Well that was back in the Bad Old Days of the Draft when there was a Total Ban on GaysintheMilitary. Then came “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” which was an ever-so-slightly-different Total Ban on GaysintheMilitary. Now that’s over. And as you can well imagine, many are not pleased. Especially THIS dude.
“MIAMI, FL -On Saturday, December 18th, 2010, Florida U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R) courageously stood up for our troops fighting all around the world, by voting against the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (DADT), a common-sense law signed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton to protect American service men and women from aberrosexual abuse, harassment, and exploitation.”
“The Christian Family Coalition (CFC), Florida’s premier human and civil rights organization, issued the following statement:
“Senator George LeMieux, 2010 Recipient of the Christian Family Coalition’s Friend of the Family Award, stood firm for our troops by voting to keep the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy supported by the vast majority of Florida voters as well as practically all the men and women in our Armed Forces.
It is a tragic day for our nation when legitimizing sodomy is preferred over the morale and combat-readiness of America’s military. Against the time proven advice of thousands of military leaders, including the head of the U.S. Marine Corp, 65 U.S. senators caved in and attacked a 17-year old policy that not only respected our military personnel’s privacy, but basic principles that have guided our Armed Forces since the very founding of our great republic.
Sadly, those who voted to repeal DADT don’t know that although they won this battle, they have lost the war. The movement to support our Armed Forces is more powerful than ever and will continue to build strength until we win.
This cowardly political betrayal of America’s service men and women will not be forgotten on Election Day. U.S. Senator Bill Nelson’s corrupt vote to repeal DADT attacked our troops and dishonored our nation’s founders. Senator Nelson is now partying and laughing now with the extremist fringe group he pandered to, but the people of Florida will remind him of his unfitness to be their senator should he have the temerity to ask them for their vote in the 2012 elections.”
You forgot the “Harumpf!”
Speaking of the “Aberrosexual,” there’s one just over your shoulder dear.
And does anybody want to take a stab at the Orientational Actuarials for these tykes?
“Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of “unnatural” sex, which depending on jurisdiction can consist of oral sex or anal sex or any non-genital to genital congress, whether heterosexual, or homosexual, or with human or animal.”
Do Tell Michelle!
“The term comes from the Ecclesiastical Latin: peccatum Sodomiticum, or “sin of Sodom.” Whether there actually were such mythical cities is open to dispute. Some have suggested that the story is a retrospective embellishment of an incident that befell two Bronze Age Canaanite cities, Numeira and Bab edh-Dhra, although their identification with the fabled cities is also contentious. However, Bab edh-Dhra’s site does contain deposits of petroleum, bitumen, sulphur and natural gas, which have led some to speculate that this was indeed the case. Others argue that the cities are not in the ‘correct’ location, or have insufficient population density.
The association of the ancient city of Sodom with depravity is of biblical origin. In the Book of Genesis (chapters 18-20), the Lord perceives Sodom and Gomorrah as places of grave sinfulness and seeks to discover whether this perception is really true before He destroys the inhabitants. Two angels (who have the appearance of humans) are sent to find out the reality of life in Sodom. After arriving in the city in the evening, the angels are invited – then urged strongly – by Lot (an upright man) to take refuge with his family for the night.
4 But before they [the angels] lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
(Genesis 19:4-11, KJV)
“To summarise the above account:
The men of the city of Sodom desired that Lot give them the two men so that they may “know” them. (In the Bible, the word “know” is occasionally used to refer to sexual activity.) Lot refuses to hand them over, and (going outside) offers his two virgin daughters instead. This offer is refused, and after the men press upon Lot and come near to break down the door, the two angels draw Lot back into the house and shut the door. They cause blindness to come upon the men of the city, thus bringing safety to those within the house. Even in their blinded state, the men outside still try to gain entry to the house and continue until they become wearied. We see here the extent of either their depravity or lack of hospitality, depending upon how one interprets the verses.
Sodom is subsequently destroyed by a rain of sulfur and fire. From this biblical narrative, the word ‘Sodomy’ is derived. It has come to be synonymous with “unnatural sex”.
In current usage, the term is particularly used in law. Sodomy laws prohibiting such sexual activity have been a standard feature of codes of sexual morality in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic civilizations as well as many other cultures. In the various criminal codes of United States of America, the term “sodomy” has generally been replaced by “Deviant sexual intercourse”, which is precisely defined by statute.These laws have been challenged and have sometimes been found unconstitutional or have been replaced with different legislation. Some countries, particularly in Africa, the Middle East and southern Asia retain “sodomy laws” against anal intercourse. Elsewhere, the legal use of the term “sodomy” is restricted to rape cases where an act such as anal penetration has taken place. The English term “buggery” is closely related to sodomy in concept, and often interchangeably used in law and popular speech. In some legal systems, the term “buggery” is used rather than “sodomy”. Examples include that of Saint Lucia, which despite calls for reform retains a penalty of 25 years in prison for anal intercourse between consenting adults.”
“From the earliest times in the United States, sodomy (variously defined) was prohibited, although some historians suggest that early sodomy laws were mainly used to address issues of non-consensual behavior, or public behavior. The earliest known United States law journal article dealing with sodomy was in 1905 in West Virginia. Attorney E.D. Leach argued that “perverted sexual natures” were related to crime. “Sodomy, rape, lust-murder, bodily injury, theft, robbery, torture of animals, injury to property and many other crimes may be committed under these conditions.” 18th and 19th century judges often editorialized about the act of sodomy as they handed down their rulings. “That most detestable sin”, the “horrid act”, “the horrible crime”, “that which is unfit to be named among Christians” characterized some of the language used by British and American jurists when punishing sodomites. Emphasis is usually on the notion that the act of anal penetration is so offensive “to God almighty” that the term Sodomy (literally, that which occurred in Sodom) is the only appropriate way of designating the activity. In other words, it was understood that when reference was made to “an unspeakable act” having occurred, it was clear that the act in question was none other than anal penetration. Some say, however, that the “Sin of Sodom” accurately referred not to anal penetration but rather to the agglomeration of ALL the unholy activities said to have occurred in Sodom and that it is thus inaccurate to imply a one-to-one relationship.
In the 1950s, all states had some form of law criminalizing sodomy, and in 1986 the United States Supreme Court ruled that nothing in the United States Constitution bars a state from prohibiting sodomy. However, state legislators and state courts had started to repeal or overturn their sodomy laws, beginning with Illinois in 1961, and thus in 2003, only 10 states had laws prohibiting all sodomy, with penalties ranging from 1 to 15 years imprisonment. Additionally, four other states had laws that specifically prohibited same-sex sodomy.
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution, with Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion arguing that they violated equal protection. See Sodomy law.. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and overruled it’s 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick which upheld Georgia’s sodomy law.
In the U.S. military, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the statute banning sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the “conduct falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court.” However, the court went on to say that despite Lawrence’s application to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are “factors unique to the military environment” which would place the conduct “outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence.” Examples of such factors could be fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock are two known cases in which consensual sodomy convictions have been overturned in military courts under the Lawrence precedent.”
In his dissenting opinion on Lawrence Vs. Texas, Fat Tony Scalia said that once sodomy laws were scotched gay marriage was inevitable. He’s right of course.
Consequently it’s not surprise to find Doughy Pantloadtrying to warm up to this Brave New World by claiming it’s really the Cowardly Old One at heart.
“Two decades ago, the gay left wanted to smash the bourgeois prisons of monogamy, capitalistic enterprise and patriotic values and bask in the warm sun of bohemian “free love.” And avant-garde values. In this, they were simply picking up the torch from the straight left of the 1960s and 1970s, who had sought to throw off the sexual hang-ups of their parents’ generation along with their gray flannel suits.”
You’re forgetting Sal on Mad Men, dear.
“As a sexual lifestyle experiment, that failed pretty miserably, the greatest proof being that the affluent and educated children (and grandchildren) of the baby boomers have reembraced bourgeois notions of marriage as an essential part of life. Sadly, it’s the have-nots who are now struggling as marriage is increasingly seen as an unaffordable luxury. The irony is that such bourgeois values — monogamy, hard work, etc. — are the best guarantors of success and happiness.
Of course, the lunacy of the bohemian free love shtick should have been obvious from the get-go. When Michael Lerner, a member of the anti- Vietnam War “Seattle Seven,” did marry, in 1971, the couple exchanged rings made from the fuselage of a U.S. aircraft downed over Vietnam and cut into a cake inscribed in icing with a Weatherman catchphrase, “Smash Monogamy.”
Today Lerner is a (divorced and remarried) somewhat preposterous, prosperous progressive rabbi who officiates at all kinds of marriages — gay and straight; and, like pretty much the entire left, a big supporter of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
The gay experiment with open bohemianism was arguably shorter. Of course, AIDS played an obvious and tragic role in focusing attention on the downside of promiscuity. But even so, the sweeping embrace of bourgeois lifestyles by the gay community has been stunning.”
LAT readers found Doughy to be the Stunning One.
“mr.stet at 2:02 AM December 28, 2010
This is hallucination. Why in the world is half-century old extreme left rhetoric all Goldberg can talk about in commenting on the repeat of DADT? Goldberg can’t find anything to say about the human costs of discrimination, or the moral and social issues involved. All he can do is take absurd cheap shots at cartoon sixties attitudes.
Um, yes, as various institutional barriers to gays having equal rights in society fall, gays have become more integrated into society. How absolutely amazing! But Goldberg somehow treats this as a vindication of conservative values, the same values that have stood in the way of gays having equal rights. Jonah, go into your bourgeois bourgeois clue store and buy yourself some.”
“ChristopherEaton at 1:23 AM December 28, 2010″ notes —
“You don’t sound quite as silly as you usually do in this piece, but I must tell you that Gay Bohemia is alive and well (all over the City of Angels). And just because I support my colleagues’ right to serve in the military, I hardly, as a gay man, support the wretched wars in which we’re involved.”
“More to the Story at 5:33 PM December 27, 2010
But it takes millions of words to spin out the fantasies this guy has from talking to himself and assigninig to others all the ideas, words, motives and actions he imagines they have. Shouldn’t a person have even a small grounding in reality to get a job like this? The man is a raving lunatic!”
Don’t worry, “More.” NPH will protect you.