The Olympian’s contemptuous gay columnist Ruth Schneider gives yet another compelling argument against her own agenda of repealing the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in the newspaper’s March 14^th edition.

Quoting retired Coast Guard Admiral Alan Steinman, she writes, “You can’t share your life with a loved one.  You have to lie.  You have to hide.  ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ forces them to lie about who they are.”

Well, Admiral, with all due respect, I think you misunderstand the ethos the US military requires of those who serve in it.  The Marines are looking for a few good men, not a few gay men, and there’s a reason for that.  Military personnel serve in what we loosely call “close quarters,” meaning that their lives become deeply intertwined.  It is one of the few institutions left in society where brotherhood, bravery and brawn are valued instead of spat upon by liberals and feminists.  Problems between men in the service are usually resolved by old-fashioned confrontation.  The rise in court-martial and non-judicial proceedings stemming from abusive, harassing or intimidating relationships during the last forty years or so has been, in an overarching sense, from the co-ed integration of the service and the introduction of the sensitive sex into an otherwise rough, insensitive environment.

Thus, to integrate society’s most hypersensitive subculture would do far more harm than good.

Soldiers are known for coarse humor and a lovingly brusque way of relating to another.  We routinely call each other names as a way of greeting: “Hi there, sweetheart!”  “How’s it going, you prissy boy?”  Or other words not permitted on a family-friendly website.

Perhaps, Admiral Steinman, this would not bother you too much, but homosexuals are known for their ultra-sensitivity.  It stems from a deep abscess of genuine love in their lives that causes them to crave adoration and obsession from others beyond a reasonable amount, if it could be called “reasonable.”  It is a form of narcissism, an aberration from the purpose of one’s God-given identity as a man or as a woman.  This is why Ruth Schneider feels so compelled to issue a weekly column of grievances; it is the same victim-oriented, self-centered mentality of other liberal voting blocs such as feminists and minority liberals.  She’s trying to justify her life by defining it by the person(s) she sleeps with.  Nobody can get away with that.

Schneider also quotes an anonymous Navy officer who whines, “The difficult part about it is that people I work with will ask questions about my personal life.  When I’m hesitant to share that with them, they view it as standoffish.  It’s just that I can’t share it with them.  There’s a distance between me and the people that I work with.”  This is pathetic.  As though gays never feel that pressure in civilian life?  Let me ask you heterosexuals who are reading this – how many times in your life have people felt perfectly comfortable in candidly announcing to you, “By the way, I’m gay”?  I realize some of you may have grown up in Capitol Hill or West Hollywood, but for the rest of us, we most often find out that someone we know is gay by observing their behavior.  It’s not something I’ve ever found out by someone telling me in much the same way as they would tell me what they do for a living.  Among men it is quite easy to spot – flamboyance, feminine mannerisms, lisp voices and self-absorption.  But “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is practically an unwritten civilian law.  You don’t want to embarrass someone in public by asking, “Are you gay?”  So you don’t ask them. It’s why we find it so funny in As Good As It Gets, a film huge on apologetics for homosexuals, when Jack Nicholson’s character openly mocks his gay co-star played by Greg Kinnear.  You just don’t do things like that in real life.  And homosexuals don’t necessarily want to deal with a negative reaction, so they don’t just tell you, “I’m gay.”  This policy is as much a part of the civilian landscape as it is the military one.

It was obvious Schneider would reference it before we even got to reading it in the article, but of course, liberals always point outside our borders to how wonderful everyone else is and how terrible we pig-headed Americans are.  “Like the national fight for same-sex marriage, the United States’ policy on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not matched by most other industrialized nations.  More than two dozen other nations – including Israel, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia and Canada – allow gays and lesbians to serve openly.”  Well, I suppose that when the world’s lone superpower is among your closest of allies in every single one of those countries, social engineering and experimenting is all well and good.  But need we point out that for all of their benevolence toward perverts, only one of those countries mentioned could seriously defend itself against countries like Russia or China without American support?  Does it strike you as coincidence that none of those nations, save Israel, gets anywhere close to where the major combat is in Iraq and Afghanistan?  They have become social experimentation units for their socialist governments.  Fine and dandy.  But they can’t stand up to Islamic terrorists.  What good is an army full of gays if all they can do is make the uniforms smell nice by using the right kind of fabric softener? 

The crux of this issue, though, is that in the military the matter becomes ten times worse.  For the homosexuals reading this who do not serve in the military, if you are permitted to serve openly and someone offends you, you can’t just quit your job and walk away.  You’ll have to go through the process of filing complaints with your commanders and bringing your fellow soldiers to justice – the very men and women with whom you demanded the right to serve to “improve combat readiness.”  So, possessing the right to serve openly in the military, with the supposed intent of improving national combat readiness, you will instead bring a great burden upon those already serving.  When the highest-ranking generals and civilian leaders begin to notice the spike in lawsuits between service members for calling each other names, a whole new doctrine of political correctness will descend upon the vast heterosexual majority.

The conservative media has for long asserted that liberals, upon failing to or anticipating the failure of passage of their absurd and harmful policies through the normal legislative process, will attempt to ram them down the people’s throats using the judiciary.

 This is from the Tacoma News Tribune’s South Sound Section B, on Friday, March 6, 2009, by AP’s Rachel La Corte:

 “HIGH COURT DISMISSES TAX CASE: State senator questions constitutionality of two-third vote rule on laws.”

 Now before we point out in brilliant rhetorical style how the plaintiff in this case, the Democrat Senate Majority Leader in the Washington State Legislature, proved exactly what conservatives have insisted all along, a round of applause is due the Washington State Supreme Court.  “The court, led by Justice Mary Fairhurst, said the challenge brought by Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, was a political question involving the Legislature, and not to be answered by the courts.”  This is what is meant when we advocate justices who interpret the laws of the Constitution rather than rewrite them.  Bravo, Justice Fairhurst and our State Supreme Court!

 Now, to illustrate the patently aggressive, disrespectful assault on the state constitution by the Legislature’s leading Democrat.

 “Brown had argued that Washington’s ‘supermajority’ tax-vote rule is unconstitutional because it effectively alters the state constitution’s provision that lawmakers need a simple majority to pass laws.  The supermajority law was passed by initiative, but Brown argued that a constitutional amendment – much more difficult to pass – is needed to alter the legislature’s voting powers.”  Later in the article it says, “Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, dislike the two-thirds vote requirement’s infringement on their powers” (our emphasis).

 NOW …

 This is taken from the Washington State Constitution’s Article I, Declaration of Rights.

SECTION 1: POLITICAL POWER

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights,” SENATOR!!!

SECTION 29: CONSTITUTION MANDATORY

“The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise,” SENATOR!!!

AND …

From Article II, Legislative Department.

SECTION 1: LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED

“Section A, Initiative: The first power reserved by the people is the initiative … Such initiative measures, whether certified or provisionally certified, shall take precedence over ALL other measures in the legislature except appropriation bills and shall be either enacted or rejected without change or amendment by the legislature before the end of such regular session,” SENATOR!!!

Now there it is in plain English, folks.  These are not opinion columns offered by the editorial board of the Ever Red State Network, as brilliantly correct as that would be.  These are the words of a liberal Democrat angry that she can’t get her way and trying to subvert the legislative process she swore to uphold by sneaking it through the state supreme court.  They were countered by the excellent words of a government official who is actually doing the job she swore to do, which is to decide cases based on the pre-existing laws in the state constitution instead of rewriting them from the bench.  And behind that judge stood the even more profound and powerful words of the constitution of the State of Washington.

But as for the angry liberal Democrat who tried to play hard and fast with the rules, we now add Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown to our list of Democrats we hope will fail.  SENATOR BROWN!  WE HOPE YOU FAIL!  WE HOPE YOU ARE BOOTED FROM OFFICE IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

Your friends

The Ever Red State Network