I support this Army officer 100%. As a union officer with Metropolitan Toronto, I represented many gays who had become disciplinary problems due to disruptive behaviour of one kind or another.
They paid union dues, they were entitled to representation, and I filed and pursued grievances for them to the best of my ability and regardless of my personal opinions.
Because of 25 years of working in government offices, including some twenty years experience as a union officer, I have a better insight than most into the self-centred, narcissistic behaviour they can be capable of, and the problems that can be caused in basically conservative organisations by men wearing lipstick and makeup, engaging in other disruptive attention-seeking behaviour, and harassing ‘straights’ either for pleasure or to assert themselves. And that’s before we get into fears by management of the diseases that sexually promiscuous homosexuals can bring into the workplace.
Their behaviour at home is no concern of mine, but there is no “home” in the army, or at least there won’t be unless the U.S. Forces decide to provide “married quarters” for gays.
The potential for serious problems, caused by persons who are all-too-often motivated by an aggressive sense of “entitlement” and a burning need to vindicate themselves, is massive.
When I was in the British Army in the early 1960’s, the guard detail would patrol the barrack areas including the washroom and shower facilities. We looked under the doors of all the toilet cubicles, and if we ever saw more than two feet the occupants would be arrested. And if you wanted to get out of the Army, all you had to do was request to see the commanding officer, and tell him that you were a communist or a homosexual.
The best way to find out why things are done in a certain manner is to start doing them in a different way; you will quickly find out. And I feel that by changing their “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the U.S. Forces are looking for trouble in a major way.
Officer won’t sign order for troop indoctrination
Asks to be relieved of command over repeal of ‘gay’ ban in military
Brian Fitzpatrick: Dec. 24th, 2010
President Obama’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is already damaging the U.S. military.
An Army lieutenant colonel has asked to be relieved of command rather than order his troops to go through pro-homosexual indoctrination following the repeal of the policy, which required homosexuals to keep silent about their sexual preference.
Currently the commander of a battalion-sized unit in the Army National Guard, the officer also has threatened to resign his commission rather than undergo “behavior modification” training intended to counter his religious convictions about homosexuality.
The soldier sent the following letter to his commanding officer:
Subject: Request for Relief from Command due to Personal Moral Conflict with New Homosexual Policy
1. I respectfully request to be relieved of Command of XXX Squadron, XXX Cavalry prior to new policy implementation subsequent to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” My personal religious beliefs and moral convictions do not permit me to treat homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle, compatible with military service, any more than adultery, illicit drug use, or criminal activity. I believe this lifestyle runs counter to good order and discipline in military units, and I refuse to sacrifice my belief system, protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, in order to fall in line with the command policy that will logically follow. This new policy will undoubtedly include mandatory sensitivity training as well as same-sex partner inclusion in Family Readiness Group activities and integration into the full spectrum of other military benefits, as well as a whole new category of discrimination standards and investigative procedures. I will not, as a commander, put my signature on a training schedule or other document recognizing or legitimizing any of these things that contradict my personal beliefs.
2. I would like to remain in the XXX Army National Guard until I am eligible for retirement (at 20 years and 0 days), which would be in the late summer of 2012, but on grounds of my religious beliefs, I will not attend sensitivity or behavior modification training consequential to this policy change, even if it means disciplinary action. I regret that I cannot continue to serve in the military further, but feel that my efforts would be insincere because my heart will no longer be in it.”
“I will not be the person who forces this training on my soldiers,” the officer, whose identity was being protected, told WND. He plans to go on the record as soon as he discusses his request with his chain of command.
The officer said he’s aware of other officers who intend to resign their commissions.
“These people want to serve. I want to serve. I love my job, but I can’t do this job once they begin to implement this policy,” he told WND.
Under the terms of the DADT repeal, the armed forces will not be permitted to allow open homosexuality in the service until the president, secretary of defense and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff can certify that terminating DADT will not impair military readiness. During the transition period that will precede certification, the military plans to require servicemen to attend mandatory training sessions intended to change their attitudes toward homosexuality.
“Very few soldiers are fine with open homosexuals in the service,” said the officer. “I cannot believe the numbers jibe with what was published in the previous survey,” referring to a study commissioned by the Pentagon to assess whether the military could safely repeal DADT.
“I did not give up my constitutional rights and freedom of religion when I joined the military. I don’t believe in subjecting myself to all of the behavior modification and sensitivity training. They’re going to try to push the position that this is an acceptable lifestyle.”
Beyond concerns about violating his own conscience and the beliefs of his soldiers, the officer predicts several additional adverse consequences to repealing the military’s ban on open homosexuality.
“I don’t believe the steps they’re taking allow a commander to maintain good order and discipline in a military unit,” the officer told WND. “DADT was a compromise to allow homosexuals to serve as long as they kept it to themselves. Now they’ll be able to throw their lifestyle in everybody’s face and commanders won’t be able to do anything about it.”
The officer also predicted problems with retention and recruitment:
“I think it might not have an immediate, huge impact, but as enlistments expire you’ll get people who vote with their feet and leave the service, and I don’t believe the recruiting effort is going to offset the amount of people that leave. The military historically attracts a more conservative group of people who have certain principles and beliefs and swear an oath to the Constitution.”
As previously reported by WND, some experts predict as many as a quarter of Americans in military service will resign or leave earlier than planned because of the advent of open homosexuality. Nearly half of the Marine Corps respondents to the Pentagon survey said they would consider leaving the service earlier than planned.
The officer also predicted growing security problems as homosexuals become more prevalent in the service.
“One of the Army values is selfless service. Placing the good of the nation above personal desires is an essential trait of a good soldier, who may be called upon to give his or her life in the nation’s defense. When you start trying to attract people who are so self-centered that they put living their lifestyle out in the open above the needs of their country and national defense, then you have a really dangerous combination. That’s when you get instances like PFC Bradley Manning, who is a homosexual. Because of his personal beliefs and bitterness toward the military he decided to leak 150,000 sensitive wires that have done irreparable damage to our nation.”
Manning, an openly gay soldier, reportedly sent many thousands of sensitive documents to the Wikileaks website out of anger over the military’s ban on open homosexuality.
See original here.