The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

I found it nothing short of inevitable how Bill Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell", itself a move to placate radical liberals by the Democratic President early in his first term, in its own turn became a favored target by the same radical liberals. These, in their efforts to piece-by-piece dismantle the foundations of the Western World, in this case the right of the Military to have the basic ability to exercise some control of those they would or would not have in their ranks, never intended to abide by this move by Clinton. The handwriting was on the wall even then that the radicals have no desire for compromise. DADT was the foot in the door. What they want is a West totally denuded of any of the factors that made it what it is. The fact that Mr. Clinton was himself the author of the policy was for the most part conveniently ignored. This policy was the Military's baby and it had to go. Doesn't the Military realize that in our society any speech, practice, or thought that does not emphatically hold that homosexual behavior and lifestyle is not only perfectly acceptable but must be itself accepted by all bar none is one of the main "Thou Shall Nots"?

Of course, to the radicals it means nothing that gays and lesbians are free to go about their business without being bothered, a fact that is far from the case in Islamic countries. No, they want it all. Marriage, something that existed long before Abraham was leading his band of Arameans into the land later to become the homeland of his ancestors, must go. The best way to get rid of it is to let everyone do it. How can they let it remain? Marriage is also one of the pieces of the foundation of Western Culture. The accomplishments of societies defined by the nuclear family be damned. Like the Socialists would say about the economic structure, we've created enough at this point so we don't need the individual any longer. We'll take from here. Radicals know it isn't marriage for gays that they want, it's the destruction of marriage that is their goal. So here we sit with States fumbling through attempts to define something that they themselves have no authority to define as far as substance goes. Any legislative product that seeks to authoritatively change what marriage is does nothing short of cause the state to erode its own credibility. Marriage exists apart from the state, therefore the state can only regulate it in the most minimal fashion. It can't decide what it is.

So now we will continue to hear that gays and lesbians have always served in the US Military. That was never the issue. The issue was that the Military had the ability to exercise some degree of control over who belongs in their ranks. The radicals get to ensure that the military is now largely impotent in that regard. Adulterers also always have served in the Military but the Uniform Code of Military Justice had provsions that allowed commanders to take action against those who by their lifestyle and actions could or would create a climate that was contrary to that which would be needed for an orderly military environment. The US Military has, thankfully, always obeyed the civil authority. It will be interesting to see what results from this.
I submit that anyone who asserts that there will arise no appreciable problems is not being naive or optimistic but completely dishonest.

The anti-male attitude in the West is so pervasive that Marriage and the Military are virtually guaranteed to always be in the sights of the radicals.