by Datechguy | October 27th, 2011
Back in Feb 2010 I said this concerning during the debate on DADT:
My opinion on “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a variation of Lincoln statement on slavery.
Our goal should be having the strongest most efficient military in the world. We need a military strong enough to reassure our friends and to give our foes pause. I am in favor of anything that supports that goal.
If we can meet this goal by officially allowing homosexuals to serve in the military openly, I would support it.
If we can do it by banning homosexuals from military service openly I would support it.
And if we could do it allowing homosexuals to serve openly in some capacity but not in others I would support that too.
Well now apparently we know the answer to this, repeal of DADT equals lawsuits and a backdoor attempt to federalize gay marriage through the military:
A group of married gay current and former military personnel sued the federal government on Thursday, seeking equal recognition, benefits and the same support as married heterosexual couples who serve in the military.
The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Boston says the government’s Defense of Marriage Act violates their constitutional rights and asks the military to recognize their legal marriages.
“This case is about one thing, plain and simple,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which filed the suit. “It’s about justice for gay and lesbian service members and their families in our armed forces rendering the same military service, making the same sacrifices, and taking the same risks to keep our nation secure at home and abroad.”
This crosses a line for me. I am now officially in favor of re-instating DADT with the proviso that any soldier who publicly came out to the military while the policy was suspended could not be discharged under it since they were following the current rules at the time.
This military does not exist to advance your social agenda, if that is all it means to you then don’t join.
Oh, sur-prahz, sur-prahz, sur-prahz.
It was all another end-run around the bounds of “normal”.
“I’m this/ I’m that/ or maybe I’m the-other-thing; anyway, normal people shun me or treat me funny. I don’t want to give up doing/ being {whatever} but I want you to MAKE ME FEEL NORMAL. So I’m gonna get a law passed that YOU HAVE TO TREAT ME LIKE I’M NORMAL. You have to approve of me and my fellow {strange behaviorists}. Not only must you APPROVE, I want you –and all of society– COMPLICIT in my practice of {whatever oddness}. You WILL –you MUST!!– pretend that I AM NORMAL, and good and wholesome, and not sick or demented or deviant; don’t you dare look at me funny or disparage my behavior BECAUSE I’M PERFECTLY FINE IT’S YOU WHO ARE INTOLERANT AND EVIL-MINDED B@ST@RDS — and I’ll sue the socks off you if you don’t try hard enough to make me feel good about my weirdness. It’s my Civil Right — so there!”
Gag-gag-gag-me, we have lawyers and judges who buy into this mindset.
And you didn’t see this coming? Huh.
Nah I did but I didn’t want to base my argument on a fact not yet in evidence
You’re a better person than I am, then. I’m happy to base my opinions on facts not yet in evidence. ;0)