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.


PREFACE

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 ban.

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lesbians serving in uniform should not make public declarations of their sexual orientation until the law is officially repealed.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 enforcing it.

Once the written notice is submitted, 60 days must elapse before "don't ask, don't tell" is officially repealed.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 bill.

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 warns:

"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 States.

______________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

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.

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.

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.

Commenting on his decision to oppose lifting the ban, Amos said:

"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 one ..."

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."

NOTE: The 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 unit.

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 for them.

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 finesse.

NOTE: The 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.

Catholic Archbishop
Timothy Broglio

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?

Orthodox Archbishop
Metropolitan Jonah

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 behavior."

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."

Evangelical Pastor Jim Garlow [For information on Pastor Garlow, please see our article, "Proposition 8: How Will the Church Respond to Its Defeat?"]

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

Gay officers dancing with one another at an officer's ball

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.

Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis

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.

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.

Most liberals and progressives are not open to dirtying their hands by serving in the military.

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.

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.

A bridge too far

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 years ago.

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.

More later.

God bless you all!

S.R. Shearer,
Antipas Ministries

______________________________________________

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

YOU MAY DOWNLOAD THEM FREE!

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 Archipelago."]

YOU CAN HELP BY EMAILING THIS ARTICLE TO
YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS

PRESS HERE


HOME | ARTICLES | ABOUT US | SUPPORT US | CONTACT US
© Antipas Ministries