Sandy Rios used to be a Concerned Woman for America, but now she’s President of the Culture Campaign, leading one to conclude that she’s no longer Concerned for America, or no longer a Woman. (It’s possible she got the idea from Lady Gaga, of whom Sandy observed, “We have to speculate on whether she has a male member or not, or whether it’s been cut off or not.” We just have to! Just as it would be irresponsible not to speculate that Sandy haunted medical waste bins for a solid year, collecting discarded foreskins before finally assembling a Frankenpenis in her rumpus room, and fusing it to her groin during an electrical storm.)
Phew! I feel much more responsible now.
You’ll be unflabbergasted to know that Sandy doesn’t want Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. She doesn’t even want them to vote on it, because of reasons. Lots of reasons, reasons that change like the seasons (sorry, I’m still overwhelmed by all the clever poetry in the Robin of Berkeley thread). Sandy has learned the one great lesson of the Iraqi War debacle: if your casus belli begins to smell, toss it out and replace it. Improvise! Think on your feet! Freedom is messy! (Although you’d think adding gays to the mix would help make for a more presentable Freedom, since they’re all so tidy.)
As it was with the Weapons of Mass Destruction ➔ Ridding Mesopotamia of People Shredders ➔ Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy! continuum, so it is with the Principled Objection to Gays in the Military, which has had more rewrites than Tootsie, and more sequels than the Toro-san series.
The Senate should reject any stand-alone amendment overturning the 1996 Congressional Law preventing homosexuals from serving in the military. Why?
Because service members, unduly influenced by close and open proximity to the Gaga-lovin’ gays, will shoot off their own, um, service members in solidarity, and we’ll be stuck with an Army of moody Jake Barneses. At least, it would be pretty to think so.
• Because according to the much-touted Pentagon Survey, 67% of Marine Combat troops on the front lines…right now…have indicated it could interfere with unit effectiveness, readiness and cohesion.
What Sandy carefully — okay, clumsily — elides is the “71.9% of servicemembers thought that repeal would have mixed or no effect on unit readiness.” But then, my Dad was a Marine, and they pride themselves on compensating for their meagre numbers by being bigger pains in the ass than all other Armed Services combined.
• Because the same survey reports that 24% of our all-volunteer force have indicated they would leave the military early if the law were repealed.
Because an army is only as strong as its weakest bigot.
That is one half million fighting men and women potentially lost during a time of war.
Sadly, we might have to start fewer wars; still, you go to war with the homos you have, not the quitters you wish you had, but who quit because of the homos. On the other hand, gays are much more brutal and savage in war (as Bryan Fischer has pointed out), which means that a single one is worth a dozen ordinary dogfaces. So when you think about it, we’re actually much better off sacking and pillaging the Near and Middle East with a legion of buff and muffiny gladiators, than with a bunch of asthma puffer-sucking mama’s boys who are squeamish about man-cooties.
Okay, so we’ll be hemorrhaging homophobes. What’s the next nightmare scenario, Sandy?
• Because PFC Bradley Manning recently leaked the largest amount of classified information in history, putting fellow soldiers and his own country at risk because he was gay and angry with a former lover.
Boy troubles were not, in fact, among his stated reasons for leaking the “Collateral Murder” video. Which, 300 aside, could never remotely be construed as gay porn, except by American Thinker Humberto Humberto Fontova, who thinks bloodlust and bedlust go together, especially when you’re sharing a bedroll.
As unpleasant as it is to ponder, that fact must be pondered before we open the floodgates to others whose sexual identity may define them more than the uniform they wear.
The gay soldier’s motto: ”For God and .”
• Because a substantial number of the 3000 military chaplains who provide the spiritual strength to thousands of our men and women, giving them courage and determination to carry on, have serious objections.
Because who better to minister to our men and women than bigots?
Chaplains who have an objection have been instructed to remain silent while the repeal is being considered.
Well, if ”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been, and continues to be such a success, it seems only reasonable we extend the same opportunity to the chaplains.
Okay, so we can’t extend full civil rights to gay and lesbian service members because it will bother the God botherers. What else? Could it be that we can’t swallow another change when our throats are already crammed with health care?
• Because exactly one year ago another major societal shift was being crammed down our throats at Christmas.
I love this time of year — the crisp weather, the sparkling decorations, the familiar tunes, and of course, the traditional Christmas cookies, which unfortunately I can’t enjoy at the moment, because the President is deep-throating me.
We were told health care had to be passed quickly…before we could even read the bill. People objected loudly but the administration and Congressional leadership arrogantly ignored the American people and forced it through. We know, at least in part, the terrible results of that.
So, we can’t allow gays to serve openly in the military because…insurance reform!
Our military men and women don’t have the same ability to make their voices heard against allowing open homosexuality in their ranks.
We should maybe do a study and poll them.
They don’t have newspapers or talk radio shows. But the provision that will alter their lives and our safety is being rammed down their throats in an unseemly urgency that should seem all too familiar.
…to fans of Sandy’s slash porn.
That alone should make Senators and Congressmen vote “no” on a hurried stand-alone bill.
Yeah, it’s been seventeen years — where’s the fire?
• Because we have a Commander in Chief who knows nothing of commanding troops or serving in the U.S. Military.
Newsflash: Woman with no experience commanding troops tells Commander in Chief with two years experience commanding troops how to command troops. First step: command them to build tents with closets. Then bricks without straw.
His priorities are strange and discomforting.
Civil rights and throat-cramming. It’s a difficult policy to support, unless you believe justice is more important than expediency, and your gag reflex is under control.
Okay, I think we have time for one last tap-dancing rationalization. Sandy? Is it time to point out that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs doesn’t know anything about the military, because he’s an affirmative action hire?
The President’s appointee, Admiral Mike Mullen, said …”There is no gray area…we treat each other with respect or we find another place to work.Period.”
Senators and Congressmen should listen carefully to what other seasoned military leaders are saying rather than political appointees.
All the other Service Chiefs rose to their positions the traditional way, by assassinating their predecessor. So by now it’s clear that the only way we will ever have an effective military is if we strip the President of the authority to cram admirals and generals down our throats, and have the men elect their own officers in the manner of the old Roman Republic. It’ll make things a lot less gay.