Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
(I posted this elsewhere the other day, before yesterday's historic vote to repeal DADT, but decided to post it again today after reading Lt. Dan Choi's post on Huffington Post last night. We've scored a major victory for civil rights, but, as Lt. Choi wrote, "The mission is not finished; it has only just begun." As you read this, just put yourself in the shoes of a gay airman whose superior is Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey, and ask yourself if you'd feel like you could come out now just because DADT is repealed.)
Saying that his "commitment to [his] God supersedes [his] commitment to the DOD," Air Force Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey has publicly vowed to violate military regulations and his oath to the U.S. Constitution if DADT is repealed. In a letter published by Stars and Stripes, Lt. Col. Maxey claims that it would be hypocritical that he would "be free to express myself if I'm a homosexual, but not if I'm a Christian."
Here's Lt. Col. Maxey's letter:
Won't choose to 'deal with it'
STARS AND STRIPES
Letters to the Editor, December 15, 2010So let me see if I understand this: The Defense Department is proposing to let people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle serve "openly" in the armed forces (per the Dec. 2 article "DADT study group: Full integration is best"), but won't allow Christians such as myself the freedom to "openly" share the good news of Christ with our co-workers -- as the faith we've chosen requires?
DOD officials plan to tell servicemembers who have a problem with those living a homosexual lifestyle to "learn to deal with it," but they are prepared to counsel and/or slap Christians with paperwork if someone feels "offended" by our witness? Wearing sexual lifestyle choices on your sleeve is OK, but not your faith?
Military chaplains who teach that homosexuality is antithetical to and incompatible with Christianity (which it is) can either muzzle their objections or "leave," but gays will be permitted to parade their lifestyle choices in front of all?
Bottom line: So I'm free to express myself if I'm a homosexual, but not if I'm a Christian? What disgraceful hypocrisy.
Here's the truth: I will continue to witness to who I want, when I want and where I want. My commitment to my God supersedes my commitment to the DOD and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can "learn to deal with it."
Department of Defense? More like the Department of Double Standards.
Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey
Afghanistan
(Looks like Lt. Col. Maxey's intent to violate his military oath isn't being met with much support from the readers of Stars and Stripes. You can read the comments here.)
Cases of military officers blatantly violating military regulations for their God are, of course, nothing new to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF). We hear about them on a daily basis.
Upon being emailed Lt. Col. Maxey's Stars and Stripes letter, MRFF founder and president Mikey Weinstein issued the following statement: "Lt. Col. Stacy L. Maxey is the quintessentially perfect example of a poisonous Poster Child of the vast legion of fundamentalist Christian proselytizing-oppressors operating with unfettered access in today's U.S. armed forces. He and his illegitimate ilk of pernicious spiritual predators must be stopped now and very publicly! Thus, MRFF demands that the United States Air Force immediately and forthwith subject Lt. Col. Maxey to the most severe punishment possible for his disgustingly brazen and incontrovertibly insubordinate screed which is clearly violative of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as his sworn oath to the United States Constitution."
Meet Lt. Col. Stacy "Mad Max" Maxey, taking a break from doing all that "witnessing" to cheer on his favorite football team:
With hundreds of gay and lesbian service members among its over 20,000 clients, MRFF has been receiving a steady stream of emails and phone calls lately regarding DADT, the most recent deluge coming in the other day in the wake of the outrageous statement made by repeal opponent Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who asserted that openly gay Marines would somehow cause a "distraction" that could cost the lives of their fellow Marines.
While not publicly citing his religious beliefs as a factor in his opposition of DADT repeal, Gen. Amos, a born again Christian, is no stranger to violating military regulations to promote his religion. In 2009, Amos appeared in uniform at Shirley Dobson's National Day of Prayer Task Force event on Capitol Hill, in clear violation of a number of Department of Defense regulations, including the strict prohibition on the endorsement of a non-federal entity while in uniform. (For a detailed list of all the military regulations violated by appearing in uniform at such an event, see my post about this year's National Day of Prayer violations).
Gen. James Amos speaking at 2009 National Day of Prayer Task Force event on Capitol Hill:
Comments
Chris:
I think that Maxey will have plenty of time to share the good news, possibly as early as next week when he decides to leave the military (with his superior's "blessings") to take up his life of proselytization.
When you join a "Higher Power" (a specifically KKKristian one) to a hyperpersecution complex you will be getting teh weapons grade KKKrazee.
Posted by: democommie | December 19, 2010 9:03 AM
Maxey's response is that of three-year old, as his letter to the editor demonstrates. "I don't wanna and you can't make and I'm gonna go and do it anyway! So there! Nyah!" In the case of the three-year old's temper tantrum, they're usually put in time-out. I wonder what the UCMJ equivalent of "time-out" is...?
Posted by: rmw | December 19, 2010 9:21 AM
I've been scanning the comments at Stars & Stripes. Roughly speaking, they're soundly critical of Maxey's whining diatribe. "Don't the door hit you in the ass on your way out," basically. I haven't read all of them, but so far only two comments are supporting him.
Posted by: wheatdogg | December 19, 2010 9:26 AM
Hey Maxey,
the difference is you are actively annoying people by recruiting. The GLBT just wants to live their lives without interference.
Posted by: kevin | December 19, 2010 9:40 AM
Demo wonders what 'a time-out for a three year old temper tantrum' might look like, in military terms - how about a stretch at Levenworth for insubordination and possibly treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy)?
Why doesn't Maxey support the troops? I suppose RRR rhetoric doesn't apply in this case (for some unexplained reason). - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 19, 2010 9:40 AM
If people who think like Maxey are upset by this change, it proves it was a great step forward for this country.
Posted by: RMSC | December 19, 2010 9:58 AM
I'd settle for a dishonorable discharge.
Posted by: rmw | December 19, 2010 10:05 AM
But odds are that, as soon as he finds out that his god won't pay him a pension if he gets himself fired, he'll suddenly discover that he only really wants to witness to whom, when and where it doesn't get him in trouble.
Posted by: Phillip IV | December 19, 2010 10:08 AM
"commitment to [his] God supersedes [his] commitment to the DOD"
Fuck integrating the army, or allowing gays in - that's all well and good but what we really need is a secular military. People who have imaginary super-powerful playmates should not be given guns.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | December 19, 2010 10:12 AM
There is a comment by F.J. Taylor on page 2 that is especially good.
Posted by: Owen | December 19, 2010 10:19 AM
It is said that an officer thinks he should be able to push his religion on those in his charge? He doesn't see the difference between being merely saying "I am gay" or "I am a Christian" and openly "sharing"(forcing on others) their particular brand of religion?
I agree with another poster that this sound very immature.
Posted by: Mary | December 19, 2010 10:24 AM
This is the essence of the problem. Christians are required by their Imaginary Friend to tell other people how to live their lives. And, as others have already said, they can't tell the difference between forcing others to listen to their silly fairy tales and simply being allowed to exist.
Posted by: BaldApe | December 19, 2010 10:47 AM
I will join the military, and make it clear that I only obey orders if they are cleared with my invisible friend in the sky first. I am sure they will think I'm perfectly sane.
Posted by: Think or GTFO | December 19, 2010 11:00 AM
There's an awful lot of calls here for his head, but, oddly enough, no one actually cites proof of what he's done wrong.
I guess upsetting The Weinstein enough to cause vitriolic bloviating is justification enough?
Posted by: JD | December 19, 2010 11:11 AM
Posted by: Deen | December 19, 2010 11:27 AM
You're a liar, JD. Mary laid it out quite well. You shouldn't lie, it's unchristian.
Posted by: Malchus | December 19, 2010 11:30 AM
@JD:
if you're insulted by the repeal of DADT: shut up and do your job.
or quit.
either way. if you really are military, you work for us. now shut up and obey. cuz that's what you signed up to do.
Posted by: VikingMoose | December 19, 2010 11:47 AM
Insubordination = fast-track to civilian life.
Fomenting insubordination = mutiny = prison.
(presuming I have my definitions right.)
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | December 19, 2010 12:04 PM
"... they do not care to follow rules/unless they are their own ..." (Rudyard Kipling)
Posted by: paulh | December 19, 2010 12:10 PM
JD the moron:
Actually, there aren't any 'calls for his head', simply noting that he will probably prove too cowardly to actually back it up when push comes to shove.
As for 'proof', I'm pretty sure that a military officer openly stating that he will disobey military command/orders/directives is punishable by discharge, at the very least.
Posted by: FastLane | December 19, 2010 12:15 PM
JD @14
The LCOL has submitted a letter proclaiming his intention to disregard the orders and policies of his lawful superiors (both military and, worse yet, civilian), and to make matters worse, he has done so in a highly insubordinate and public fashion. This could be regarded as not only disobeying orders, but inciting others to do the same and attempting to undermine the command structure of the US military.
IE, saying "Hey, guys, I don't like these lawful orders from our lawful superiors and I'm going to disobey those assholes! Who's with me?" is a crime. That break it down enough for you to grasp?
If you're going to troll, at least take a minute to scamper under the bridge first. Your halfassed attempts demean the fine art of online dickery.
Posted by: Quantum Mechanic | December 19, 2010 12:15 PM
Great! Now we expel another bigot from the ranks!
Posted by: George | December 19, 2010 12:22 PM
If JD thinks Maxey isn't at least stating his intention to do something wrong, I encourage JD to respond to the next order from a superior with the words, "I'm not going to do it, and you're just going to have to deal with it." Because that's precisely what Maxey said about his superior officers, that he would do what he wanted and they would "just have to deal with it."
As I understand it, they actually do have a protocol in place for "dealing" with it. It's called a court-martial.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 19, 2010 12:37 PM
Cite the orders he has disobeyed or will disobey if he acts as he says he will. You'll find there aren't any. Therefore, saying he has violated military regulations, or is inciting others to do the same, is false.
Rodda should explain her accusation he intends "to violate his military oath", when nothing he said has anything to do with his oath, nor do his proposed actions violate anything.
Not liking what he said is your right. Calling him a "poisonous Poster Child" (capitalization original) and demanding UCMJ action is nothing more than the uninformed rant of a petulent three year old.
Posted by: JD | December 19, 2010 12:46 PM
JD:
You and your fuckwit GODbot friends are treasonous pos's. Like I said yesterday, give me your unit commander's contact info and I'll help you out of uniform, you fucking asshole.
Posted by: democommie | December 19, 2010 12:52 PM
I was especially taken with one comment that, after outlining the amount of Christian proselytism that its author has encountered in the military, tenders this advice to the Lieutenant Colonel:
'If you don't like it... GET OUT. See how the civillian companies deal with your religious pimping and expectations... sorry. NOT politically correct. My "give a d*mn" button is broken. Sign off and move on.'
On this very blog, I believe, I've read rather troubling stories about members of the US military who have been required to attend overtly evangelist Christian events or else perform demeaning duties. That's obviously a troubling matter.
But let's not forget that you (my esteemed American allies) have to be focused on the future. The Act will be signed into law soon but that won't be the end of it. The civil powers and the military leaders must certify it and a plan to introduce open service must be rolled out.
In other words, you're within sight of victory, but feet must yet be held to the fire.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | December 19, 2010 12:57 PM
JD,
Ah, you're a clever little dissembler. He didn't cite a specific order he would disobey, so he's all in the clear, eh? So what if I said "I'm going to become a wilful law breaker," but don't specify which laws I'm going to break? I'm all good then, right?
But if you are capable of reading, you might want to review this line from Maxey's letter:
This is a pretty clear statement that if he thinks an order violates his commitment to God, he's going to disobey, and he thinks his superiors should "learn do deal with it."
Let's take some permutations of this. Let's say I am a fighter pilot who decides that God's command to love my enemies means I cannot shoot down an enemy fighter I'm ordered to shoot at. Or a bombardier who decides that my commitment to Christian principles means I can't drop bombs when innocent civilians are likely to get hurt. What happens if I explain my disobedience to orders with: "Sir, my commitment to god supersedes my commitment to the DOD, and you're going to have to learn to deal with it."
What if I'm a fundamentalist who thinks adulterers should be stoned, and I find out that one of my fellow soldiers/pilots/marines/shipmates is having an affair, so I begin chucking heavy rocks at them? What happens if I justify that action by saying "Sir, God commands me to do it, so you're going to have to learn to deal with it"?
Is any of that going to pass muster?
Now, if "witness[ing] to who I want, when I want and where I want" doesn't actually violate any orders or military rules, so that Maxey's not actually doing anything wrong, then what the fuck is he whining about!?
Posted by: James Hanley | December 19, 2010 12:59 PM
I'm fortunate never to have been in a position to enforce DADT. As I disagreed strongly with that policy, I know I would have done my dead-level best to avoid enforcing it, but I don't know that I would have fallen on my sword for it. Potentially losing one's retirement benefits, or worse, is a major disincentive for not following orders. That said, the officer's oath says to "support and defend the constitution." That would have been a tough call. Thankfully, it's not an issue anymore.
@JD
I'm with Quantum Mechanic on this one. As military officers, you and I both know that what Maxey did was stupid. He'll know soon enough if he violated the UCMJ. So, tell me JD, why to evangelicals get in gay peoples' chili about their orientation, yet don't seem to care a whit about divorces and adultery? Which one do you think is more common in the military? By your view they are both choices, are they not? Which one violated a promise before God and to their spouse?
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | December 19, 2010 1:00 PM
My friends, please for the sake of sanity on this thread ignore the repeated denials of JD. He isn't here in the pursuit of information, he's just trying to stink up the thread, and you're making his job too easy.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | December 19, 2010 1:03 PM
I'll be sympathetic to this guy's point when Christian servicemen get a week of latrine duty for not having gay sex.
-TTm
Posted by: Ticktockman | December 19, 2010 1:04 PM
but won't allow Christians such as myself the freedom to "openly" share the good news of Christ with our co-workers -- as the faith we've chosen requires?
Muslims are also "required" to proselytize, But somehow I think this idiot would be the first one to complain if those in the military started choosing their religious duty over their military ones.
Gen. James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, who asserted that openly gay Marines would somehow cause a "distraction" that could cost the lives of their fellow Marines.
Well, yeah. If Marines are finally free to pursue their repressed homosexual urges, they'll be distracted by their fellow Devil Dogs' fine asses as a crucial moment. Or something.
There's an awful lot of calls here for his head, but, oddly enough, no one actually cites proof of what he's done wrong.
Declared his intention to disobey a lawful order. That's an Article 92 offense right there. But to be honest, I think he only deserves a letter of reprimand. If he does it _again_, then bring him up on charges.
Quantum Mechanic:
IE, saying "Hey, guys, I don't like these lawful orders from our lawful superiors and I'm going to disobey those assholes! Who's with me?" is a crime. That break it down enough for you to grasp?
True, but incidents in the past where officers engaged in this level of insubordination were usually punished non-judicially. Going after this schmuck with all legal-guns blazing for a first offense would make him a martyr.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | December 19, 2010 1:13 PM
Tony Sidaway @29
You are quite right. The boy doesn't even make it interesting (long rounds of nuh-uh and uh-huh are hardly intellectually stimulating, and he doesn't even bring up any interesting points).
So, do you folks in the service think the LCOL is going to get simply dishonorably discharged, or worse?
Posted by: Quantum Mechanic | December 19, 2010 1:14 PM
Of course, as a military officer, Maj. Dowty (a.k.a. JD) should be aware of Article 88 of the UCMJ -- "Contempt toward officials" -- and how the statements in Lt. Col. Maxey's letter, particularly his publicly calling the Department of Defense the "Department of Double Standards," would violate that article, which is punishable by court-martial.
Posted by: Chris Rodda | December 19, 2010 1:15 PM
Mike Crichton @32
An excellent point, but I can't help but wonder if his highy public manner of nose-thumbing might force their hand. It's not like he made a loud comment in the Officer's Club or something. He sent a letter to the editor for the Armed Forces' newspaper.
Posted by: Quantum Mechanic | December 19, 2010 1:24 PM
And Rodda, aka Weinstein's research assistant, again demonstrates an inability to apply her research. If you actually read the text of Article 88, you'll see it doesn't apply. Maxey makes no statements whatsoever toward any "official" defined in that article.
In fact, if you read the full text of the article, it may actually protect his statement.
So the original question stands, else Rodda herself demonstrates the MRFF fails to have an actual basis for calling for Maxey's prosecution -- other than a personal dislike for his beliefs, as usual.
Posted by: JD | December 19, 2010 1:30 PM
Lt. Col "Mad Max" Maxey? Methinks more like Col. Jack D. Ripper.
Posted by: Grumpy | December 19, 2010 1:37 PM
Doesn't X-tianity say pretty explicitly, "Thou shalt not kill!" I don't recall there being any exceptions to that. So why are there X-tians in the military at all? If they're so worried about violating their religious sensibilities, they should quit & go find meaningful work with charities, supporting the sick & the poor. If the entire mission statement of your job is in direct violation of your religious commandment, getting your panties in a wad over something that doesn't actually go against those commandments is just a wee bit hypocritical. Homosexuality in the Bible is in exactly the same category as eating shellfish, wearing mixed fibers, and getting tattoos.
Really, religious fanatics of all stripes just need to STFU and do their jobs like the rest of us.
Posted by: Artor | December 19, 2010 1:39 PM
J.D.
You're playing dissembler again. The issue isn't just whether Maxey has already violated a rule, but whether if he follows through with the intentions he's laid out it will result in his violating a rule. Deal with the real issue if you're not too dishonest to do so.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 19, 2010 2:02 PM
Artor - that commandment was originally only for the Israelites, even though it has been coopted now, and from textual readings it may have only applied towards other Israelites (possibly, there is evidence against this). However, a simple reading of the text shows that killing anyone that YHVH said was an enemy (including other Israelites) is perfectly OK, since that is now objectively good (all of His commands, especially those you agree with, are OK, Good, and Just).
But, yeah, the sorry pigfucker is a potential traitor, and definitely already has broken his vows as an officer (at least in his mind). I'd be curious to see if a review of his actions in the past wouldn't reveal this as a recurring pattern. At least, he's probably been a piss-poor officer who used his connections to get promoted. Considering all the religious BS that the Air Force has been involved in, that seems likely.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 19, 2010 2:03 PM
JD: Without even considering or giving any thought to potential charges being brought (and at this time I don't see a basis for charges being brought against him), I would like for you to answer the following questions:
1) Do you believe that his public statement reflects favorably upon the conduct that is expected of him as a commissioned officer in the U. S. military?
2) Do you believe that such a comment from a senior officer serves to promote good order and discipline in the military?
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 19, 2010 2:31 PM
Come on, folks! You know exactly what will happen here.
Maxey will resign.
Maxey will become the overnight darling of the Christian Right.
Maxey will hit the lecture circuit, bible-thumping furiously to evangelical groups. Martyr for the cause and all that.
Maxey will write a book about his faith and how he just _had_ to leave the military to save his soul. He'll attend signings at Costco stores around the nation and his book will sell like crazy.
Maxey will run for the US Senate.
Maxey will lose, then get a job on FOX as a "faith and military affairs" analyst.
Maxey will make serious bank.
Posted by: NB | December 19, 2010 2:41 PM
Demo wonders what 'a time-out for a three year old temper tantrum' might look like, in military terms - how about a stretch at Levenworth for insubordination and possibly treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy)?
It's actually mutiny that he's advocating, and that's definitely a no-no in the military.
Oh, and JD, let me break out the UCMJ on this guy about things like obeying orders and your Commander in Chief and upholding the Constitution and mutiny and CUBO, you disingenuous fuckface.
Here are just a very few of the UCMJ Articles I can think of that could or will apply to him if he continues on this path:
88, 89, 90, 92, 94, 117, and 133.
Unchecked, he could well be pushing 77, 78, 80, 81, 94, 99, 117 and 133 if he gets stupid enough--or if the military lets him get that stupid, which I don't see happening.
I do foresee a smackdown in this cretin's very near future that has him shutting the fuck up once and for all about the issue, or leaving the military in disgrace.
He needs to hang it up, since he's forgotten the oath he swore to uphold, so help his imaginary friend.
Posted by: Aquaria | December 19, 2010 2:47 PM
No doubt that's the interpretation the pro-military apologists would prefer, but I still think Artor's overall point stands. I don't think "turn the other cheek" Jesus would've joined or approved of any military whatsoever. Absent any severely cherry-picked ad hoc rationale that says otherwise, it's pretty obvious Jesus was a pacifist.
Posted by: AL | December 19, 2010 3:01 PM
Quantum Mechanic: True, but when I was in I saw plenty of vitriolic letters to Army Times or Stars and Stripes ranting about the civilian leadership. It always amused me when a few weeks later a contrite and apologetic letter from the same person was printed. If they didn't bring charges against troops writing letters about how Clinton had disgraced the office, Bush hadn't been legitimately elected, or Obama wasn't really a citizen, I don't think they should do so against this guy. Unless He actually backs up his words with actions, or keeps mouthing off after his Chain of Command tells him to "Shut up and soldier, soldier". Or whatever equivalent cliche the Air Force has.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | December 19, 2010 3:35 PM
Is Lt Colonel Maxey any relation to colonel Klink.
Posted by: Paen | December 19, 2010 3:42 PM
Well if he doesn't like it , There's the door....
Posted by: Chris | December 19, 2010 3:43 PM
Part of the military chaplain's job is to explain how killing the enemy and accidentally killing civilians doesn't imperil your soul. That's probably tough to justify in an unprovoked war.
Yes, Jesus talked softly but carried a big stick, which the Romans were all too happy to nail him to.
It'll be interesting to see if Maxey has 20 years of service in. If so, what NB states will probably come to pass and he'll keep his retirement. Of course, if the Fox gig is lucrative enough, it would more than make up for the loss. An LOR or LOA does seem more likely. Also, the book signings will be Wal-Mart.
OT, but it looks like the Iraqi Christian community, which had been getting by under Saddam, is now being actively targeted by al Qaeda. Another forseeable result of over-throwing a largely secular government in the Middle East. Mission Accomplished, W!
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | December 19, 2010 4:02 PM
Chris: If it hits on the ass on the way out, he'll probably panic and think it was gay-raping him.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | December 19, 2010 4:03 PM
The Gregarious Misanthrope "So, tell me JD, why to evangelicals get in gay peoples' chili about their orientation, yet don't seem to care a whit about divorces and adultery?"
Oh, that's easy. Gays can't get married.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 19, 2010 5:12 PM
The way I see it, there are two possible outcomes from the DADT repeal:
1) Members of the military act like professionals, and we score a victory for human rights.
2) Members of the military act unprofessionally and damage the ability of the military to murder people overseas, and we score a victory for human rights.
To be honest, I'm hoping for the second option. So, I wholeheartedly encourage Maxey to keep acting like a moron.
Posted by: Miko | December 19, 2010 6:53 PM
Mary (#11)
Whether he does or doesn't, he no doubt believes that <fundielogic> gays trying to recruit others to choose the lifestyle is an inevitable part of being gay </fundielogic>.
Posted by: A. Noyd | December 19, 2010 7:03 PM
Chris Rodda - great post.
Lt. Col. Maxey's pronouncement merely verbalizes the behavior we've encountered by other conservative Christians like JD.
JD continuously advocates military officers violate their oath to defend the Constitution and instead exploit government-military power in a way that violates the establishment clause and infringes on the religious freedom rights of other service members. So while we should despise Lt. Col. Maxey's position given how unAmerican it is and in violation of the oath he took, at least he has the balls to express what JD's been too cowardly to concede is the view he promotes - that Christians have a duty to God to exploit government power to proselytize to other service members even if it violates both religious clauses of the 1st Amendment and their oath to defend the Constitution.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2010 9:30 PM
Gays in the military.
-
-
Lawyers and politician and their clients or constituents are keenly aware that the best way to have major changes in a society is to place any individual or group in the special category of "A victim" if you’re going to change any time-honored tradition in The United States of America!!!
-
The gay agenda has a progression of thoughts: First there is the "Don't ask, don't tell" that introduces the gay verbiage that implies undeserved "Shame" experienced by the gays; then the gays progress to the "Do ask, and do tell", which projects a more accepting view of the gay lifestyle; then they promote their interpersonal romantic gay alternative relationships as just as natural, normal, productive and healthy as the heterosexual lifestyle; and finally the gay community will demand that a law be passed making homosexual marriages legal.
-
One person compared the homosexual lifestyle as like being left-handed in a society of where 92% of the population is right-handed. However, two individuals, one writing with their left hand and the other person using their right hand both accomplish the same task of equally good penmanship. On the other hand, gays and lesbians can't produce or have a family. There are gays and lesbians Christian who would do a better job of raising children over some traditional male / female couples who are dysfunctional, spiritually or emotionally.
-
But males bonding with females will always be a more preferred and acceptable lifestyle for the majority because they produce children and grandchildren etc (a family unit)!
-
The naked truth is that all humans have relational problems, regardless of their sexual orientation; simply because we are all self-centered, ego-centric and put our self interest above all others. The point I am trying to make is that so many straight pious individuals (especially Christians) will condemn or make-fun-of homosexuals and their lifestyle; and completely ignore the fact that straight people also struggle with life, and straight people also offend God and others in what they think, do and say.
-
When homosexuals can't get total or unconditional acceptance or approval of their gay and lesbian lifestyle or marriage from their heterosexual family members, friends, co-workers, school mates or teachers, religious leaders, or neighbors; then this lawsuit against the U.S. Military opens a door to promote and encourage all Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legal and have equal status of male to female lifestyle and marriage.
-
Sexual orientation is a non-work related issue: and the military should never give deference to race, religion or sexual orientation!
-
My hope and prayer is that The Government of the U.S.A. will continue to ONLY require that a person’s mental and physical abilities be up for consideration in order to determine whether a person is qualified to join any branch of the U.S military!!! This is a desperate attempt to accomplish homosexual’s future goal of sanctioned gay and lesbian marriages in all 50 states of the U.S.
-
Sincerely,
Arthur Trafford.com
Posted by: Arthur Trafford | December 19, 2010 9:37 PM
He's just mad that he has a girls name.
Posted by: Alpha | December 19, 2010 9:45 PM
Arthur Trafford:
Sure they do. VP Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and her family is one example. Here's another example of a beautiful family led by two men who are married and have a son: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IcVyvg2Qlo
Arthur Trafford:
I'm confused. Do you realize this is the exact effect of the repeal of DADT? Are you for or against the repeal of DADT? I read your post twice and quite frankly can not discern your position. My second quote of your post argues you favor the repeal of DADT which would allow gays to serve openly just like heterosexual service members, however the rest of your post appears to imply you oppose repeal. Which is it?
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 19, 2010 9:58 PM
Re Michael Heath @ #55
Apparently, Mr. Trafford is unfamiliar with sperm donation, artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilization.
As an aside, is there any information as to who the sperm donor(s) for Ms. Cheneys' children is/are? I have seen a rumor that he is a relative of Ms. Cheneys' partner but it is unconfirmed, not, of course, that it's any of our god damn business.
Posted by: SLC | December 19, 2010 10:40 PM
Arthur Trafford - "gays and lesbians can't produce or have a family."
My niece’s two mummies would beg to differ with you. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 19, 2010 11:19 PM
Arthur - You do realize that statements like the above will just make it harder and more embarrassing for yourself when you finally decide to leave the closet, right?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | December 19, 2010 11:38 PM
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought Arthur contradicted himself. Major rhetoric fail.
As always, I'm amused by the criteria of having kids. Some couples can't, some couples don't want to. Are fundies advocating making sure couples are actively trying to procreate?
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | December 20, 2010 12:15 AM
The Gregarious Misanthrope "Are fundies advocating making sure couples are actively trying to procreate?"
When they do, I tell them "Get away from that window!"
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 20, 2010 12:34 AM
"My hope and prayer is that The Government of the U.S.A. will continue to ONLY require that a person’s mental and physical abilities be up for consideration in order to determine whether a person is qualified to join any branch of the U.S military!!! "
So you're in favor of gays serving openly in the military then? Forgive me for needing clarification, but it was hard to pluck meaning from that post.
Posted by: Salmo | December 20, 2010 4:29 AM
and straight people also offend God
You have yet to establish there is "God", or what it means. We don't know if it gets offended at all, let alone what offends it. But firstly we don't even know if there is one at all. You got off the ground running without having a ground to get off of. That takes some spunk. You've got the carts before the horses, but you don't even have a horse. Plenty of carts but no horsies.
Posted by: reindeerboy386sx | December 20, 2010 4:59 AM
NB, I think you might have CostCo confused with Walmart.
For a bulk-purchase place, CostCo offers a lot of greener options, like rainforest-friendly fair trade coffee, recycled papers,etc. They got dissed by the Wall Street Journal for treating customers and employees too well instead of squeezing out every cent of profit possible. Toy and book options have a lot of science.
In short, I believe it skews liberal in both management and customer base. Also, there is no place to do a book signing.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | December 20, 2010 6:42 AM
The man should be given one(1) opportunity to state in public that he wishes to acknowledge that his stupid letter was in breach of the conditions of his employment, and that he recognises the importance of abiding by the legitimate orders of those placed in authority above him.
If he refuses this golden oppurtunity, he should be drummed out forthwith.
Bsically, he has to understand that the US armed forces are not sectarian institutions.
Posted by: MacTurk | December 20, 2010 8:56 AM
That's the commandment God supposedly gave to Moses. (Although I've heard a number of times that a more accurate translation of the original Hebrew is "Thou shalt do no murder").
When Moses came down from the mountain where he received the Commandments, he discovered that the Israelites had (following the orders of Moses' brother Aaron, who Moses had left in charge) built an idol in the form of a golden calf and were worshiping it. (Note: this was before Moses had had the opportunity to give them the commandments forbidding idol worship).
God was very angry about this (somehow, He hadn't noticed before. Must have been too busy carving the Commandment tablets for Moses). And when I say "very angry", I mean "Fuck this - I'm going to kill the lot of you" angry. Fortunately for the Israelites, Moses managed to talk God out of killing them all, on condition that Moses would deal with the idolaters.
He then gave an "either you're with us or against us" speech, whereupon the faithful Israelites rallied to him, and then they killed all the idolaters (about 3000 of them, I think).
The subsequent books of the Bible describe various wars carried out by the Israelites, all on the orders of God, including some (Battle of Jericho, I think) where God specifically instructed them to kill every living thing in the city.
After that, the various books of law list multiple capital crimes (e.g. murder, gathering sticks on a Saturday, etc).
So its' quiet clear from the context that the commandment - whether it should be read as "kill" or "murder" - clearly comes with the disclaimer "except in war, or as punishment for a capital crime, or if God tells you to
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | December 20, 2010 10:25 AM
Posted by: Mike Crichton in #31 : True, but incidents in the past where officers engaged in this level of insubordination were usually punished non-judicially. Going after this schmuck with all legal-guns blazing for a first offense would make him a martyr.
Col Maxey's career is over regardless. This stunt means he will not be promoted nor will he have an assignment with great responsibility than he has now. Once he sees junior officers promoted over him he will get the message and resign.
Posted by: John Norris | December 20, 2010 11:04 AM
If I was a soldier I would want the guy next to me to know how to shoot a gun and throw a hand grenade. I wouldn't care if he was cheating on his wife or thought our colonel was cute as long as he was watching out for anyone who might want to kill me. As good old Henry V said (at least according to Shakespeare) we are a band of brothers and I want him to worry about me the way he would worry about his brother. If his religion is more important to him than protecting me then I don't want him around. Send him back to civilian life.
Posted by: Tom | December 20, 2010 11:23 AM
and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can "learn to deal with it."
You saw how far that got Terry Lakin, didn't you, Skippy?
Posted by: Shay | December 20, 2010 12:57 PM
Michael Heath @ 55: I think Arthur is saying that it's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals, but only because it makes them look like victims and then they'll use that victimhood to demand equal rights, like not being discriminated against. Or something.
Posted by: Mike Crichton | December 20, 2010 1:11 PM
Samantha Vimes "Also, there is no place to do a book signing."
There is. It's aisle #431. Unfortunately you have to sign the hundred-packs of your book ("And who would you like me to sign these to?").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 20, 2010 1:22 PM
Cite the orders he has disobeyed or will disobey if he acts as he says he will. You'll find there aren't any.
In other words, he's making empty threats?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 20, 2010 1:34 PM
Army General Order One for activity by US Army personnel in Afghanistan prohibits Proselytizing. Each service has an equivalent order or instruction so anybody saying the Col is not violating Regs is full of it.
Posted by: Silent Service | December 20, 2010 4:01 PM
JD has not answered the 2 questions I addressed to him at #40 above. Perhaps it's because he rightly assumes that my next question would be "Are there any Article 134 implications that might come into play in this context?"
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | December 20, 2010 4:07 PM
My response to Michael #55, Dingo #57 and others.
-
To repeal or not to repeal DADT is a non-issue of concern to any thinking person. All employers, be they hired in the civilian sector or they are hired by a city, county, state, or federal government agency can be disciplined or fired if their words or actions threaten or harass anyone verbally or physically and is considered by management or an arbitrator as unacceptable conduct in the workplace.
-
Politicians and lawyers in Washington D.C. love to waist tax dollars trying to reinvent the “Moral wheel” of decency and enjoy their fame and fortune that comes their way. For the opium of the wealthy and the intellectuals is POLITICAL POWER!!! The bottom line: Getting the court system to validate and approve the homosexual lifestyle is simply a first step to legitimize gay marriage's.
-
The military should not promote, oppose or punish a heterosexual or homosexual for their personal moral belief systems. No one should be hiding "In a military closet" fearful of what others may think about their sexual orientation!!! Solders should do their job; but not flaunt their moral belief or taunt the other person who is different from them. We are all sexual beings who need to only flirt with or want to be romantically involved with someone who has the same consensual attraction to us.
-
If two lesbians are allowed to adopt a newborn boy and girl, both children will never, never, never have a father in their lives; for neither of their two "Mother's" is able to model or exhibit the male qualities of a father or husband! The children will simply have to observe the male and female couple neighbor across the street, at school, church, on TV, or any other public gathering of people. The same is true for male couples who raise children!!!
-
Homosexual activity is more akin to heterosexual foreplay; because neither sexual actions produce any children, only an orgasm. A gay man has to improvise and pretend that his mates rectum, mouth or closed lubricated hand are now a make believe vagina; extolling the virtues of this type of sexual pleasure and completely ignore the presence of poop or teeth.
-
Likewise a lesbian can enjoy her female partner strapping-on a prosthetic penis and enjoying the sexual pleasure immensely as long as the penis is not attached to a "real” man (this female is not really a lesbian, but simply a frustrated, angry and hurt woman).
-
So if you join a military unit, learn and do a good job; but don't demand that your government, church, school, family member or the neighbor across the street has to give you their approval of your "personal" and "private" life style in order for you to feel good about yourself.
Posted by: Arthur Trafford | December 20, 2010 7:03 PM
Arthur Trafford "If two lesbians are allowed to adopt a newborn boy and girl, both children will never, never, never have a father in their lives; for neither of their two "Mother's" is able to model or exhibit the male qualities of a father or husband! The children will simply have to observe the male and female couple neighbor across the street, at school, church, on TV, or any other public gathering of people. The same is true for male couples who raise children!!!"
Do you want to know the really outrageous thing? Their kids end up about the same as the rest of us!
Okay, that's not so outrageous.
"Homosexual activity is more akin to heterosexual foreplay; because neither sexual actions produce any children, only an orgasm. A gay man has to improvise and pretend that his mates rectum, mouth or closed lubricated hand are now a make believe vagina; extolling the virtues of this type of sexual pleasure and completely ignore the presence of poop or teeth.
-
Likewise a lesbian can enjoy her female partner strapping-on a prosthetic penis and enjoying the sexual pleasure immensely as long as the penis is not attached to a "real” man (this female is not really a lesbian, but simply a frustrated, angry and hurt woman)."
Note: You've put waaay too much thought into that.
Note: Did you know that you don't have to be gay to put (or have put) "parts" in other places in your heterosexual partner? It's true!
Note: Have you ever talked to a homosexual about their homosexuality? You'll find, outrageously, that their relationships, aside from the matching chromosomes, are pretty much like ours.
Okay, that's not so outrageous.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 20, 2010 7:18 PM
Arthur Trafford:
Sure it is, especially those thinking persons who are committed to the principle of of the DofI, the Constitution, and treating others like we'd like to be treated. From this perspective DADT was objectively wrong.
An injustice was being done to gay people, nearly 14,000 military members were discharged from the military because their command structure discovered they were gay. That means these people lost their job. Sure there were probably some scammers looking to get out and some never-do-wells who were deservedly drummed out for more egregious issues where this was an expeditious method to drum them out. But the fact is that good people lost their income, home, and career simply because their command structure discovered they were gay and you argue we shouldn't even think about it? That's a pretty fierce avoidance problem you have there dude.
Arthur Trafford:
The only way to achieve your objective is the repeal of DADT. So now I've tracked three positions by you: you are for it (here and the quote I did in my previous post), seemingly against it (just about everything else you've asserted), or want to avoid the topic altogether (the first quote in this post).
Arthur Trafford:
Your argument here has absolutely nothing do with DADT. Military members do have to follow a moral code, such as officers not engaging in adulterous relationships. Homosexuals have not lobbied to be treated on these issues any differently than heterosexuals so it's really a red herring.
Arthur - you come across as very confused when it comes the defending the equal rights of gay people.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 20, 2010 7:56 PM
Shorter Arthur Trafford:
"I'm against DADT, but repealing it is part of a plot to legalize gay marriage, which is wrong because sex without procreation is just foreplay."
Got it.
Posted by: Taz | December 20, 2010 8:13 PM
Maxey is right the military is forcing this gay agenda on its service members. The military members that oppose this policy need to stand up against it. I'm sure there aren't enough gays to fill the service if a massive shutdown took effect. They aren't the majority in the service so stop thinking that it's widely accepted. I too believe that those survey questions were somehow distorted for political reasons. They need to vote again most members never got a survey. Did they survey the ROTC Training Camps or actual military solders? Did they even ask the spouses who are raising families on the base? To think how families will be affected by this new sexual openness around the base when there was once order. A soldier’s work performance can be negatively impacted not only by the change in the work place but also how that change affects his or her family.
Posted by: Joanna | December 21, 2010 11:14 PM
I'm with Joanna! Working with people that could be gay is bad enough, but working with ones that are is much worse! This is America. Liberty! Stand up, bigots! Stand for your right to ensure that others don't get theirs!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 21, 2010 11:25 PM
"… completely ignore the presence of poop or teeth."
Prurient and dirt obsessed. Check and check!
"Homosexual activity is more akin to heterosexual foreplay; because neither sexual actions produce any children..."
Ah, Arthur you haven't been keeping up with the news have you? There's this pill, which women take to prevent pregnancy... what's called again? ... Oh that's right the Pill. Not to mention condoms (17th century or more), plus various other creams, foams, wire devices and the like.
Sex =/= pregnancy =/= children. Heterosexual sex is often more akin to heterosexual foreplay nowadays.
Also Arthur, there's other things you may have missed (clearly, since you seem to have been born in a fall-out shelter your parents have been cowering in for the last 60 or so years) - such as In Vitro fertilisation, sperm donors and so on.
Did I mention that sex does not necessarily have anything to do with children?
"Likewise a lesbian can enjoy her female partner strapping-on a prosthetic penis and enjoying the sexual pleasure immensely as long as the penis is not attached to a "real” man (this female is not really a lesbian, but simply a frustrated, angry and hurt woman). "
You don't get out much, do you Arthur? 'Lesbians' in your dad's dusty ol' porn collection are not representative. I bet you think that 'a real man' (you presumably) could change her mind (naturally there's a symmetry to your fear). Just how plastic do you think sexuality is in humans? Or perhaps you’re hoping to meet a bull-dyke, with a bull-whip and a 8-inch strap-on so you can find out?
60 years out-of-touch and sexually confused, the shortest Arthur. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | December 22, 2010 12:17 AM
Hello Michael Heath & Taz:
I think I now "Get it". You are saying that the military has a double standard for military personnel (and that is what you are trying to stop)!
A male solder goes to town and meets a woman and spends the night with her; and the next day he gets a "High 5" from his unit buddies (because they approve of his actions). But if a male solder is seen coming out of a gay bar with another man; then most heterosexuals in his unit seeing him in town will tell others in his unit about his lifestyle (and get him in trouble).
Is the military using laws that were intended to punish sexual predators from emotionally or physically harming children or under age teens and now applying that sodomy law to two consenting adults of which at least one is in the military?
Most heterosexual and homosexual individuals in the U.S.A. are religious, which includes all civilian, government and military personnel.
I have noticed that my fellow Christians (and other faiths) have a double standard concerning living-out their moral beliefs in the "real world". And the military would be a more honorable institution if all married personnel would refrain from committing adultery on their mate; and all "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" in the military would honor their God by being "Sexually pure" while single (same standard for hetre. and homo. personnel). For God "will judge the adulterer and the fornicator" (no matter what their sexual orientation is)!!!
The military should repeal the D.A.D.T. simply because our government has adopted and engaged in promoting a very evil agenda of embracing moral duplicity. No law should judge a persons private life. Even a President of the United States committing adultery on his wife is no one else's business, but it is only a concern of 4 persons, The President, his wife, the mistress and their God and it is a privy matter.
Our government is active in moral hypocrisy since it does not punish or discharge heterosexual who violate God's moral laws of fornication or adultery.
The government shouldn't violate or judge any ones private life of consenting adults; simply because we are only accountable to God.
Posted by: Arthur Trafford | December 28, 2010 2:45 AM
Arthur Trafford "Even a President of the United States committing adultery on his wife is no one else's business, but it is only a concern of 4 persons, The President, his wife, the mistress and their God and it is a privy matter."
First, that's seven people. God is three people. Or something.
Second, it's only between three people. God can be disappointed all He wants, but it's no more business of His than it is that of the other three people's parents.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 28, 2010 4:32 AM
Hello Modusoperandi:
Your concept of God is definitely out of the “Norm”. Because most theist believe that the Creator God’s wishes and desires for us and His demands of us are more important than that of any human on earth (even our parents).
When we were young children, we perceived your parents as “Human” God’s (they controlled us and seemed to know everything). And as you got older we dethroned them because they are just mortals like us.
Being a rebellious child, a rebellious teenager and a rebellious adult are all signs of embracing the idea that disappointing God has no consequence and is something we can be proud of and even laugh at the fact that He has commandments for us to obey because He loves us and wants to protect us from us harming ourselves or others.
Modusoperandi, maybe you are a closet atheist L.O.L. You will be a better atheist, but a shameful theist!!!
Posted by: Arthur Trafford | December 28, 2010 3:13 PM
Would it surprise you to learn that people who consider God fictional, and therefore that there are no consequences for disobeying him, and that it is laughable to claim He has commandments for us, do not actually harm themselves or others any more than theists do?
Posted by: DaveL | December 28, 2010 3:23 PM
Thank you, Arthur, for once again reminding us of the simpleminded, childlike authoritarian mindset that underlies so many organized religions, particularly the right-wing Abrahamic variety. I'm guessing you were recently "born again," and we'll have to wait another 18 years for you to actually grow up?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 28, 2010 3:28 PM
How do theists mesh the above idea (God gave us commandments because he loves us and wants to protect us) with the actual history of the Chinese, Japanese, Polynesians, or the inhabitants of North and South America who for thousands of years had no inkling of God or His commandments? Did God love them less? If not, then why did He do such a lousy job of getting His message out there? Did He not care about the billions who supposedly suffered through life because they weren't worshiping the right God and following His checklist?
It's problems like this make it seem to me like God (or at least the God that Arthur believes in) either doesn't exist, hates a large percentage of His own creation, or is good but also horribly incompetent.
Posted by: Imrryr | December 28, 2010 3:50 PM
Arthur Trafford "Your concept of God is definitely out of the 'Norm'."
No. If anything it's in the "Norm". It's not my fault that the Trinity comes across as lunacy if you phrase it awesomely, as I do. My only error was the initial "that's seven people". That should've read "six". I counted one of the parts of God (which, itself, is all-God) twice. Omnipresence makes getting counted twice virtually assured.
"When we were young children, we perceived your parents as 'Human' God’s (they controlled us and seemed to know everything). And as you got older we dethroned them because they are just mortals like us."
Sure. And yet when the posited God fails, you shuttle aside the disappointment and blame yourself. It's not your fault that your kid got cancer. Or the child's. It's not God's will, either (alternately, it is His will, making him an asshole).
There's no one there. Shit happens. You will die. Also, the pitch for atheism sucks.
"Being a rebellious child, a rebellious teenager and a rebellious adult are all signs of embracing the idea that disappointing God has no consequence…"
Boy, are you gonna be shocked when you kick off this mortal coil and find yourself unprepared for Ragnarok. And Quetzalcoatl is ever so disappointed.
"and is something we can be proud of and even laugh at the fact that He has commandments for us to obey because He loves us and wants to protect us from us harming ourselves or others."
Pah! I obey the 1st Commandment. I have no gods before Him. I just go the extra step and have no Him.
Also, I can't not be irreverant. For serious!
"Modusoperandi, maybe you are a closet atheist L.O.L."
I was never in the closet, atheismically. (Note: not a word)
"You will be a better atheist, but a shameful theist!!!"
The only "shameful theist" is a theist with whom you disagree. Luckily, it's theology, so you're never wrong. If God is one thing, it's supportive. So much so, in fact, that He is just as supportive of the theist who believes things which you radically disbelieve.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 1, 2011 7:32 PM
Why be so quick to judge LTC Maxey? The government is allowing homosexuals to voice their preference, why can't he? It is good that there are people who are out there who aren't going to just sit around and watch the homosexual agenda be Waltzed into our military. Since when is it wrong to state that your commitment to The Almighty God is going to supersede you commitment to the DOD. Maybe the DOD thinks it has a G in front of it's name and those who are in control of it are afraid to go against what society is trying to say is the norm. I am in the military and am appauled that anyone would bash a christian who has dedicated his life to defend our country and their freedoms, because his faith will not allow him to accept the homosexual agenda. When I was sent to Bosnia we had soldiers released from being deployed there because they claimed to be muslim. Is refusing to go to war any different than refusing to accept open homosexuality? Which is worse? Praise God for Officers such as LTC Maxey. Unfortunately those guys are the ones that are "not so kindly asked" to stop being who they are while a homosexual is encouraged to be open about it.
Posted by: SGT Raymond Cowden | February 15, 2011 2:51 AM
SGT Raymond Cowden, he's free use his voice. He's not free to let his "service to God" supercede that of his military service oaths so long as he's in the military.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 15, 2011 3:30 AM
"The government is allowing homosexuals to voice their preference, why can't he?"
Because he it doing so in his official capacity, not as an individual.
"...the homosexual agenda ...
And what prey tell is this 'agenda', exactly? Equal rights? Just like your Black colleagues now enjoy.
" Since when is it wrong to state that your commitment to The Almighty God is going to supersede you commitment to the DOD[?]"
Since you swore an oath to defend the constitution (not god/s) from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Remember that?
"Maybe the DOD thinks it has a G in front of it's name and those who are in control of it are afraid to go against what society is trying to say is the norm."
Because it's the people who decide, not just the military. The armed forces are obliged to follow all lawful orders. The people (indirectly) decide what 'lawful' is, not just Christians in the military.
If you wanted to join a private club, you shouldn't have taken that oath.
"I am in the military and am appauled that anyone would bash a christian who has dedicated his life to defend our country and their freedoms, because his faith will not allow him to accept the homosexual agenda."
Just as you should be appalled that a so-called Christian like Maxey would bash homosexuals who have bravely fought for their country.
"When I was sent to Bosnia we had soldiers released from being deployed there because they claimed to be muslim. Is refusing to go to war any different than refusing to accept open homosexuality?"
I think you got that backward. The soldiers were registered as Muslims so the army released them (presumedly because the army foolishly thought they would be like Maxey, putting their personal beliefs above the oath they took). That's not refusing to fight, that's being punished for their beliefs (exactly what you are complaining about), without even giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Refusing to go to war can be a moral decision, refusing to grant equal rights can't.
" Unfortunately those guys are the ones that are "not so kindly asked" to stop being who they are while a homosexual is encouraged to be open about it."
Your rights don't include the right to deny them to others. (Surprisingly, Christianity doesn't rely on denial of rights, it rests on 'doing to others, as you who have them do to you', you remember that one don't you?)
Besides which, when you joined the army did you have you hair cut? Is your uniform made of more than two kinds of material? Have you ever 'worked' on the Sabbath, whilst in the Army? What about killing people, ever done that?
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 15, 2011 4:40 AM
Since when is it wrong to state that your commitment to The Almighty God is going to supersede you commitment to the DOD.
The empty platitudes aren't helping your case very much. Something that is "Almighty" wouldn't need your help at all, thank you very much. For something that is "Almighty", it sure is invisible and never says or does anything. Frankly such overstatement makes you look a tad bit delusional, or at the very least that you are blustering.
Maybe the DOD thinks it has a G in front of it's name and those who are in control of it are afraid to go against what society is trying to say is the norm.
Maybe Jesus might have people in control who who stick a fake "G" in front of his name, and who are afraid of stuff, but that doesn't mean the other gods are motivated by fear.
Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2011 6:47 AM
And what's "GDOD", anyway? Is that a rapper? It sounds like some kind of rapper.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 15, 2011 6:59 AM
If they were a rapper they would have "homie" in their name, and they would be making over-the-top gesticulations whenever they said things.
Posted by: 386sx | February 15, 2011 7:07 AM