A disease-ridden judicial decision

In what was Page 1 news all over this nation, California federal Judge Virginia Phillips issued a permanent injunction against "don't ask, don't tell." She also declared that this policy, in her words: "infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and perspective members."

Judge Phillips ordered the U.S. government and its armed forces "immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation or discharge separation or other proceeding that may have been commenced under the 'don't ask, don't tell' act."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that this court order is "under review."

The Justice Department has 60 days to file an appeal.

During that 60-day period and in two weeks from today the American people will, in predictably high numbers, have a chance to vote into retirement each and every one of those Democrats in Congress who support the president in his desire to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

If that is ever done to our armed forces there will be a far greater drop in enlistments by service members who, with their families, are opposed to sodomy acceptance.

The recruitment of self-announced homosexuals would also cause a major medical problem given the sexual orientation's high rates of AIDS and syphilis.

In two weeks from today every member of the House and one-third of the Senate is either up for re-election or has retired. Does anyone believe that this California federal judge's attempt to force the acceptance of openly announced buggers into the barracks will not result in an even greater number of votes against the majority of Democrats who support this very dangerous and disease-ridden judicial decision?

Just imagine a Marine Corps general – whose combat record includes numerous battle honors for extraordinary courage – issuing the following orders, if after the Nov. 2 election there is still an Obama administration push for abolishing "don't ask, don't tell":

All self-announced homosexuals who enlist in the Corps – or any already enlisted who announce this previously concealed orientation – will be housed in separate barracks assigned to special homosexual units in keeping with their announcement of their sexual orientation.
The Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division has prepared provisional litigation to provide for any objection to this special assigning. That provisional litigation will defend the right to assign self-announced homosexuals to homosexual facilities – just as female Marines are not obliged either to room with or bed down in barracks alongside male Marines.
In consideration of the vital importance of command, no heterosexual noncommissioned or commissioned male officers will ever be ordered to room with or be quartered in the same barracks with heterosexual female Marines. Heterosexual enlisted Marines will never be domiciled in the same quarters with Marines who are self-announced homosexuals.

The U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., which provides a considerable number of its graduates to the Marine Corps, has since 1976, when it first admitted female midshipmen, never allowed co-ed rooming in Bancroft Hall. Forcing any heterosexual midshipman to room with any self-announced homosexual midshipman would be an appalling denial of basic rights.

And finally:

One Marine Corps veteran is Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

He declared that Judge Phillips is "playing politics with our national defense. Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda. There is still strong opposition to changing the law from military leaders."

Perkins predicted that the decision would have wide-ranging effects in the coming elections:

"This move will only further the desire of voters to change Congress. Americans are upset and want to change Congress and the face of government because of activist judges and arrogant politicians who will not listen to the convictions of most Americans and, as importantly, the Constitution's limits on what the courts and Congress can and cannot do."

"We are a nation at war," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee. "This decision could have a negative impact on military and family readiness since the Department of Defense is unprepared to address the issues that are bound to arise from such a hasty change."

While this litigation was sponsored by the Log Cabin Republicans (which the Washington Post reported has "19,000 conservative pro-gay-rights members"), a Senate test vote on a repeal bill failed last month as Republicans united against it. It remains unclear whether Democrats will bring up the measure for consideration again during a lame-duck session after the midterm elections next month. Repealing the ban could prove difficult if Republicans take control of Congress next year.