Ending 'don't ask, don't tell' would undermine religious liberty

by Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council and Marine veteran

Some people think allowing open homosexuality in the military means nothing more than opening a door that was previously closed. It means much more than that. It would mean simultaneously ushering out the back door anyone who disapproves of homosexual conduct, whether because of legitimate privacy and health concerns or because of moral or religious convictions.

This outcome is almost inevitable, because pro-homosexual activists have made it clear that merely lifting the “ban” on openly homosexual military personnel will not satisfy them.

The stand-alone bills that have been introduced to overturn the 1993 law, such as S. 3065, call explicitly for:

Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

[Full article on CNN]

Views: 73

Replies to This Discussion

Homophobic? Don't ask, don't tell.
I'm sure you can find people in the military who object to having women there. Hasn't made them leave.
There were also loud protests when Truman integrated the armed forces.
The only "religious liberty" repealing DADT would infringe on is the right to discriminate against a minority for an utterly artificial reason, which has basis only in religion and no essential substance in the real world. If someone wants to tell me that having gays and Lesbians serving openly in the US armed forces would compromise their efficiency, I would point them at the Israeli Defense Forces, which have accepted gays and Lesbians for years, and ask them if they thought the IDF was hobbled by this policy.

Religious liberty does not amount to the right to discriminate based on religious dogma. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell!!!
Actually, I sincerely hope that Perkins is correct about this. High time all the bigots left the military. Is there any other policy that we can change to help convince them to leave? Oh, I know, how about enforcing the separation of church and state in the military? Let's start with Colorado Springs and the Air Force Academy. That place could use a good dose of minty fresh reality to scrub away the religious infection.
This is the watered down version. The real one is as voiced by FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg was posted here. The real terror is that of straight servicemen getting blowjobs in their sleep.

Screw 'em. They integrated the blacks. This is no different. Don't like the party soldier ? Then you can leave.
Oh no, they won't have the religious liberty to demonize certain groups of people anymore! (In other words, the "religious liberty" that trumps human rights and allows one religion to stomp on everyone else.) He is afraid he won't be able to talk about thinking being gay is wrong. Whether it's same-sex relationships or interracial, he doesn't have to like it, and I don't need his or anyone else's approval. But how about just accepting someone as a person instead of being determined to foam at the mouth everytime he hears the word "gay"? If he would be allowed to express his disapproval of things that other soldiers do, then they would have to be allowed to argue back, and a bickering-coworker situation isn't a good idea for the army. He seems pretty hysterical and his complaints are not based on reality. So he had one of his speeches cancelled. That kind of thing happens in public relations all the time.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service