As the Media in their various guises continue to support Barrack Obama's fund raising effort among homosexuals, Stars and Stripes fills in a gap: The Administration's decision to finally drop any pretense to preferring approbation from 'the homosexual community' over defending current law or ensuring Military effectiveness.
Stars and Stripes asks the question: How Does Obama's Gay Marriage Stance Affect Military?
And what is Stars and Stripes answer its own question?
Dramatically.
"Now, gay rights groups hope that the president’s statement could trigger more dramatic changes for gays in the military in coming months."
And from the S&S article, it would seem the opinion is nearly unanimous. Like any NYT wannabe, S&S reports the half of the story its editors favor.
"Within hours of that announcement, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki announced that his department would not argue for the Defense of Marriage Act in a lawsuit seeking benefits for the same-sex partner of a Navy veteran in Connecticut, another win for rights groups."
"Other Democratic lawmakers -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- also voiced their support for same-sex unions following the president’s lead. Proponents said they hope the groundswell of support can quickly move into legislative or administrative action."
Are there no Republican lawmakers? Are there no opponents? Doesn't the Executive Branch have a responsibility to 'ensure the laws (including DOMA) be faithfully enforced'?
Not if the S&S is to be believed.
'“Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for the Pentagon giving more benefits to same-sex couples,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “We hear from our military clients that they’re looking at or are planning on getting married, so it’s an important issue for them.”'
SLDN. Of course, it would be difficult to find an active duty representative of the opposing argument, since voicing that argument would violate regulations. But are there no organizations out there who represent the opposite point of view?
S&S seems unable to find them.
"Officials from OutServe, whose members include hundreds of active-duty gay troops, said the president’s statement helps bring the issues of inequality for gay troops back into the public debate."
From their website: "OutServe is the association of actively-serving LGBT military personnel that launched on July 26, 2010. With more than 4,000 members and 40+ chapters worldwide"
So, S&S could find a spokes'person' from an organization that in the less than 2 years of its existence has grown to 4,000 whole members. There are high school kids with more Facebook friends than that.
But can't find anyone to present the other side of the issue.
Ah, wait, in the 2nd half of the article, in the 11th paragraph, S&S does discover some opposition:
"But Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans and an Army Reserve captain, criticized the timing of Obama’s announcement..."
Note: Mr. Cooper criticized the timing of the announcment. We are left to presume that, being a homosexual Reservist, he favors the announcment itself. And we are led to presume that any Republican or conservative or Soldier etc. who DOES oppose it is a raving radical right-winger. Heck, even Republicans (or at least the one that S&S bothered to talk to) aren't opposed.
"...which came a day after North Carolina voters rejected a proposal to allow same-sex marriages in that state. Conservative opponents of same-sex marriage also called it a move designed to rally Obama’s core voters but not representing any real change."
When S&S does acknowledge opposition to the dramatic changes presaged by the president's statement, they reach for the thesaurus to keep the rpms going on the spin machine: "rejected" "allow" "Conservative opponents". Sigh. It continues:
"Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee worked to step back last year’s biggest gay rights victory -- “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal -- in the annual defense budget debate.
Unlike people who actually pay attention, S&S missed Obama's self-referential mistake regarding for whom the US Military fights:
"In an interview with ABC News, Obama said his position on gay marriage has changed in part because “I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage.”
Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post does pay attention: "I'd be negligent if I didn't challenge Obama's incredibly narcissistic assertion that "soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors [are] fighting on my behalf," rather than correctly understanding that they are fighting in accordance with their solemn oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution."
One amendment would bar any same-sex wedding ceremonies on military facilities, while the second would prohibit commanders from punishing chaplains who express views against homosexuality."
"Republicans...worked to step back...biggest...rights victory." Actually, DADT's repeal had no effect on the abuse of military chapels for faux weddings. The Sec Navy had to walk back from a policy change permitting them when he was reminded that even he had to follow the law. And there is ALREADY an instance of Military political leadership censoring chaplains:
"Archbishop Broglio’s letter opposing the regulation and describing it as a violation of the constitutional rights of Catholics was read verbatim at Masses served by Navy and Air Force chaplains around the world.
However, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains attempted to silence Catholic Army chaplains from reading it at their Masses—an effort rejected and resisted by Archbishop Broglio."
Which hasn't filled chaplains with confidence:
"Chaplains from 21 religious agencies, including representatives from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Anglican Church in North America, and the National Association of Evangelicals, sent a letter Monday to the military's chief of chaplains. The letter, prepared with assistance from the Alliance Defense Fund, asks for help in encouraging Congress and the Department of Defense to provide protections for military members who discuss their opinions on homosexuality as a sin."
But S&S apparently is unaware of the Alliance Defense Fund, although it is of even microscopic pro-homosexual groups. Admittedly, the ADF is only 18 years old and hasn't done much other than participate in major Supreme Court cases.
Stars and Stripes asks the question: How Does Obama's Gay Marriage Stance Affect Military?
And what is Stars and Stripes answer its own question?
Dramatically.
"Now, gay rights groups hope that the president’s statement could trigger more dramatic changes for gays in the military in coming months."
And from the S&S article, it would seem the opinion is nearly unanimous. Like any NYT wannabe, S&S reports the half of the story its editors favor.
"Within hours of that announcement, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki announced that his department would not argue for the Defense of Marriage Act in a lawsuit seeking benefits for the same-sex partner of a Navy veteran in Connecticut, another win for rights groups."
"Other Democratic lawmakers -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- also voiced their support for same-sex unions following the president’s lead. Proponents said they hope the groundswell of support can quickly move into legislative or administrative action."
Are there no Republican lawmakers? Are there no opponents? Doesn't the Executive Branch have a responsibility to 'ensure the laws (including DOMA) be faithfully enforced'?
Not if the S&S is to be believed.
'“Hopefully, this will be the catalyst for the Pentagon giving more benefits to same-sex couples,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. “We hear from our military clients that they’re looking at or are planning on getting married, so it’s an important issue for them.”'
SLDN. Of course, it would be difficult to find an active duty representative of the opposing argument, since voicing that argument would violate regulations. But are there no organizations out there who represent the opposite point of view?
S&S seems unable to find them.
"Officials from OutServe, whose members include hundreds of active-duty gay troops, said the president’s statement helps bring the issues of inequality for gay troops back into the public debate."
From their website: "OutServe is the association of actively-serving LGBT military personnel that launched on July 26, 2010. With more than 4,000 members and 40+ chapters worldwide"
So, S&S could find a spokes'person' from an organization that in the less than 2 years of its existence has grown to 4,000 whole members. There are high school kids with more Facebook friends than that.
But can't find anyone to present the other side of the issue.
Ah, wait, in the 2nd half of the article, in the 11th paragraph, S&S does discover some opposition:
"But Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans and an Army Reserve captain, criticized the timing of Obama’s announcement..."
Note: Mr. Cooper criticized the timing of the announcment. We are left to presume that, being a homosexual Reservist, he favors the announcment itself. And we are led to presume that any Republican or conservative or Soldier etc. who DOES oppose it is a raving radical right-winger. Heck, even Republicans (or at least the one that S&S bothered to talk to) aren't opposed.
"...which came a day after North Carolina voters rejected a proposal to allow same-sex marriages in that state. Conservative opponents of same-sex marriage also called it a move designed to rally Obama’s core voters but not representing any real change."
When S&S does acknowledge opposition to the dramatic changes presaged by the president's statement, they reach for the thesaurus to keep the rpms going on the spin machine: "rejected" "allow" "Conservative opponents". Sigh. It continues:
"Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee worked to step back last year’s biggest gay rights victory -- “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal -- in the annual defense budget debate.
Unlike people who actually pay attention, S&S missed Obama's self-referential mistake regarding for whom the US Military fights:
"In an interview with ABC News, Obama said his position on gay marriage has changed in part because “I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage.”
Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post does pay attention: "I'd be negligent if I didn't challenge Obama's incredibly narcissistic assertion that "soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors [are] fighting on my behalf," rather than correctly understanding that they are fighting in accordance with their solemn oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution."
One amendment would bar any same-sex wedding ceremonies on military facilities, while the second would prohibit commanders from punishing chaplains who express views against homosexuality."
"Republicans...worked to step back...biggest...rights victory." Actually, DADT's repeal had no effect on the abuse of military chapels for faux weddings. The Sec Navy had to walk back from a policy change permitting them when he was reminded that even he had to follow the law. And there is ALREADY an instance of Military political leadership censoring chaplains:
"Archbishop Broglio’s letter opposing the regulation and describing it as a violation of the constitutional rights of Catholics was read verbatim at Masses served by Navy and Air Force chaplains around the world.
However, the Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains attempted to silence Catholic Army chaplains from reading it at their Masses—an effort rejected and resisted by Archbishop Broglio."
Which hasn't filled chaplains with confidence:
"Chaplains from 21 religious agencies, including representatives from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Anglican Church in North America, and the National Association of Evangelicals, sent a letter Monday to the military's chief of chaplains. The letter, prepared with assistance from the Alliance Defense Fund, asks for help in encouraging Congress and the Department of Defense to provide protections for military members who discuss their opinions on homosexuality as a sin."
But S&S apparently is unaware of the Alliance Defense Fund, although it is of even microscopic pro-homosexual groups. Admittedly, the ADF is only 18 years old and hasn't done much other than participate in major Supreme Court cases.
Stars and Stripes somehow overlooked the Center for Military Readiness, which has been fighting "Progressive" attempts to use the Military to advance a radical social agenda at the expense of our Soldiers and their ability to defend our country. Strange, since the Center and its president, Elaine Donnelly, have been vocal opponents to those efforts for about 20 years and Ms Donnelly is a former member (1984-86) of the Pentagon’s Defense advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), and the 1992 Presidential Commission on the assignment of Women in the armed Services - in other words, someone who an objective journalist would talk to.
Of course, Stars and Stripes wouldn't even have had to call CMR. Simply visiting the organization's web site would have provided them with another facet of the 'dramatic' changes Obama is foisting on the Military: A Mar 12, 2012 Military Times poll of Service Members' experience with the repeal of DADT found "over four times as many respondents with personal experience (21%) reported negative results, compared to 5% who reported positive."
No comments:
Post a Comment