So, now the Pentagon is in the business of discriminating?

by Skip

I keep wondering – if our military’s main mission to kill people and break, why are they so bent on doing social engineering?  I listened to the Eldest and the Youngest (both combat vets – Marine / 101st) as first “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  goes by the board – neither had nice words on that at all.  In fact, the report back at the time was that many of those in his squad would not re-enlist (in fact, I remember seeing a recent poll of enlisted which, if true, means that the Army and Marine will have little problem in reaching the Obama downsizing projections).  Most recently came the info that women would be able to fill combat roles in the infantry (including the elite forces) – immediately the Youngest’s first retort was “look how beat up my body is from my year of full time combat patrols – at 26.  There is no way that a 5’5″ – 130 lb woman is going to consistently ruck a 120 lb pack for miles in the mountains at 8 – 10,000 feet altitude and still be as effective as they guys.  Sure, we got hurt and we had all kinds of stress injuries that slowed us down – but I’m 220 and 6’1″ and can better haul that gear.”

He then added – “glad I’m out.”

Well, the soon departing SecDef Leon Panetta has decided to make yet another huge social engineering experiment – and providing an object lesson in Progressive discrimination in how they veiw gays vs straights:

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has unilaterally issued a directive stating that the U.S. military will now extend certain benefits to unmarried domestic partners that were formerly reserved for married couples—but will only do so if the domestic partners certify in writing to the Department of Defense that they are of the same sex.

Sure, Obama unilaterally decided that DOMA was unconstitutional.  It seems that even though DADT was debated, it still came down to Obama and Panetta.  And now it would be rather clear that Panetta did not just do this on his own – Obama is certainly playing the Progressive “fundamentally transforming” American from the inside out.  And he can show, for all his wise, smooth words against bullying and against discrimination, that he has no problem in discriminating himself:

Heterosexual unmarried partners do not qualify for the benefitsand thus are treated unequally by Panetta’s directive on the basis of their sexual orientation.

 Really?  The Federal government can now discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?  Friends with benefits (and then DoD benefits) – but only if they are the Politically Correct ones.  As determined by our Progressive-in-Chief:

Panetta issued his directive in a Feb. 11 memorandum to the secretaries of the military departments and the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. The subject line on the memo said: “Extending benefits to same-sex domestic partners of military members.”

“At the direction of the President, the Department has conducted a careful and deliberative review of the benefits currently provided to the families of Service members,” Panetta said. “We have now identified additional family member and dependent benefits that we can lawfully provide to same-sex domestic partners of Military Service members and their children through changes in Department of Defense policies and regulations.”

“These benefits shall be extended to the same-sex domestic partners and, where applicable, children of same-sex domestic partners, once the Service member and their same-sex domestic partner have signed a declaration attesting to the existence of their committed relationship.”

Straight Partners – different sex?  Did you see “different-sex partners” in that release?  Right – you didn’t.  So, boyfriend-boyfriend partners is militarily cool.  Girlfriend-girlfriend partners is militarily cool.  Boyfriend-girlfriend?  Hahahaha, you lose – you don’t have the political juice to obtain the right Dod Rights.  That’s right – when the Rule of Law goes by the board, when Equality is the unevenly Political  Correct, you now know where you stand.

The question is Why?  Yes, there are committed gay partners – but there are lot of transient relationships now that can, with a simple signature, obtain Federal benefits that straight couples (unmarried) cannot get.  Equality in unequal treatment?

As we move more and more to the Rule of Man vs the Rule of Law, expect to see this more and more.  More and more we will see the appearance of Tyranny masked as equality for all (er, some).  We all know where traditional mores are in the Progressive  “importance ladder”.

We now see that even the non-application of DOMA has a political reach most of us never realized.

(H/T: CNSNews)

Like it? Share it!

Leave a Comment

  • IWKAGGP

    This is a classic example of why I’m pro-gay marriage but not pro-civil union. “Civil unions” set up a situation where married heterosexual AND unmarried homosexual, but NOT unmarried heterosexual couples – receive benefits. Passing gay marriage means equality. Not married? Fine, you get no benefits. Want benefits? Fine, get married.

    Of course, if gay marriage was the law of the land in all 50 states, this directive wouldn’t need to have been issued. My guess is that the only reason they’re doing it is because not all states recognize gay marriage.

    • C. dog e. doG

      Why is the government in the canoodling bi’ness, again? Do they need to inspect naughty bits before issuing licenses for use of same under the auspices of the Grate State? And do any driving lessons go along with the package deal?
      – C. dog snidely whiplashing common perceptions

      • IWKAGGP

        You’re absolutely right! The govt. shouldn’t be in that business. ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MARRY ANYONE THEY WANT TO! (as long as it’s ONE person marrying ONE other person . . . all that other “slippery slope stuff’s perverted – know wonder why that darn slope is so “slippery” . . . )

        • granitegrok

          I support traditional Biblical marriage. That said, only a small number of States have approved gay marriage – almost 30 have said no.

          OK Hunter Dan, as you are the outlier here for gay marriage, defend your NEW supposition of one marrying one. WHY that, why deny polyarmory to consenting adults?

          I can at least point to the Bible as one man – one woman as the traditional standard that forms my foundation. If that is now “busted” with gay marriage, what is YOUR rationale for limiting marriage to being quantity based instead of gender-based?

          • C. dog e. doG

            Dan? …. Dan? Anyone out there?

        • C. dog e. doG

          Actually, anyone can already marry anyone, they just have to find the rite church. With the U.U.’s, just about anything goes, except pets … I think.
          – C. dog

Previous post:

Next post: