Because we've done our own 'Family Research'
The Family Research Council has printed yet another piece criticizing Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal. So in order for us all to get a better understanding of this group, we have decided to print their remarks, in full. Though we have made one teensy weensy wittle addition, incorporating recent developments that truly flesh out the FRC's mission:
On DADT, Obama Orders Military to Fall in
While the President plows ahead on his agenda with--or more likely without--the country's support, he could emerge from these fights with nothing more to show for it than the last Democratic President. But make no mistake. If he fails to persuade Congress to legislate his extremism, this President has other ways to achieve it. Today's hearing in the Senate's Armed Service Committee is the perfect example. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is rolling out a "relaxed" standard on homosexuality in the military that would strip the law of its teeth while the President tries to overturn it.
To prepare for what they call the "eventuality" of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, the top brass has said it will dramatically shift the process of "outing" homosexual servicemen. For starters, the military would no longer investigate a soldier's sexuality based on a "third party" account. In other words, only "flagrant violators" would be ousted--dramatically cutting down on the number of dismissals. Also, generals and admirals will be the final authorities on which soldiers are discharged after years of processing those decisions in the lower ranks. In effect, the President is saying that he may not be able to overturn the law without Congress, but he can stop enforcing it.
Under this administration, the new policy seems to be ordering the military to disobey the rule of law--the very thing they've been sworn to protect. Richard Black (U.S. Army-Ret.), former chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division, explains why that's an irresponsible and potentially dangerous decision. In today's Washington Times, Black paints a horrifying picture of life with homosexual soldiers that would only worsen once gays and lesbians are empowered to flaunt their sexuality. "...At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care... Recruit training is especially problematic. Male recruits had to physically subdue one homosexual drill instructor at an Army base to keep him from raping a male recruit as that recruit struggled to escape out a second-story window... At Marine Corps Base Quantico, a company gunnery sergeant sexually attacked a young officer candidate who had stayed back at the barracks while his platoon was out training."
The other side drones on about "political correctness" but says nothing about the safety forfeited to achieve it. In just a few days, more than 30,000 of you have signed FRC Action's petition to Congress, urging members not to turn the military into a battleground for social engineering. Please join the fight by sending the link to your family and friends!
On DADT, Obama Orders Military to Fall in [FRC]
Telling, isn't it? Not that we even get to have to Ask.
I find the rape idea utterly disgusting simply in its double standard, as though a female soldier has never been raped by a heterosexual male soldier before. Were the male soldiers who were raping other males actually homosexual? Or were they perhaps straight men looking for someone to have power over?
Posted by: Gracie | Feb 3, 2010 8:57:41 AM
*nods* at Gracie. It seems that rape and sexual harassment in the military only "counts" when it's done against men. Nothing new from right-wingers.
Remember, the anti-gay policies were in place for all of these incidents--how, exactly, would allowing openly LGBT soldiers make things worse? Especially when convicted felons are now permitted to be in the military?
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Feb 3, 2010 9:27:21 AM
We know rape in prisons is primarily a crime of otherwise straight men taking advantage of younger, smaller and often gay prisoners. Who wants to bet the alleged attackers in these incidents (which I've never seen reported before - would love to have the true facts behind them) were married men?
Posted by: CPT_Doom | Feb 3, 2010 11:16:07 AM
Spriggs's implication that gays and lesbians shouldn't openly serve in the military because we may subject heterosexuals to sexual harassment is akin to saying that integration should not exist because black men will force themselves on white women.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Feb 3, 2010 11:54:38 AM
I watched a documentary a few years back when I was living in Charleston about the rate of sexual abuse among women in the Citadel. The abuse, mind you, was coming from male cadets, straight, male cadets. It was actually frightening how many women experienced it over their collegiate cadet career. (I'm sure men are abused as well, but this specific documentary was on a specific girl's situation and her accounts of the other numerous events where women were degraded by their male counterparts).
I didn't hear for a dismissal of all men from the program.
Hypocrisy, just another word for Christian Traditional Values. UGH.
Posted by: Stef | Feb 3, 2010 12:17:32 PM
The male rapists were almost certainly heterosexual men trying to demonstrate their superiority by making other men assume a female role, just as happens in prison.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | Feb 3, 2010 2:51:32 PM
I would like to see this fact-checked immediately and am working on the allegations that this Cult of Jesus Inc vile bigot spews.
This type of demonization and vilification is the foundation of the cultural homophobia and the Hate spewed from this vile Cult of Jesus Inc creature, seen on TV yesterday, discredits the Cults of Jesus Inc.
Each is entitled to his or her opinion but the lies spewed from the Cults of Jesus Inc are as yet unfounded in fact.
There are some sub-humans that make me wish abortion were legal when it was spawned.
Posted by: Kevin Andrews | Feb 3, 2010 9:40:30 PM
The results for the search on the Ft Sill, OK alleged Homosexual Rape results:
Your search for Ft Sill, OK Homosexual Rape, 1991 did not match with any Web results.
Make sure all words are spelled correctly
Try different keywords
Try more general keywords
Try fewer keywords
View more Search Tips
Google shows only the Family Research Council's piece and the Holy Bullies & Headless monsters....
Snopes.com has no results.
According to Mr Black in the Washington Times, notice the date, in his LGBT hate piece claims:
Homosexuals dismiss concerns regarding privacy in showers and in the barracks. But the risk is high. At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care.
Odd the very same syntax, words and kinda makes you wonder who is lying and who is swearing to it...
Tony Perkins at Texas Insider has the same syntax, wording and once again regurgitates the lie today 2/2/2010
” … At Fort Sill, Okla., in 1991, two homosexual recruits caught a lone soldier showering at night. They violently sodomized the soldier, forcing him to submit by strangling him with a bath towel. At the time of trial, the victim was hospitalized under psychiatric care…
Right wing watch has nothing on this either.
It appears this lie is manufactured today to fit the Fear-mongering need of the Cults of Jesus Inc.
Posted by: Kevin Andrews | Feb 3, 2010 10:14:27 PM
In a quick follow-up here...
I have found the piece from, Richard H. Black, retired from the U.S. Army, was chief of the Army's Criminal Law Division. as is bio reads and responded:
Mr Black, are you just regurgitating the Family Research Council's lies or is this your personal Cults of Jesus Inc bigotry hanging out?
There is no foundation for your lie of Homosexual Rape at Ft Sill, OK and no record is found online or at the local news in OK.
It's amazing to me that the Cults of Jesus Inc produce these three claims from the FRC Hate Group, Tony Perkins in Texas Insider and you all use the exact same words, syntax and allegations.
Tell me is this a press release from FRC that you base your claim upon or is this founded in fact?
The fact is not documented anyplace we've found so please enlighten us how 3 notorious homophobes and hate-mongers from the Cults of Jesus Inc all produce the same work at the same time?
If this is untrue your Military pension is at risk and I would recommend you produce the substantiation of this claim rapidly or recant.
Thanks for your attention
Posted by: Kevin Andrews | Feb 3, 2010 10:33:28 PM
And folks, it isn't just straight men who might get (or are getting) raped. Especially under DADT, when gay troops do not dare report same-sex harassment, it is all too easy to blackmail a gay soldier or sailor into providing for the - ahem - needs of their straight colleagues, especially in situations like months at sea or extended combat deployments.
Whether that is common now or not, it certainly used to be in the olden days when being found to be gay carried not just discharge, but a dishonorable discharge and potential criminal penalties.
Letting gay soldiers be out would, among all the other benefits, let them report sexual harassment or assaults that they don't dare report now.
Posted by: Lymis | Feb 4, 2010 8:39:11 AM
Gracie, you hit the nail on the head! I would bet the FRC dollars to doughnuts that in these cases of same-sex rape and sexual assault that the perpetrators were (at least self-identified) straight and the victims were gay.
Posted by: Ed-M | Feb 7, 2010 6:07:11 PMcomments powered by Disqus