Obama’s first casualty: The Gay Community?
The Washington Times printed an exclusive article today that writes of Obama delaying the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. According to the article, Obama will not move for months and perhaps not until 2010 before asking Congress to end the ban on open homosexuality.
Reading the responses to the article someone commented how the Gay community is Obama’s first casualty – his first broken promise perhaps? This was one of his promises to the Gay community as outlined on his transition website for “change” where it says of the repeal under his section labeled “civil rights agenda” and support for the LGBT community”:
Repeal Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
Apparently, it’s the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he’s more concerned with following rather than the past who have alluded to the following statement:
“However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.”
Hopefully, it’s the consensus of our nation to also honor marriage between a man and a woman that will motivate him in not repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and supporting amendments for the states and/or the nation as a whole. Obama has always operated under whatever is politically expedient and if Americans as a whole have a “Pearl Harbor moment” as they did in 1993 to sway public opinion banning homosexuality in the military, and as it seems the gay community is having right now regarding marriage, then Obama can gauge that Americans do not want homosexuality accepted as a lifestyle for marriage or the military.
The “Pearl Harbor moment” actually came from a comment within the article by Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center when he said:
“Homosexual activists are overconfident because they have not yet seen a counterforce emerge as occurred in 1993.”
And also,
“But as the threat grows stronger, we will see groups forming and the resistance building,” he said. “Americans go about their business and are not activists until they have a Pearl Harbor moment. That has yet to happen, but it will.”
Again, Knight was speaking about the American activism against gays in the military, but that activism appears to be growing for the support of same-sex marriage. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not knowledgeable to the whole political structure and how “consensus” actually works within the government heirarchy, but this will be very interesting to see how it ends up. Will Obama actually see that the consensus is against same-sex marriage and homosexuality in the military? Does public opinion truly matter with the military – moreso than public opinion regarding gay marriages? Is the Gay community placing to much hope in the “change” that may never happen?
Time will truly tell us all we need to know about Obama and homosexuality.
November 21, 2008 at 4:46 pm
A lot of people have been praying for Obama that he would have a change of heart. I have jokingly said that I hope he was lying through his teeth during his campaign. He had switched on some issues during his campaign. He also hinted that he might not be able to do all that he had promised during the campaign. It will be interesting to see how he does. I’m praying that he and Congress will run our nation with sound moral and fiscal principles.
November 21, 2008 at 4:58 pm
The military is more about moral issues, at least up front it is. Anyone who knows anything about the military knows that it almost encourages all sorts of immorality! Long tours away from families, drinking, adulterous affairs, drugs and all sorts of stuff. It almost seems hypocritical of the military when it starts talking about “don’t ask don’t tell!”
But yes, I’m praying for a mighty mighty heart for God’s principles with Obama and our Congress!
November 21, 2008 at 5:06 pm
My Dad was in the Army and the Air Force. He retired when I was 9. He begged me not to marry a military man. As I got older I understood why. LOL However I know there are good moral men in the military.
Hopefully I will marry one day:)
I think about a young couple at church. Both of them are in the Army. Both of them were on the same base but different living quarters. She was going through boot camp at the time. He told the most hilarious story about how he snuck around and broke every rule to see her for a few hours. they are the cutest couple. I think they are in their early 20s. I think of them when fools demean our military. I also think about my Dad fighting in Korea.
November 21, 2008 at 5:53 pm
When I saw my beloved husband holding a sign last Saturday, “Vietnam Vet for Human Rights”, I got even MORE angry with the federal government’s refusal to ACCEPT REALITY. He was a Lieutenant Commanding Officer in the US Navy for 20 freakin’ years! Yet HE cannot marry the person he loves (moi)! Criminal! Newt G. can be a SLIMEBALL of a “husband” in his “sanctimonious marriage” all he wants, he is NO BETTER than my husband!
Some of us will be responding with a NON-Violent Solution:
The NATIONAL EQUALITY TAX PROTEST will be on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009.
Individuals are FINALLY gathering to TAKE A STAND against persecution from the Mormons & the Christian “Right”.
No vote will be needed on this one, folks.
November 21, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I guess I’m having trouble figuring out your political views.
You oppose same-sex marriage because the Christian definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
And you oppose the inclusion of homosexuals in the military because…uh…is there some Christian definition of what a fighting force ought to be, too? Or do you just think that it behooves you to make life harder for gays at every opportunity, because you have different religious beliefs than they do?
November 21, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Pam who knows? Your dream man may be around the corner – in dress whites or blues!
John, neither are moral scenarios: Newt’s cheating and you and your husband’s homosexuality. Whether its years or minutes, immorality is immorality.
Phil, You have to remember where I stand: homosexuality = immorality which means I’m totally against anyone trying to push an immoral lifestyle on anyone, anywhere or anytime!
That’s the hard part for you to understand when you post on my blog. Forgetting that I don’t view homosexuals as minorities, but as immoral people – period!
So my political views are quite consistent: where there is immorality, then I stand against it! If a man or woman wants to join the armed forces, then the integrity must be high on the list upon enlistment. So to try to join the forces while pushing immorality is not looked upon favorably by our forces for now. And that’s where I also stand.
November 21, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Carlotta!
Update: You MUST listen to the YouTube video over at Nice Deb where the Kenyan Ambassador states: Obama’s Birthplace “Already Well Known In Kenya”!
November 21, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Thanks Christine, will check it out!
November 22, 2008 at 2:50 pm
So you believe that gay people should be opposed at all times, in all cases, because they have different beliefs from you?
November 22, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Homosexuality should be opposed to whenever it’s pushed to be “acceptable.” Universally, for whatever beliefs anyone have, homosexuality is considered immoral.
It appears to be a minority of people worldwide that consider homosexuality an acceptable moral lifestyle. Generally, most people just tolerate homosexuals until the lifestyle begins to be pushed upon them such as in gay marriage and the demand that the military accept gays.
November 22, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Uh, so you think that requiring that an employer like the military to not discriminate in hiring gay men and women is equal to “pushing homosexuality to be acceptable?”
Does that mean that you think that no employers should hire gay men and women, because they have different beliefs from you?
November 22, 2008 at 10:55 pm
It’s not about beliefs Phil, but about standards. Not only the religious have moral codes, but organizations should be allowed to have them as well.
Not only the religious view homosexuality as deviant behavior.
November 22, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Okay, but in some ways that’s picking a nit. What is the difference between a “belief about a standard” and a “belief.”
Let me be clear about my own beliefs. I don’t think that there’s anything immoral about homosexual behavior, and there is certainly nothing immoral about same-sex marriage. In fact, I think that same-sex marriages are beneficial and healthy, not just for the partners in them, but for the community and society as a whole.
I mentioned that in a previous thread, but you didn’t respond. I just wanted to be clear that I don’t think same-sex relationships are immoral. (I also do not think heterosexual relationships are immoral. I’m very open-minded that way.)
This statement leaves out what you think ought to be. For example, if the commander-in-chief of the United States military decides to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, then a person like you who believes that “organizations should be allowed to have moral codes” ought to support that–after all, it’s the head of the organization making the decision.
Somehow, I don’t think that’s the case, though.
Well, sure. And there are lots of religious people who don’t view it as deviant behavior. But at the end of the day, perhaps you can agree: whatever your beliefs, the person most qualified to choose the sex of your partner is you. Not the government, and not some third party, no matter how strongly they feel about it.
Do you agree?
November 22, 2008 at 11:50 pm
As far as the military and same-sex marriage are concerned, I really am not OVERLY concerned if gays get their way or not. Eventually, the country will become less and less inclined to be concerned about any kind of definition of morality. We are headed towards amorality.
And yes Phil, I’ve known what you believe about homosexuality and the only point I agree with you is that people choose what they believe to be their best choice in mates – homosexual or not.
But this is where you and I differ hugely. Your beliefs are based upon – your own feelings I assume.
My beliefs are shaped by what I’ve learned in God’s word. Without the bible, I too would believe that homosexuality is okay.
But God is right that we are wishy washy people and should never depend upon our own thoughts. The bible confirms that here:
And we aren’t to depend upon our “deceitful heart.”
I’m very happy I don’t have to trust my own feelings to decide right from wrong. And I’m even happier we have a God that we can even have a relationship with whom provides complete peace and contentment as well as joy to those who believe Him.
You’re on your own without Him.
And that’s scary.
November 25, 2008 at 1:21 am
It’s interesting, though I’m not sure whether it’s intentional, that here you are recapping a statement of value that I made and turning it into a mere truism.
I said that the best qualified person to choose the gender of your partner is you. You are “agreeing” with me here by saying htat people do choose the gender of their partner. But you’re not really agreeing with me unless you agree that no one is better qualified to do so than that person.
So, earlier, you say that it’s not about beliefs, but about moral standards. But here you assert that, were it not for your biblical beliefs, your moral standards would be the same as mine. Doesn’t that kind of make the whole “It’s not about beliefs” point moot?
The problem with what you’re saying here–as well as much of the rhetoric of the Mormon church and the Catholic church–is that you are staking out a position where it is impossible to attack the logic or reasoning of your political viewpoints without also attacking your religious beliefs.
The reason that “separation of church and state” works so well is not just because it protects the state from forcing religion onto people. It’s not just because it protects religious doctrine from the perverse influence of the government. It’s also an effective policy because it prevents citizens from ripping each other’s religous beliefs apart in the public square.
The problem with the various churches which took a stand on Prop 8, and with your half-baked support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, is that your political positions are not based on logic, reason, or evidence. They can’t be “refuted” through debate, because your beliefs are rooted in the supernatural. As you say, if you didn’t believe in the miraculous teachings of the bible, you and I might have very similar political beliefs.
I find it unseemly to attack other people’s religious beliefs, but it does appear that a number of religious organizations are drawing a line in the sand and daring their opponents to cross it.
The long-term victims of the Proposition 8 campaign will not be gay couples. I think we both know that same-sex marriage will be legal in the United States within our lifetimes. No, the biggest victim of the Prop 8 campaign will be the Mormon Church, which for some reason decided to throw open their windows and shed light on their bizarre, waayyy-out-of-the-mainstream beliefs. By forcing secular opponents into a corner and using reason based on the supernatural, they leave no option in terms of public discourse but to attack their beliefs.
…and the beliefs of the Mormon church are ridiculous. You and I both know that they believe some ridiculous things. The Joseph Smith story is ridiculous. The idea of a man finding magical golden plates of hieroglyphics that described how the tribes of Israel immigrated to Missouri, and that some of them were punished by god with dark skin? Ridiculous?
Do you disagree? Do you think the Mormons hold defensible supernatural beliefs? Or do you, like me, think that their beliefs are going to have trouble holding up in the public square?
November 26, 2008 at 8:35 am
Okay Phil. You are angry because the passage of Proposition 8 was mostly by people with a *belief* that homosexuality is a sin. That’s a religious belief so now you want to throw in separation of church and state.
We are talking about individuals going to the polls and voting Phil. People have a right to vote no matter their beliefs. So are you saying here, to enact separation of church and state at the voting polls and throw out those who vote due to their religious beliefs? And to count only the votes of those who aren’t religious?
You are still sore that folks who voted against same-sex marriage dared to be “religious!” And because their votes help pass a law, you want the law thrown out. That is not what separation of church and state means Phil. And I truly don’t want to get into it with you as it has been shared plenty of times.
Case closed on that discussion. You simply don’t want religious folks voting on anything because you’ll want their votes not counted due to your amazing misunderstanding of religious freedom.
Now regarding the Mormon church. You believe their beliefs are ridiculous. That must mean you believe mainline Christianity isn’t? And why DON’T you believe in Christ again?
November 26, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Hi Carlotta,
I didn’t say that I want their votes thrown out. It is possible for a person to do something that is immoral even though it is legal.
It was immoral for you and for various other people to vote for Proposition 8. My post was not an argument that it was legal, nor that their votes should thrown out.
I’m simply arguing that, when you base a policy decision on a religious belief, as you and many Mormons did, then that means you are inviting debate: not just on your policy position, but on your religious beliefs.
In the past, I found it unseemly to attack a person’s religious beliefs. But the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church, and others have _invited_ debate. They have drawn a line in the sand and dared their opponents to cross it.
The Mormon Church is just one example, but they generated a great deal of publicity prior to the passage of Proposition 8. They chose to draw attention to the fact that the majority of pro-Prop 8 funds came from Mormons.
So, here’s what I’m saying, in a nutshell. If someone’s beliefs on a policy issue (state marriage is just one example of such a policy) are rooted in the supernatural, then it is futile to try to persuade them on the policy issue. The gay message regarding Prop 8 was essentially: “Leave us alone. These are not your marriages.”
Mormons rejected that message, arguing: “Our God does not want us to leave you alone. The mere fact of your marriage hurts us, because of our religious beliefs.”
The result? For better or for worse, the Mormon Church has made it clear: in order to persuade us to change our political beliefs, you must persuade us to change our religious beliefs. You must persuade people not to be Mormon. They are making it socially acceptable to attack their beliefs.
And that’s not going to end well for the Mormons, because you and I both agree: many of their beliefs are wrong. You might choose not to use the word “ridiculous,” but you clearly agree with me: Joseph Smith founded a religion based on lies.
November 26, 2008 at 3:26 pm
In response to your other question, “Why don’t I believe in Christ?” –
I don’t think our religious beliefs are that different, Carlotta. Out of thousands of different religions that exist in the world, I disbelieve exactly one more than you.
November 26, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Phil, on who’s authority are you basing your version of immorality upon?
Debate I surely welcome.
Everyone’s has a belief in the “supernatural.” Everyone’s decision to support Prop 8 or not is a belief that something is right or wrong. The question is, what do you base your belief upon? What is your based upon Phil? What tells you that gay marriage is moral? That homosexuality is moral and that those who are against it are immoral?
If the Mormon religion is based upon lies, are you saying that Christianity is based upon truth?
They are quite different Phil if you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for your sins, especially if you don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin for Christ to die for.
Either you truly accept Christ or you don’t. And that alone will make our beliefs quite different.
November 27, 2008 at 5:24 am
I suppose it’s safe to say I base my morality on reason as well as the golden rule.
Human beings are capable of reason, and whether that is the product of evolution or a gift from God, it behooves us to use it.
But let me be clear: it is not my opinion that the law of the land should be based on what I consider to be moral or immoral. Whether something is immoral and whether something ought to be illegal are two entirely separate issues.
In terms of the specific morality of same-sex marriage, my thinking goes something like this:
1.) I believe that gay people exist.
2.) The best evidence currently available strongly suggests that there is a biological component to homosexuality.
a.) Regardless of the origins of homosexuality, it is also quite reasonable to believe that the best qualified person to determine an individual’s sexual orientation is that person.
b.) Even if the specifics of sexual orientation are too complicated for science to completely understand, it is still true that the best qualified person to determine an individual’s sexual orientation is that person.
3.) I believe that human beings are distinct from other animals in a number of important ways.
a.) For example, we do not have a moral imperative to breed.
i.) Even if there were a moral imperative to breed, all evidence suggests that there are plenty of people who choose to breed.
ii.) Thus, there is no moral reason to force human beings to breed, nor to penalize them for choosing not to breed.
Further, the following statements are all true:
1. The nature of sex differences in the human species are incredibly complex.
2. Sex differences in the human species are not constant. For example: many women are nurturing, and some are not. Many men are attracted to women, and some are not.
3. There are no characteristics that exist in all men or in all women. (In rare cases, this is even true of physical characteristics. Not all men have testicles. Not all women have breasts. A small but not insignificant number of persons are born intersex, or with ambiguous gender.)
4. No one can fully understand the exact nature of another person’s sex and gender.
5. The person best qualified to determine the nature of a person’s sex and gender is that person. (That is, no one is better capable of answering sex- and gender-related questions, such as, “How nurturing am I? How aggressive am I? How important is my sex to me? What sex am I attracted to?” etc.)
6. It is wrong for the state to discriminate based on immutable characteristics such as gender, race, and physical ability.
7. Whether sexual orientation is biological or not, a person’s sex or gender is.
8. The state provides a contract called “marriage,” which confers a huge number of automatic rights onto a couple.
9. The state does not require that a couple have children, or be capable of having children, in order to marry.
Based on these statements, we can construct a sound, logical argument.
I. The state issues licenses permitting women to marry men.
II. It is wrong for the state to discriminate based on sex.
III. The state allows couples who cannot conceive or bear children to marry.
IV. The best-qualified person to determine the nature and importance of an individual’s sex and sexuality is that person.
V. The state has no logical or compelling reason to discriminate against couples based on the sex or gender of the individuals in that couple.
VI. The only difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile heterosexual couple is the fact of their gender.
VII. The fact of one’s gender is insufficient reason to deny a service or right to a person, because the only person qualified to determine the nature and importance of someone’s gender is that individual.
VIII. Therefore, the state should not discriminate against persons on the basis of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.
IX. Because the state issues marriage licenses to men who wish to marry women, the state should issue marriage licenses to women who wish to marry women, etc.
November 27, 2008 at 5:58 am
Carlotta, you asked me about what I don’t believe. What I’m suggesting is: when it comes to what we don’t believe, you and I are very similar.
As far as I know, I reject all of the religions that have ever existed in the world, and as far as I know, you reject all but one of the religions that have ever existed in the world. In mathematical terms, I reject 100% of the religions throughout history, and you reject something close to 99.99% of them.
So, since you’re asking me about why I don’t believe in something, perhaps it would be illuminating for you to consider how very similar our disbeliefs are.
You asked me if I find Christianity ridiculous. I do, a little bit–at least some of the beliefs. But I also think there’s something beautiful and poetic about Christianity: not just the Christ story, but the way that Christian beliefs have inspired people for centuries.
It’s like if you asked me if I found “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” to be ridiculous. I’d say, yes and no. Believing it is a little ridiculous. Common sense tells me that there are no such things as fairies (no puns, please) and magic. But the play itself is a brilliant work of art, and it’s worth studying and trying to understand.
To be honest, I would prefer not to be put into a position where I’m belittling other people’s beliefs. It’s not hard to do (consider Scientology–ridiculous!). But it seems to me that the supernatural elements of the Christian faith are implausible. It is probable that a person named Jesus existed, and some of the elements of his life might be similar to the Gospels. But if you asked me to choose between two possible scenarios: a) people who never met Jesus, writing years after his death, were able to record the events of his life exactly as they happened, or b) in the era when there was no technology and literacy rates were very low, followers of a very popular radical preacher began to embellish the events of his life soon after his death…well, “b” just seems much more likely to me.
The maddening thing about Christianity–Catholicism comes to mind, especially–is that there is always a magical answer for everything. If you raise any questions or concerns, magic steps in and fills the gap.
If you ask a perfectly reasonable question, like, “If there is an omniscient, omnipotent being who wants me to believe in him, why doesn’t he just show up and illustrate to me that he exists?”…well, that’s not how it works. This omnipotent being wants you to have faith, ‘cuz he’s testing you. “What about all the other people throughout history that he is supposed to have appeared to?” …well, he tested them in different ways. “What about the people who are born in countries where they never hear about Christ? How is that fair? How are they supposed to make it into heaven?” …well, God writes morality onto our hearts, so that we can know him even if someone is never told about him. “Then why do people disagree about basic moral principles?” …well, some people read their hearts wrong.
And so forth. It just seems that when a person has a pat answer for everything, that person is likely to be lying. People who tell the truth have nothing to fear from being questioned and evaluated. But the major Christian sects never encourage followers to question their faith, to wonder whether it’s true or not, or to think critically about the claims that are being made in the name of faith.
November 28, 2008 at 10:48 am
Phil, I’m ending our discussion because I don’t really have the time to respond to all of your points. Please post your comments on your blog for continuing discussions on your point of views or I will leave your comments open for others to comment here but as for me, I’m through. I’ve got some other writing to do and I need a clear open mind and time to respond. My time right now is for other topics.
Perhaps we can rehash this discussion at a later time – after the Christmas season.
Thanks!
November 29, 2008 at 2:57 pm
No problem. I’ll check back now and again if anyone else wants to write something.
November 30, 2008 at 11:23 am
Carlotta, you may have that “belief” in America, but when those “beliefs” have a theocratic control of U.S. Civil Marriage Laws, we have a serious problem.
So until things change, you (and others) will have to pay my federal taxes. No taxation until equal.