In what was among the worst moments of the Orlando GOP debate, former Sen. Rick Santorum said the following on the subject of the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
“I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military and the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision, within the military, that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege, and remove Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell tries to inject social policy into the military. The military’s job is to do one thing and that is to defend our country. We need to give the military, which is all volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most effective in protecting our men and women in uniform and I believe this undermines that ability.”
This wasn’t a misstatement on Santorum’s part. In the re-direct from Megyn Kelly on what a President Santorum would do, he doubled down.
“We would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was, sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue, leave it alone, keep it to yourself whether you’re heterosexual or homosexual.”
The derp is strong with this one. Does Rick Santorum not know that there are thousands upon thousands of military members who are married? That that has been the case, well, pretty much forever. Santorum’s policy as described would ban military members from being married, at all, to anyone. No families, no kids, no way. Because once you get married, you’re not keeping things to yourself. You’re out of the closet as a flaming heterosexual, at least.
Santorum’s answer here is obviously very poorly thought through, which leads me to my message to all of the candidates: Step up your game. You’re running for the job of leading the free world. We live in very serious times and these debates are unworthy of the moment. Most of your performances have been unworthy of the times. The current president is a policy disaster and a stuttering failure and our future demands that one of you replace him, but he will have the press at his back. Boneheaded, poorly thought out statements like the one above can come out of Obama’s mouth and do him no harm at all, but every Republican will be held accountable for every word they have ever said. So keep that in mind and step it up.
Can anyone please tell me what the ‘special privilege’ is that gays are now getting with the repeal of DADT? Please dont tell me what will happen in the future, I want to know as of right now, with the repeal, what ‘special privilege’ have they been given?
The privilege to be themselves and not live a lie. Can’t have that.
Apparently the Constitution isn’t for everyone.
You don’t join the military to “be yourself”. You join to lose your individuality and become a warrior trained to fight and win wars by being a thoroughly dependable, interchangeable member of a larger unit. Forcing others to know about and approve of your sexual predilections does nothing to enhance your skill as a soldier and should not be broached in any way shape or form.
The special privilege is making “sexual orientation” an issue at all when before it wasn’t. And homosexuals and consummate on base, forcing others on occasion to be confronted with what they would rather not have to confront while heteros do their business in private off base.
Gays who insist on people knowing they are gay are gay first and soldiers second, at most and that is why DADT was correct policy. Gays who served under it were more interested in being a soldier than being gay.
“Forcing others to know about and approve of your sexual predilections does nothing to enhance your skill as a soldier and should not be broached in any way shape or form.”
Then I’m sure you’ll agree that servicemembers shouldn’t get any benefits if they are married, right? No medical, no housing, no PX, etc. for wives or children. Good call.
The point, I believe, is that there is no place in the military for a deviant lifestyle. Men and women together having children is the most naturally occuring relationship human beings can have. Procreation is built in to us. Our mouths and anus’s are not sexual organs. And until they become that no one can convince me that homosexuality is not a deviant lifestyle, no matter how much you may feel driven to do it. It has absolutely no place within the military. In the 20 years I spent in the military I met a handful of members who I believe were gay. Those who exuded that impression the most fit in the least and vice verse. Nobody I knew really ‘cared’ whether or not they were gay. It was how they wore it on their sleeves that really got them noticed for good or ill.
Agree. I was flabbergasted to read that homosexuals in the German Army bunk together in the barracks. Talk about a slippery slope.
“The special privilege is making “sexual orientation” an issue at all when before it wasn’t. And homosexuals and consummate on base, forcing others on occasion to be confronted with what they would rather not have to confront while heteros do their business in private off base.”
I prefer not be confronted with mayonaisse, but I don’t demand an act of Congress to deal with it. You’re right though, outside of every barracks will now be a smoke pit for the smokers and sodomy box for the gays…not only does it allow gay soldiers to force their lifestyle on all the poor impressionable Baptists, it’ll also cut way down on the number of soldiers that smoke…
And as for male-female couples never “consumating” on base? Ha! I’ve seen ME do it…
An effective military cannot be ran like civic democratic society.
The right to go on a date without being discharged?
SCANDALOUS!
They now have the special privilege of being yet another group to go to their UVA or IG saying they were overlooked for promotion or didn’t get an assignment because of discrimination. I agree with Santorum on this one. In my time in the military the only reason my marriage came up was for legal issues (power of attorney while deployed, wills, etc.) It was never a requirement for me to declare standing in formation that I was married and to a woman of all things. In the execution of a soldiers job there’s no NEED to bring up sexual preference, one way or the other.
I’m not saying that DADT needs to come back, I just don’t think any of it needs to be an issue in the first place. We had a fellow in our battalion that everyone pretty much knew to be gay. He didn’t bother anyone and did his job admirably. He served his contracted time without any incident I’m aware of. Like I said, it just doesn’t need to become an issue.
Some of you might find this salacious or funny. If you are counting on a military that increasingly promotes based on one’s inclusion in a “special group” to defend you. . . good luck. The social experiment moves on apace.
Please show some proof of special groups getting promoted. I’ve sat on promotion boards and there is no race, religion, or sexual orientation in the package.
I’ll give you an example of special treatment based on religion – Nadal Hassan at Ft Hood.
Ragnar, it isn’t about what you think. It’s all about that 19-25 year old PFC in the squad. Who you have to rely on in case your team comes under fire. You can’t optimize that without first having respect and trust.
Any scenario where the members of a unit are sexual orientation first, soldier second, is not a viable one. It will not promote discipline. It will result in a loss of unit cohesion and can lead to the unit being unable to peform under stress (like when unfriendlies shoot at you).
The PC folks on the promotion board will never have that guy’s perspective.
Yeah, right. Like acknowledging who is gay is bad, but hiding it is somehow better. I think you’re giving your fictional PFC too little credit.
I can tell you from experience from the military and the airline world that once gays get control of a small portion of any kind of unit they will recruit and promote their own. This is not some homophobic theory I have seen it in action. They will band together and they will act the same way as unions do in civillian life. They will present demands to the military that they will claim are based on discrimination by fellow soilders. All of us know or have known gay/lesbian people and know that as individuals they are basically no different than we are. But when you get an activist group in any organization you get a group of thugs and gangsters like you will not believe. And if you don’t think that gay men in the military are going to end up in a gay unit eventually then you don’t know much about gays. And guess what else? Who do you think will the msm side with on any dispute? I would make a rule that if anyone brings up or makes a big deal out of his or her sexuality, either straight or gay, while in uniform that they be court martialed.
I agree with both MCPO and inspectorudy …
There oughtn’t to be any discrimination against gays (or anyone — including “straights”) or how they conduct their private lives … but what is all this “noise?” Is it now necessary that all military make a “declaration” of their sexual preferences? It’s nobody’s business. If someone chooses to talk about it to their buddies, that’s fine too. But certainly, acting out in provocative ways would become a problem.
Behavior in the field and barracks matters … period. Codes of personal behavior are vital in the military — while on duty.
Inspectorudy also has a point. I know that from experience as well — it’s not necessarily a given … but it is a tendency. Gays tend to ridicule “straights” (not yet un-PC) — even more these days — than straights do gays (very un-PC, and even almost illegal). We all tend to choose those around us who are more like we are. It’s wrong. When it occurs it should be discouraged — as best as can be. Otherwise, it’s just one of those things we have to deal with — with any “group” — But surely, emphasizing differences and cliques as “multiculty” doesn’t help — it hinders. Trying to legislate everything into perfection makes things worse as well — much worse.
– the only thing the media is reporting are the boos. “Love me or I’ll kill you!”?
DADT was a good policy. It was nobodys business and should have been left in place while removing the ancient regulations against gays serving in the military. There should never be any reason to declare in any official forum or capacity your sexual orientation however there should be strict rules of conduct. The latest move by the Obama administration has created a special protected class yet again.
The premise of this piece is stupid… He didn’t anything about banning sex…duhhhh…. He said and rightly so that a person sexual life should be private and that military members should act in a professional manner and not displace overt sexual behaviour that would embarrass the military be that on or off base.
The only problem I have with the in-the-closet gay issue is that they are open to blackmail by our enemies, I wonder how many may have already been approached by foreign powers and criminals using that persons hidden sexual persuasions to blackmail them.
True. I find the premise of this argument faulty.
“Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Are rules against homosexuality not based on Christian doctrine? And doesn’t that make it unconstitutional? It’s Evangelicals and other Christians that want to impose their religious beliefs upon others through legislation. How is that different from Sharia?
The US military is not nor could it ever be ran as a democracy. This is made abundantly clear when new voluntary enlistees join the service.
Sharia? Do you have any idea how homosexuals are handled under Sharia law?
Gee, only 3 defensive turd polishing 4 perry pieces on the board today? Someone must be loafing.
I think the best way to decode this piece is this: engaging in sexual activity off-duty, in private, away from military property is acceptable irrespective of whether or not the consenting adults are homosexual or heterosexual, irrespective of marital status. (this appears to be Santorums position)
While it is true that there are many married couples in the military, sexual affairs are not exclusive to married service couples.
Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionallyI am satisfied to search out a lot of helpful information here within the post, we want develop extra techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .