Monday, October 12, 2009

DADT ticking away

Hey, I'm in full alignment with the CINC; mark your calendars.
President Barack Obama reaffirmed his campaign pledge to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but offered no timetable or specifics for acting on that promise.

He acknowledged to a cheering crowd that some policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.

"I will end 'don't ask-don't tell,'" Obama said to a standing ovation from the crowd of about 3,000 at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group.
Thing is - all Congress has to do is act, President signs, and then we can move on. Like his attack on gun control though, he is waiting for the right time - then he will make his move when there is the least downside and the most upside for him. He hasn't done anything yet as he doesn't want to expend any political capital until he gets the Big Game Changer through - health care. Win or lose on that - then DADT will get the attention.

That may never come though if the political math isn't what he/they want. If it is really a priority they could do it yesterday. I understand who homosexual organizations are upset with Obama and the rest. They are being treated like, ahem, the Left's b1tch.

Rep. Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Reed (D-NV); call your office. It ain't that hard to do.

I know many of you think I am nuts on this - but ending DADT is the right move. In Phib's world, we would simply go to "Don't care" and move on. I know though, that it won't be that easy - and it will be painful - though not in the way many think.

Sailors will nod their head and move forward. Heck, we all know we have gay shipmates anyway, and the younger the Sailor, the least they care. Sure we will have a violent idiot here and there (as we will have blue-on-blue sexual harassment) - but they will be such a small and easy to deal with problem which we already have the UCMJ and "unofficial" ways of dealing with those attitudes and actions in the workplace; so no problem.

Here is the BIG BUT; the Navy's Diversity Bullies will want their pound of flesh, BA/NMP, and additional job security to promote "awareness" and eventually get everyone to "celebrate it." Grind the Sailors nose in it - that will help.

Then the "my knob goes to 11" folks - representing only themselves and the low-single-digits of homosexual servicemembers - will try to get BAH with dependents for their same-sex "married in MA" "spouses" .... and then base houseing .... and all that jaz that will just not let us work together and get on with our lives and serving the nation we all love.

That I will fight with tooth and claw, as that will effect unit cohesion and family support. Wait for the young E5 with three kids to be put on a 12 month waiting list in HI while four same-sex couples have base housing; see what that will do for your tolerance and acceptance.

I don't care what you do or do not do with your tender viddles as long as it doesn't impact my life and/or harm innocent beings; but this is not a binary support mechanism. You don't have to be all in or all out of the "homosexual agenda." Homosexuals aren't - and neither should those expect others.

I even support civil partnerships. What I don't accept is you requiring me to accept that you have a same-sex "wife" or "husband" and that is the same as a dual-sex marriage - and I should smile and go along with it and the Navy should look at it as the same in action and benefits. I won't. I will always wish you happiness - but I won't say the sky is red just because you really want it to be. Marriage is a man and a woman - that is simple.

Fair? Harumph. Take a number ... and stop being so narcissistic. Not everything is about you.

Let's move on. The Brits survived WAR PLAN PINK just fine - so will we. When homosexual radicals try to go too far, push back. 90%+ gay servicemembers probably feel the same way. Just let them be themselves - they will do the same, just like they do now.
If you are looking for the other side of the argument - put in a reasoned manner - I recommend James Bowman's latest at The Weekly Standard.

No comments: