Subscribe via RSS Feed

“Special Priveleges”

[ 38 ] September 23, 2011 |

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.


Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Malaclypse says:

    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 says:

      I look forward to the Republican platform advocating demanding celibacy

      Fixorated for greater consistency with DADT.

    • c u n d gulag says:

      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!”

  2. CJColucci says:

    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?

  3. DrDick says:

    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 says:

      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.

  4. mpowell says:

    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!)

  5. efgoldman says:

    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….

  6. Andrew says:

    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.

  7. Anonymous says:

    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)

  8. Reakastebra says:

    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. . . . . .

  9. Jonathan says:

    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.

  10. bobmag says:

    Приглашаем посетить наш интернет-магазин 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

  11. Okinamaklina says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.