A PYRRHIC VICTORY FOR THE
GAY AND LESBIAN COMMUNITY
By: SR Shearer
King Pyrrhus conquering the Romans at Heraclea in 280
BC - a victory so costly to him that it led to his eventual
defeat by the Romans a few years later.
The Senate voted decisively Saturday to repeal the
"don't ask, don't tell" law, beginning the process
of ending a 17-year ban on gays serving openly in the
military and reversing decades of official military policy.
In the end, the contentious bill passed by a lopsided
65 to 31 as 57 members of the Senate Democratic caucus
and eight Republicans voted to end
The law struck down Saturday marks the end of decades
of military policy prohibiting gay men and lesbians from
serving openly in uniform. The Defense Department concluded
during the Reagan administration that homosexuality was
incompatible with military service and nearly 17,000 troops
were discharged during the 1980s for being gay, according
to a 1992 Government Accountability Office report.
The procedural vote that made the repeal possible
passed by 63 to 33. Fifty-seven members of the Senate
Democratic caucus and six Republicans - Sens. Scott Brown
(Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa
Murkowski (Alaska), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and George Voinovich
(Ohio) - voted yes. Four senators - Jim Bunning (R-Ky.),
Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Joe Manchin
III (D-W.Va.) - were not present and did not vote.
Clockwise from left, Senators
Mark Udall, Joseph I. Lieberman, Susan Collins
and Kirsten Gillibrand after a news conference
on the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."
The ban on gays in the military does not end immediately,
and military officials and activists continue to warn
that gay men and lesbians serving in uniform should not
make public declarations of their sexual orientation until
the law is officially repealed. According to the legislation,
the issue would rest entirely with Obama and top military
leaders, who must inform Congress in writing that they
have reviewed the findings of a Pentagon study regarding
an end to the ban and that the Defense Department has
drafted the policies and regulations necessary to stop
Once the written notice is submitted, 60 days must
elapse before "don't ask, don't tell" is officially
repealed. During the two-month window, lawmakers are likely
to hold hearings to review the Pentagon's policies and
procedures for accepting openly gay and lesbian troops,
according to congressional aides familiar with the matter.
The speed of implementation could be influenced by
members of the gay community, who warn privately that
they will be less generous with their time and money if
Obama is seen as prolonging the inevitable repeal.
Gay activist, Aubrey Sarvis called on Secretary of
Defense Gates to immediately end investigations of troops
in violation of "don't ask, don't tell."
"Until the President signs the bill, until there
is certification, and until the 60-day congressional period
is over, no one should be investigated or discharged under
this discriminatory law," Sarvis said.
Close military observers anticipate that the ease
of ending the ban will vary widely among the different
military branches and that the Pentagon may stagger implementation
of the change across the military branches.
Combat Marines are especially concerned about the
possibility of serving alongside openly gay colleagues,
and Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine commandant, has suggested
that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could
result in deadly distractions. Several Republican senators
cited Amos's concerns Saturday before voting against the
Fred Sainz, vice president of the Human Rights Campaign,
a gay rights group close to the Obama administration and
congressional Democrats, warned, "There will be plenty
more skirmishes on this issue" – and this is especially
true in light of the 2009 Hate Crimes bill which places
a muzzle on so-called "hate speech" which has been interpreted
by the courts to include Christian protests of many of
the activities of the gay and lesbian community. For example,
under a Pennsylvania law similar to the 2009 federal Hate
Crime legislation, 11 Christians who were presenting the
Gospel at a Philadelphia homosexual rally were arrested.
And as for the ability of pastors to be exempt in
the sanctity of their own churches from the provisions
of this legislation – i.e., advising their parishioners
not to serve in the military and continuing to advise
soldiers connected to their parishes that homosexuality
is a crime against God - Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel
"Renegade prosecutors and politically correct
leftists in positions of authority are going to be able
to subjectively determine what is or is not a hate crime."
To be sure – and as we just
indicated - the ban on gays will not end abruptly; 60
days at the earliest, and probably longer than that. As
a result, the issue may "blow over" for a few months –
maybe even longer. BUT IN THE END, THE LEGISLATION OPENING
UP THE MILITARY TO GAYS AND LESBIANS MAY BE NOTHING MORE
THAN A PYRRHIC VICTORY which may very well lead to the
destruction of the gay and lesbian community in the United
In the waning days of the present Democratically-controlled
Congress, the Gay and Lesbian community has managed at last
to "have their way" concerning gays in the military. Many Republicans
were clearly outraged that the measure was even taken up. Sen.
John McCain, R-Ariz., protested that the action is "clearly
in keeping with the other side's political agenda."
To say that military people are OUTRAGED is an understatement.
The very real fact of the matter is, there exists a great deal
of evidence to suggest that the data supporting repeal of the
"Don't ask, Don't tell" policy was rigged, despite the ringing
endorsements of the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen.
The truth is, both Gates and Mullen are viewed by an extremely
large portion of the Officer Corps as being nothing more than
political-animals mouthing the "politically-correct" views of
their political bosses.
The most honest and forthright view of the military was probably
voiced by Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos in a hearing
where he indicated that he was very much against lifting the
ban; he believed that the report by the Department of Defense
recommending lifting the ban on gays openly serving in the military
was badly flawed – an assessment echoed by Senator John McCain.
Marine Corps Commandant
Gen. James Amos (r.) testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington
Dec. 3, 2010 during a Senate hearing on the military 'don't
ask, don't tell' policy.
Commenting on his decision to oppose lifting the ban, Amos
"My decision against lifting the ban is not a flippant, rush-right-in
decision [on my part]. It is a very, very deep, and thoughtful
Interestingly, Admiral Mullen seemed to acquiesce to McCain's
assessment regarding the flawed (biased) nature of the Pentagon
report when he said that even if most "straights" in the army
really did have severe doubts about serving alongside gays and
lesbians in close quarters -
"It is not expedient for the military to begin acquiescing
to the views of the rank and file; it sets a bad precedent.
The military is not a democracy."
fact that the Pentagon's final report on lifting the ban
on "Don't ask, Don't tell" was massively "massaged" to
support lifting the ban on gays serving in the military
is revealed in the fact that raw data from the
257-page "Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated
with a Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell" indicated that
that nearly 60 percent of combat Marine soldiers said
it would affect them negatively to very negatively if
they had to work with an openly gay solder in their immediate
Similarly, the MAJORITY of all Army, non-combat Marine
and combat Army respondents also said they would be negatively
to very negatively affected by having to work with openly
homosexual unit members.
One can only guess as to the degree this data had
to be "massaged" to show the EXACT opposite of
what the original data indicated.
A PYRRHIC VICTORY
As we indicated in our article, "The
Left's Attempt to Break the Hold of Christians on the Military
Using Gay Rights as their Battering Ram," what the Left
(and most especially, the gay and lesbian community), have probably
achieved is nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory – a victory
achieved at such a high cost that ultimately it will spell disaster
The victory by the Gay and lesbian community in lifting the
ban on gays serving in the military sets up a FUNDAMENTAL
clash of cultures which no one on either side will be able to
phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose
army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating
the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279
BC during the Pyrrhic War. It is said that Pyrrhus replied
to the one who gave him news of his victory that one
more such victory would utterly undo him. He had lost
two-thirds of his army and was unable to replace them,
while the Romans easily replaced their losses.
LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES: SETTING
THEMSELVES UP FOR DESTRUCTION
For instance, chaplains in the military – most of whom are
conservative evangelicals and/or Catholics "... will confront
a profoundly difficult moral choice: whether they are to obey
God or to obey men" in giving guidance to those they are serving
in the military. If chaplains answer such questions according
to the tenets of their faith, stating that homosexual relationships
are sinful and harmful, then they run the risk of career-ending
accusations of insubordination and discrimination.
What happens if the military's chaplains continue to advocate
the church's traditional view that homosexuality is a sin? Will
such advocacy be labeled "hate speech," with offenders either
being punished or simply denied the ability to advance in rank?
Moreover, there is very little chance that conservative chaplains
will "back down" on the question of homosexuality. Indeed, Catholic
Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who heads up ALL Catholic
priests assigned by the church to the military, says that while
Catholic chaplains must always show compassion, they –
"... can NEVER condone - even silently - homosexual
Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America, who occupies
the same position in the military insofar as Orthodox priests
are concerned that Broglio does for Catholic priests, expresses
similar views insofar as the Orthodox Church is concerned:
"If our chaplains were in any way ... prohibited from denouncing
such behavior as sinful and self-destructive, it would create
an impediment to their service in the military. If such an
attitude were regarded as 'prejudice' or the denunciation
of homosexuality as 'hate language,' or the like, we would
be forced to pull out our chaplains from military service."
These views pretty much mirror the views of military chaplains
from the evangelical church as well. Liberals say that in the
end, the conservatives in the military's chaplain Corps can
be made to mitigate their views. BUT THAT REFLECTS NOTHING
MORE THAN THE NAIVETY OF LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES. The
chaplains will fight; they will force the issue; and God help
those who bring the first discrimination or "hate speech" complaints
against them. These chaplains will not be standing alone. They
will have the force of their respective denomination behind
them – powerful denominations like the Southern Baptists, the
Catholic Church, the Pentecostal church, etc. - and the world
is littered with the bodies of liberals (so to speak) who thought
they could challenge the power of these POWERFUL denominations,
especially when they see themselves in a struggle for survival
– and this is especially true insofar as "blue-collar Catholics"
are concerned. Blue-collar Catholics are not people who wear
their religion on their sleeves as do many evangelicals; BUT
THEY WILL RALLY TO THEIR CHURCH (AND THEIR PRIESTS) IF THEY
PERCEIVE THAT THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK. It's not simply a matter
of "religion" to them: IT IS A MATTER OF CULTURE – something
that liberals simply do not understand.
ADMITTING TO THE OBVIOUS
As we have already suggested, liberals and progressives like
to trumpet the finding of the Pentagon report on "Don't ask,
Don't Tell" which asserts that seventy percent of the more than
115,000 military personnel who participated in the study said
that ending the ban on gays serving openly would have a positive
or neutral impact. But even assuming that that number is correct
– and there is a great deal of evidence which indicates that
it is not – it's one thing for "straights" to say that they
are neutral insofar as gays serving OPENLY in the military,
but quite another to say so when confronted with gays and lesbians
dancing with one another at the NCO club or at an Officer's
ball. And make no mistake about it
– militant gays will press the matter to this point.
AND THIS WILL BE ONLY THE START AS MILITANT GAYS PUSH TO
IMPOSE THEIR LIFESTYLE ON "STRAIGHTS" IN THE MILITARY. MANY
OTHER BOUNDARIES WILL BE SIMILARLY TESTED AND BREACHED BY THEM.
dancing with one another at an officer's ball
One can only imagine the seething rage this will ultimately
produce among straights – this coupled with the fact that they
will be forced to witness the derogation of their spiritual
advisors in the Chaplain's Corps, and very possibly the resultant
egress of their former advisors from the military. What will
"straights" do then? – with no one to council them at a time
when many of them will be facing life and death situations on
the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis
Before the vote, FRC Senior fellow for National Security, Lt.
Col. Bob Maginnis, urged Congress members:
"You need to consider who you recruit into the armed services
today. This is an all volunteer force. If these volunteers
or their parents or key people that advise them are alienated
by this decision, you're in trouble."
Maginnis tried to explain to Congress members that VOLUNTEERS
are the fabric that makes the military. It is critical, he said,
to understand the background of these volunteers to determine
what issues drive morale:
"Our people come from a narrow demographic: from the south,
from the mountain west. They also tend to be very religious
and very conservative."
Maginnis went on to explain that with such a background, soldiers
are unlikely to be comfortable with a military of open homosexuality.
If these military recruits disapprove of the changes in the
military, they will be less likely to recommend the armed services
to other family members, peers and youth. This is dangerous
to future recruitment, advised Maginnis.
NOTE: As we
explained in our article, "The
Left's Attempt to Break the Hold of Christians on the Military
Using Gay Rights as their Battering Ram," there are,
of course, those liberals and progressives who will rejoice
in the fact that Christians may evacuate the military. But
even if only 20 percent of today's military personnel (about
40% of Christians now serving) decide to get out of the
military as a result of lifting the ban on gays and lesbians
serving openly (which is precisely what the Pentagon's survey
indicates will happen), how do liberals intend to make up
those losses? A 2000 study reported that at best, homosexuals
– while they possess a lot of political clout - amount to
no more than 2-3 percent of the population in the United
States. How, then, is it possible for such a tiny portion
of the country's population to make up for the loss of 20
percent of the military's manpower? It's not possible. And
even if it is assumed that "tolerant" straights could make
up for those Christians lost to the military, it is EXACTLY
that portion of the "straight" community (i.e., graduates
of liberal arts colleges throughout the country) that is
NOT open to dirtying their hands by serving in the military.
and progressives are not open to dirtying their
hands by serving in the military.
Maginnis continued by saying that there are a lot of things
about an openly gay military that will be disturbing to military
men and women from conservative backgrounds. Maginnis said the
Department of Defense report that was released this week underestimates
the importance of privacy to military men and women. He said:
"They dismiss the whole notion of privacy. They say, 'No,
we're going to make sure everyone has to share a room whether
they like it or not'."
AGAIN - A BRIDGE TOO FAR
And so the battle is joined – and this time there will be no
way to finesse the issues involved. The fact of the matter is,
laws advocated by the "politically correct community" cannot
work over the long run when they run counter to entrenched belief-systems;
all these laws do is put off the inevitable,
and when the inevitable finally comes, its violence is only
enhanced by the time it takes for the reaction to take hold.
Again I say, the gay community is making the same mistake that
the allies made in World War II with regard to Operation Market
Garden: They are going "A BRIDGE TOO FAR," and when the
counter-attack occurs against them, they will be routed just
as surely as the allies were routed by the Germans sixty-five
A bridge too far
IN THE END, THE MILITARY IS A VIOLENT
INSTITUTION, AND VIOLENT MEN MAKE THEIR ABODE THERE.
"Political correctness" is not going to be able to stem their
in-bred hatred of the gay and lesbian lifestyles – and when
it finally erupts in a paroxysm of so-called revulsion and fury,
it will carry away with it not only the aspirations of the MILITANT
gay and lesbian community, but the Left as well. And, sadly,
leading the charge will be Christian evangelicals breathing
MURDER and RAGE,
against the homosexual community and thinking all the while
that they are "doing service for God."
And, naturally enough, there - at the very center of all the
action - will be my twin brother and Richard Paradise
as well as all their "biggie" friends up at Multnomah Bible
School and Western Theological Seminary "CRYING HAVOC AND
LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR." (Shakespeare in Julius Caesar)
THE DOGS OF WAR
People such as Dr. Paul Cameron, Lou Engle, Pastor
Jim Garlow, Pastor John Hagee, Pastor Glen Cole (Pastor
Emeritus of Capital Christian Center in Sacramento),
Pastor Roy Labeck (of Trinity Life Center in Sacramento)
and, SADLY, even my brother and Richard
Paradise who see nothing wrong in allying
themselves with people of their ilk - and if this offends
you, TOO BAD! This is exactly
the kind of character transformation that Christians
in America are involved in when they ally themselves
with the American New World Order System: From human
beings to mad dogs. [Please see our articles, "Proposition
8: How will the Church Respond to Its Defeat"
and "Teaching American
Christians to Hate: Beginning a Crusade against the
Gay and Lesbian Community;" please also
see, "A Little
Leaven Leaveneth the Whole Lump."]
NOTE: The military order
"HAVOC!" was a signal given to the English military forces
in the Middle Ages to direct the soldiery (in Shakespeare's
parlance 'the dogs of war') to pillage and chaos.
God bless you all!
Once again, we URGE you to read (or re-read):
IN ADDITION, WE URGE YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE NEW ANTIPAS PAPERS,
PRINT THEM OUT YOURSELF, AND STUDY THEM CAREFULLY; SHARE THEM
WITH YOUR FRIENDS –
We need your help to spread the word concerning Antipas Ministries and the
eschatological viewpoint it represents; WE NEED YOUR
HELP BECAUSE WE DO NOT "LINK" WITH OTHER SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN"
WEBSITES which are, for the most part, "in the tank"
insofar as their loyalty to the United States is concerned
- a loyalty that has made them partners in the BLOODY
trail the American military has left in its TERROR-RIDDEN
rampage throughout the world, as well as making them partners
in the abject poverty that American corporations have
imposed on the peoples and nations the American military
machine has ravaged - A BLOODY, TERROR-RIDDEN RAMPAGE
THAT HAS TO A LARGE DEGREE BEEN CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME
OF THE "PRINCE OF PEACE." [Please see our articles,
"The Third World
as a Model for the New World Order," Inside
the American New World Order System" and "The
American Empire: The Corporate / Pentagon / CIA / Missionary
YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING
THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND