Monday, November 06, 2006

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a good policy.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, is a good policy. It is not a policy against homosexual orientation. It is a policy against homosexual practices. It is a good policy. Homosexual practices are not in keeping with good order and discipline. Just like in religion, a person can believe anything that they choose. They cannot however practice anything that they preach. DADT cannot regulate what a person thinks, believes, or craves; but it can regulate what he or she does.

It was on Tuesday 29 January 2008, fifteen years ago that President Bill Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against homosexual men and women serving in the U.S. military.

But, by the end of 1993, opponents of the change, led by Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, succeeded in writing into law the ban on openly homosexual men and women in uniform.
(Former Senator Sam Nunn is on a short list of potential Vice Presidential running mates for Democrat Barack Obama. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich. leads the Congressional Black Caucus. She said on 17 June 2008 members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of John Edwards and Sam Nunn when she met 17 June 2008 with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.)

Barring the pre-enlistment question about homosexuality "was the only compromise Congress let Clinton get away with," says Elaine Donnelly, president of the non-profit Center for Military Readiness which supports continuing the ban. "The law respects the power of sexuality and the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters."

Writing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law meant that no new President can eliminate the ban without first convincing a majority of Congress to go along - a far higher hurdle than Clinton faced.

A new survey of Americans in the military indicates they are not friendly to the idea of junking the ban. A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly homosexual people should serve, while 59% are opposed to having homosexuals in the military.

Maryland's highest court on 18 September 2007 upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that the state's 1973 ban on homosexual marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, as a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples had maintained.
It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote the majority opinion.

The U. S. Military still defines homosexual practices as the abominable and detestable crime against nature. Hijacking the term gay, does not make it any the less detestable. It is still a crime against nature and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). DADT is a good policy until something better comes along.
Homosexuals have always been accepted in the military. It is their homosexual practices and their flagrantly immoral lifestyle that are not welcome.
The homosexual lifestyle — particularly among males — is one principally delineated by casual, promiscuous, and yes, often anonymous sexual encounters, so much so that one of the largest homosexual organizations, LAMBDA Legal, essentially calls such public sex a civil right in their "Little Black Book" and walks homosexuals through the steps necessary to facilitate these "hook-ups." The group instructs homosexuals on what to do if they're caught "cruising for sex," thereby encouraging such behavior.
Many "gays" can't imagine why folks oppose men having anal sex in restroom facilities shared by families and children. And to ask — presumptively with a straight face — "what harm is done to anyone physically…" boggles the mind.

In a newspaper interview Monday, 12 March 2007, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. He also said: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
In a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals is a sensitive subject, he said: "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Pace, a native of New York City, and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said in the interview that he based his views on his upbringing.
"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of homosexual behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said, according to the audio and a transcript released by his staff.
Two homosexual advocacy groups strongly condemned Pace's remarks.
In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.
He spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., on 14 June 2007, said he first heard that his expected nomination for a second two-year term was in jeopardy in mid-May. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 8 announced Pace was being replaced.
"One thing that was discussed was whether or not I should just voluntarily retire and take the issue off the table," Pace said, according to a transcript released Friday by his office at the Pentagon.
"I said I could not do that for one very fundamental reason," which is that no soldier or Marine in Iraq should "think — ever — that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield.
"That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind," he added.
Pace, whose current term ends Oct. 1, said he intended to remain on the job until then. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen has been announced as President Bush's choice to succeed Pace, who is the first Marine ever to hold the military's top post.
A Vietnam veteran, Pace indicated in his Norfolk comments that his experience in that war colored his decision not to quit voluntarily.
"The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace," he said. "And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed — that it's not my decision. I need to be told that I'm done.
"I've been told I'm done.
"I will run through the finish line on 1 October, and when I run through the finish line I will have met the mission I set for myself," he said.

Speaking in the Rose Garden Tuesday, 3 April 2007, President George Bush declined to directly comment on the characterization by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of homosexuality as immoral. "Don't ask, don't tell is good policy," Bush said, citing the present military policy on homosexuals.

In an interview with the Pentagon Channel, the military's in-house television station, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to answer a question on his opinion of the policy. Gates said. "What's important is that we have a law, a statute that governs 'don't ask, don't tell."'
He added: "That's the policy of this department, and it's my responsibility to execute that policy as effectively as we can. As long as the law is what it is, that's what we'll do."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said President Bush "has always said that the most important thing is that we ought not to prejudge one another. But when it comes to government policy, it's been in place for a long time and we will continue to execute it according to the letter of the law."

DADT is not discrimination against homosexuals any more than sanitizing our eating utensils can be considered discrimination against germs. Sodomy is just as deadly a germ in a military barracks as a germ would be in someone’s kitchen.
On February 28, 1994, after extensive hearings in Congress, the enactment of a federal statute, and coordination with Congressional Oversight Committees, the Department of Defense instituted its current policy on homosexual conduct in the military. As required by the federal statute (10 U.S.C. § 654), the Dodd policy provides that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for discharge from the military. Congress expressly found that service by those who have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct creates an unacceptable risk to morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion, and that the long-standing prohibition of homosexual conduct therefore continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
The Dodd policy also provides, however, that sexual orientation is a personal and private matter that is not a bar to military service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. It was the sense of Congress that applicants should not be asked about homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces. Consequently, under the policy, applicants for military service may no longer be asked about their sexual orientation. Moreover, the services may not initiate investigations solely to determine a member's sexual orientation. Commanders may initiate an investigation only upon receipt of credible information that a service member has engaged in homosexual conduct, i.e., stated his or her homosexuality, committed a homosexual act, or entered into a homosexual marriage.

Professor Erik Wingrove-Haugland’s argument for Cadet Bronwen Tomb is a plea in favor of opening the flood gates of sexual depravity and slouching ever more surely towards the implementation of the Radical Homosexual Agenda. It evidences the absence of a moral compass guided by maturity. This is not an argument about ethics. It is an argument about morals. It was a good thing that Cadet Tomb resigned from the Academy, because bad company corrupts good morals.
We continue, tiresomely, to highlight sexuality in the American culture, because it carries the stamp of approval from the school of political correctness that was established amid the sexual revolution of the 1960s. What we might regard as sexual liberationism and ethical arguments in favor of individually nice homosexuals are on track to roll back the Enlightenment that produced Western civilization as we know it today.
The armed forces, during the early American revolutionary war, treated sodomy (then broadly defined as oral or anal sexual conduct) as grounds for being dishonorably discharged. The first recorded efforts of such a discharge were in 1778 when Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was dishonorably discharged, with the approval of General George Washington, for a conviction of homosexual sodomy and perjury. The Articles of War maintained the crime of sodomy, but it was not until 1942 that the armed forces considered homosexual status as grounds for being separated from the military through a process of effective recruitment screening or internal investigations that some historians have qualified as being witch-hunts. Thus, homosexuals in the armed forces were subject to criminal sanctions under the sodomy prohibition, or they could be given a dishonorable discharge (often a Section 8) and returned to civilian life where they would not receive veterans benefits and often had difficulty finding employment because most civilian employers knew what a Section 8 discharge meant.
The success of the armed forces in pre-screening out homosexuals from the 1940s - 1981 remains in dispute, and during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexuals would try to pretend to be homosexual in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of homosexual men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction.
Beyond the official regulations, homosexuals were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a "blanket party" and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and occasionally even fatally. The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't harass, don't pursue" has officially prohibited such behavior.
However, during the 1970s several high-profile court challenges to the military's regulations on homosexuality occurred, with little success, and when such successes did occur it was when the plaintiff had been open about his homosexuality from the beginning or due to the existence of the "queen for a day" rule. In 1981 the Department of Defense issued a new regulation on homosexuality that was designed to ensure withstanding a court challenge by developing uniform and clearly defined regulations and justifications that made homosexual status and conduct grounds for discharge (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981):
"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security."
The directive justifed the policy and removed the "queen for a day" rule that had prompted some courts to rule against the armed forces. However, the intent of the policy had also been to treat homosexuality as being akin to a disability discharge and thus ensure that gays would be separated with an honorable discharge. The DOD policy has since withstood most court challenges, although the United States Supreme Court has refused to weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy, preferring to allow lower courts and the United States Congress to settle the matter.

DADT has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a recent Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.
(5/26/2009) The Califonia Supreme Court held in a 6-1 decision that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November that outlawed same-sex marriage in California, was not a sweeping change to the state constitution that should have been approved by the Legislature before heading to voters. That was the main argument by opponents of the measure.
Instead, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George said the 14 words of Proposition 8 were limited in their scope and application.
In effect, the court said gays and lesbians still have strong legal protections – but they cannot claim the word “marriage” to describe their relationship with a spouse.

On Monday, 8 June 2009 the U. S, Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration and refused to hear an appeal from former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The 1993 law, which bars openly homosexual soldiers from military service, relates to "the government's legitimate interest in military discipline," argued Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the administration's brief to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision was just the latest in a series of incidents that have turned the American homosexual lobby against the president. As well as DADT (as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is commonly known) and gay marriage, gay activists are frustrated by slow progress in the fight against AIDS and the ban on visas and green cards for people infected with HIV. For some, these cases confirm the doubts they already had about Obama when he asked the pastor Rick Warren -- who opposes gay marriage -- to give the invocation at his inauguration.

In private, President Obama has asked for patience. In May, he invited representatives of prominent homosexual groups to the White House. Admittedly he did not receive them himself, but White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina discussed "legislative strategies" with them.

President Obama has said that he wants to eventually abolish the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- but only, according to Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt, "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." LaBolt added: "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

The White House apparently wants to first tackle some of the "smaller" issues which concern the gay community, such as the tightening of laws against hate crimes and ending the ban on visas, green cards and naturalization for people who are HIV positive, which has been in place since the Reagan era.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009-
A 1993 law enacted the Clinton’s Administration “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy throughout the military including the Coast Guard. This Bill, H.R. 1283: Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, will repeal that law and enable members to remain with the military as openly gay individuals, but prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Bill proposes:

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

When it comes to dealing with homosexual personnel in the military, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries — and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides of the argument.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.

However, Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers said "We are the military leaders in the world — everybody wants to be like us. Why in the world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"

For those in the U.S. military community who oppose letting homosexuals serve openly, there's a widely shared sentiment that America has nothing to learn from the roughly two-dozen nations that have no bans.

"Who's the only superpower military out there?" argued Maj. Brian Maue, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in a debate in June at the McCormick Freedom Museum in Chicago. "This is hardly convincing to say, 'Ah, the others are doing it. We should too.'"

Maue — who says he's been speaking out on his own, not as a military spokesman — suggests that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" would prompt straight service members to complain of privacy violations and "dignity infractions."

"An openly homosexual military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men," he wrote in a New York Times online forum.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, another supporter of the ban, contends that some field commanders in nations that allow homosexuals to serve openly have resorted to "tacit discrimination" — excluding them from front-line units for fear that problems would surface in rugged, close-quarters living conditions.

Maginnis also cited America's multiple overseas missions.

"You have a large part of the world with no tolerance for open homosexuality, and if we were to deploy there, it would be a serious problem," he said.

Repealing the ban would trigger the departure of some career service members who object to homosexuality and deter some people from enlisting, said Maginnis. "It doesn't matter what general population thinks — it's what the young people who have a propensity to enlist think."

Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara's Palm Center and author of a book on "don't ask, don't tell," says his studies of allied nations suggest that lifting the ban in the U.S. would not impair overall military effectiveness.

"There will be some forms of de facto discrimination and prejudice — a policy change is not going to wipe that out of people's hearts and minds overnight," he said. "But more and more people in the military are seeing it doesn't serve them to have this policy in place."

There's no question, Frank said, that the U.S. military is unique — the most powerful in the world. But he said it should be embarrassing that "our allies can tell the truth about gay soldiers and the U.S. stands with China, Iran, North Korea among the nations that can't."

The key to a smooth transition, Frank added, is emphatic direction from top commanders and the adoption of a code of conduct that would deter disciplinary problems by spelling out unacceptable behavior.

Dan Choi, the homosexual lieutenant facing dismissal from the Army, says the current "don't ask" policy is disruptive — forcing the homosexuals who are serving to be furtive and dishonest.

"Closeting is what causes instability," he said. "It's the most toxic poison."

As for the U.S. being different from its allies, Choi agrees.

"We are exceptional — because we take the lead on things," he said. "To me, it's an insult to the idea of American exceptionalism to say we're somehow scared of gays."

Department of Military Correctness:
From Bush's "Don't Know, Don't Care" to this.'Don't Ask' Discharges
As mentioned two weeks ago, Barack Obama announced that he remains committed to scrapping the Pentagon's 16-year-old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which was implemented in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The policy itself weakened the military's historic ban on homosexuals serving in the military. One of the arguments used by homosexual activists trying to overturn DADT is that discharging openly homosexual soldiers threatens national security by significantly reducing troop numbers. As so often occurs with leftist arguments, once facts are checked, the argument falls apart.
In examining the latest data on military discharges, it turns out that the number of military personnel discharged for homosexuality was less than 1 percent of the total number discharged for all other reasons. For example, according to Pentagon numbers for 2008, some 634 soldiers were discharged for homosexuality, which is only 0.338 percent of the 187,331 total discharges in 2008. Got that? One-third of 1 percent of all discharges was for violating DADT, and that number has remained consistent over the years. So, while the actual affect of these discharges on the U.S. military is negligible, according to homosexual activists, this loss threatens national security.
What actually threatens our national security is the loss of military discipline, cohesion and moral standing that occurs when agenda driven pressure groups and spineless lawmakers attempt to "normalize" an abnormal behavior in the ranks -- a fact recognized by our Founders. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington had homosexuals drummed out of the ranks and punished; Thomas Jefferson authored a bill proposing castration as a punishment for sodomy; and the Continental Congress directed that American officers "discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices," which included sodomy. Ah, but there's nothing like "evolving standards."
Defense Bill Signed
Barack Obama signed the $680 billion defense authorization bill Wednesday. The bill contains the unrelated provision extending so-called "hate crimes" protections to homosexuals and others with gender-disorientation pathology. The measure had failed on its own for years, so Democrats shamelessly attached it to the must-pass defense bill. That failure is largely due to the fact that it makes certain thoughts a crime. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) summed it up: "Hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom."
(For example, if you quote the Bible or the Book of Leviticus with respect to sodomy, sodomites, unnatural affections, and their consequences you could be found guilty of a hate crime under this legislation.)

Meanwhile, the defense bill contains provisions far more deleterious to national defense, such as terminating production of the F-22. Of gutting the nation's air superiority, Obama crowed that he was being fiscally responsible: "When Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we were going to get steamrolled. Today, we have proven them wrong." He then added, "There's still more fights that we need to win." (Like the fight against bad grammar, maybe?)
Obviously, to Democrats, "defense" means pushing aberrant sexual behavior while leaving the nation defenseless.

With repeal last year of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, many military people, including senior leaders, assumed that married gay and lesbian couples had gained not only job security but also equality in allowances, benefits and access to family support programs. That assumption is wrong.
Since the law took effect 14 months ago, the Department of Defense has kept in place policies that bar spouses of same-gender couples from having military identification cards, shopping on base, living in base housing or participating in certain family support programs.
Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, says Army Lt. Col. Heather Mack, 39, "simply just prevented me from losing my job. It didn't do anything else."
Mack's spouse, Ashley Broadway, also 39, can shop in stores on nearby Fort Bragg, N.C., only in the status of "caregiver" for their son, Carson. Lacking a military dependent ID card, Ashley has been challenged by checkout clerks when her shopping cart includes items such as deodorant that clearly aren't needed by their two-year old.
If Mack is reassigned, the couple will have to pay Ashley's travel and transportation costs out of pocket. Mack draws housing allowance at the higher "with dependents" rate only because of their child. Marriage alone for same-sex couples, though recognized as legal by 11 states and the District of Columbia, doesn't qualify a military sponsor for married allowances or civilian spouses for entry onto bases.
 If Mack were killed during her next deployment, Ashley would not qualify for full "spousal" survivor benefits, even though, by paying higher premiums, she could be covered as an "insurable interest."  And as a surviving widow, Ashley would not qualify for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the Department of Veterans or be eligible to receive the folded flag off the coffin in the graveside ceremony, Mack says, because to the military and the VA, Ashley would not be next of kin despite spending a career together.
A heterosexual soldier "who meets someone on a Friday night and Saturday gets married would have full benefits," Mack says. "But you have partners who have been together 15 years or more and they can't even go on base and shop…That's a quality of life issue."
Some disparities of treatment for same sex couples won't end unless Congress repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as solely between a man and woman, or unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional. The high court was expected to announce soon if it will review and rule on conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of DOMA by appellate courts in recent years.
The Obama administration views the law unconstitutional and won't allow Justice Department attorneys to defend it in court. By default, the government's defense of DOMA is being led by the general counsel for the Republican-led House of Representatives.
While the law remains in effect, it prohibits extension of many federal benefits, including military allowances, travel reimbursements and health coverage to same-sex spouses. But Stephen L. Peters II, president of the gay and lesbian advocacy group American Military Partner Association, says the Department of Defense has authority to do much more than it has to date to support service members and spouses of same-sex marriages.
It could give gay and lesbian spouses access to base housing, commissaries and exchanges, base recreation facilities and legal services. It could direct the services to open more family support programs to them and to offer relocation and sponsorship at many overseas duty stations. The services could also extend dual-service couple programs to same-sex marriages thus ensuring these couples too get co-located on reassignments.
No DoD official would be interviewed on this issue. The department instead issue a statement explaining that a work group continues to conduct "a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners."  Benefits are being examined "from a policy, fiscal, legal and feasibility perspective" and "laws and policies surrounding benefits are complex and interconnected."  The work group, it says, has been striving "to fully understand the scope and interconnectivity."
Life in service is better for gays and lesbians since repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But the department's unresponsiveness to qualify-of-life concerns raised by same-sex married members for the past year, unrelated to DOMA, continue to impact not only families but readiness, Peters argues.
"It's not like the Pentagon doesn't know which benefits it can extend…These have been repeatedly pointed out," he says. "Not only has the Pentagon failed to take action but its silence on the issue is deafening."
Mack, assistant chief of staff for the 1st Theater Sustainment Command at Bragg, is pregnant and due to deliver their second child in January. This time Ashley won't have to pose as her sister to be present at the birth in the post hospital. After maternity leave, Mack expects to deploy again.
She believes commanders would be pressuring policymakers on quality-of-life challenges for same-sex couples if they knew more about them. Mack own boss was surprised before Mack's promotion in October to be told the Army treats married lesbians like her as if they aren't married.
"He said, ‘That's not true. With repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you get all the benefits.'  I said, ‘No. Any gay or lesbian soldier, regardless of their marital status, is considered a single soldier.'  He had no clue," Mack says.
As a lieutenant colonel, Mack knows she is better able to afford $500 a month in extra health insurance for Ashley, and to cover her travel costs when the family is reassigned. Enlisted members can't afford to handle these disparities, and that's something leaders can't ignore, she says.
If these spouses could at least be issued ID cards, and gain access to base amenities, she says, it would go a long way to improving quality of life.
By Tom Philpott
(Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is

Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson
 (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.

Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.

USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back

Read More



Blogger ichbinalj said...

The Right Stuff
A professor who taught dismissed cadet Bronwen Tomb learns that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is the wrong policy.

By Erik Wingrove-Haugland

Published on 11/5/2006

Bronwen Tomb was one of my best students at the Coast Guard Academy. I was supposed to teach her ethics, but I think she taught me more than I taught her.
Until I met Bronwen, I saw the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy (DADT) as a step forward from the previous policy of identifying and discharging gays and a reasonable compromise with those who supported completely barring gays from the military. Watching as Bronwen was dismissed from the Academy for acknowledging she is gay, however, led me to the conclusion that this policy must be reconsidered and overturned; in the short term, unit commanders should be given discretion in its implementation.
The main objection to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is that it would weaken unit cohesion and be detrimental to good order and discipline, since heterosexuals in the military would not feel comfortable living and working with someone they know is gay. This may have been true when the policy was created in 1993, but I do not believe it is true today, and it certainly will not be true in the future. Our society is becoming more and more accepting of gays. The young people now serving in the military are far more accepting of gays than the senior officers who advised against allowing gays to serve openly in 1993.
The increased acceptance of gays not only undermines the arguments about unit cohesion; it actually turns those arguments around so they support a policy of full inclusion. As acceptance of gays increases, discharging gay soldiers and sailors increasingly will do more harm than good to morale and unit cohesion. After Bronwen's disenrollment, several cadets at the Coast Guard Academy told me they were upset that one of their shipmates—a highly competent student with good military standing and prior enlisted experience—was discharged for violating a policy which they see as based on irrational prejudice; some even considered resigning from the Academy. Many of my colleagues on the faculty expressed dismay at the loss of one of our better students. Bronwen's disenrollment clearly decreased morale and unit cohesion. Forcing commanding officers to enforce an unpopular policy by discharging competent soldiers and sailors who are popular with their peers will undermine good order and discipline, not protect it.
The other arguments for the DADT policy are all weak. The claim that homosexuality is incompatible with military service ignores the fact that about 65,000 homosexuals are currently serving in the military, and many more have come out since they retired; their distinguished service records testify to the fact that sexual orientation is irrelevant to job performance.
Religiously-based arguments have no place in this debate, since the U.S. military cannot and should not require its members to accept a particular religious view. Arguments that anti-gay heterosexuals will commit violence against openly gay soldiers and sailors call to mind similar arguments that racists and sexists would commit violence against African-Americans and females. This did not happen, but if it had, that would have justified discharging the racists or sexists who acted violently—not the African-Americans and women. If gays perform their duties competently, and follow the same fraternization and sexual misconduct regulations as heterosexuals, there is simply no reason to exclude them.
There are also strong practical reasons for abandoning DADT and moving to a policy of full inclusion. We have spent between $200 million and $363 million implementing this policy since it was introduced, and have discharged more than 10,000 people. Meanwhile, our military is stretched thin and failing to meet its recruitment goals; we are lowering recruiting standards even as we discharge service members who are exceeding the current standards in every way except their sexual orientation. While we are discharging these men and women, we are using the “reverse draft” to require that people who have served their terms remain in the service.
A policy of full inclusion for gays would open up a huge new pool of potential recruits; the claim that many heterosexuals would quit or refuse to enlist is likely to prove false, as it did when Britain and Israel adopted policies of full inclusion.
In addition to these practical reasons, there are good moral reasons for abandoning the DADT policy in favor of full inclusion of gays into the military. First, it is simply wrong to discriminate against people based on characteristics that are unrelated to job performance. It was wrong to exclude blacks and women from the military, since there is nothing about being black or being female that makes one unfit for military service; the same is true about being gay. It is unjust to discriminate against people based on characteristics that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
Second, it is impossible to eliminate harassment and pursuit of gays under the DADT policy. The full name of the DADT policy is “Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Harass, Don't Pursue.” However, the requirement that gays not “tell” makes it impossible to enforce the policy against harassment. If a homosexual soldier or sailor is being harassed, he or she knows that reporting the harassment involves risking being discharged; someone found guilty of harassment receives a much less severe penalty. In this climate, gay members of the military simply do not report most of the harassment they experience.
Finally, the DADT policy forces service members to lie and deceive, which is incompatible with the value the military places on honesty. Five times in the past eight years, I have delivered the Honor Training to the incoming “swabs” who have just arrived at the Coast Guard Academy, trying to convince cadets not to lie, cheat, steal, or attempt to deceive. Yet cadets who are gay are required to lie and to attempt to deceive in order to remain at the Academy. It would be much easier for me to convince the cadets that lying and attempting to deceive are wrong if some of them were not required to lie and to deceive in order to remain in the service.
As Bronwen said to me, hiding her sexual orientation involved deceiving people about where she was going, who she was with, and what she was doing. The guilt she felt from doing so was one of the main reasons she began to be more honest about her sexual orientation, which led to her discharge. Maybe I did too good a job of convincing Bronwen that lying is wrong. As The Day's headline said, she couldn't live a lie.
What impresses me the most about Bronwen is how positive she still feels about the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Academy, and how she still praises the members of the administration who were required to enforce the DADT policy by kicking her out. As David French, the Academy's public affairs officer, correctly noted in The Day, the staff at the Academy had no discretion whatsoever in implementing the policy; this is one of the main problems with the DADT policy.
Even if letting gays serve openly in the military might sometimes be disruptive to unit cohesion, it is clearly not always disruptive; sometimes, as in Bronwen's case, discharging someone can be more disruptive than retaining someone. The person in the best position to determine whether discharging a particular individual will help or harm unit cohesion and morale is the unit commander.
With a stroke of a pen, President Bush could modify the DADT policy to give unit commanders discretion regarding its implementation. If preserving unit cohesion and morale is the rationale for this policy, then unit commanders should be given discretion over enforcing it, since they are the ones who know what will promote unit cohesion.
After giving unit commanders discretion as to its implementation, we should reexamine and overturn the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy itself. It unfairly discriminates against gays for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to serve their country. It makes eliminating harassment of gays impossible. It requires members of the military to lie and deceive. It is increasingly detrimental to unit cohesion and morale. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars that could be used for necessities like body armor. And it prevents achievement of our military recruitment and retention goals. The time has come for us to reexamine and abandon the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy, and to allow for the full inclusion of gays into the military.
I wish supporters of the “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy would meet Bronwen, or John Graff (the Seaman recently discharged from the Groton Sub Base), or any of the other competent and dedicated people who have been dismissed from the military for telling the truth about who they are.
Sometimes, you don't see the negative consequences of a policy until you meet someone who has to live with those consequences every day for the rest of her life.
Erik Wingrove-Haugland, PhD., is an associate professor of philosophy and ethics at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, These are his personal views and not those of the Academy.

6:35 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Why did a homosexual prostitute tell the media about the homosexual behavior of a leading Christian opponent of same-sex marriage on the weekend before an election, an election in which eight states vote on whether to maintain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman?
But the main reason was that our homosexual prostitute knew the media are almost unanimously supportive of redefining marriage and therefore against all the states' propositions to defend marriage's definition. He and the news media hoped that publicizing that a major Christian opponent of same-sex marriage was secretly involved in homosexual sex could potentially undermine the movement to maintain the historical definition of marriage.
Now, of course, the sexual orientation of a person has no relevance to the merits of his pro- or anti-same-sex marriage argument. But the homosexual prostitute was certain that because the Rev. Ted Haggard was (allegedly) a homosexual -- or bisexual -- this proved that:
-- the reverend is a hypocrite; and therefore
-- the movement to keep marriage defined as man-woman is a phony movement.
That both arguments are false is irrelevant to many, perhaps most, supporters of same-sex marriage. Apparently, they feel that since they cannot radically change society's most important social institution through intellectual argument, or through the democratic process, or even via sympathetic judges, they might succeed by exposing any opponent who has homosexual tendencies.
So the first argument goes as follows: Show as many of the religious opponents of same-sex marriage to be hypocrites and you undermine the moral credibility of their efforts to keep marriage defined as man-woman. As Michael Jones, the homosexual prostitute, said (quoted in the Rocky Mountain News), "I felt obligated to get the information out about the hypocrisy of people who make these laws and those who support them."
This is intellectual nonsense. Even if every opponent of same-sex marriage were a closet homosexual, it would say nothing about the merits of their arguments. Moreover, being an opponent of same-sex marriage and a closet homosexual (if that is what Haggard is) has nothing to do with hypocrisy.
As defined by every dictionary I consulted, Haggard is not a hypocrite. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) defines hypocrisy as "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings or virtues that one does not hold or possess."
But we know that the Rev. Haggard never professed a belief that he did not hold. He believed at the time of his homosexual activities, and he believes now, that homosexual sex is a sin. He readily concedes that, in his view, he was sinning when he engaged in homosexual sex. He may therefore be considered a sinner, a person who acted inconsistent with his own admonitions and a poor model for a clergyman, but he is no more a hypocrite than a reverend who teaches the Ten Commandments and dishonors his mother or father, or bears false witness or even commits adultery. Hypocrisy requires a person to believe that he is the exception to the rule that he espouses for everyone else; that behavior that is wrong for others is not wrong for him.
If everyone who violates a standard he advocates is a hypocrite, the word is meaningless. And worse, it makes it impossible for just about anyone to advocate moral behavior.
The arguments against redefining marriage, the central institution of society, are profound and decent, no matter what the sexual orientation of those who offer those arguments. The sexual confusion we will bequeath to future generations, especially among children, if the same sex is regarded from childhood as equally desirable as marriage partners, endangers society.
Anyone who changes his mind and decides to vote against a proposition defining marriage as man-woman because a prominent Christian leader was exposed as privately engaged in homosexual behavior is not thinking clearly.
According to same-sex marriage activists, if you're a heterosexual who opposes same-sex marriage, you're a homophobe, and if you're a homosexual who opposes same-sex marriage, you're a phony and a hypocrite. Defenders of marriage should not lend credibility to these characterizations.

By Dennis Prager, a radio show host.

10:27 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

DrErik writes: Thursday, November, 16, 2006 9:48 AM
"DADT is a good policy"
I'm not sure who posted this article, but they are wrong about DADT; it is NOT a policy against homosexual practices. Ms. Tomb was disenrolled for saying she is gay, despite no evidence that she ever engaged in homosexual practices. If DADT is eliminated, gays will be held to the same Seuxal Misconduct and Frat policies as heterosexuals, and discharged for violating them. Eliminating DADT will not "roll back the Enlightenment"; virtually all the countries where the Enlightenment occurred (Italy, France, Britain, Spain) allow gays to serve openly. I put my name on my comments; you can decide for yourselves whether I or this anonymous blogger is lacking a moral compass.
Dr. Erik

4:38 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Abolishing DADT is a recipe for disaster
Dear DrErik,
Saying that you are a homosexual is tantamount to engaging in homosexual conduct. The propensity to engage in such conduct is an unacceptable risk that Congress is not prepared to accept. It is against the law, 10 USC Sec. 264. Until the law is changed, it must be obeyed. We are a nation that respects the Rule of Law.
The Enlightened countries that you mentioned, are history. They once made history; now, they are history. Gone from the world stage. There is only one HYPER-power in the world. That is the USA. Hyper-powers do not get conquered from without; they are destroyed from within. They implode. If we allow ourselves to be morally corrupted by your new enlightened moral decadence, we too will quickly pass from the world stage to be replaced by China.

4:41 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Vices of bad lives conquered Rome.
“Rome fell September 4, 476AD. It was overrun with illegal immigrants: Visigoths, Franks, Anglos, Saxons, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, Lombards, Jutes and Vandals, who at first assimilated and worked as servants, but then came so fast they did not learn the Latin Language or the Roman form of government. Highly trained Roman Legions moving rapidly on their advanced road system, were strained fighting conflicts worldwide. Rome had a trade deficit, having outsourced most of its grain production to North Africa, and when Vandals captured that area, Rome did not have the resources to retaliate. Attila the Hun was committing terrorist attacks. The city of Rome was on welfare with citizens being given free bread. One Roman commented: ‘Those who live at the expense of the public funds are more numerous than those who provide them.’ Tax collectors were ‘more terrible than the enemy.’ Gladiators provided violent entertainment in the Coliseum. There was injustice in courts, exposure of unwanted infants, infidelity, immorality and perverted bathhouses. 5th-Century historian Salvian wrote: ‘O Roman people be ashamed... Let nobody think otherwise, the vices of our bad lives have alone conquered us’.” —William Federer

Do you see any parallels??

8:29 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The Muslim Attitude Towards HOMOSEXUALITY.

In a fascinating memoir due in stores in February, "My Year Inside Radical Islam," Gartenstein-Ross describes how he was drawn to Islam because he saw it as a religion of peace.

Over time, however, he watched himself and those around him seduced into a fanaticism that required them to loathe not only non-Muslims, but also Muslims who belonged to the wrong sect, listened to music or shaved. He had expected an open, accepting religion, only to hear sheikhs arguing that Muslims who leave the religion should be killed, that it is acceptable to kill civilians for jihad and that good Muslims should work to replace democratic governments with Shariah law.

The hate chased Gartenstein-Ross from Islam, but only after it sucked him into believing that unacceptable actions were holy.

Islam's approach to HOMOSEXUALITY is another area that the left ignores in deference to multiculturalism. (Think of Bay Area liberals who voice outrage at the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but are silent about the Shariah policy on homosexuals -- 100 lashes or death.) Ditto the status of women.

There are forces in this world that would kill these elites for the apostasy, but elites are so blinded with their sense of superiority over their political enemies -- like President Bush -- that they can't even see the dagger pointed at their throats.

7:58 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

By Kevin McCullough
Sunday, December 10, 2006

Is there a more obvious product of heterosexual behavior than the creation of children? If so then isn't it somewhat peculiar that those who shun the behavior of heterosexuality so deeply crave the product that it brings?

I read the news that Mary Cheney, the 37 year old daughter of the Vice-President, was pregnant, I had many such questions running through my head.

I'm not supposed to mind you.

I'm not supposed to be allowed to think such things.

I'm not supposed to openly wonder what such conclusions might mean. Such wondering might bash the belief structure that men and women are completely interchangeable with one another. Yet I wonder them nonetheless. (Call it an ever growing desire to know the truth of the matter.)

Let's face it in America today if we bring up such obvious inconsistencies we are immediately branded and labeled a bigot. I was repeatedly labeled such this week for asking six additional questions arising from the fake act of two women supposedly "becoming parents." Argue with me all you like - the truth is Mary Cheney's baby will share DNA with Mary and the male DNA donor. Genetically he/she will share nothing with Cheney's partner Heather Poe.

So here's the next item I'm not allowed to bring up... Two women who desire children can not achieve satisfaction, because their sexual union is incapable of producing it. And this is fully true - even if all parties involved have healthy, fully functional reproductive biology.

When I mentioned this earlier in the week homosexual bloggers like Andrew Sullivan took exception with the notion and accused me of being hypocritical of the issue when it comes to infertile couples. Yet it is the critics who are being inconsistent.

If a man and wife struggle with infertility, it is because of biological breakdown. What God designed to work a certain way short circuited. He has low sperm count. She doesn't produce eggs as she should. They have trouble getting the two together. The biological dysfunction is not voluntary, they attempt sexual intercourse, time and time again but because of the faulty genetics in the machinery they are unable to complete the conception. And should medicine ever develop a cure for whatever that specific breakdown might be - there will be no problem for the couple, through natural sexual engagement to have another child.

Not so with Cheney and her partner. If they were to choose to engage in sex acts a thousand times over, their biological machinery would never produce what is needed - but for a different reason. There is no dysfunction in this case. Instead the reason the sexual engagement does not work is because the necessary parts are not even present. It is the equivalent of screwing a nut onto a bolt, by using a hammer. They just don't fit.

So after a cacophony of naughty e-mails being sent to me describing thousands of positions a male participant or a turkey baster can be used to impregnate a woman who only has had sex with women, I'm supposed to be intimidated so as to no longer ask these questions.

But they're good questions.

And doesn't the sick attempt at humor reveal what the purpose of my questions was from the very beginning?

In normal relationships the privacy and intimacy of the act of procreation is a spiritual and beautiful thing. In the sexual acts of women who sleep together that adequacy will be something they always long for and never have the satisfaction of knowing, thus undermining the fidelity of what they believe their relationship to be.

In our culture we don't think about our actions from the viewpoint of the One who created us. Rather we obsess about our rights to do what we want, how we want, and as often as we want.

But children are never about what we want. Raising them is about supplying what they need. Britney Spears does no one a service when she gets pregnant on the cheap in a marriage that doesn't last only to end up not providing a father for her children while flashing her nether region for paparazzi. Like wise how moral is it for Mary Cheney to bring a child into society who from the outcome is told that her second mommy is the equivalent of a true father?

There is a reason for homosexual activists to have kids; it is part of the great deception that no one is to question. By having children in the picture the attempt to complete the circle and to convince the world that such a family unit is normal is all important.

Since we do not live in a theocracy it is unreasonable to maintain that Americans will not all make the same choice when it comes to morality and sexual behavior. However that reality has nothing whatsoever to do with whether sexual behavior should be considered moral that extends beyond moral boundaries.

And since homosexuals insist upon desiring limitless sexual activity, not governed by provincial rules and traditions, why would they want children?

Children are the undeniable product of the superiority of heterosexual engagement. And since homosexual behavior in large terms wishes to throw off the weight of conventional sexuality, I am curious as to why they would desire to reinforce the inferiority of their sexual behavior.

And no amount of hate-mail from small minded radical activists will stifle the curiosity from which I seek to learn.

10:52 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

By Mark M. Alexander
Friday, December 8, 2006

The Bible does not say that prosperity is sinful, but those who place wealth above God are engaging in idolatry -- as defined in the Second of the Ten Commandments.

While the federal judiciary erroneously cites the so-called "Living Constitution" to justify the eradication of God from the public square, it is wealthy university trustees and academic elitists who, under the aegis of "tolerance and diversity," seek to eradicate God from the academy.

How is it that historic institutions such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton have all but forsaken their Christian foundations -- particularly in the last few decades? The answer is that, commensurate with the growth of their economic and academic stores, they rely on ever-wealthier trustees and enrollment prospects. (The average tuition among these institutions is now $42,000 -- and that's before room and board.)

This is certainly not to say that our nation is devoid of wealthy and intelligent Christians, or that being of modest means insures one from materialist idolatry. Idolatry is not, after all, what you own, but what owns you. This is to say, however, that the potential for idolatry increases exponentially with growth in economic and academic elitism. Consequently, left-elite academicians, and their cadre of wealthy "Rockefeller conservatives" (economic conservatives/social liberals), who comprise majorities on most academic boards, harbor contempt for Christianity in academia.

The nation's oldest academic institution, Harvard University, was established in 1636 and named for Puritan minister John Harvard. The university claims that it was "never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination," though all its presidents were Puritan ministers until 1708. A 1643 college brochure identified Harvard's purpose: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." The university's Charter of 1650 calls for "the education of the English and Indian youth of this Country in knowledge and godliness." (Harvard now has amassed a $30-billion endowment.)

Harvard alumnus, John Adams (class of 1755) wrote in 1776, "It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe."

Yale, the nation's third oldest academic institution, was established in 1701 by royal charter as The Collegiate School, in response to the efforts of colonial Congregationalist ministers since the 1640s to establish a college in New Haven. The charter was granted for an institution "wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts and Sciences [and] through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State." (Yale now boasts a $12-billion endowment.)

Yale alumnus Noah Webster (class of 1778), a devout Christian and outspoken Federalist, considered "education useless without the Bible." In the forward of the 1828 Webster's American Dictionary, he wrote, "In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed.... No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

Princeton was originally founded in 1746 as the College of New Jersey, established by royal charter for "the Education of Youth in the Learned Languages and in the Liberal Arts and Sciences," and unique in that the charter allowed the attendance of "any Person of any religious Denomination whatsoever." The absence of an official denominational affiliation or criteria for attendance did not, however, connote the absence of strong denominational ties. To the contrary, Princeton was founded by "New Light" Presbyterians of the Great Awakening for the purpose of training Presbyterian ministers. Jonathan Dickinson, a Presbyterian minister and leader of the Great Awakening of the 1730s, was the school's co-founder and first president. (Princeton has a $13-billion endowment.)

Princeton alumnus James Madison (class of 1771) observed, "The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it."

Yet today, these institutions, like the rest of the Ivy League schools -- Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth and Penn -- and upper-tier institutions across the nation under the tutelage of wealthy trustees and elite academicians –- tend to eschew all things Christian.

The latest chapter of Christian heritage eradication in academia is being written at the nation's second oldest university, William and Mary, chartered in 1693 in Williamsburg, Virginia, as an Anglican college.

At the behest of university president Gene Nichol, the removal of the historic Wren Chapel altar cross has been ordered "in order to make it less of a faith-specific space, and to make it more welcoming to students, faculty, staff, and visitors of all faiths." The Wren Chapel was constructed in 1732 as "a faith-specific space," and the cross was a gift from nearby Bruton Parish Church, founded in 1674. Bruton is the oldest continually operated Episcopal Church in America. George Washington, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson worshipped there prior to the Revolution.

Nichol wrote, "Our Chapel, like our entire campus, must be welcoming to all. I believe a recognition of the full dignity of each member of our diverse community is vital. Though we haven't meant to do so, the display of a Christian cross ... sends an unmistakable message that the chapel belongs more fully to some of us than to others. ... The Wren is no mere museum or artifact. It touches every student who enrolls at the college. It defines us. And it must define us all."

Of course, removal of the Wren cross does not "define" William and Mary. To the contrary, it redefines William and Mary. Perhaps Mr. Nichol (and his colleagues in similar posts across the nation) should size up the eye of a needle before exiling the last vestiges of Christianity from their hallowed halls.

A William and Mary graduate once mused, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever." The name of that esteemed alumnus? Thomas Jefferson.

11:07 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The Crime of Conviction
General Pace and Morality
Point of View
Published March 15, 2007

Our nation's top military officer, a veteran decorated with no less than forty-eight military awards and a very distinguished career, made a startling revelation this week: He has moral conviction. The world gasps, hurls insults, and demands an apology. How dare one of the top leaders of our land have a moral belief and share it when questioned!

But that's exactly what happened this week when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the first Marine general ever to hold that position—General Peter Pace, commented in a wide-ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune, "My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct, and that we should not tolerate that."

But then Pace went on to tell the Tribune, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." Well, stop the presses.

Of course, all that the radio, news, and television outlets have focused on since General Pace's comments are his remarks on homosexuality. Never mind that he puts immorality of all kinds on equal footing. General Pace went on to say in the interview, "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

While the world should be applauding a man who proposes that one of the most important institutions in our country should have moral integrity, instead we hammer him for having a conviction.

But I believe this goes far beyond the whole question of homosexuals in the military and the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. This cuts to the core of the question of whether anyone in public office is free to speak his deepest religious or moral convictions. The Constitution says there will be no religious test for office, and yet we are applying one. We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views—especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior.

This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.

I have long said that C. S. Lewis was prophetic when in 1943 he wrote about the irony of our education system, saying, "Such is the tragicomedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. . . . In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."

Ironic that today, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the military should have consistent policies of moral integrity, and the world demands an apology. Maybe it is time to lock him up: General Pace is guilty. He has committed the intolerable crime of our day: He has stated his conviction in a value-free society that respects only so-called "tolerance."

As for me, well, General Pace makes me proud that I am a former Marine.

Copyright (c) 2007 Prison Fellowship. Used with permission.

1:17 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

In ultra-sensitive America, what you say is more important than what you do.
To the modern American media, it is worse to hurt the feelings of homosexual troops than it is to pass legislation that puts all combat troops at risk. They would ask God to apologize to Sodom and Gamorrah.
Sorry, Charlie.

Sodom and Gomorrah were two cities destroyed by God for their sins. For the sins of their inhabitants Sodom, Gomorrah were destroyed by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" Since then, their names are synonymous with impenitent sin. The story of Sodom has given rise to words in several languages, including English: the word "sodomy", meaning acts (stigmatized as "unnatural vice") such as homosexuality and the word "sodomite", meaning one who practices such acts.

11:22 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

The homosexual lifestyle — particularly among males — is one principally delineated by casual, promiscuous, and yes, often anonymous sexual encounters, so much so that one of the largest homosexual organizations, LAMBDA Legal, essentially calls such public sex a civil right in their "Little Black Book" and walks homosexuals through the steps necessary to facilitate these "hook-ups." The group instructs homosexuals on what to do if they're caught "cruising for sex," thereby encouraging such behavior.
Many "gays" can't imagine why folks oppose men having anal sex in restroom facilities shared by families and children. And to ask — presumptively with a straight face — "what harm is done to anyone physically…" boggles the mind.

4:36 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Maryland's highest court on 18 September 2007 upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The Maryland Court of Appeals found that the state's 1973 ban on homosexual marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, as a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples had maintained.
It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote the majority opinion.

10:50 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

On 31 May 2008 Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociology professor who was an architect of the U.S. military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward homosexuals serving in the armed services, has died.
Moskos, 74, died of cancer Saturday at his home in Santa Monica, Calif., according to members of his family.
Moskos helped design AmeriCorps, a public service organization, but his most noted accomplishment was his advice to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that led to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Under the policy, passed by Congress in 1993, homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, but they are prohibited from engaging in homosexual activity and to not talk about their sexual orientation.
Although a controversial policy, Moskos defended it, saying it was essential given the attitudes of the soldiers he interviewed.
“He truly had an impact on the military,” retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said in a statement. “He gave many of us the reassurance that someone out there knew us, cared about us and could help see our best interests as a nation and a military were looked after.”
Moskos’ work earned his several awards, including the Distinguished Service Medal, the highest honor the Army awards civilians.
Moskos is survived by his wife, Ilca, and two sons.

2:59 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

Former Sens. John Edwards and Sam Nunn are on a list of potential running mates for Democrat Barack Obama.

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, said members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of Edwards and Nunn when she met 17 June 2008 with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.

"We've been brainstorming in the Congressional Black Caucus. Former Senator Sam Nunn's name has come up, as well as John Edwards' name has come up among our CBC members. I reported that to them and they had both of those names on their list," Kilpatrick said.

12:04 PM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

(California9/30/08) Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a bill that would have made the birthday of homosexual political icon Harvey Milk a statewide "day of significance."
In his veto message the governor said that while he respected the measure's intent, he thinks Milk's "contributions should continue to be recognized at the local level." That would be in San Francisco, California, The Haven of Homosexuals.
Conservative groups had lobbied Schwarzenegger not to sign the legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco.
Milk became the nation's first openly homosexual man to hold a prominent political office when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977.
He and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by, Dan White, a fellow supervisor in 1978.
Senator Dianne Feinstein rose to national attention when she stepped in to fill the leadership vacuum left by the assination of San Francisco's mayor. She went on to become one of California's two female senators. The other being Senator Barbara Boxer.

2:07 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

(5/26/2009) The Califonia Supreme Court held in a 6-1 decision that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November that outlawed same-sex marriage in California, was not a sweeping change to the state constitution that should have been approved by the Legislature before heading to voters. That was the main argument by opponents of the measure.
Instead, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George said the 14 words of Proposition 8 were limited in their scope and application.
In effect, the court said gays and lesbians still have strong legal protections – but they cannot claim the word “marriage” to describe their relationship with a spouse.

2:36 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

(9/21/2010) The effort to lift the military's ban on openly homosexual and lesbian service members had a major setback today when Senate Democrats failed to win the 60 votes needed to advance a defense bill that included conditional repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell law.It is still good law, or rather good policy.

12:08 AM  
Blogger ichbinalj said...

God has revealed himself to us through His Son, through the Bible, and through nature. The Bible says that Sodom and Gomorrah were victims of Divine judgment for flagrant sins. It is hard for me to see how any Christian living in accordance with the Bible can endorse homosexual marriage. God performed the 1st marriage; Jesus' 1st miracle was at a wedding. If people want to live in open sin, they are free to do so; but, don't ask for God's and the Church's blessings.

6:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home