(Major Margaret Witt, right, heading to court Monday. Photo: AP)
A federal judge in Tacoma, Washington, has ruled that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell discharge of Air Force Major Margaret Witt was unconstitutional and that she should be reinstated.
Judge Ronald B. Leighton wrote that Major Witt posed no danger to unit morale:
To the contrary, it was Major Witt's suspension and ultimate discharge that caused a loss of morale throughout the squadron. In addition, several other former service members testified about their military experience as closeted gays or lesbians and the positive reaction of their fellow servicemen and women once they acknowledged their sexual orientation.
We've got Major Witt on the show tonight, along with Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach. This is going to be a big, big night. We'll see you at 9 Eastern.
Meanwhile, you can read the judge's opinion and the conclusion.
Leave a Comment:
This is great news - woohoo!!!!!
How many other cases are in the courts?
They have to move on this soon.DADT has to go.They can't carry on defending something that is quite literally indefensible
Some will call this judicial activism. Sane, educated people call it judicial review.
This is indeed great news. Major Witt's story is inspiring and I hope it will give other gay servicemembers hope that change is not far on the horizon.
What a great, if overdue, victory. I truly admire the courage ofMajor Witt and Lt. Col Fehrenbach. This california household supports them.
Rachel- Its Margaret! Not Marjorie!
Rachel,
With all affection and respect, you do have at least a few straight viewers. I sympathize with all the gay issues you discuss and I understand why they're important to you. But I get tired of hearing about them day after day, hour after hour. There are other important things going on in the world.
There are a lot of straight viewers. And I, for one, am not tired of it. And the existence of other important things does not make this subject any less important.
very true MeddlingMonk...I for one feel that this particular issue is as important as any facing our country today. We're talking about how members of our military are being treated, ( now during wartime) by the very country they have pledged to defend.
If this was 1859 you'd be sick of hearing about all the escaped slaves and how sad it was they had to be slaves. Gays in the military is simply one of the HUGE issues of our time.
Take this as your opportunity to expand your brain!
Rachel,
It makes me sad that you are disappointed in President Obama for not pushing a flashy political decision on DADT. Doesn't it occur to you that the President, a lawyer who specializes in the constitution, with lots of lawyer friends, might have a more subtle, legal way of getting the job done? If he said he was going to get rid of DADT, I trust that he will.
Thank you for your honest coverage.
LHT
The Professional left has an agenda. Blaming the Black man for whatever is one of them. They think they are smarter than the Black man. If he only listened to them the world would be better.
When u see that Mika and Joe S. are doing a show on this country's failed educational system (a traditional democratic issue) and Keith and Rachel spend countless days bashing the President u know something is not right.
And having an agenda is always wrong. Right-wingers, of course, never have an agenda. They are the baseline, any deviation from which constitutes 'an agenda' and cannot be tolerated.
Don't take Tanyars5 seriously. Just look at the comments of this person at HuffPo on LGBT-related stories.
Oh, I don't. But I love making snarky replies to whackadoodle comments.
Might as well call people names when u have nothing substantive to write. Grow up.
Almost swallowed my dentures, that was so funny.
If we had a draft for the military would a non hetrosexula sexual orintation be a reason for avoiding it?
YES. That was the police during the years the draft was in place.
If we had a draft for the military would a non hetrosexual orintation be a reason for avoiding it?
Rachel,
So you have Maj. Margaret Witt on your show to discuss her great legal victory that will allow her to be reinstated, but you refuse to have the Log Cabin Republicans on your show to discuss their even greater legal victory that will allow ALL discharged service members to be reinstated? Of course it's your show, your choice, but its very hypocritical of you when you complain to Meghan McCain - a huge supporter of Log Cabin - that [paraphrasing] you'd love to have more Republicans on your show but they don't want to come on. The reality appears to be that you don't want to have them on and you refuse their offers to come on and talk about their own legal victories.
Please stop being lazy with your guests.
And just how exactly do you know that Rachel 'refused' to have a representative of the LCR on the show? Refusal implies that they expressed interest and she turned them down. Prove that you know that is what happened.
(Yes, I know. I shouldn't feed the tr0lls.)
If I'm saying she "refused," then maybe I know first hand that they did indeed express interest and were turned down. It's a fact that you'll have to accept whether you like it or not. And the LCR can litigate it themselves on her show with her if she'd have the courage to have them on instead of turning down their offers to appear to talk about their OWN case and their OWN organization.
If you aren't more explicit and concrete, there's no reason to trust you. I really doubt that RM doesn't have the courage to have them on her show.
Bollocks. Like ChrisE84 said, there's no reason to trust you. Bluster isn't proof (and is the all-caps name meant to disguise a preference for all-lower-case names?). If Rachel has had Ron Paul on the show several times, a man with whom she probably shares little, apart from a preference for breathing oxygen, then there's little reason to think she wouldn't want a rep of the Log Cabin Republican's on. Especially when they're basically on the same page on the subject of DADT. Your supposition, and that's all it is, makes no logical sense.
MeddlingMonk...I understand you may be tired of hearing about gay people. Can you imagine how tired gay people are of hearing about straight people? Up until recently, it was all anyone ever talked about. Seriously, though. This is the civil rights movement of this era. So, if you're a white guy, would you have complained during the 60's about hearing so much about the Freedom Riders and integrating schools and lunch counters, because it wasn't your problem somehow?
If you read up MeddlingMonk said:
Perhaps you were addressing the poster above him? Monk's a good guy, please don't portray him as a close minded idiot, he clearly said otherwise.
Thanks for the assist, Laura. And for sticking up for me. But I have to wonder if Amanda was making an honest mistake through careless reading, or whether this is just another example of a tr0ll trying to muddy the waters and create confusion and discord.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence. :-)
In my defense, I did say 'I wonder'. ;)
But I get tired of hearing about them day after day, hour after hour. There are other important things going on in the world.
Maybe you can gain some empathy for what LGBT people listen to and view with the heterosexual news and TV coverage that occurs 99% of the time.
While I applaud the service of MAJ Wit the standard used in the rehearing of her case makes no sense. All members of the armed forces are subject to reassignment at any time. I can grasp that in the context presented that the unit she was assigned to would not be harmed in terms of readiness and unit cohesion. I don't know how this judge can be sure that will be the case if she is sent to another unit. Further, every patient has the right to request a physician of the same sex for health matters considered personal. This is a significant issue that should be considered especially in the medical arena in the armed forces.
The peice on the major whose emails were confiscated and used to discharge him was also missing the facts. As a person who served for 22 years in communications in the miltary and in charge of many networks here are the facts. Any computer personal or government when hooked up to a network is subject to monitoring and any correspondance that is passed through a government server is the property of the government. Every user with an account must sign a statement acknowledging that fact. The story you showed indicated that these were his private emails. Simply put, if the major was hooked up to a government network there is no such thing as private emails. This means he did tell and this is not a third party outing. If he was deployed at the time there is no doubt that he was using a government network. He might as well as shouted everything in those emails into a crowded room. I wish that these reports were based on facts. This major knows that and is basically lying about this fact to make a stronger case. He is an idiot if he thought that he had any privacy on the network.
OMG!!!!! I just read the court findings. This is an activist judge. MAJ Wit had an affair with a married women. This is not even mentioned in the report. This is without question, conduct unbecoming of an officer and any officer would be discharged for it. The Military did her a favor by seperating her under DADT as this is a non punitive discharge. They probably did so to avoid embarrassment. If she is reinstated she should then be prosecuted for her conduct. Again, she is an officer. She had sex with a married women. This is an outrage and she is an embarrasment to all that have worn the uniform. She has brought discredit to the Air Force and anyone who stands by this adulterer and applauds this as a victory for Gays and Lesbians is an idiot. Surely, you can find a better spokesperson then this pig. I can't beleive a network would run a story celebrating this person as some sort of trail blazer. Oh and so much for that born Gay theory. The women she commited adultery with was married to a man. Go figure. Shame on you MSNBC for not making your audience aware of this. I'm sure most people won't read this stupid decision and the link will be edited or removed very soon.
Ranger Dan,
Calm down you seem to have an issue with sex that is totally exaggerated! A person's sex life or orientation is NOYB. A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything. Come on, please step gracefully into the 21st century and put away your prejudices.
I am willing to be Maj. Witt is the first or last serviceman/woman to engage in extramarital affairs (assuming it's true). In fact, I'm willing to bet it happens a LOT, so why is Maj. Witt a "pig"? I don't justify affairs of any kind, but to crucify her when it happens to thousands seems a bit of a stretch.
mannjhn- I think we got too personal and someone thought we were bickering and name calling so deleted it. I don't even remember what it was all about to tell you the truth. If the narrator thought it was out of line then they have the right to delete. I did not contest it because it wasn't important. Thanks for asking.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that the marriage was dead before? The wife probably couldn't ignore anymore that she's lesbian.
And even if she would be bisexual, there's no reason to assume that Maj. Witt is the reason for the end of the marriage.
Aren't there regulations about affairs in the military? If so, and if it's such a big deal, why wasn't Witt disciplined under those regulations? Oh, but why bother with discipline when there's such a lovely (not-so-subtly coded) law designed to witch-hunt people like the Major out of the military.
And 'activist judge'? This is a GWB appointee, for everyone too lazy and willfully-ignorant to be familiar with the facts. And here are the facts: the first time around this judge seems to have ruled merely on the basis of a strict application of DADT, and ruled against Witt on those grounds. Then he was told by a superior court to re-examine the case using a different standard: consider Witt as an individual and to rule on whether her specific presence was in fact, rather than by mere assertion, harmful to unit morale and cohesion. Using that different standard, pretty much by necessity, resulted in a different decision. This is really how the system is supposed to work. That is not 'judicial activism', unless of course by 'activism' you mean 'arriving at a decision which is at odds with right-wing ideology'.
This is not about right wing ideology. She had sex with a mans wife and he wrote a letter to the AF. It was verified. They had to take action. Court Martials take time and cost money. Even if convicted she would still have to be discharged under DADT. The AF made a prudent decision and actually cut MAJ Witt a break. None of these people are challenging whether or not they violated the policy. They are challenging the constitutionality of the policy. I don't understand how you can call the policy a witch hunt. It is simply not true. So far every person Rachael has put on has lied or intentionally left out the facts surrounding their case. For the record Maj Witt was not outed by a third party in the military. No witch hunt. All emails are subject to screening in the case of MAJ Almy. People are disciplined all the time for unauthorized activity on the web such as stalking harrassment and pornography. Again no witch hunt. Beleive me, there are plenty of people in the Military that everyone knows is gay and nobody cares. It is only when an individual violates the policy that it is enforced. I know you want it to be a witch hunt but my guess is you've never served. Most of the people discharged under this policy wanted to be. They either didn't want to follow the policy anymore or didn't want to deploy. The fact is that gay service members have an additional option that no other service members enjoy. They can leave any time they want to. Many do. Rachael doesnt want to cover that. The chapter used to discharge gay service members is not punitive. This policy is always implimented with dignity and respect. Ask These people that. They all speak highly of their commanders. Remember this policy was directed under Bill clinton. Does he have right wing ideology? You either drank Rachael's Koolaid or are an uniformed idiot. DADT may be repealed, butit did provide an avenue for the past 18 years for gay people to serve if they chose to. It was and is a far cry better than the past policy that banned gay people from serving and disciplined them when caught under sodomy laws. The repeal of this law could result in the outing of those that just want to serve their country and keep their sexuality to themselves. Those calling for its immediate repeal are foolish in the fact that the politicians won't touch it and the implimentation will be decided by Generals. They may come up with a policy that is worse than this one. I can tell you that I recently retired and talk to people in high places that are still in. The rumor is that if repealed that they will have segregated housing for gay service members. I think that will be a tragedy. They are saying that if repealed servicemembers will be given a one time opportunity to declare their sexuality and will sign an affidavit. If they are later found to have violated this declaration by falsifying a government document they will be punished. They will lose their security clearance and future employment opportunities could be put in jeoprady when the leave the service. Those that are bi-sexual are going to have to decide. There will simply be no annonymity on this. This is real. Because the same standard will be applied to all service members it is completely constitutional. The standard that the appeals court madated was an activist decision. The policy was properly applied in all of these cases. I don't see how you think that a judge can dictate how a policy as clear as this one should be implimented. I can assure you that it won't stand up in the supreme court. (5-4 right wing) Do you actually beleive they don't know this. Their decision has already been made. Just so you know I am left wing on most issues. You may succeed in applying enough political pressure to get this thing repealled. I don't know ho much you follow the Military. I can tell you that all regulations and policies are written to protect Army leadership from any responsibility for anything that happens as a result of any policy. That responsibility is always passed down to each individual service member. Currently, the plan is to stall as long as possible. They will attempt to kick the can until after the general election in 2012. The DOD is crafty in scaring the daylights out of congress. They will come up with issue after issue of doomsday scenarios leak them and state that congress will be held accountable for anything that happens as a result of the repeal. They will have endless debate. I just hope that you understand that once repealled you will be stuck with whatever the new policy is. You can also be sure that the new policy will not be much better and possibly worse. Carefull what you wish for. You will only have yourselves to blame. The option to tell will be gone and gay service members will be forced to serve out their term even if their lives get absolutely worse under the new policy. For all that you think is bad about DADT there are good things that the policy provided. All privacy and annonymity will be gone under the current proposal. I'm not sure that is a good thing, but it is completely constitutional. They have been planning for this policy change for years. I honestly feel sorry that those who are bi or who choose to be in the closet will be forced out, but at least those who want to serve openly gay will be able to do so. The only difference will be that every other service member will know who is gay and who isn't. It will be interesting to see how many there are.
"She had sex with a mans wife"
There's no evidence for that and he doesn't own her. If the marriage is already headed for divorce, it's hardly adultery. That's a technical, paternalistic view that you hold because you hate gay people.
I don't know whether we can divine what his emotions truly are, although I strongly suspect RangerDon loves to write long, rambling, inchoate posts.
So discharges under DADT are a snip? There's a lengthy procedure involved. It also takes time and money. Are we really going to take the coupon-clipper's view of the matter?
Isn't it amazing that there are still people who defend Obama? What's next - Harry "please don't hurt me!" Reed?
Michael Moore is right - it's time we simply ignored these guys and went around them, through them, whatever it takes.
In these hideous times of the American Taliban winning lots of political battles, seeing the top people in America win battles against the morons of DADT - it's the best thing that's happened in the US in years!
I want to buy some beers for those heroes too, Rachel!
I am straight, but, enjoy freedom fights where ever and when ever they show up. Keep up the fight for everyones rights, like I know you will. "Theirs no one who can judge oppression like one who has been oppressed" *... me
Here's some Historical Truth about Gays in the American Revolution, that not many know, but, would make good broadcast truthieness.
General Von Steuben was made a U.S. Citizen by act of Congress in Penn. and later New York!
They were called " Von Steubens Continentals"
They had sniper rifles from Germany that were the first rifles with rifeling in their barrels making them very accurate and firing 100 ft further than British muskets.
In 1776, Steuben's career at Hohenzollern-Hechigen ended in scandal: he was alleged to be a homosexual and was accused of improper sexual behavior with young boys.[2] Whether or not Steuben was actually a homosexual is not known, but the rumors compelled him to seek employment elsewhere.[2] Steuben tried employment in several foreign armies including Austria, Baden, and France.
General Von Steuben, 1930 Issue
On September 26, 1777, the Baron, his Italian greyhound, Azor (which he took with him everywhere), his young aide de camp Louis de Pontiere, his military secretary Pierre Etienne Duponceau, and two other companions, reached Portsmouth, New Hampshire and by December 1, was extravagantly entertained in Boston. Congress was in York, Pennsylvania, after being ousted from Philadelphia by the British advance. By February 5, 1778, Steuben had offered to volunteer without pay (for the time), and by the 23rd, Steuben reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge. Steuben spoke little English and he often yelled to his translator, "Here! Come swear for me!" Colonel Alexander Hamilton and General Nathanael Greene were of great help in assisting Steuben in drafting a training program for the Army, which found approval with Washington.
[edit]
Training program
Steuben's training technique was to create a "model company", a group of 120 chosen men who in turn successively trained other personnel at Regimental and Brigade levels. Steuben's eclectic personality greatly enhanced his mystique. He trained the soldiers, who at this point were greatly lacking in proper clothing themselves, in full military dress uniform, swearing and yelling at them up and down in German and French. When that was no longer successful, he recruited Captain Benjamin Walker, his French-speaking aide, to curse at them for him in English. Steuben introduced a system of progressive training, beginning with the school of the soldier, with and without arms, and going through the school of the regiment. This corrected the previous policy of simply assigning personnel to regiments. Each company commander was made responsible for the training of new men, but actual instruction was done by selected sergeants, the best obtainable.
Another program developed by Steuben was camp sanitation. He established standards of sanitation and camp layouts that would still be standard a century and a half later. There had previously been no set arrangement of tents and huts. Men relieved themselves where they wished and when an animal died, it was stripped of its meat and the rest was left to rot where it lay. Steuben laid out a plan to have rows for command, officers and enlisted men. Kitchens and latrines were on opposite sides of the camp, with latrines on the downhill side. There was the familiar arrangement of company and regimental streets.
Perhaps Steuben's biggest contribution to the American Revolution was training in the use of the bayonet. Since the Battle of Bunker Hill, Americans had been mainly dependent upon using their ammunition to win battles. Throughout the early course of the war, Americans used the bayonet mostly as a cooking skewer or tool rather than as a fighting instrument. Steuben's introduction of effective bayonet charges became crucial. In the Battle of Stony Point, American soldiers attacked with unloaded rifles and won the battle solely on Steuben's bayonet training.
The first results of Steuben's training were in evidence at the Battle of Barren Hill, 20 May 1778 and then again at the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778. Steuben, by then serving in Washington's Headquarters, was the first to determine the enemy was heading for Monmouth. Washington recommended appointment of Steuben as Inspector General on April 30; Congress approved it on May 5. During the winter of 1778-1779, Steuben prepared Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, commonly known as the "Blue Book."[4][5] Its basis was the training plan he had devised at Valley Forge[6].
So, you see, Gays have been contributing to the defence of America as far back as Valley Forge. George Washington had no problem with this patriot.....I don't think any one else needs to be listened to! I am heterosexual as is my son who has just finished five years in the military....this is not an issue to he or I.
It is a matter of honor that they who would die for us need never be made to fell anything but our admiration and love....they have earned it. All the supposed Christian Chicken Hawks are just too cowardly or bigoted to admit the truth!
You people are crazy. MAJ Witt is an officer. The standards are high. Any officer who commits adultery would be booted. No exceptions. She was given a break with her discharge. If they charged her with adultery she would be dishonorably discharged, and contrary to what is portrayed the service treats those who are discharged under DADT with dignity. Everyone understands the policy and they don't go looking to out people. In every instance these people got careless or did something extreme. I have no problem with disagreeing with the policy, but until it changes there is no option but to enforce it.
Most people don't realize it but back in 99 they made it illegal for an officer to have a relationship with an enlisted person. When that policy was implimented they gave all who were involved in relationships to end it or get married. You may not see the relevance, but this was to preserve good order and discipline. Everyone of the people on Rachaels show has been portrayed as if they were following the policy and someone else outed them. Then we find out it is not true. In Major Witt's case they purposely didn't mention the circumstances. The email guy is just flat out lying. You may think in today's day in age that having sex with someone elses spouse is no big deal, but in the Military it is huge. It doesn't matter whether some of you assume that the marriage was probably going to end anyway. Maj Witt is a pig because she entered into a sexual relationship and didnt care about the womens spouse. Rachael asked her if she was aware of the third party rule in DADT and she avoided it. She said she wasn't aware while knowing that it didn't even apply to her case. We can't have officers with integrity problems. We all make choices in life and these choices have consequences. Until the policy changes no one can make a case that they didn't kn ow or understand that they would be discharged. I can assure you that when DADT is repealed none of those that were discharged under this policy will be reinstated. It will be grandfathered and an implimentation date will be set. The govenment simply won't do it. If Marijuanna is ever legalized they are not going to reinstate those that violated the policy.
This decision will be appealed and more than likely will be overturned. The standard that the appeals court set is not accurate. Simply put the fact that personnel in MAJ Witts unit stood by her is not relevant, there is no way to determine that this would be the case in her next unit. The policy was written as applied to the entire military as an institution and not individual units. It is a DOD Policy and not an AF Policy. I realize that this an emotional issue for all involved but discussions about it should be based on the facts and reality. This is a national defense issue and it is very political. It is not going to be repealed with the stroke of a pen. It must be carefully thought out and funded. I also don't beleive to celebrate a person as the posterchild for this cause and portrayher as a good officer is helpful to your cause. She clearly was not. I called this judge activist because of the narrow standard that was applied and the failure to mention MAJ Witt's terrible behavior. Good Officers don't commit adultery. The AF chose to seperate her with dignity as adultery is an embarrassment to the AF especially when it involves an officer.
Some people on here even said that her sexual orientation and who she has sex with is none of my business. I agree. The problem I have is that if you want to make this a civil rights issue and want an equivlent status as a race then that statement is silly. Your basically saying we don't need to tell you about your status but don't discriminate against you. If you want to repeal Don't ask don't tell then that only leaves us with tell. Otherwise you leave open the possibility of future discrimination. You may get passed up by some bigot for promotion because the decider thinks your gay. You will have no recorse because you didn't tell anyone. There are so many laws that will have to change when this is repealed that it is almost beyond comprehension. To simply say that common sense should apply does not work in the Military.
I hope it leads to a sex free military. I beleive that there should be no sex between soldiers, no talk of sex for anyone, and that birth control should be mandatory. To you that might sound crazy, but the military should be about country, and its defense and not about cultural issues. I think that is what gets lost in all of this. Billions of dollars are being wasted all forced on our military by politicians who have no interest except for their reelection and campaign dollars. It's all a crock of BS. MAJ Witt is a classic example of how political this is.She is a politician and does not care about national defense. She commited a crime, and no one cares.
You're just rationalizing your homophobia.
Rationalizing is creating reasons to support your point of view or decisions. Homophobia is fear of gay people. I am not. I presented facts that Racheal ignored. She never fails to get the facts to identify right wing gay hypocrocy. We all know that Rachael is a flaming lesbian. I admire a lot of her work and applaud it. She simply can no longer bash Fox for being biased because on these issues she is worse than them. I hate fox and lean to the left. A good repoter or journalist or talk show host tells the facts and lets the viewer decide. When Gay people do wrong she should hold them accountable. Adultery is unacceptable for an officer.
Homophobia literally means fear of the same, but it is never used that way by any non-homophobe in modern times.
Oh, and why don't we start with actual adulterers, mostly straight, first? Yes, I'm not surprised that you focus on two lesbians where one was in an estranged marriage to a men. Because this marriage could have been rescued ... not.
Seriously Chris, I was not aware of that and thanks for educating me. I seriously beleived it was fear of gay people. I am truly not a homophobe. Was a bartender in gay bar before I entered the service and I love all people. I spent my whole adult life defending this country. We start with everyone. I can say with certainty that any straight officer in the same circumstance would be punished. It does not matter what the status of the relationship is. It is the same as saying that robbing a bank is ok if you beleive that they are charging fees that are too high. I wish i didn't know what I know sometimes. DADT is a huge issue. The new policy in the works is worse than the DADT as it calls for all to declare a status. People are going to be forced out of the closet. It also calls for segregated housing as is the case with gender. This is a disaster. At least with DADT Gay service members could decide any time that they no longer wanted to serveif they were in a situation they didn't like. Beleive me Chris, I don't know if you have served, but, there are some real jerks in uniform. They are smart and have a lot of power. I wish you would beleive that I am sincere about this for the right reasons. I didn't focus on two lesbians, Rachael did, and she presented Major Witt as a victim of a terrible policy. If you would like to learn the truth about this issue you can email me @ rangerbuza@yahoo.com I will give you my number and you can call me. I have no problem with gay people. I have no problem with gay people serving. Most people in society don't know who is gay and who isn't. I have lived all over the world and the reason for this is that Gay people generally tend to be discreet, hang out together, and have there own social norms. It works. The repeal of this is going to change all that. If all that is being sought is the right to talk about their sex life openly, and if seen in the act can still remain in the service I get that. I just happen to know first hand that many gay people don't want that. Again the other thing that will be lost is that if a gay service member is unhappy with the environment once outed or has second thoughts they will no longer have the option of saying hey I don't like this environment I'm gay I want out. They will be stuck. This was one of the positives of DADT. I want you to know that most of those discharged under the DADT policy asked to leave and were not sought after or a victim of a witch hunt mentality. DADT wasn't perfect, but it was a way for Gay people to serve and feel like part of the group while training for war and praying for peace. I just hope you will think about it. I can't imagine seeing a sign on a installation for the Gay Barracks. It isn't like that in society. You have privacy and the right to tell or not to tell about your sexuality. Once repealed this will be a runaway train and could have terrible adverse effects on gay people currently serving. I am worried about this. But not for the reasons that most of you think. I wish you the best Chris. I hope I end up being wrong, but I think it will have adverse effects on readiness, and more importantly gay people. If that is homophobic then I guess I am.
Do you realize the gravity of the situation that you, as a national spokesman, for all viewers and the entire world have in promoting and condoning immorality against God? Greater damnation to those and you, who are in positions of authority, will receive when you fall on your knees before the Almighty God at His Great White Throne at the end of this age. Woe unto you all. Woe unto the news station for allowing this. Woe unto the advertisers. Woe unto all who are deceived in believing homosexuality is okay. You have totally missed the boat.
There are a few people here who need to take a cold shower!
Of course it is His Great White Throne.
I think there is a troll loose!
Anyway, what has morality to do with the Constitution, civil rights and the due process of law? Seriously. If you want to believe that homosexuality is evil and everyone engaged in it is going to hell, fine. But the most depraved sinner has the same inalienable rights as the purest saint. If immorality could deprive you of your rights, they were hardly be inalienable because all people are right SOBs in one way or another. If Major Witt doesn't deserve the equal protection of the laws because she's a sinner, then neither do I.
Or as Pseudolus says in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, "Oh, woe! Oh, woe! And 'oh, woe' again!"