Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dispatch from nutty Fundieworld: 'Deck stacked' against pro-family (read: anti-gay) representatives

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-30-08 11:01 AM
Original message
Dispatch from nutty Fundieworld: 'Deck stacked' against pro-family (read: anti-gay) representatives
from the American Family Association's OneNewsNow:



'Deck stacked' against pro-family representatives
Chad Groening and Jody Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/29/2008 6:00:00 AM


A conservative pro-family leader says the deck was truly stacked against her when she recently sat before a congressional subcommittee and defended the military's ban on homosexuals.

The hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel was ostensibly called to discuss H.R. 1246 -- known as "The Military Readiness Enhancement Act." That bill would repeal the 1993 law that strictly bans homosexuals from serving in the military, but it is often confused with Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, was one of just two pro-family representatives who spoke in opposition to the bill. She claims Democrats went out of their way to prevent their position from being treated in an objective way.

"The follow-up media describing this hearing just continued a very abusive atmosphere. It was not by any means the kind of fair hearing that we had been led to expect," she contends. "But that was for two reasons -- the Democrats were determined to shape the hearing into the image that they had in mind. And secondly, the Republicans did not show up."

According to a statement released by Donnelly Monday afternoon, she and Brian Jones -- a retired sergeant of the Army's Delta Force -- had difficulty being heard "because liberal members of the committee attacked our motives, asked absurd questions, and tried to bully us in the presence of hostile media." She adds that throughout the hearing, neither the opposing witnesses nor members of the subcommittee were able to offer a single reason why repeal of the 1993 law would improve military readiness, morale, and discipline. "It was all 'hearts and flowers,'" she says, "focusing on the individual stories of opposing witnesses, rather than the needs of the military."

Donnelly says the way she was treated during the hearing -- treatment she says included "personal insults and diversionary insinuations" -- actually demonstrated the kind of intolerance the military can expect if the new policy goes into affect. If it does, she believes it will no longer be an option to oppose any portion of the homosexual agenda -- something Donnelly calls "truly radical."


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=195458

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-30-08 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. She got what she gave, only more so.
And now she's upset. Boo hoo. She tried talking over Congressional committee members! They would have none of it. They asked very direct questions, listened to her very windy answer, then redirected the question to gay servicemen and women who were present also, who then totally contradicted her answers. I've never seen such a well-done committee hearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-30-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Now why is it that they're free to hand out constant abuse
but on the rare occasion they get called on it, suddenly they're the poor little victims?

NOW I'm in a good an rant-y mood. I've really had it up to here with them. Patience, forbearance and forgiveness goes nowhere with these people and I'm out of cheeks to turn. Time to start poking their noses in their own poop and handing right straight (no puns!) back to them

I and many, many other GLBT people have served this nation willingly, proudly and honorably when most cowardly little repuke chickenhawks couldn't be bothered. Then they have the nerve to belittle our patriotism, when their "patriotism" consists of buying imitation Old Glory bits of cloth made in China from WallyWorld, slapping a ribbon magnet on their SUV's and making sure that rights are removed from minorities and GLBT people.

That's some real patriotism :sarcasm:

I've got a note or three for the Talibabdisses:

First, I don't care if how closely a bit of cloth resembles Old Glory; if it's made in China and bought at WallyWorld, it ain't an American flag. Thanks for putting Americans out of work by insisting on buying Chinese imitations. If it doesn't say Made in America, don't wave it at me. I earned the right to salute Old Glory. What have you done for her lately, other than run your mouths about how beset you are? I don't see GLBT people picketing your nutmeetings, though we've every reason to for the sufferance we've borne at your hands. It's always, always the other way around. So, who's the victim again?

Next, if any person has the cojones and the patriotic pride to serve his or her country, it's not your place to stand in that person's way. You have no right to do so, especially when you don't have the balls to serve yourselves. (See the link above.) Patriotism isn't sending someone else's child to war so you can fill your gas-wasting SUV.

Next, we've had quite enough yapping from the hypocritical fright-wing about this mysterious "homosexual agenda". (And by the way, where the hell is MY copy??) All under the sun we've asked for is that you stop insisting that we're somehow subhuman and that you stop treating us as subhuman. We are not your scapegoats, handy to blame for all your own shortcomings. It isn't our fault your marriages are falling apart. Blame that on your own propensity for infidelity, spousal abuse, inability to handle finances, incest, or any number of causes that originate under your own roofs. Just because a couple of gentlemen or ladies that you don't know and will never meet get together to have a quiet, loving life will never cause your marriage to fragment. Stop blaming us for your troubles. Again, who's being victimized here?

When are we going to stop calling these people "values voters" and call them the "wedge issue voters" they really are? It isn't a sense of civic pride, nor patriotic duty, nor a sense of uplifting a nation toward freedom and goodness that brings them to the polls. It isn't a sense of compassion, nor of extending the bounty of the Constitution toward fairness and justice for all that inspires them. The only thing that sends them flocking to the polls or rallying to DC is the sheer glee of taking something they don't appreciate away from someone they don't know who would really benefit from it, using a Bible they don't read -- and, I suspect, wrapped in a sheet they stole from someone else's clothesline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MotorCityMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-30-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Excellent Rant, RedLetterRev
And thank you for your service in the military.

I got into an argument about gays serving in the military with a fundie relation of mine. He was going on about how no straight man would be "safe" from being treated as sex object, and they would get ogled in the shower.

I told him, number 1, gay men do not join the military to get a date or to pick up guys, and number 2, you don't want to see straight treated like they (a lot of them) treat women.

I also added how the currently the military can't get enough recruits, so they were enlisting prisoners. skinheads, and white supremacists. That's all ok, but if they're gay, forget it!?!?

One thing I have to share. I was not in the military, but tried for a Navy ROTC scholarship in high school, in 1982. Had to interview with a million people, go to 3 different doctors, and get recommendations from everyone who has known you from birth on. I ended up getting the scholarship, but was medically disqualified because my eyesight was bad and didn't correct within certain limits. I was horribly disappointed, tried to contest it, but it didn't do any good.

A couple of years later, when my parents found out I was gay and we had "the talk" about it, my mom said how it was a good thing that I didn't get the scholarship as they don't allow gays in the military. I was shocked! I never knew that! I was interviewed by I don't know how many different people, in the service and civilians, I had to fill out a huge amount of forms that covered your whole life, and that was never mentioned! I certainly knew I was gay at the time and would have been honest if asked about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-30-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks in return, MotorCityMan
You gave it an honest, heartfelt effort. Thats far, far more than the chickenhawks have done. You're lucky that your mom was reasonable about it, as well. The fact that you honestly tried is equally appreciated.

When I applied, there was a question about "homosexual activity". It didn't say "ARE you a homosexual" -- just had you engaged in homosexual activity. Well, in a small, southern mill-town, "activity" was likely to get you dead. So, I could safely and honestly answer that "no". (Ya gotta be a Philly-delphy lawyer sometimes :) )

Being from a rural, Democratic family, military service was expected -- one gave back to one's country in SOME manner. It didn't matter if it was military or active community service. By the time I came along, it could have been the Peace Corps. Anything would have done. I had received as fine an education as the NC public school system could offer (which back then was still quite good) but I knew the only way out of a mill-monkey existence was either get to college (for which I was well-prepared but ill-moneyed) or join the military.

There were a lot of folks even back then that were a lot worse off than me, making the military the only choice. I saw a lot of gay guys wash out, a lot of lesbians get forced out, leaving them pretty-much nowhere else to turn. Gee, thanks, Uncle Sugar and gee, thanks, intolerant society for marginalizing some truly wonderful people. Look at what we have wasted. (I was raised by Great Depression Era grandparents -- waste of any kind is abhorrent to me.)

For me, plan B wasn't so bad. I loved my job in the military and put a lot of effort and pride into it. My GLBT colleagues (and I knew a lot of them) were equally motivated. We loved what we did and why we did it. Make no mistake: the Cold War may have been cold, but it was a war nonetheless. We took our oaths to the Constitution seriously. Indeed, we weren't getting shot at, but where we were and why we were there laid the momentary potential. Weeks of routine, moments of crap-up-the-back adrenaline. Loved it.

There are GLBT brothers and sisters in Iraq and Afghanistan right now whom I salute most humbly and sincerely thank for your true patriotism and bravery. Those of us back home will do our best to take up for you.

This senseless waste of talent and needless ruination of careers to suit a small, screaming minority whose time at the helm has turned this country to disaster, is coming to an end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC