Donnelly: There’s also pressure to perform same-sex marriages, there’s already been a few that have happened on military bases. Well the new legislation unfortunately did not include that clause, which had been approved by the House, but the conference committee did pass some legislation there to protect the rights of chaplains with regard to religious liberty.
Parshall: How will that play out though because they didn’t go as so far as to say whether or not they would be excused from performing such ceremonies.
Donnelly: The administration is saying that no one will be forced to perform a ceremony with which they disagree for reasons of their sincerely held moral beliefs. But the pressure is on, it’s a chilling effect. If a chaplain says, ‘well I rather not perform that ceremony,’ is that chaplain going to be demoted in terms of promotion? The pressure will be on to comply or to be punished with various kinds of career penalties. You can’t always document these things but you know that over time the pressure would increase. This is why even though there’s been progress made in this particular bill, there is still a lot more that needs done.
According to Donnelly, the freedom of religion in the military can only be secured by ending the freedom of chaplains and houses of worship to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
There are many chaplains who refuse to marry a couple if either partner is unbaptized or had a prior marriage that ended in divorce. Of course, the military would never prohibit unbaptized or divorced people from getting married for the mere reason that there are several chaplains who will not marry them. But that is effectively the argument conservative activists like Donnelly use when they insist that same-sex couples should be prohibited from marrying simply because some chaplains disapprove of it.
Al Franken should not be in the U.S. Senate but anyway he’s promoting what they call, it’s misnamed, the ‘Safe Schools Bill’ which really is a ‘Sodomite Schools Bill,’ he’s trying to recruit and enforce homosexual education standards upon all fifty states to require that teachers facilitate what they call tolerance of sodomy, of sin, in the public school classroom. They want to teach children, not just in health education classes but as young as kindergarten, as young as first grade, that homosexuality is really not a sin, that it’s okay, that we should be tolerant, and if the teachers don’t teach those lectures they would lose their public school funding. So this is already a bill that’s gaining steam in the United States Senate, I think he has forty-two cosponsors who are U.S. Senators who are trying to homosexualize our schools, and we are demanding, in fact we are petitioning Congress and sending faxes after faxes, to stop the homosexual agenda and kill the Al Franken bill that would promote sodomy in our public school systems.
He warned that the Obama administration will soon allow gay and lesbian service members in relationships to collect “homosexual bonus pay” and “homosexualize base houses” and “have gay pride parades on the flight line” on air force bases. Klingenschmitt went on to maintain that gay couples adopting children are committing “child abuse” and only adopt with the goal of “recruiting them into the homosexual lifestyle.” “That’s why they’re trying to get into our kindergarten books and trying to take over our public schools and homosexualize our public education so that they can recruit children into homosexuality and maintain their pool of available sex partners for their own progeny,” he said, “which is our children that they are stealing and warping their minds.”
Right now as it is homosexual spouses for lack of a better word, what they think are spouses God thinks is an abomination, are not allowed to live in base housing, but you know the Obama administration is going to push for that in these next four years, they’re going to push for homosexual bonus pay. By the end of these four years if the Obama administration has their way and if the Republicans in Congress don’t stand up against this, they are going to homosexualize base houses, they’re going to have gay pride parades on the flight line, who knows what they’re going to be doing on air force bases and places around the world. I’m very concerned of course; adoption of any child by a homosexual couple is child abuse and children need to be protected from that. There have been studies out now that say up to twenty-eight percent of children who are raised by homosexual couples will become homosexual themselves so that’s a recruiting effort, it’s warping the minds of our younger generation, it is directly recruiting them into the homosexual lifestyle. Why? Because if they don’t recruit the children of heterosexual couples, they cannot replenish their population.
The only way they have children is to recruit or in this case adopt the children of heterosexual couples which amounts to child abuse and child recruiting. That’s why they’re trying to get into our kindergarten books and trying to take over our public schools and homosexualize our public education so that they can recruit children into homosexuality and maintain their pool of available sex partners for their own progeny, which is our children that they are stealing and warping their minds.
Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat Obama and swing the U.S. Senate to the Republicans. After failing at both of these goals, Gary Bauer in an interview with Janet Mefferd chided Rove for not using his Crossroads juggernaut to focus on social issues. According to Bauer, if only Republicans like Rove emphasized the GOP’s opposition to abortion rights and gay equality, then maybe Republicans might’ve won after all!
Of course, Bauer’s Campaign for Working Families and other Religious Right groups like Eagle Forum and the Family Research Council invested heavily in the campaign to defeat Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and elect Todd Akin, who lost badly and carried just 39 percent of the vote. Bauer also may not be the best political analyst as earlier this year he predicted a Romney victory and said that votes for Obama will only come from fraudulent ballots and people who “depend on checks from their fellow taxpayers.”
Bauer: Karl Rove, a good man and basically a conservative, he probably raised over $100 million running ads, I don’t believe one of those ads were about family, about life, about marriage. Romney was pro-life and pro-family but I don’t think we really engaged in the ad war on those issues and I think if we would’ve engaged instead of being forced to be the defensive I still think we would’ve gotten many, many more of what used to be the Reagan Democrats, Catholics and others who are pro-life and pro-family but may identify more with the Democrats on the economic issues but with Republicans and conservatives on values issues.
Mefferd: I couldn’t agree more. One of my biggest frustrations was during the presidential debates where it was about the economy and the foreign policy and I thought : no one ever talked about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell being repealed, nobody ever talked about the morality or immorality of so-called homosexual marriage, abortion was not a big issue, we didn’t even talk much about radical Islam.
Bauer: I just looked at some polling data we purchased yesterday, exit polling data, it showed that the country is narrowly divided about 50/50 on the same-sex marriage issue but those that are against same-sex marriage were much more intense and much more willing to say ‘I vote on this issue, I will vote against a candidate that is in favor of same-sex marriage.’ Those who are in favor of it were much more squishy about it, didn’t say it was a voting thing for as many of them, so I continue to think that issue, in addition to it being important that we maintain normal marriage, but I also believe it is a political winning issue.
Truth in Action Ministries has released their “2012 Issues Guide for Christian Voters” [PDF], which argues that federal spending on social services “goes against what the Bible says about caring for one’s own and others” and pushing for bans on abortion rights, stem cell research and emergency contraception. The group also warns of “radical judges” and an “out-of-control judiciary,” the “dangerous and destructive” health care reform law and the “false religion” of environmentalism.
But of course, no Religious Right voter guide goes without a section on gay rights, and Truth in Action Ministries tells members that END will “impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace” and that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has started “Maoist-style ‘re-education’ in ‘diversity.’” The group also claims the repeal law will “violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually” and “jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS”
In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). But in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down the state’s marriage law, and the state began issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses six months later, despite no change in the law. And in May 2012, a federal appeals court in Boston declared DOMA unconstitutional.
All candidates should be asked how they will defend marriage from this radical assault. It’s not enough to say they favor marriage if they also support same-sex “civil unions,” “domestic partnerships,” or “sexual orientation” laws, all of which incentivize homosexual relationships and devalue marriage. They should also be questioned about:
• The proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would impose the homosexual political agenda on the workplace;
• A constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union only of one man and one woman;
• New policies giving marital benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.
Servicemen and women put their lives on the line. They deserve policies that ensure maximum military readiness and the best chance to win wars and return home alive. That’s why Congress overwhelmingly passed a law in 1993 incorporating as policy the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s ban on homosexual sodomy. But now the federal government has overturned “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We believe this is profoundly immoral on several levels. It would:
• Hurt unit cohesion, morale, retention, and recruitment;
• Violate the rights of those serving by forcing them to cohabit and shower with people who may desire them sexually;
• Jeopardize the military’s health and blood supply, since homosexual men are far more likely to be promiscuous and to have STDs, including HIV/AIDS;
• Force chaplains to resign or to jettison God’s Law in favor of political correctness;
• Subject all personnel to Maoist-style “re-education” in “diversity.”
Likewise, Congress should resist any effort eliminate women’s combat exemption.
Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty head Ron Crews yesterday in the Washington Times said that the new study which once again proved that the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has had no negative impact on the military since the repeal was certified one year ago is mere “propaganda” that “should be shredded post-haste.” However, Crews does not even attempt to rebut the study or offer any evidence for why the report “has no connection to reality.” He did blame the repeal policy for one incidence of potential harassment and supposed uneasiness among chaplains who disapprove of homosexuality, and also inexplicably considered the performance of same-sex ceremonies on bases as an attack on religious freedom. Crews labeled the repeal a “threat to freedom” and an “assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members” by turning them into guinea pigs for a “radical sexual experiment.”
The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration. The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.
Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.
Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.
The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.
Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.
This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.
Ron Crews of the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty released a statement that the “radical sexual agenda in our military” is leading to significant “negative consequences,” citing one example of possible sexual harassment, same-sex ceremonies on bases and the supposed “silencing” of chaplains and DADT supporters:
No Cause for Celebration: DADT Repeal Immediately Creates Major Problems for Service Members
Approaching the first anniversary of the repeal of the so-called DADT policy, mounting evidence demonstrates the negative consequences of implementing a radical sexual agenda in our military.
“The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not as social experiment lab in which our troops serve as human subjects,” said Chaplain (Colonel Retired) Ron Crews, ED of CALL. ”While many will ignore the negative impacts, or pretend that they don’t exist, threats to our troops’ freedom are mounting.”
“This list of problems and incidents that have arisen mere months after this administration imposed its will on the armed forces is disturbing to say the least, and we know it is only the beginning,” said Crews. “Compounding the outrage, service members are not free to speak out about these matters. This ensures that distrust in the ranks will increase and morale will decrease as the number of silenced victims grows.”
Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink also said in a post quoting Crews and calling for Congress to pass a GOP-backed bill banning same-sex ceremonies on military property, which they said would preserve religious freedom by barring all chaplains from performing such ceremonies:
Crew said that a military religious freedom act introduced in January, House Resolution 3828, would help military personnel greatly.
“It’s a right-of-conscience clause that would provide protection to military personnel, so they would not be affected by their opposition to the repeal,” he explained.
If passed, H.R. 3828 would protect members of the Armed Forces who hold religious or moral convictions concerning “the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality” from discrimination or punishment for their beliefs.
The bill seeks to protect chaplains from being ordered to perform any services or ceremonies contrary to their faith, while preventing any same-sex marriage ceremonies from being performed on military posts, in accordance with the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, who predicted an increase in rape if the policy was repealed, pivoted away from his group’s hysterical claims to instead focus on possible same-sex marriages in the military, a result of the “radical sexual and social agenda” pushed by “homosexual activists.” Sprigg also cited a survey from the Military Times, but didn’t mention that the same poll found negative views of the repeal among service members are declining.
He also dismissed claims that the military would have “completely collapsed in the first year after repeal” since “our service members are too professional to allow that to happen,” but FRC president Tony Perkins did in fact predict the reinstitution of the draft and that congressmen who voted for the repeal will have “blood on their hands.”
Since eight servicemembers reported harm from both circumstances (a homosexual “coming out” and one joining their unit), a total of 36 separate individuals reported such harm. The Palm Center chose to emphasize that this was only 4.5% of all those surveyed—failing to mention that it represents twenty percent of those who had a homosexual “come out” or join their unit. Twenty percent represents a significant risk of harm for the units involved—merely to advance the goals of the sexual revolution. Damage to good order, discipline, morale, and unit cohesion need not be universal to be unacceptable.
In the same Military Times survey, 8.4% of respondents said that repeal made them less likely to remain in the military, while only 3.3% said it would make them more likely to remain.
The Palm Center report almost completely ignores the most significant harms that have become immediately apparent in the first year since repeal. Predictions that the use of the military to advance a radical social/sexual agenda would place us on a “slippery slope” have clearly come true. Furthermore, assurances given in the November 2010 report of the Pentagon’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) regarding the limited impact of repeal have not been fulfilled. Since the CRWG report was to a large extent the basis for the Congressional vote for repeal in December of 2010, it can even be argued that repeal was adopted under false pretenses.
Has America’s military completely collapsed in the first year after repeal? Of course not—our servicemembers are too professional to allow that to happen. The military is clearly being used, however, to advance a radical sexual and social agenda. The Palm Center cited one individual who stated that repeal “will help facilitate the slow cultural change towards greater acceptance” of homosexuality.
The purpose of our armed forces, however, is not to “facilitate cultural change.” It is to fight and win wars. By demanding that it do more than that, homosexual activists have undermined the single-minded focus that is necessary for military effectiveness.
Frank Gaffney last week hosted George Neumayr of the American Spectator, who co-authored the new book No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, to discuss what Gaffney calls the “Red-Green axis,” or the supposed alliance between progressives and radical Islamists. According to Gaffney, Obama “is the personification” of this liberal-Islamist partnership, “it comes together with him.” Neumayr came to a similar conclusion, telling Gaffney that Obama’s views on religion and abortion rights show that he has made Christianity his enemy and is consequently aiding Islam. “This unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West,” Neumayr said, while Gaffney added that it reveals a hostility to “American civilization more broadly.”
Neumayr: He picks on Christians because I guess they won’t fight back as strongly and because he thinks that Christianity is irrational, in fact he pretty much says that in “The Audacity of Hope,” he uses the tale of Abraham and Isaac to say that religion is basically an irrational thing and shouldn’t be a basis for our laws. The irony of his use of that story of course is that he himself as a state senator couldn’t bring himself to vote against infanticide; Abraham put down the knife, Obama’s friends at Planned Parenthood don’t put down the knife, they’ve killed untold numbers of unborn children under Obama and he doesn’t have a problem with that and he wants us to pay for it. So I think this alliance, this unholy alliance between Obama and Islam is in part based on the common enemy they share, which is Christianity and the West.
Gaffney: And I would argue American civilization more broadly.
The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Neumayr later added, was also an attack on Christianity as Obama may begin to have “Christian chaplains and privates” be “court martialed” during his second term.
Neumayr: We have a quote in here, actually comes from the Washington Times originally, but it’s actually a very revealing quote from Lt. General Thomas Bostick, who’s the army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel, he told soldiers in Germany , he said, ‘unfortunately we have a minority of service members who are still racist and bigoted and we’ll never be able to get rid of all of them but these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program and if they can’t they need to get out.’
Gaffney: This is the homosexual agenda, specifically.
Neumayr: Yes, this is with respect to Obama’s position on gay rights. What we say in the book is that if he wins a second term we should expect resistant traditional Christian chaplains and privates to be court martialed; we will probably see that in the second term.
Gaffney: Or drawn and quartered as the case may be.
As Republican leaders express their outrage at service members marching in a San Diego pride parade in uniform, Religious Right activists aren’t holding back either. In her radio alert yesterday, Mission America’s Linda Harvey accused the military personnel who marched in the parade of bringing “disgrace to the uniform and to America”:
Harvey: The San Diego homosexual pride parade on Saturday, July 21st, broke new ground. For the first time the Pentagon allowed members of the military to dress in full uniform at an event with a political agenda, and what an agenda it is. If you haven’t been to a pride parade recently, or ever, it’s not anything to be proud of. The uniform of our country was allowed to honor a display featuring men dressed as women, people in virtually no clothing at all and in your face advocacy of every aspect of homosexuality. How low will this present administration stoop before Americans say ‘we’ve had enough’? Here’s how the decision went down: there were concerns that some military members would march in uniform with or without permission so the big brass caved and said OK. Now think about that, because men and women who have taken an oath were planning to disobey standing protocol, their superiors decided to let them. The Pentagon says the exception is only for this parade but do any of us truly believe that?
This signals much more than an endorsement of deviance, it signals a breakdown of order. It’s also an exception that would not be extended to any groups but those on the left, could conservative soldiers appear in uniform at a Tea Party rally? Of course not, it’s only the homosexual lobby that gets this kind of deference. There were approximately three hundred service members signed up to march in this parade, that friends is a disgrace to the uniform and to America.
No debate about the military’s approach to gay and lesbian service members can be complete without a comment from Elaine Donnelly, who told Janet Parshall yesterday that participants wearing the uniform brought “discredit upon the Armed Forces”:
Later, Donnelly said the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell undermined the military’s commitment to “selfless service”:
Donnelly: Connect the dots here, how far is the military going to go with this? Well, frankly, they don’t know. Because the administration is saying that LGBT equality is a paramount concern, it is actually a political concern, the President is trying to deliver on political promises to his LGBT base, the left if you will, and the Pentagon is helping him do it.
Parshall: So stunning that there has been a historic set of rules of deportment of where and when that uniform can be used, and it seems to me and you have made this point several times over the last few years, that we are kind of making it up as we go along.
Donnelly: This is a special interest faction. We don’t have in our military, we shouldn’t have, special interest factions. We don’t have labor unions either. You don’t have groups that are more interested in their own interests than they are in the selfless support for the institution, for the mission. Selfless service is what the military is all about. When you start dividing up into special interest factions that start saying ‘we want this and we want that and we are different from everyone else and we are more special than everyone else,’ that’s when you really invite problems. So Janet, this is just beginning, this is LGBT law in the military.
Jerry Boykin talked about his new job as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council with FRC president Tony Perkins on Friday’s Washington Watch Weekly, where he said he will work to stop the Obama administration’s plans to “to penetrate this last bastion of morality and ethics, and that being the institution of the military, with its social experiments.” “If we allow the penetration of our military to continue,” Boykin added, “not only will our national security suffer but our culture as a whole will be in great jeopardy.” Boykin and Perkins later agreed that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will have devastating long term effects (despiteallexistingevidence) and that it undermined the sense of fellowship and camaraderie among service members.
Boykin: The administration has been on a campaign, I think, to penetrate this last bastion of morality and ethics, and that being the institution of the military, with its social experiments. So I’m very concerned and obviously as you and I have talked, one of my main focuses here will be trying to protect and defend and work with our military to try and maintain the values that our military has always had. I think it’s a warning to America that if we allow the penetration of our military to continue, not only will our national security suffer but our culture as a whole will be in great jeopardy.
Perkins: The history that we, you and I, have developed really goes back to when the administration wanted to overturn the policy that prohibited open homosexuality in the military and we pulled together a number of retired generals and there was some active duty individuals in there as well that were part of just advising and consulting. But that is so significant in terms of something that’s inconsistent with military service, readiness; the seeds have now been planted, while some are saying ‘it’s been almost a year and the military hasn’t imploded,’ that’s unrealistic, the effects of this are a number of years down the road, we’re already, however, seeing the erosion of religious liberty and religious freedom. Those are issues that folks who serve can’t speak to so they need a voice on the outside.
Boykin: Well, that’s right. People need to understand that when you are a member of the military service you do lose certain First Amendment rights and I don’t disagree with that, I lived with it for thirty six and a half years, but somebody has to speak for them. Tony, I think it’s important for us to remember, I don’t care and I know you don’t what people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own bedroom, but as an institution the military is based on brotherhood, it’s based on camaraderie, it’s based on the strength and the character of the individual organizations that make up our military. No one has demonstrated that this in anyway is going to enhance the camaraderie, the fellowship, the brotherhood, nor is it going to enhance the war fighting capabilities. At the end of the day, the military’s only mission is going to fight and win the nation’s wars, and no one can show that this is going to help us.
Bob Maginnis of the Family Research Council spoke to Lee Webb of CBN News this week about the Defense Department’s decision to recognize June as Gay Pride Month, warning that it is part of a plan by gays and lesbians “to advance their radical agenda.” The FRC senior fellow began the interview by falsely claiming that a Pentagon survey “found that there would be many that would leave and some that would reconsider” if Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is repealed, however, the survey actually noted that very few service members would consider leaving the military and an Army Times survey following the policy’s repeal found that number to be even lower. Maginnis went on to claim that “if homosexuals want to parade their homosexuality as their defining characteristic of who they are rather than that they’re a soldier or sailor” it would lead to “dysfunction” and undermine “cohesion, trust” and “morale” by upsetting those who believe gays are “not pleasing to God.”
Webb: Is it your prediction that many in the service, not just chaplains but those who are religiously opposed, morally opposed to homosexual behavior will be leaving the ranks soon because of this?
Maginnis: Certainly the survey that the Pentagon did found that there would be many that would leave and some that would reconsider. A lot depends upon what the homosexual community does within the ranks of the military, are they going to use this to advance their radical agenda or are they going to be quiet about it and blend in? Keep in mind, the military is about removing distinctions among people, we works as teams, we try to accomplish things as crews and units and not as individuals. Unfortunately, if you stick out, if you make your particular behavior or profile to be an anomaly in a unit, whether it be homosexual or anything, you’re really not a team member, so we’ll have to wait and see.
Webb: In keep with what you just said, it seems like they are not willing to be part of a unit if they are seeking recognition through a Gay Pride Month, is that the way you’re seeing this?
Maginnis: I am concerned about the conformity to military standards because after all the military is about removing those distinctions, fighting and being prepared to fight across the world as one type of unit. If homosexuals want to parade their homosexuality as their defining characteristic of who they are rather than that they’re a soldier or sailor, then that’s dysfunction. It undermines cohesion, trust and confidence; it undermines morale. Of course, for those in the military that are people of faith, it also runs contrary to that very faith. I am very concerned about the promotion of homosexual marriage, about the removal of the idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals are different, well in fact they are and those of us of faith have reason to believe that those distinctions are not pleasing to God.
The failure of her alarming predictions about the consequences of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to materialize hasn’t stopped Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness from railing against gay rights in the military, and now Donnelly is taking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to task for delivering an “entirely inappropriate” Gay Pride Month message to service members. Donnelly, who supports the ban on gays in the military, accused the LGBT community of trying to “make other people feel like they are not welcome” in an interview yesterday with Janet Parshall. She said that Panetta’s message was part of a ploy by “LGBT activist groups” to “intimidate other people,” and Parshall lamented that she’s “never heard of a Heterosexual Month and they make up ninety-seven percent of the military.”
Parshall: We’ve got Leon Panetta, ‘June is called Gay Pride Month,’ and Leon Panetta in the Department of Defense is heralding gays in the military. Wow, I really would love to look into a crystal ball and see what we’re going to have in terms of numbers going down the road.
Donnelly: This is entirely inappropriate because the Secretary of Defense is treating a tiny minority of people in the military who are now allowed to be open, even though previously they were not even eligible to be in the armed forces, to have an event like this, which we predicted by the way. We predicted this a long time ago; this is a manifestation of LGBT law in the military. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender policies and celebrations in the armed forces, this is all part of it.
Parshall: Leon Panetta celebrating in so-called Gay Pride Month that which makes up less than three percent, to the best of my knowledge, I’ve never heard of a Heterosexual Month and they make up ninety-seven percent of the military.
Donnelly: Right. What happened to the notion, ‘we just want to serve in the military, we just want to be quiet and modest and discreet, just like everyone else’? What happened to that? Well of course that was all phony because the LGBT activist groups know exactly how to intimidate other people, make other people feel they are not welcome, their views are not welcome, and name calling occurs quite a bit. That’s pretty much part of the pattern and it’s one of the reasons why the 1993 law regarding gays in the military should have been retained.
On Meet the Press yesterday, David Gregory questioned GOP presidential frontrunner Rick Santorum about the social issues – opposition to reproductive choice and gay rights – on which he has built his career. Stunningly, Santorum denied that he has focused on social issues and claimed, “There’s no evidence at all that I, that I want to impose those values on anybody else.”
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: It's so funny. I get the question all the time. Why are you talking so much about these social issues, as they, as, as people ask about me about the social issues. MR. GREGORY: Senator, no, wait a minute.
FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Look, the... MR. GREGORY: You talk about this stuff every week. And by the way, it's not just in this campaign. FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: No, I talk about, I talk... MR. GREGORY: Sir, in this campaign you talk about it. And I've gone back years when you've been in public life and you have made this a centerpiece of your public life. So the notion that these are not deeply held views worthy of question and scrutiny, it's not just about the press. FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Yeah, they, they are deeply held views, but they're not what I dominantly talk about, David. You're taking things that over a course of a 20-year career and pulling out quotes from difference speeches on, on issues that are fairly tangential, not what people care about mostly in America, and saying, "Oh, he wants to impose those values." Look at my record. I've never wanted to impose any of the things that you've just talked about. These are, these are my personal held religious beliefs, and in many forums that I, that, that are, in fact, religious, because I do speak in front of church groups and I do speak in these areas, I do talk about them. But there's no evidence at all that I, that I want to impose those values on anybody else.
This is, of course, a bunch of baloney. While Santorum has spent a lot of time in his presidential campaign talking up regressive tax policies, irresponsible deregulation and anti-environmentalism, the core of his brand has always been social conservatism. His campaign has consistently and explicitly distinguished his anti-choice, anti-gay record with Mitt Romney’s in order to successfully appeal to culture-warring voters.
Santorum has also never shied away from wanting to “impose” his far-right values on the rest of the country. In a 2005 interview with NPR, for instance, he railed against the libertarian wing of the Republican party, saying, “They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”
Santorum’s interview on Meet the Press is far from the first time he’s claimed that he’s not overly interested in social issues. PFAW’s Right Wing Watch found a speech he gave in 2008 in which he claimed that it’s liberals who have made sex an issue on the campaign trail. For liberals, he said, politics “comes down to sex” and that the Democratic Party has become “the party of Woodstock.”:
And it’s just insidious. And it’s most of the time focused on the sexual issues. If you’re a hard-core free-market guy, they’re not going to call you “zealous”. They’re not going to call you “ultra-conservative”. They’re not going to do that to you.
It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at.
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.
In a step forward for equality for all Americans, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips of California ruled yesterday that the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy violates servicemembers' Fifth Amendment due process rights and their First Amendment speech rights.
The Senate Armed Services Committee today announced that it would hold hearings on Don't Ask Don't Tell in the fall of this year. Michael B. Keegan said, "Our nation needs a strong national defense, and repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would allow more qualified men and women to serve honestly and openly in our armed forces. Americans overwhelmingly support the repeal of DADT, and it's long past time to stop mistreating our courageous military personnel. "