“And if Peter Sprigg doesn’t like it, he’s welcome to Go Home. This is, of course, the same man who suggested that gays be “exported” from the United States”
by Evan Hurst
So let’s tear it apart.
Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will be key votes soon in determining whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will succeed in pushing forward action on a Christmas tree of left-wing causes.
I prefer that you call it a “holiday tree,” Sprigg.
Abortion on military bases, immigration reform and a repeal of the 1993 law regarding homosexuality in the armed forces have all been attached to a defense authorization bill. Let’s hope that these senators understand the latter issue better than U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who recently declared the 1993 law unconstitutional.
How many “activist judges” are there at this point? I wish Family Research Council would publish a list.
First, the issue is homosexual conduct, not “identity.”
Often, people describe the current law as preventing people from serving in the military because of “who they are” or preventing those already in the military from being “honest about who they are.” Yet it is odd for people to define “who they are” on the basis of their preferred sexual conduct.
What Peter Sprigg is saying here is that his own sexuality is not important to him, so it shouldn’t be important to you either. From now on, Peter Sprigg is merely a man who [allegedly] practices heterosexual behavior, and it would be utterly offensive of you to call him “straight.”
In truth, the American Psychological Association, which is strongly pro-homosexual, has recently backed off from such claims, declaring that “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
He provides no link, because he’s making shit up/twisting words/being a Religious Right leader.
His next section falls into that category as well, as the Religious Right obsessively tries to pretend that the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise never actually happened, and that there is somehow a rational reason to exclude gays and lesbians from service. They pretend that nothing has happened since the Reagan administration, and that their beliefs, which are shared by an ever-dwindling [read: dying off] minority of the US Population, are still taken as common knowledge by anyone with a working mind. Because the readership at Clown Hall, where this piece was published, falls squarely into the Low Information Wingnut demographic, Sprigg makes no attempt to justify why gays and lesbians shouldn’t be able to serve in the military, which probably saved him some time.
Finally, the issue is homosexual conduct, not heterosexual reactions.
Judge Phillips described Gen. Colin Powell’s 1993 testimony, saying, “He testified to his belief that military training on tolerance could not overcome the innate prejudices of heterosexual servicemembers[sic].” The concerns of heterosexual service members could certainly have a negative impact on military recruiting and retention if homosexuals are welcomed into the military. Those concerns, however, do not stem from “innate prejudices” but from wholly legitimate concerns about homosexual conduct itself.
Actually, no, anyone who has a problem with gays serving in the military is either irrational, misinformed, or bigoted, Peter, but we’ll let you try to argue it that way…