Words of wisdom from Allen West on gays in the military
In an appearance today at the Heritage Foundation, U.S. Rep. Allen West, a conservative Republican freshman from Florida and a former Army officer, was asked about the impact of “social experimentation” on our military, an apparent reference to the abolition of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
West responded (see the 30-minute mark in the video below):
“Let me put it very simple, the United States’ military exists to win the nation’s wars. When you join the military, it takes individual behavior and conforms it the military. Now, if we start to have a perspective and belief in this nation that the military conforms to individual behavior, then we have lost the understanding of what it means to be in the United States military. The rules are very clear in the United States military. If you don’t want to abide by the rules of the United States military, then don’t join.
But the U.S. military is not there as a social experiment and for those who will sit up there and say, Congressman, you should understand because you’re black. Unless I’m Michael Jackson, I can’t change my color. But people can change behavior. And you do not base being a part of the military on adjusting to individual behavior. That’s my concern. And when you look at what our young men and women have to contend with, we’re talking about men and women fifth and sixth tours in combat zones. Now is not the time to appease a very small special interest group and I’ll leave it at that.”
I concur wholeheartedly with the congressman’s statement. If you don’t want to abide by the rules of the U.S. military, don’t join. The military should not conform to an individual’s behavior; the individual conforms to the military, and now is not the time to appease a very small special interest group. I agree with all of that.
So, if you are one of that ever-shrinking minority who believe that gay Americans don’t have a right to full participation as citizens, including the right to help defend this country, don’t join the United States military. If you do join the United States military, you better be ready to change your behavior to conform to military rules, which now outlaw discrimination against gay Americans.
Amen, Brother West.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
334 comments Add your comment
stands for decibels
June 1st, 2011
7:45 am
Mick, remember: Rev. Wright is an evil, racist, Whitey-hating, phony-Christian because he said “G.D. America” that one time, even though he actually apologized for saying it in the same sermon. Also, too, installed-President Bacrock Osama is forever stained by his association with this vile serpent even though the uppity Kenyan wasn’t actually there when Wright said “G.D. America” that one time.
But Ralph Reed? he’s a “player,” and per the Focus on the Family guy, we welcome all the players, including those who steal from Indian tribes, long as they sound somewhat vaguely contrite for having offended anyone while doing so.
(You can come back baby, rock’n'roll never forgets…)
Mick
June 1st, 2011
7:50 am
Well, here’s a shout out to all you great people of georgia who didn’t buy the snake oil and put reed out to pasture. This guy and his ethics are beyond contempt, and oh yeah, guess where he grew up? Miami – figures..
Finn McCool
June 1st, 2011
8:02 am
steal from Indian tribes
Well, steal isn’t a harsh enough term. The guy defrauded the tribe and its people.
other applicable terms:
deceive
swindle
con
cheat
trick
fleece
dupe
Finn McCool
June 1st, 2011
8:03 am
And all the above terms can be used interchangeably with “Republican”.
straitroad
June 1st, 2011
8:21 am
Jay,
Are you also a pervert or do you just support the normalization of perverted behavior?
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
8:28 am
“And all the above terms can be used interchangeably with “Republican”.”
That’s too broad a brush
Left wing management
June 1st, 2011
8:31 am
straitroad: “Are you also a pervert or do you just support the normalization of perverted behavior?”
Well, I can’t answer for Jay but my answer is that in certain cases I think it’s useful to normalize behavior that has been dubbed ‘perverted’ so as to remove that stigma. There’s nothing about homosexual practice that makes it universally ‘perverse’ – or at least, not any more than human sexuality in general. So society really has no business stigmatizing it as such.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
8:31 am
“Are you also a pervert or do you just support the normalization of perverted behavior”
“Judge not, lest ye be judged”
@@
June 1st, 2011
8:39 am
Words of wisdom from Charlie Rangel?
Rangel On Spending: “All We Have To Do” Is Tax More
Charlie said: “We have to cut back in our spending…everybody knows that…and we have to raise revenue in order to do it.”
schnirt
Paul
June 1st, 2011
8:47 am
Morning, all.
Maybe I’m misinterpreting Rep West and Jay, but it seems to me what Jay has done (which is so much fun) is to take Rep West’s seemingly ambiguous remarks and offered a conclusion (his last paragraph) that is directly opposite the point Rep West was making.
So no, Jay wasn’t agreeing with Rep West. And retired Lt Col West’s attitudes are still locked into decades-old stereotypes.
carlosgvv
June 1st, 2011
8:49 am
No one really knows what impact, if any, will arise from allowing gays to serve openly in the Military. So, common sense tells us to wait until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over and the troops are home before starting this. Then, if it turns out to be really disruptive and actually dangerous to men in combat, the policy can be changed without any loss of life. Of course, to many of you, political correctness is more important than soldier’s lives so it’s full speed ahead.
Granny Godzilla
June 1st, 2011
8:54 am
Of course, to many of you, political correctness is more important than soldier’s lives so it’s full speed ahead.
OR PERHAPS, you don’t have any confidence in our military
men and women to understand and do the right thing…..Why don’t you think our troops are good enough, smart enough and strong enough to do what is right?
Don’t measure the rest of the world by your own limitations.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
8:56 am
“Then, if it turns out to be really disruptive and actually dangerous to men in combat”
It isn’t now, it won’t be later.
stands for decibels
June 1st, 2011
8:58 am
Charlie Rangel?
Sorry, we must always refer to him as “Staff Sgt., 2nd Infantry Rangel,” or Kayaker 71 will cry big tears.
Left wing management
June 1st, 2011
9:00 am
carlosgvv: “Of course, to many of you, political correctness is more important than soldier’s lives so it’s full speed ahead:
What does this have to do with ‘political correctness’?
Besides, I’m just wondering how many solider’s lives were lost due to the integration of the Armed Forces in the 40s.
AmVet
June 1st, 2011
9:03 am
The supposed conservatives in 1948 were dead wrong when they opposed Truman integrating the military.
The supposed conservatives in 1993 were dead wrong when they opposed Clinton’s implementing DADT.
And the supposed conservatives in 2010 are dead wrong when they oppose Obama talking the next logical step and moving past DADT.
“Consistency. It’s only a virtue, if you’re not a screwup.”
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/demotivators/consistencydemotivationalposter.jpg
Paul
June 1st, 2011
9:04 am
carlosgvv
US combat forces were withdrawn from Iraq last year. All other countries’ forces are gone. We have 46,000 left there. DoD does not categorize them as combat forces, but training.
We have about 100,000 military in Afghanistan. The US military, active and reserve, totals over 2,000,000. I don’t see the ‘we have two wars underway and the stress would be too much on 5 percent’ as holding water. Plus, it’s an assumption it would be disruptive. I could be that those 5 percent are professionals who are fully able to put aside their preferences and put the mission first.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
9:04 am
“Besides, I’m just wondering how many solider’s lives were lost due to the integration of the Armed Forces in the 40s”
And THOSE integrated soldiers could hide who they were, unlike gay soldiers.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
9:06 am
“I could be that those 5 percent are professionals who are fully able to put aside their preferences and put the mission first.”
But it’s not those 5% that poor carl is worried about. He’s worried that the other 95% aren’t professional enough to deal with the issue of “gays in the military” and that they need to be protected.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2011
9:08 am
oops! “And THOSE integrated soldiers could hide who they were, unlike gay soldiers”
should be: “COULDN’T hike who they were”
TGT
June 1st, 2011
9:08 am
Again, let’s apply Jay’s logic to the marriage debate. If you don’t want to abide by the federal law, and the myriad of state laws that forbid same-sex marriage, move to a state/country that does, or don’t get married. If you do want to live in states/countries that ban gay marriage, then “you better be ready to change your behavior” to conform to such laws.
josef nix
June 1st, 2011
9:09 am
Day two and still on topic? I feel, so…important?
Anyway, Bruin, I’ve already got up, gone in, reported, picked up my next task and am on it other screen…so, where’s something new to talk about…?
josef nix
June 1st, 2011
9:10 am
oops…there it is…take the wind out of my sails, would you?
Bosch
June 1st, 2011
9:12 am
Hey! Gandalf’s back! How’s Skippy?
Left wing management
June 1st, 2011
9:12 am
carlosgvv: “Then, if it turns out to be really disruptive and actually dangerous to men in combat, the policy can be changed without any loss of life. ”
Besides, why all this hand-wringing about ‘loss of soldier’s lives’? I mean, if the whole point of the military is to “break things and kill people” as Rush Limbaugh puts it, then why should we be completely paralyzed by the prospect of soldiers dying? You’re not becoming a librul’ softie are you?
Bosch
June 1st, 2011
9:13 am
“No one really knows what impact, if any, will arise from allowing gays to serve openly in the Military.”
Yes we do, because they have been serving in the Military since the Revolutionary War.
Joe Mama
June 1st, 2011
9:17 am
Doom — “Joe Mama provided a link earlier on the same subject and of course the link if I remember correctly was from the ACLU- no credibility there of course.”
No, no credibility whatsoever in reading photostats of the actual statements written by the soldiers who participated in and witnessed the statement. It’s clear that the people who were there and participated in the incident couldn’t have any credibility whatsoever.
Oh, yes, and the photostat machine lied, too.
“Wonder why Joe didn’t use the wikipedia link considering he often posts wikipedia as a source as opposed to an ACLU link?”
More than one link in a post and you run the risk of the autosnagger. But given how much you’ve railed in the past about how unreliable Wikipedia is, it is certainly good to see that you’ve changed your opinion.
FSUNoleinDC
June 1st, 2011
9:21 am
jay shows he is a reprobate…
josef nix
June 1st, 2011
9:21 am
Ya know, there are a some posters here who phrase their objection to gay folks in terms of their religious beliefs, a couple of them meanwhile supporting repeal of DADT, and then there are those, and you know who you are, who are somewhat rude from time to time in opposition to people of faith…the conclusion, imho, the latter are just plumb mean and hateful bigots…
just an observation before taking off for upstairs…
Jay
June 1st, 2011
9:23 am
I am the wind beneath your wings, Josef.
josef nix
June 1st, 2011
9:27 am
JAY
Ned_Flaherty
June 1st, 2011
1:38 pm
U.S. Representative Allen West (R-Florida) is ignorant and mis-informed, on 5 counts.
1. West thinks bisexual, lesbian, and gay sexual orientations are arbitrary, whimsical behaviors that any individual can change easily, just like grabbing a new pair of socks.
He’s wrong. All 5 sexual orientations — bisexual, lesbian, gay, heterosexual, asexual — are innate, fundamental components of the entire person. Decades ago, credible professionals accepted modern scientific research which proved that sexual orientations are generally fundamental and immutable.
2. West also assumes — again, incorrectly — that fairness and equality are just a “social experiment.”
He’s wrong. Most large American employers treat personnel of all sexual orientations equally and fairly. And 41 other nations already allow open service in their armed forces. And 21 states already have some form of marriage equality (same-sex marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership): CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA, WI. What West mistakenly calls a “social experiment” is already commonplace. The only thing out of place is West himself.
3. West claims to be worried about “what our young men and women have to contend with.” He’s not, because he ignores the fact that millions of bisexuals, lesbians, and gays served well across the 20th/21st centuries, and 78,000 are serving right now. The morale and performance of those 78,000 would benefit greatly if they weren’t forced by federal law to lie about who they are, how they live, and who they love.
4. West also assumes — again, incorrectly — that the Americans who want all armed forces membes to be treated fairly and equally are only a “very small special interest group.”
He’s wrong. CNN, NBC, ABC, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Gallup, Pew, McClatchy, and Quinnipiac University reported that 80% of all Americans favor treating all military personnel fairly and equally, without regard to sexual orientation.
5. Finally, West also says — again, incorrectly — that “now is not the time” to treat people fairly. So he admits that it’s possible, just not now. How is any time a wrong time for equality? And on what date does Mr. West think equality will finally become timely enough?
Mr. West, abandon your 19th century, skip the 20th, and join the 21st. While you still can.
David Granger
June 1st, 2011
9:48 pm
I agree completely, Jay. Anyone who joins the military must be ready and willing to adhere to its rules. And that applies to gays, as well. I’m glad to see that gays are going to be allowed to openly serve…they have served with honor and integrity (there are certainly some exceptions)…and I’m glad they won’t have to hide an important part of their life and of whom they are. But neither will they be allowed to flaunt it, either…just like straights are not allowed to flaunt their relationships. A gay man will be able to give his “life partner” a goodbye peck in the morning, just like a straight soldier gives his wife. But straights are not allowed to make extreme displays of affection…so gays won’t be allowed to, either. Straight soldiers are not allowed to wear their uniform wherever and under whatever circumstances they wish to…and neither will gay soldiers be allowed to. That means that gays will not be allowed to wear their uniform and march in any “rainbow brigades” in a gay pride parade, just like straight soldiers of Irish descent have been prohibited from wearing their uniform and marching in impromptu “Irish brigades” in St. Patrick’s Day parades. (Although I’ll bet you some gays and gay rights organizations will insist that they should be allowed to, since they’ve been prohibited from openly serving “for so long”.) I’m glad to see the new policy, but it’s not carte blanche.
Mike Emm
June 1st, 2011
11:39 pm
Granny you are right relieved of his command about a 5K fine and an invitation to take advantage of his ability to retire. They don’t want people like him in the military.