Religious Leaders Concerned About Obama's Support of Gays
WASHINGTON -- Using some of his strongest language to date in siding with the homosexual community, President Obama told a gathering of the Human Rights Campaign Saturday that his commitment to their cause was "unwavering" and that his administration, before he leaves office, would end the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
"I'm here with a simple message: I'm here with you in that fight" for homosexual causes, Obama, the keynote speaker, told those gathered at an event held by the nation's largest homosexual activist organization. "For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot -- and we will not -- put aside issues of basic equality."
Unlike a speech delivered to homosexual leaders in June, Obama in his Oct. 10 address put no qualifiers on his pledge to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He did, though, repeat language in that June speech criticizing what he called "outworn arguments and old attitudes" about homosexuality -- language that was viewed by evangelicals then and now as condemning orthodox interpretations of Scripture.
Additionally, Obama repeated his stance for overturning the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which, if reversed, could force every state to recognize "gay marriages" from other states. He also stated his opposition to those who would "enshrine discrimination into our constitution" -- a reference to a federal marriage amendment and presumably also state marriage amendments.
He made news by saying he would sign -- if it makes it to his desk -- a defense authorization bill that includes an amendment broadening the hate crimes law to include homosexual persons. There was some question as to whether he would sign it because it contains funding for a fighter plane engine he opposes. Conservatives say the hate crimes protections put religious liberties at risk.
"My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield," Obama said. "You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. You will see a nation that's valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union -- a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them."
Obama spoke to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) on the eve of a National Equality March in Washington that focused on homosexual issues. He thanked HRC for "the work you do every day in pursuit of equality" for those "who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender."
"Despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open," he said. "There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes, who fail to see your families like their families, who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference."
Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals (SBCTheWayOut.com), once again expressed frustration at how Obama characterized Christian conservatives. He also said Obama marginalized ex-gays.
"President Obama continues to portray all who disagree with him as those who 'hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes,'" Stith told Baptist Press. "The inference is that if an attitude is old it must be wrong. The constitution is an old document. The Bible is older still. ... It is adherence to those timeless teachings of Scripture that has made it possible for thousands of men and women to find freedom from a struggle for which they did not ask and one from which they desperately sought freedom. If our president truly wants to end discrimination, he will be equally passionate about the discrimination these heroic people face. He will care about their stories and fight for the right for their stories to be heard. Until he does, his passion and eloquence will ring hollow."
Obama said he and his wife Michelle sent "a message" when they "invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll." Obama's speech came one day after John Berry, a homosexual who is director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management said the time is ripe to pass legislation favored by the homosexual community.
"This is the best opportunity we will ever have as a community, and shame on us if we don't succeed," Barry said, according to CNSNews.com.
Exit polls showed Obama carried 70 percent of the national homosexual vote. Regarding the military's homosexual policy, Obama said simply, "I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. That's my commitment to you."
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and a former U.S. Marine, told Baptist Press the military's policy makes practical sense.
“Sometimes you’ll have 100, 500, or 1,000 soldiers, sailors or Marines together in a barracks or in a ship bay, all using the same showers and bathroom facilities," Perkins previously said. "When you introduce sexuality into that kind of environment, it begins to break down discipline and unit cohesion."
Stith said "the church must wake up to the struggle in which we find ourselves."
"Pastors should read the president's speech carefully and recognize the dangers it poses to the church," Stith said. "We should acknowledge that the way we have been approaching this issue has not brought the desired results. During his presidency of the [Southern Baptist Convention], Frank Page said 'in our convention and in our work we have been fighting the wrong enemy. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood. A revival is needed to reawaken God's people. I do believe we are at a crossroads moment, an irrecoverable moment and we cannot miss another opportunity.'
"We must avail ourselves," Stith said, "of every opportunity and resource to train our people to be proactive and redemptive in reaching out to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions. We must care more about helping men and women find freedom than winning a political victory. Until we are clear on that, I'm afraid our passion and eloquence will ring hollow as well."

scare anyone else?
"Bob Stith, the Southern Baptist national strategist for gender issues and representative of the denomination's Task Force on Ministry to Homosexuals"
Anyway, I've never understood how the The Defense of Marriage Act wasn't unconstitutional given the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The reasoning is based on semantic tricks and is clearly, purposely designed to get around the constitution solely by phrasing it in certain specific ways - and even then I question it's constitutionality.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell is silly. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably justify it.
It scares me no more than did: Janet reno, Atty. General. But, that's for another topic.
Anyway, enacting and repealing DOMA are just tools the government , and political campaign strategists use to divide Americans into small, bite-sized groups for their convenience.
Don't ask, Don't tell is less about 'infringing rights' than it is about unit cohesion. At least that is one of the arguments presented. How much of this is homophobia we'll never, repeat, never know. I can agree or disagree with this and still understand how it can be reasonably justified. Surely you can understand it also.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I'm not sure that it helps unit cohesion to force homosexuals to serve in secret. We know that there are homosexuals in the military , so wouldn't the 'secret' homosexuals be more disruptive to unit cohesion then open homosexuals?
It is a volunteer army, and everyone it told in very plain terms, "If you are gay, keep quiet about it. If you don't keep quiet about you will be discharged."
I never noticed any "secret" homosexuals when I was in the Army. Never saw a cohesion problem either.
'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.
So, to answer your hypothetical question: 'No. Not that I saw with my own two eyes.'
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
“It is a volunteer army, and everyone it told in very plain terms, "If you are gay, keep quiet about it. If you don't keep quiet about you will be discharged."”
Why must they be quite about it when heterosexuals are permitted to serve openly?
“I never noticed any "secret" homosexuals when I was in the Army. Never saw a cohesion problem either.”
Yet they were there (hence the secret part), with the ever present carrier ending threat of public exposure looming over their head.
“'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.”
So it does not make homosexuals a potential security threat? It does not make them vulnerable to harassment? It is not detrimental to their moral that they have to hide a significant part of their
“So, to answer your hypothetical question: 'No. Not that I saw with my own two eyes.'”
Did you know any homosexuals while you were serving? Did you speak with them regarding how the policy affected them?
"Why must they be quite about it when heterosexuals are permitted to serve openly?"
Because Bill Clinton pushed through a law that requires such. Ask him.
"Yet they were there (hence the secret part), with the ever present carrier ending threat of public exposure looming over their head."
I have no proof of that. Nobody said that they were gay. How am I supposed to know?
“'Don't ask, don't tell' is a mean program that works very well. Kinda like many other things in the Army.”
So it does not make homosexuals a potential security threat?"
no idea if it would or not. I know that women were not allowed to enter mens' bays without announcing their presence. This limits 'issues'. Perhaps there is some logic in not having troops staying in the same quarters and fraternizing. Just like women and men don't have the same quarters. For the same reason. Ever think of that?
"It does not make them vulnerable to harassment?"
How would gays hiding their sexuality make them vulnerable to harassment? I don't see your logic here.
"It is not detrimental to their moral that they have to hide a significant part of their [very being?]"
I would certainly think it would affect them greatly. But remember: Volunteer Army and they know the rules before singing up. Choice. If they don't want to hide their sexuality, they do not have to join. That is what volunteer means.
"Did you know any homosexuals while you were serving?"
I probably did, sure. I didn't ever meet anyone who admitted it, though.
"Did you speak with them regarding how the policy affected them?"
No. I never met anyone in the Army who admitted to being gay. I never even suspected anyone. As far as I am concerned, looking back, if I knew any gays, they were all excellent soldiers, regardless of their sexuality.
I have no idea if any gays were troubled by their choice to remain quiet about their sexuality in order enlist. However, I was only there 11 months due to me washing out with a pair of broken feet. I am not really confident that in such a short amount of time, no matter how close we got, anyone would have formed a bond so tight to admit such things to another, knowing that that could easily be their ticket to out processing.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
"Because Bill Clinton pushed through a law that requires such. Ask him."
I'm asking for the basis for the rule, what is the rational behind allowing heterosexuals to be open about their sexuality while forcing homosexuals to keep it secret.
"I have no proof of that. Nobody said that they were gay. How am I supposed to know?"
That was a statement of fact. Homosexuals have and do serve in the military .
"no idea if it would or not."
That was like asking 'Does the Sun rise in the East?' Forcing homosexuals to keep their orientation secret IS a threat to security because it gives an OpFor agent something to blackmail a serving homosexual.
"I know that women were not allowed to enter mens' bays without announcing their presence. This limits 'issues'. Perhaps there is some logic in not having troops staying in the same quarters and fraternizing. Just like women and men don't have the same quarters. For the same reason. Ever think of that?"
But again the homosexuals are already in the barracks.
"I would certainly think it would affect them greatly. But remember: Volunteer Army and they know the rules before singing up. Choice. If they don't want to hide their sexuality, they do not have to join. That is what volunteer means."
It is detrimental, and that is why the rule should be changed... or are you arguing that the rules should be static?
"I'm asking for the basis for the rule, what is the rational behind allowing heterosexuals to be open about their sexuality while forcing homosexuals to keep it secret."
First of all, get it out of your head that people are being forced to do something against their will. That is like lying because you already know better. Every single homosexual in the military chose to refrain from acting in a manner which "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts".
You are asking why, which shows me that you haven't even read the law yet. Another thing you should know better than: Coming at me with a half-formed argument centered in emotion, not logic or fact.
Here is why:
Because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline , and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."
"Forcing homosexuals to keep their orientation secret IS a threat to security because it gives an OpFor agent something to blackmail a serving homosexual."
Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will.
I repeat, nobody is being forced to do anything against their will.
Now, how can someone get blackmailed over a secret that nobody knows about? If someone gets blackmailed for being gay in the military, it is because they forgot to "Don't tell".
"But again the homosexuals are already in the barracks."
True. But for all intents and purposes, they have no idea if there are even any other homosexuals in there with them, because they don't ask, and they don't tell.
You say it is detrimental. Care to back that up? Would it be better if everyone was asked, under oath if they were gay, and the honest ones were barred from enlisting? Would that make you feel better?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
I asked for the rational that allowed heterosexuals to serve openly while keeping homosexuals from serving openly.
"Here is why:
Because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline , and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.""
I see a statement there... but I don't see any supporting facts or even a passing attempt at statistics.
"Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will.
I repeat, nobody is being forced to do anything against their will."
You actually are... by threatening them with a loss of their job and their benefits .
"Now, how can someone get blackmailed over a secret that nobody knows about? If someone gets blackmailed for being gay in the military, it is because they forgot to "Don't tell"."
Because secrets can come out... say actions taken before entering the military or an action taken off base / out of uniform.
"True. But for all intents and purposes, they have no idea if there are even any other homosexuals in there with them, because they don't ask, and they don't tell."
I still fail to see the disruption that that knowledge would bring. Is it based on the notion that all homosexuals are ' sex crazed'? That they would go around hitting on everyone? Such actions are already covered under the regs regarding fraternization.
"You say it is detrimental. Care to back that up? Would it be better if everyone was asked, under oath if they were gay, and the honest ones were barred from enlisting? Would that make you feel better?"
No, because the security threat would remain. Better to allow them to serve openly.
"I see a statement there... but I don't see any supporting facts or even a passing attempt at statistics."
I doubt supporting facts or statistics would sway you. But I should try, nonetheless, to support my side of the argument.
"Early in the 1992 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bill Clinton commented that, if elected, he would “lift the ban ” on homosexuals serving in the military .1 Existing policies had been in place since the Carter Administration and, historically speaking, homosexuality had not been tolerated in the military services. The issue drew heated debate among policymakers and the public at large. In response to congressional concerns, President Clinton put into place in early 1993, an interim compromise that allowed the Department of Defense (DOD) an opportunity to study the issue and develop a “draft executive order” that would end discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation.” This interim compromise (announced on January 29, 1993) also provided Congress additional time to more fully exercise its constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 14, “To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” including the consideration of legislation and the holding of hearings on the issue. In announcing the interim agreement, the President noted that the Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed to remove questions regarding sexual orientation from the enlistment application.2 One of the elements of the compromise was an agreement within the Congress not to immediately enact legislation that would have maintained the prior policy (of barring homosexuals from service and continuing to ask recruits questions concerning their sexuality) until after the completion of a congressional review.3 The Senate and House Armed Services Committees (SASC and HASC) held extensive hearings on the issue in 1993. By May 1993, a congressional consensus appeared to emerge over what then-SASC chairman Sam Nunn described as a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. Under this approach, DOD would not ask questions concerning the sexual orientation of prospective members of the military, and individuals would be required to either keep their homosexual orientation to themselves, or, if they did not, they would be discharged if already in the service or denied enlistment/appointment if seeking to join the service.
On July 19, 1993, President Clinton announced his new policy on homosexuals in the military. According to the President, the policy was to be made up of these essential elements:
'One, service men and women will be judged based on their conduct, not their sexual orientation. Two, therefore the practice ..., of not asking about sexual orientation in the enlistment procedure will continue. Three, an open statement by a service member that he or she is a homosexual will create a rebuttable presumption that he or she intends to engage in prohibited conduct, but the service member will be given an opportunity to refute that presumption;.... And four, all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice will be enforced in an even-handed manner as regards both heterosexuals and homosexuals. And
thanks to the policy provisions agreed to by the Joint Chiefs, there will be a decent regard to the legitimate privacy and associational rights of all service members.'"
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/128829.pdf
"You actually are... by threatening them with a loss of their job and their benefits ."
Baloney. Volunteer Army. Their choice.
"Because secrets can come out... say actions taken before entering the military or an action taken off base / out of uniform."
The Military has the power to demand certain behavior. Anyone violating UCMJ "off base/out of uniform" can be blackmailed similarly. Your argument would repeal the entire UCMJ. Baloney argument.
"No, because the security threat would remain. Better to allow them to serve openly."
This is a classic case of give an inch, they'll take a mile. DADT was created to end the injustice of banning gays from serving their country. Why is this not good enough for you?
Name 5 benefits for the military for having gays serve openly. How does it benefit the military, as opposed to benefiting the individual? I'll be waiting.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.