Legislation would allow open homosexuals in military
by: Victor Lee - Mar 6, 2007 - comments: 22
A longstanding military policy preventing homosexuals from openly serving in the U.S. Armed Forces could be repealed if Rep. Marty Meehan’s (D-MA) legislation garners enough support in Congress.
The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 1246), introduced by Rep. Meehan with 109 cosponsors on February 28, would overturn the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which was set in place in 1993 under President Clinton. While military personnel can be discharged for homosexual conduct, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” forbids commanders from questioning them about their sexual orientation.
The legislation is drawing fire from opponents who say pro-homosexual activists are manipulating opinion polls to show unfounded support for the legislation. Meehan cites polls to prove support for his bill is growing, but what the polls really say is up for debate.
While a January 2007 Harris Interactive poll showed 55 percent of Americans believe homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly, a December 2006 Zogby poll of soldiers returning from Iraq reveals 26 percent supporting the right of homosexuals to serve, with 37 percent opposed.
Among Meehan’s arguments for his position was that 73 percent of respondents in the Zogby poll responded yes when asked “Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?”
The Center for Military Readiness, an independent, nonpartisan educational organization formed to promote sound military policies, questioned the validity of the Zogby poll, calling that question “the meaningless ‘comfort’ question.” The center said the poll results were “hardly a mandate for radical change.”
In the Zogby poll of 545 U.S. military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were aware of homosexuals in their unit, 64 percent said the “presence of gays or lesbians” had no impact on the group’s morale.
Yet in a November 2006 survey of active-duty subscribers to Military Times, 59 percent of respondents opposed allowing “openly homosexual Americans” to serve in the armed forces, down from 65 percent in 2005.
Rep. Meehan, whose bill now awaits action by the House Armed Services Committee, could face hefty opposition, as did President Clinton, who supported this approach in his 1992 presidential campaign before backing off and settling on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
The Pentagon did not comment on Meehan’s proposed legislation, but when the secretary of the army recently was asked by Loren Thompson of the nonpartisan Lexington Institute whether he would reconsider “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he opposed tinkering with the policy, fearing it would only “stir up a hornet’s nest.”
If you oppose allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, please tell your congressman to oppose the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R. 1246).
Doug Carlson contributed to this story.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality, Citizenship, Legislation
22 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Mar 6th, 2007, at 2:04pm, Charles Enlow wrote:
I am against homosexuals doing anything, as homosexuals. Jehovah calls homosexuality an “abomination” in the Old Testament. My dictionary says that abomination means “a detestable sin”. Why should our government be protecting detestable sin?
2 On Mar 6th, 2007, at 4:46pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Because Charles, if a gay man or woman is willing to put his or her life on the line to defend your rights to express your opinion, no matter how much we may differ with it, then we should be allowed that opportunity.
3 On Mar 6th, 2007, at 9:30pm, c t blomstrom wrote:
Homosexuals shouldn’t even be in the military
4 On Mar 7th, 2007, at 3:33pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
First Circuit Hears ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Appeal
BOSTON, MASS. – The First Circuit heard oral arguments today in an appeal filed by veterans dismissed under the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The veterans, who all served during the current war on terror, asked the Court to reverse a lower court ruling dismissing their constitutional challenge to the law. The lawsuit, Cook v. Gates, was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) and the law firm of WilmerHale.
5 On Mar 7th, 2007, at 4:09pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
More reasons why gay people should not be forced to serve in the closet,
From ABC News
Feb. 28, 2007 — The first U.S. Marine seriously wounded in Iraq, Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, lost his leg when he stepped on a land mine, but today he and his prosthetic leg will march right into one of the most contentious battles in American politics.
Alva will stand with Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., as a bipartisan group of Congress members introduces legislation to overturn the ban on openly gay and lesbian troops serving in the military.
Alva says that losing his leg forced him out of the closet.
“It made me realize everything that I had to actually speak up for,” Alva said to ABC News in an exclusive TV interview, “basically the rights and privileges of what I as an individual have earned in this country.”
6 On Mar 12th, 2007, at 6:09pm, eric wrote:
“ On Mar 6th, 2007, at 2:04pm, Charles Enlow wrote:
I am against homosexuals doing anything, as homosexuals. Jehovah calls homosexuality an “abomination” in the Old Testament.”
I hope, Chuck, [may I call you “Chuck”? “Charles” sounds sooo priggish.] that you spread your condemnation equally over the breadth of ‘abominations’ in the OT.
Have you picketed your local Red Lobster for tempting God-fearing Americans to share the ‘abomination’ of shellfish? No? [mmmm; lobster; Sorry, having a Homer Simpson moment]
Have you signed a petition against the textile industry for producing ‘abominations’ in the form of mixed-fabric garments? Have you even bothered to check your own closet? No? Why?
Unless you have done the above, your attitude toward gays is nothing but bigotry, hiding behind the polite facade of religion.
7 On Mar 13th, 2007, at 12:27pm, dan valdes wrote:
Without going so far as to make an apology, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace expressed regret Tuesday over his comments that homosexuals are immoral and should not be allowed to serve openly in the military.
Rep. Martin Meehan, who recently introduced legislation to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, criticized Pace, who is also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Said Meehan: “General Pace’s statements aren’t in line with either the majority of the public or the military. He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing (and that the military is) turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination.’’
8 On Mar 14th, 2007, at 11:48am, Nelson wrote:
What is this world coming to?! We are not too far away from seeing a man and a horse married… Still there are those that would argue “So what?! anybody should have the right to marry whoever or whatever because it is our freaking right to do so.” <Sigh>… The world is loosing it. Good-bye decency, good-bye good values and common sense. Don’t you people see this? Am I crazy or something? Why would anybody think that it is okay for two people of the same sex to be intimate? What makes people think this should be normal and acceptable? I don’t even know why I am bothering writing this since I know I will be blasted by those who think I am the one who is full of hatred or whatever. People, don’t you get it? It’s not a matter of hating gays… Homesexuality is just not natural. It never was intended to be, and it should never be accepted. IT IS WRONG!
Now, go ahead, say all you want.
Nelson
9 On Mar 14th, 2007, at 1:27pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Nelson, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
10 On Mar 14th, 2007, at 5:19pm, eric wrote:
“We are not too far away from seeing a man and a horse married… “
Bit of wishful thinking? A chacun a son gout!
“ Don’t you people see this? Am I crazy or something?”
No, and yes, in that order.
“I don’t even know why I am bothering writing this....”
We agree on something!
“People, don’t you get it?”
No.
“Homesexuality is just not natural.”
Yes, it is natural, according to the American Psychiatric Association, The Amnerican Medical Association, and others. [I’d post the links, but this forum apparently frowns of that, at least links that they disagree with] Any other scientific concepts you’d like to take the opportunity to deny?
“..it should never be accepted.”
When the day comes that someone’s rights are dependent upon your, or my, ‘acceptance’ of them, we live in a fascist nation.
11 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 12:57pm, Andrew wrote:
Well, Nelson, considering how almost every mammal on the planet, including chimpanzees and other close genetic relatives of our species, openly practice gay and bisexual behavior, I would bet that it is natural, just not accepted by a roving band of desert marauders 3000 years ago.
Speaking of that, trans-gendered people were highly respected by the native Americans as having “two spirits” and bridging the gap between the sexes. French fur trappers called them “berdaches.”
12 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 8:09pm, eric wrote:
Chuck: Going way back to post #1.
“Jehovah calls homosexuality an “abomination” in the Old Testament. My dictionary says that abomination means “a detestable sin”. Why should our government be protecting detestable sin?”
According to the Bible, it’s a ‘sin’ to worship any other God but the Christian God. Why should our government be protecting THAT sin? If you would write civil law based on Biblical precepts, why not just replace the 1st Amendment with the 1st Commandment?
Christo-talibanism is born!
13 On Apr 17th, 2007, at 8:42pm, Bryan wrote:
eric,
I am certainly glad you have read the Scriptues, as cursory as it may be. However; please don’t try to compare the ritual/dietary laws in the OT specifically given to the Hebrews to the moral issues also covered in the NT. The book of Romans speaks directly to homosexuality being a sin.
14 On Apr 18th, 2007, at 11:39am, danvaldes wrote:
The letter to the Romans by St. Paul refers to a whole list of behaviors and he also states quite emphatically in Romans 14:
“ 13Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.”
Why is the church not as focused on this passage by St. Paul in the SAME letter but rather that incongruous list of behaviors that won’t inherit the kingdom?
I always thought that ANYONE who asked for Christ’s grace received it as a gift so the list by St. Paul seems to be at odds with that gift, in my opinion.
15 On Apr 18th, 2007, at 2:38pm, c t blomstrom wrote:
By taking only small portions of the scriptures it might be possible to
define an elephant as a snake when in fact an elephant is not a snake no
matter how one tries to interpret it to be so.
The Bible is very clear that if one wants to be at peace with God then one
should repent of his/her sinful ways and cease engaging in them.
While salvation is a gift Christ also made it very clear that those who love
him and would follow him will forego their sinful ways. His message to the
adulteress at the well was very simple and straight forward: Go and sin no
more. Paul’s letter is simply stating some behavior that born again
Christians will forego. Christ also said “If you love me keep my
commandments”. God is not happy with homosexual behavior, never has been,
never will be. Remember he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for just such acts.
16 On Apr 18th, 2007, at 8:15pm, eric wrote:
Bryan:Your comment, “The book of Romans speaks directly to homosexuality being a sin.” is totally irrelevant to anyone who has read the Constitution of The United States of America.
“Sin” is a religious concept; the breaking of canon law. If you seek to use religious doctrine to determine civil policy, you are advocating establishing a theonomy.
They say that there are no atheists in a foxhole. [I’ve been there, have you?] There’s certainly no room for bigotry; I don’t care about the sexual orientation, gender, race or religion of the person next to me. My priorities are marksmanship, observational skills, and his/her dedication to each and every person in the unit. In my day, there were no women in combat units, and few in active theaters. I’d serve beside any gay or lesbian with combat skills; you?
17 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 8:12am, dan valdes wrote:
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor
PARIS (Reuters) - The spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans has said conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage written by Saint Paul almost 2,000 years ago.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, addressing theology students in Toronto, said an oft-quoted passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.
“Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage,” Williams said on Monday, according to a text of his speech posted on the Anglican Church of Canada’s Web site.
“Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.”
18 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 8:09pm, eric wrote:
“Remember he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for just such acts.”
That’s ONE interpretation, which you choose to believe. An alternative interpretation is that the inhabitants were inhospitable to strangers, thus incurring the wrath of God. Yet another is that this was a mythic occurrence, chronicled by a class of priests, to enhance their power over the masses.
Obviously you have allowed your inordinate fixation on the sexual proclivities of others to determine your choice of which to believe. Remember: something is neither true nor false based on your belief that it is so.
19 On Jan 18th, 2008, at 3:46pm, David Hanlon wrote:
I would say that Homosexuals in the military are against the ethical standard that have been established in the military as well as that set in the UCMJ for if we bend the laws to conform for a group of people that now can openly break the law, what is the difference of the illegal immigrants situation or that of the drug problems that have infest our country.We as a universal and great country still need to have set morals to enforce laws and not conform to allow the small groups with a lot of money to change those things that should not change our country’s ethical and moral standards. We as a society need to stand up to these minority lobbyists. If we the people vote against things such as same sex marriage and the majority of the vote is against, then the issue should be a dead issue and those that are against the majority should not have the right to challenge that in courts though suet’s.
20 On Jan 21st, 2008, at 10:14am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Actually David Hanlon, many laws in this country are set up to protect the MINORITY and not the majority.
Freedom of Speech for example. The voice of the majority needs no protection but it’s the lone voice of dissent that the founding fathers understood would be vilified and silenced without the rule of law and the courts to uphold that law.
So while a majority of people may agree on a singular issue, it does not necessarily follow that their agreement is just and moral, simply by virtue of their agreement.
Think of Jim Crow and you can see how majority agreement is far from just and right.
21 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 3:28pm, David Hanlon wrote:
For our country to openly except gays in the military is just to allow them to change a government institution which has the stickiest laws and by challenging those laws gives strength to override other ST and Fed laws. This country was founded on ethics depicted by a religious background which goes back many centuries and who are we to challenge those things that have worked over the centuries, whether you agree or not those individuals that push their issues are very selfish and only think about what best would condone their actions so they feel less guilty of the actions. For when someone breaks a law they try to minimize it or act naïve. We need not to change laws to condone behavior but enforce the laws in place and that would bring our society back to correct morals and ethics we have established. We gain respect from other nations and to remain a super power we have higher standards to display for if we give into all the wants of the people we would have an unruly environment.
22 On Feb 6th, 2008, at 3:39pm, dan valdes wrote:
David Hanlon writes ...."who are we to challenge those things that have worked over the centuries”
I would dare to say, works for WHO. Mr. Hanlon? It’s a injustice to the service and to the brave men and women who serve to deny them the same status of heterosexual counterparts. Think about it for a moment and you might come to see that if a gay man is willing to die for the USA, perhaps the USA should be willing to support him in return.
Dan Valdes
Besides...don’t ask don’t tell has a limited number of days so this is nearly a moot point..