lesbians. The one exception is marriage, but even there, a large majority favors legal recognition of a marriage-like arrangement for same-sex couples, though many people still oppose calling it “marriage”.

    You certainly don’t have to agree with the majority, and you’re certainly entitled to exclude or include people in your social life, your church, and your political movement based on whatever standard you want. But there is no basis for enshrining your minority opinion in law.

  45. I guess it depends on what we understand “demonizing” to mean. To me, it means saying that something is evil. In this case, I’m not saying that Gina Miller is evil. (And in fact, I don’t believe that she is.)

    I am disagreeing with her, though. When she quotes WorldNetDaily in her article, “Last month, the Senate rejected by 57-43 a defense spending authorization bill,” she is trying to make it sound like a majority of Senators opposed repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” My point is that a majority of Senators were *in favor* of the bill. It just plain didn’t happen the way she said it did, and I called her on it.

    I certainly agree with you that the Constitution requires supermajority votes for certain items. However, routine legislation is not one of them. The filibuster rule is not in the Constitution; it’s something that the Senate came up with on its own. I’m not saying the filibuster rule is bad, nor am I saying it’s good. I’m just saying it’s not in the Constitution.

    As far as military effectiveness, there is no evidence that allowing openly gay and lesbian soldiers to serve would diminish our military effectiveness. In fact, what evidence there is suggests the exact opposite. A number of countries allow LGBT people to serve in their armed forces, with no apparent damage to their military capability. For example, Israel strictly forbids any discrimination in its military against gays and lesbians, and I think we can agree that theirs is one of the most effective in the world.

  46. As to your first “protesting-too-much” point, you can adopt as many female-sounding names as you like. You can imagine that you are the one to spurn Apollo, only to receive the curse of being the big-time truth-teller who no one believes. That might very well be a perfect fit for you. No one believes your “prophecies,” but are they even true?

  47. I see that you missed the context of the WND quote you mentioned.

    My article did not make any statement about what any senators believe or don’t believe, nor was I attempting to imply such as thing. I included the quote you mentioned as part of illustrating that the Democrats will stoop to any despicable low to get their way–as in adding on to an important defense spending bill: abortion on bases, homosexuality flaunted in the military and amnesty for illegal aliens. The point was that the administration did not get its way (the vote), so here comes this loon of a judge with this decision less than a month later. That was actually the point and the context when I wrote the article.

    I couldn’t give a rip less what any senator believes, as I just prefer that most of them be voted out.