Home / General / “Special Priveleges”

“Special Priveleges”

Comments
/
/
/
98 Views

Yes, Santorum is dumber than a bag of lube and fecal matter. There’s also this:

I — I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they’re making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to — to — and removing “don’t ask/don’t tell” I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military’s job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.

Ah, yes, the oldest scam in the bigot’s playbook; it’s demanding “special rights” to ask for rights that people like Rick Santorum take for granted. Like Santorum, this defender fails to explain how denying someone who otherwise meets the criteria for military service the right to serve is about “special rights.” Imposing unique burdens in groups is just about rights, period. Speaking of John Marshall Harlan, he was on to this in 1883, in his solo dissent in the Civil Rights Cases:

My brethren say that, when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen or a man are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men’s rights are protected. It is, I submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. The statute of 1875, now adjudged to be unconstitutional, is for the benefit of citizens of every race and color. What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is what had already been done in every State of the Union for the white race — to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens, nothing more. It was not deemed enough “to help the feeble up, but to support him after.” The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of the legal right of the black race to take the rank of citizens, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Malaclypse

    I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military.

    I look forward to the Republican platform advocating celibacy for a group of largely 19-25-year-old males. That’s bound to be a vote-getter.

    • DrDick

      I look forward to the Republican platform advocating demanding celibacy

      Fixorated for greater consistency with DADT.

    • c u n d gulag

      Mal,
      Yeah, “Enlist – but no sex for you!” isn’t exactly a resounding recruiting message for 18-25 year olds.
      How do you sell this?
      “Be All That You Can Be. Alone. And Don’t Touch Yourself, Either, You Freak!”

      This doesn’t sound appealing to me. But what do I know? I never served.

      So, I guess sometimes we need to defer to the experts – and no one knows the militay as well as that grizzled old combat war veteran Sargeant Santorum.

      Keep this up, Little Ricky, and we’ll really have “An Army of One!”

      • Warren Terra

        The absurd idea that we would ever have a celibate army also recalled the absurd “Army Of One” slogan to me – although, obviously, an Army Of One with hairy palms and a squint.

        It is of course also possible that Ricky is a Star Wars fan (perhaps this was a shout-out for the blue-ray re-release?) and thinks we need an army of warrior-monks. With lightsabers.

        • Class, this is a Sergeant Burns. He’s here to speak to you about taking the black.

          • Hogan

            It’s a

            • Hogan

              [fucking hand cast]

              It’s a man’s life on the Wall.

      • gocart mozart

        No politician has thought longer and harder about all of the ins and outs of gay sex than Ricky Santorum either.

  • CJColucci

    Last I looked, sex in the ranks, whether hetero or homo, could, in appropriate circumstances get you into hot water. Whether those rules were ever enforced with any kind of even-handed consistency is open to doubt, but the principle is sound enough. Other than making the hetero v. homo character of the sex now irrelevant, has the end of DADT changed that?

    • DrDick

      However, DADT did not merely apply to sex between soldiers, but to any sex with a same sex partner including civilians. Likewise, even heterosexual rape of a fellow soldier is seldom prosecuted in the military.

      • Furious Jorge

        I’ve seen examples of heterosex prosecuted while I was working in the military equivalent of a prosecutor’s office. The real determining factor, in my experience, is whether or not the accused is an enlisted person.

        • DrDick

          I have no personal experience, but my friends who served indicated it was usually sex between officers and enlisted that got them in trouble.

      • Anonymous

        But there didn’t even have to be any gay sex at all, did there? Couldn’t you get kicked out just for saying you were gay (thus violating the “don’t tell” part)?

    • Despite the repeal of DADT, the UCMJ still bans “sodomy.”

      The Pentagon has proposed repealing that section and it’s before Congress, but I don’t think the repeal has been passed.

      • MAJeff

        Based on Lawrence, though, didn’t military courts limit the use of the UCMJ’s sodomy statute?

        • I don’t know.

          Any informed commentary would be appreciated.

          • MAJeff

            I had to look it up, but yeah, the Marcum decision narrowed the use of the military’s anti-sodomy statute.

          • “Informed” might be stretching it, but in my 8 years in the Army I never heard of a case of heterosexual sodomy being prosecuted unless it was part of a larger adultery or statutory rape case.

  • DrDick

    Somehow it seems to escape them that granting rights to some people (the military has always admitted heterosexually married personnel, often with children), while denying them to others is the very definition of “special privileges.” In this case, they want to privilege heterosexuals, as in others they want to do it for Christians, the wealthy, or whites.

    • dave

      It doesn’t escape them, as you and I both know. Nor is it particularly that they ‘want to privilege’ anything. They just think heterosexuality is normal, and homosexuality is wrong. We aren’t going to get them to stop thinking that; I wonder sometimes why we bother encouraging people to pretend they don’t think that. Just get the hate in the open, where it belongs, not festering in the subtext.

      • DrDick

        What you say is essentially true, but that is the basic nature of privileging certain statuses relative to others. Those which are privileged are seen as superior in some sense.

        • dave

          Indeed, in the academic world where ‘privileging’ is a Bad Word. They don’t live there, though.

  • mpowell

    This is ridiculous. The military pays it’s grunts more money on the ridiculous basis of whether or not your married. That’s because on grunt pay a married family would be otherwise below the poverty line, but that’s for another day… The point is that the military damn well accommodates and encourages heterosexual activity! I’ve even heard it plays an important role in officer promotion (being in a stable marriage – not f*cking!)

    • DrDick

      Even with the marriage bonus, many are below the poverty line, or at least eligible for SNAP.

    • Malaclypse

      We actually encourage 19-year-olds to enter long-distance marriages? Are we really that dumb?

      • Warren Terra

        The policy predates the post-2001 era of frequent and long deployments in theaters of conflict. Sure, a military family might move around a lot, might spend time living in West Germany or South Korea or Okinawa or Guam, or even Saudi Arabia – but they’d move together. The exceptions (Bosnia, for example) used limited manpower for limited terms. Iraq and Afghanistan are a different matter entirely.

  • efgoldman

    Santorum long ago established his idiocy credentials. I think if there were a way to keep him off the debate stage, the GOBP would have found it. In fact, I’m guessing he won’t be around for many more.
    Having said that, its still likely that a substantial percentage of the TeaTards believe as he does, even though they can’t articulate it coherently, either.

    No sex in the military….
    Hahahahahahahaha….

  • The right-wing notion that it’s intrinsically bad to “inject social policy into the military” is absurd on multiple levels:

    1.) Social conservatives in Congress have successfully banned the sale girlie mags and abortions on military bases. That’s imposing “social policy.”

    2.) Racial segregation was also “injected” into the military by civilian leaders and the Pentagon was reluctant to do it on its own.

    3.) Military recruitment practices ARE social policy.

    • I think you meant “integration”, but your point stands. Hell, not allowing neo-nazis in is a “social policy”, let’s see if we can get Santorum to condemn _that_.

    • Yeah, I meant “de-segregation.” Typo.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum is right. A little known provision of DADT prohibits soldiers from disclosing their heterosexuality. After the “repeal” gay soldiers can serve with impunity but straight soldiers have to stay in the closet.
    (at least, this is the only way I can think of that his comments would make sense)

  • Reakastebra

    Man .. Beautiful .. Superb .. I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds alsoI am happy to find a lot of helpful information right here in the post, we want work out extra techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .

  • Jonathan

    Sometimes I’m amazed by the incredibly progressive strain that ran through America during Reconstruction and was brutality stamped out at the end of it. Considering today that the Americans holding back out country are either White Southerners or the descendants of White Southerners, such as in Orange County or militia parts of Michigan, I can’t help but feel that another widespread disenfranchisement of the Republican base is the only thing that can save us from ruin. Thus, the best thing that can happen to the country is all those idiots agitating for succession do it so we can kill most of them and disenfranchise the rest.

  • Приглашаем посетить наш интернет-магазин http://bob-mag.com/ мы не торгуем ширпотребом , у нас свежие модели электроники,Автомагнитолы,
    Авто-регистраторы,Смартфоны,Коммуникаторы,Tablet PC Android OS,Видеодомофоны ! у нас реальные цены , от прямых производителей

  • Динамика числа женщин, получающих удовлетворение от полового акта наглядно видна из данных Американского сексологического института. Взяты женщины с разницей в возрасте в 20 лет. Те, которые родились на 20 лет позже, вели себя более свободно и расковано во время половой близости, и число женщин с половой холодностью сократилось вдвое.

It is main inner container footer text