Hunter Seeks To Protect Straight Troops’ Rights

Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/08/military-hunter-dont-ask-dont-tell-083011w/



Tuesday Aug 30, 2011 15:43:22 EDT

A California congressman strongly opposed to allowing gays to serve openly in the military is drafting legislation to protect the rights of straight service members who object to the presence of gays.



The draft bill prepared by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who served as a Marine Corps officer before being elected to Congress, does not prevent repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by the end of September, but it would require the services to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the member.”



Essentially, this would mean that military people have to accept the presence of gays in the military but they would not have to like it, said an aide familiar with the legislation.



Hunter has tried several times to block or undermine repeal of the ban on open service by gays but has been blocked at every step by the Senate’s refusal to take up any legislation modifying the repeal law.



There also is no guarantee that his new proposal would become law. Hunter might be able to get House leaders to schedule a vote on the legislation before Sept. 20, the day when the ban is scheduled to officially be lifted, but again, the Senate would be unlikely to take up the measure.



Hunter could introduce the bill as early as Sept. 7, when the House resumes work after the August recess.



House aides said Hunter continues to hear complaints from service members about so-called sensitivity training classes aimed at preparing the military for open acceptance of gays.



“We’ve heard the training is really pushing the line for people who believe homosexuality is wrong on religious and personal grounds,” said an aide, who asked not to be identified. “It is a legitimate concern, under the circumstances, with the services working on disciplinary policies for people who don’t agree with this decision.”



Hunter’s legislation would not allow service members to disobey direct orders involving openly gay service members, but it would allow them to express their personal views.



“The military always falls in line, but that doesn’t mean that the men and women who serve in its ranks should suddenly be forced to personally accept something that is contrary to their own principles,” the aide said.



AMEN BROTHER
 
Oct 2010
8,291
8
Hunter also plans to introduce legislation to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of Jews if those subhumans are contrary to the personal principles of the member.”



“We’ve heard the training is really pushing the line for people who believe Judaism is wrong on religious and personal grounds,” said an aide, who asked not to be identified. “It is a legitimate concern, under the circumstances, with the services working on disciplinary policies for people who don’t agree with this decision.”



Hunter’s legislation would not allow service members to disobey direct orders involving openly Jewish service members, but it would allow them to express their personal views.



“The military always falls in line, but that doesn’t mean that the men and women who serve in its ranks should suddenly be forced to personally accept something that is contrary to their own principles,” the aide said.
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
What does religion have to do with deviant sexual behaviour?



Try to stay on topic
 
Oct 2010
8,291
8
Hunter also plans to introduce legislation to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of blacks if those subhumans are contrary to the personal principles of the member.”



If only Hunter had the foresight to introduce his legislation in 1948, to protect the fragile bigots.



It also sounds like Hunter is just as dumb a bigot as Gary, since the repeal of DADT doesn't require anyone to "approve of homosexuality". All it requires is that you keep your nose out of other people's private sex lives.
 
Jun 2008
7,734
10
Northern California
but it would require the services to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the member.”


Sexual orientation is not defined by conduct, CONDUCT is defined by conduct. In which case I agree, the military should never allow any kind of open sexual conduct amongst it's ranks, sexual CONDUCT should be kept private between consenting adults. I believe there are already rules in place governing inappropriate sexual conduct in the military, which makes this bigot lamakers legislation redundant and moot.



Just another stupid bigot grandstanding to compensate for his own impotence....sound familiar?
 
Feb 2007
33,168
18
Los Angeles
but it would require the services to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the member.”


Sexual orientation is not defined by conduct, CONDUCT is defined by conduct. In which case I agree, the military should never allow any kind of open sexual conduct amongst it's ranks, sexual CONDUCT should be kept private between consenting adults. I believe there are already rules in place governing inappropriate sexual conduct in the military, which makes this bigot lamakers legislation redundant and moot.



Just another stupid bigot grandstanding to compensate for his own impotence....sound familiar?




Yeah we know your solution to the breach of other people's privacy rights is to "get over it"



That doesn't stop you and all the other homosexuals whining at every opportunity
 
Jun 2008
7,734
10
Northern California
knowuryder' timestamp='1314907311' post='351832 said:
but it would require the services to “ensure that a member of the Armed Forces under their jurisdiction is not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the member.”


Sexual orientation is not defined by conduct, CONDUCT is defined by conduct. In which case I agree, the military should never allow any kind of open sexual conduct amongst it's ranks, sexual CONDUCT should be kept private between consenting adults. I believe there are already rules in place governing inappropriate sexual conduct in the military, which makes this bigot lamakers legislation redundant and moot.



Just another stupid bigot grandstanding to compensate for his own impotence....sound familiar?




Yeah we know your solution to the breach of other people's privacy rights is to "get over it"



That doesn't stop you and all the other homosexuals whining at every opportunity
I don't believe people who enlist in the military have a right to privacy, but I could be wrong.

If this is an issue of conduct, and according to what you posted it is, then I don't understand why it is necessary; the military already has rules in place governing inappropriate conduct.

So we will just chalk this up to another one of your failures on this forum. (one of many)

Nothing to see here people, move along, move along.....
 
Oct 2010
8,291
8
What's strange is that Hunter's legislation doesn't include a clause protecting the rights of heterophobic bigots, or even people afraid of dust bunnies.
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
70,689
31,144
Colorado
What does religion have to do with deviant sexual behaviour?



Try to stay on topic


Why are you posting gay issues in the wrong subforum?



It's the second time you've done this today.



Your poison is bad enough in the Gay Issues subforum.



I've reported your attempt to spread your poison outside of the proper subforum.



You deserve a DTT vacation.
 
Jul 2007
42,671
6,527
NJ
Indeed he does.



If people with very strong religious convictions don't like the fact that they are serving in an organization that is representative of this nation and what it stands for, like freedom and liberty, then they don't have to join up. It's that simple. They can sign up to do their community service through their religious institution. The military is not a religious organization, and if your religious beliefs make it impossible for you to be around gay people or anyone else that your religion says are sinful, then that's your problem and prejudice, no one else's. Only spoiled petulant children would expect their bigotry to be catered to in that manner.