Friends,
A vet speaks out about DADT. He is a friend from Pa but wishes to remain anonymous.
CKM
I asked: How do you feel personally as a vet and a vet who is still active in vet affairs with this ruling?
His answer:

When I served, there were gays in the military. After time in a duty station... it was kind of common knowledge. I will admit, while I was in Vietnam, the idea didn't really surface. As far as I know...no one was open about it. Here is my problem with this.... I don't brag I am Hetro, Wicken, Hindu, Catholic or Hemorphodite. There are things you need not use as a suffix or prefix to who you are. I was Specialist or Sarge... and I did my job. They have to as well. DADT worked.... There was no need to declare anything but doing what was expected by the military. Now we passed this and with no more thought than maybe "2 down, 2 to go" mindset. Lets run down possible and I do mean possible scenarios..

1) Living in the barracks... maybe 3-4 man rooms.... and 2 are "lovers". Picture the problems with that set up. Do we have separate barracks/showering facilities for the Male and Female Gays?... Budget$$$

2) You are in a squad.... and maybe one or two are gay or even an "item". If you as a squad leader need to send one out on point or not recommend for promotion or awards.... can they say you did it because they are Gay or worse yet.... the "pair" in a firefight, will they be watching just their "backs" or will they step up for the whole squad. Just think of a married couple...a male and female.... in the squad and bullets fly. Do your loyalties lie in the safety of your wife or husband or is it for the good of the whole squad???

3) Only 10 states recognize gay marriage ( according to Barney...so far ) . Now...if there are bases in those 10 states... and the couple is "married"..now you deal with "family Housing". And then they get stationed in a state that doesn't recognize.... then what? Even the drinking laws were adjusted to 21... the max age of consuption in Civilian jurisdictions.... We use to be able to drink on post with no regard to age more than you are IN the military and had an ID card. Shortly after that, it was changed to the State Age limit and then...on to 21. ( I don't think an 17 or 18 yearold service person really worries about drinking anyway. Thought comes to mind... old enough to take another persons life and carry/utilize weapons that civilians aren't allowed to and NOT being able to have a beer, just bothers me... S-H-I-V-E-R-S....) Budget$$$$$

4) Military Social activities to include Company parties up to formal Military Balls. Picturing the dance partners. Maybe an officer with his "date"... again... promotion, assignments and award questions.????

5) As far as PDA ( Public Displays of Affection) that is frowned upon in many circumstances of military life beyond the departure and homecoming. Even a uniformed person or persons doing something as simple as holding hands can be a precursor to a verbal admonishment by superiors. There is even no fraternizing between Officer and Enlisted in many instances...although it occurs behind the scenes... I knew several officers who "dated" enlisted.... quietly.

I do believe that marriage is MAN and WOMAN ONLY. Our religious and Biological belief backs that. Straights are nicknamed "Breeders". and " be fruitful and multiply" seems like what God meant. I have a problem with children believing they have 2 Mommies or 2 Daddies. Growing up today is confusing enough IMHO. In the end, this will cause more problems than we have taken the time to actually admit. We will also have to BUDGET$$$$ to address this change and ways to implement it. I refuse to equate this as the same as the race issue or even a civil rights issue. I think we would have been better off following the Clinton Doctrine...asking many who served...there seemed to be no real problem. I DO have a problem with CIVILIANS trying to make the military like CIVILIAN. They are not nor should be.

If they want them to be the same..then have the MILITARY eliminate the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) legal system. The Military system has the only system that ALLOWS DOUBLE JEOPARDY. You can be tried, for the same crime, in both...the military court and the Civilian Court for felonies and sentenced twice. Allow the military to "UNIONIZE". If you don't follow orders, all they could do is "FIRE" you, not charge you and give you Company Grade Punishment or worse yet a Court Marshall with possible Prison time...kinda like that recent officer who refused orders to a Combat Zone and now is serving time. MILITARY is NOT the cross section of society. They utilize people from the Cross Section but...they go to Basic or Boot to be MOLDED into the MILITARY LIFE. They are then expected to follow orders, that at times, can mean harm to themselves and to others. Go ahead and ask a civilian, beyond those trained as police or fire to risk their lives.... or to pick up a weapon and shoot at another human or even be told...you will be separated from your family for LONG periods of time... Yeah Right.

So in closing..... leave the MILITARY BE THE MILITARY and CIVILIANS BE CIVILIANS.... THEY ARE NOT THE SAME AND SHOULD NEVER BE. I talk to many who have retired from the military and MOST if not ALL, are glad they don't have this to deal with. It makes their jobs even more complicated and adds extra milestones to cross, when they just might need to concentrate on living. I see this as a disservice to the uniform. I say, serve if you want to, serve honorably, but your sexual or religious orientation is of no concern to me so...don't flaunt it. These are just my findings and opinions. Call me what you may, I don't care. I served with Gays.... and I have had Gay family members.... they never make it an issue so why make it one in the military. It can create hostility, further prejudices and will cost resources that we seem to NOT have.

" Two down....two to go!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0h5Vtke3OA

another sad day for America

It was another sad day on December 22nd, 2010 for America with the signing of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell which will allow homosexuals and lesbians to serve openly. Sad is putting it mildly.
The Obama administration promised change and we are getting it. By the time he is done so much damage will have occurred that it will take years if ever to put this nation back to where it once was, a Godly nation that was feared, respected and envied by the world. We are now no better then any other nation, maybe worse.
The allowance of sodomites to serve openly is a travesty as far as I am concerned. It is one thing to allow homosexuals a job, everyone needs to earn a living and everyone is entitled to certain unalienable rights but when actions cross moral boundaries and the laws of nature that's where those rights end, the public should not be forced to accept that kind of behavior, especially when representing a nation.
Homosexuality is a behavior problem. You will never convince me otherwise. Even in the homosexual community there are arguments as some say they are born that way while others get upset and say no I wasn't its my choice. And I agree with the later, it is a choice and a choice that should not be forced on me to accept.
All the problems our nation is facing but Obama decides to have our congress and courts tied up with something like this. Even worse we are still in a war, this is not the time to reinvent our military that could unravel our cohesiveness. I thought the armed forces were all about getting the best personal to defend this nation? But now our military is part of all the other social experiments and tinkering that is going on in America. Is this where we want experimentation? What will happen when a homosexual is refused entry or gets a dishonorable discharge, can he scream discrimination like so many others have and win? And what does the term to serve openly mean? Can men now share bunks? I just don't understand this.
All major religions preach against homosexuality and it is the only act mentioned in the bible that it is an abomination to God. If God created people this way then why would he condemn them? Only recently with revisionist fighting to change religion are some churches accepting it. I believe these revisionists are also part of the communist push to do away with religion and this is an avenue to do it. They could never attack our beliefs straight on but they could by eroding the foundation of it. Soon it will be hard to preach what is right and what is wrong. This is nothing more than social engineering at its purest sense. Can a state sponsored church be far off that will tell us what is acceptable to preach and what isn't? We are heading in a dangerous direction.
You wanted the change, I didn't.
CKM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would be willing to bet that none of them ever served in the armed forces. The issue of privacy, actually the lack thereof in military situations, will cause this policy to weaken our armed forces and endanger us if we are ever attacked.
For life and liberty,
David Macko
www.mackoforliberty.com

Lets all send a Christmas card to the Rinos

Some of our fine outstanding moral and social Conservatives, some calling themselves Christian Republicans have voted with the liberal homosexual hollywood and socialist/Deomocratic party.


Since they gave us a Christmas present lets send them a Christmas card saying thank you for making the deviant act of homosexual behavior part of our fighting forces. I am so happy that my nation will now be represented by queers.



So Thank you

Susan Collins (R-Maine)


Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)


Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)


Scott Brown (R-Mass.)


Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)


George Voinovich (R-Ohio)

Thank you for a job well done I feel safer now.
CKM

Is this what George Bush Sr. meant when he said a kinder gentler nation??

The proud men of the past who served this nation would vomit if they knew what is going on.


As Mike Huckabee said in his bid for the Republican presidential nominee:
"Let me be very clear - what people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "Don’t want to know; don’t need to know.


"If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and, I think, public discourse."