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.

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.”

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.

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.’’

Now, go ahead, say all you want.

Nelson

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.

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.”

“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!

“ 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.

“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?

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.”

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.

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.

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..