WASHINGTON (AP) -- A pro-gay Republican group plans to file a lawsuit asking a federal court to overturn the U.S. government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy covering gays in the military.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/gays.military.ap/index.html


Well it's really no wonder that the Log Cabin Republicans have been disowned by the Republican National Committee; they've taken to protesting, and suing for civil rights! They seem downright liberal!

Anyhow, showing that they've not been beaten into submission the Log Cabin Republicans have decided that they shall sue the Pentagon to end the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which prevents openly homosexual individuals from serving in the US armed forces, and allows homosexuality to be grounds for a dishonorable discharge for any of our brave servicemen and women who happen to disclose in any manner that their sexual orientation isn't straight and narrow.


Log Cabin members serving in the military asked the group's leaders over the last four months to take legal action, the group's attorney, Marty Meekins, said Tuesday. They did not come forward because of a specific incident, but simply because "of fear of the military finding out their sexual orientation if they are gay and lesbian," Meekins said.

"This case is fundamentally about correcting a misguided governmental policy based on prejudice toward gay and lesbian Americans," he added.

Too those who might counter that gays are not fit to serve in the military, I think that this case illustrates quite clearly the point that they all ready are serving in the military. Would it be fair to them, if word happens to get around about how certain soldiers spend their off duty hours, that they should then be discharged?

Anyhow, for those of you keeping score with the homosexual agenda home-check list, yes, this battle will likely lead to a push for a federal law which prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We don't enjoy being fired for being gay any more than would a black man for the color of his skin, or a Muslim for his religion. Once we have that much, and legalized same-sex marriages, then we'll have all we need to summon forth the forces of evil and cover the land in a second darkness, or something like that, so be prepared.

I have no objections to "don't ask/don't tell" if it's applied uniformly throughout the armed forces.

Of course, that would be bad for morale, too. After all, imagine an army in which men have no discussions of the women they've had or want. The only real solution is for people to get over it and go on with their lives. If, after braving the fields of Panama or surviving Grenada, or trundling all over the desert after Iraqi insurgents, a soldier's morale flinches in the face of sexuality? Says more about the quality of soldier. He'll face down the meanest and nastiest the world has to offer, but oh! protect him from the fags!

Strangely, the whole fear the generals have about sending fags to die seems strangely misplaced in a society still trying to grapple with its irrational fear of sex. If the nation is somehow prepared to wreck its noblest assertion--equal protection under the law--because the only acceptable sodomy should be from a man to a woman, &c., you'd think people would be anxious to send the buggers out to get shot, beheaded, blown to smithereens, or whatever.

Given that everybody from the President to the phone company on down to one's boss or neighbor is constantly trying to screw you in the ass without Vaseline, I'm thinking maybe people ought to lay down, Sally, and make a point of enjoying the experience for once.

You'd wonder what might happen if the Log Cabin splintered off and founded its own party; after all, whatever's chic among gays becomes popular eventually: perhaps they might sow the wild oats of full-blown political change.

You'd wonder what might happen if the Log Cabin splintered off and founded its own party; after all, whatever's chic among gays becomes popular eventually: perhaps they might sow the wild oats of full-blown political change.

After seeing what the RNC had to offer, I certainly wouldn't mind a more moderate and sane conservative party than what the Republican party has transformed into of late. Somehow, though, I think that if the gays are the first one to take the step there'd be a problem with legitamacy. Who'd wanna' hang around the Log Cabin party? You know how they are. I'm sure they'd get a lot of play on VH1 and MTV at least, and soon kids across America would start dressing in business suits. . . it'd probably even become popular club wear.

The first time I ever went into a gay nightclub, I was terrified. Not by the people, not by the attitudes, but by the music. I don't ever again wish to hear "Here Comes the Sun" laid over a 120 per-minute beat box. But if you listen closely, you'll hear a number of sinister or otherwise-infamous cultural ideas laid at the feet of homosexual men: the "whore wars" in "tween" fashion; Top 40; jazzercise; teal and mauve in the 1980s; Hollywood musicals and Broadway alike ... the thing about pop culture, as evil as it seems to be, is that people will accept anything.

Each generation in human history looks around itself and sees any number of ideas about to crack wide open around them. True political reform might come about as an accident, when the children of a fashion faux-pas with reasonable ideas take over the Log Party because, with everything else looking like a discotheque, they won't know the difference; hence, there would be the potential for a perverse but workable political legitimacy building in the second-generation Loggers.

As one born too late to be of any positive influence on the Communist revolution, I can say that a an upstart leftist party would be a welcome notion to me because, were the factors all in order, political legitimacy could be strangled out of it before it has time to corrupt itself. Why should I not imagine well-intended moneylovers capable of making the same leap? Twenty years of being treated as a joke, but then the children of the founders show up, fresh out of college and with a mean attitude problem toward traditional politics and the foil-pasty veneer of a supercharged Log Party: there exists a possible nexus of popular culture, reasonable and good intentions, and political legitimacy. The most interesting part would actually come during those first twenty years, betting on which Republicans would hop over to the Logs.

Is a log cabin a worse mascot than a donkey? The GOP clearly has the best mascot of any modern party I've heard of. If only the bull moose party would return.

I'm not sure where the name log cabin came from in the first place. . . in terms of American Politics it sort of evokes Abraham Lincoln more than anything else, doesn't it? I'm sure they have an FAQ or something on their official site which answers this question. I am, however, very lazy.

Some links to more on this issue from the LCR themselves:

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/index

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_101204.html


"As a member of the U.S. Armed Forces I am prepared to give my life to defend our freedom but I can't serve openly with dignity and integrity. For me, keeping America safe and winning the war on terror means living a lie"

That about sums it up. Quit whining Queerbo! Your contributions to the nation are void if you like boys, it's a fact!