Civil Unions" Via the Military Homosexual Influence in Institutional Washington
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ill 01. rmciD es •QIIBEII HilillllPlMMOT Ushering in "Civil Unions" via the Military Homosexual Influence in Institutional Washington As the Mark Foley Congressional page scandal unfolded, placing this single predator within the larger context is required to appreciate the significant and ongoing political influence homosexuals enjoy throughout institutional Washington unchecked by any political party. Though Foley is one man, the scandal bearing his name exemplifies a pernicious reality which finds that while less than 3% are homosexual men, fully one third ofchild sex abuse cases involve men molestine bovs. Indeed, early and most news reports ofRepresentative Foley's sexual solicitations ofyoung pages were very careful not to revealthat the victims wereunder-aged boys. Don't hear much about the threat to boys in the military either, the verylast American institution to outlaw sodomy and other"immoral anddissolute" behaviors, but a May27, 1993 Department of the Army memo reported thatof the 102Army dismissals for convictions of sodomy from 1989 to 1992,47% of the victims wereunderage boys. Yet some appointees within the Militaryinstitutionare unrelentingly eliminating battle-proven standards - sonecessary to goodorderand disciple for combat troops - but also for the protection of America's youth. ' - then made the point that the Foley scandal Hffl^ ] ^R|bijB jlgjBjJ jJ has exposedDepartment'saRepublicanwebsite"gay identityreports crisis"on the "warmas daysreception"later the 8Bb ' Secretary Rice, to serve as the United States Global Contrary todecadesof Republican rhetoric,this "identity crisis" has been going on for some time. Recall thewords of Vice President DanQuayle campaigning in 1992, whenhe toldthepress not to listento what theWhite House said, butrather "watch what we do. We are the ones who have implemented a non- discrimination policy when it comes to gays and lesbians." No one can accuse the Bush administration ofanti- gay bias either. The depth ofsignificant gay influence inthe Republican Party, can beillustrated best by a little known, but long-time player, who serves the Bush administration and has been THE filter for most political appointments in the Department ofDefense for decades. AnOctobcr 2, 2006 article in The Washington Postdescribes the most important "kitchen cabinet" member surrounding Secretaiy ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld as Stephen Herbits,' a self-proclaimed gay-rights activist, who also claims tohave filled 40to45positions inthe current Department ofDefense. ' A20 year key executive with Seagram's, and currently the secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress. According to New York newspapers, Herbits was called id by the WJC to address accusations offinancial mismanagement that have gamered apreliminary investigation by the New York State attorney general's office 1 InJaiuary, 1981, he claimed to have found appointees for 41 or42 jobs for Reagan's Secretary Caspar Weinberger. In 1989, he repeated his service as "chief civilian talent scout" inDick Cheney's Pentagon. In January, 2001, he filled 45 jobs inthe George W. Bush Department ofDefense, although he claimed it took twice as long as earlier stints. In July 2003, Mr. Herbits was once again invited to screen personnel for the Secretary ofDefense for top civilian defense positions. Beyond Herbits' substantial influence on military appointments and promotions. The Washington Post's most recent article describes Herbits as a "special assistant" to Secretary Rumsfeld, who gave him"a license to analyze current problems, and he ^nctioned as a management fix-it tlieqi^ man, somewhat as Karl Rove did for Bush." On July 15, 2004, the untouchable Herbits released a seven-page report ipsiaqer on "Post-Iraq Planning and Execution Problems" openly BF"-' ' attacking Rumsfeld's leadership style. fir ^ wit' Sodomy is still a crime in the Armed Forces, yet for SKV m Mi«iifci» ^ Rumsfeld's "most important kitchencabinetmember," a gay-rights activist himself, determines who is a suitable political appointee and who has the military expertise to direct America in time of war. While the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"policy firmly rejects openhomosexuality in the military, Herbits freely admitshe doesn't have any negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Apparently only those promoting homosexuality needapply to the Department of Defense. For example: Herbits told The Advocate [gay weekly news magazine - has been compared to Time] that he likedworkingin personnel. "Personnel is ultimately, policy," hesaid. "If there was a candidate I didn'(likefor somegood reason, I could bring it up [he vetting process. If there someone 1 reallyliked, 1 couldpush theperson along." Herbits tangled with then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R.-^iss.) in 2001, when Lett held up Pentagon personnel confirmations after Herbits refused to hire someone Lott recommended. "Lott was wrong and corrupt, "Herbits told The Advocate. But he admitted thatLott's opposition to homosexuality colored his view ofthe senator. "Certainly it's hard to have an objective view ofsomeone who thinks I shouldnot exist," he said. Despite the fact that Herbits has publicly revealed himself as gay in Fortune magazine's December 16. 1991, cover story, "Gays inCorporate America," and later he was outed for his powerful role in the Pentagon in Human Events in 2003, there was no effective response from Republican or conservative leadership. Veteran's organizations, or the "Religious Right" and Pro-Family organizations to this man's very crucial position in view ofhis expressed activist bias. Outrage, inside the beltway, that should have followed the Foley scandal is equally absent. An the November elections drew near, Conservative leaders, so completely linked to the Republican party could only call for loyalty to the party instead ofaccountability to the voters. One of the most troubling aspects ofthe Foley scandal is thescramble particularly in themedia to eliminate any issues ofvirtue, honor, and morality onthe grounds that "no laws were broken." Liberal Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Kitchens wrote a sarcastic analysis in The Wall Street Journal accusing those concerned withFoley's predatory behavior of homophobia andpolitical posturing. Afterall,Hitchens notes, John Gizzi, Social Conservatives: 'Values Voters' Must Standby GOP. HumanEvents, October9,2006. "The youngster seemed able to look after himself," and "Ifthere had been a sexual relationship between man and boy, it would almost certainly be legal." The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported after the Congressional investigation that "House leaders knew but broke no rules, ethics panel finds." Ironically, junk science adopted in the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code and propagated throughout the states in the 70's and 80's changed criminal laws which now fail to protect marriage, women and children from sexual predators. Some Republicans are following the lead ofcultural critic Christopher Kitchens, whose' Wall Street Journal article mocked the premise that there was anything wrong with Mr. Foley's abuse ofhis position or predatory actions. Now that all 50 states have eliminated laws that once provided protections for marriage, women, and children, a crime against a child is referred to by Mr. Kitchens as a "free laugh." As states' laws embraced Indiana University's Kinsey Reports, the concept ofpublic responsibility and laws to protect the young were cast aside.^ Atthe very least, Mr. Foley is guilty ofgross abuse of his Congressional authority and ofsexual harassment in the workplace. PROTECTIONS FOR MILITARY WOMEN WANING Looking to the future, the growing acceptance and prevalence ofhomosexuality in the military will get a big boost in October, 2007, when the historic, concise, 93-words proscribing Rape and Carnal Knowledge, known as Article 120 in the UCMJ, was overturned and ballooned to 3,373 words. Again, based on Kinsey's junk science from the 1950's Illinois Crime Commission, the simple straightforward 93-word military law has become tortuous legalese and is currently contained as a revision to the law, Section 552, approved by President Bush in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Scheduled to be implemented in October 2007, this ambiguous law replaces the simple military rape statute with overlapping gender neutral terms; including rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, aggravated sexual abuse ofa child, abusive sexual contact, indecent conduct, and wrongful sexual contact. I j All ofthese changes, when accomplished in the civilian code served to confoxmdthe civilian courts' handling ofrape. Now military legal experts, like their civilian counterparts, who have seen justice for victims avoided by theKijisey-based lawchanges, willtoofind themselves parsing overthe maddening differences between bodily harm, and grievous bodily harm, or whether there is rape that causes no bodily harm, or the difference between a perpetrator who forces himselfupon another person, as opposed to a victim who "communicated unwillingness and declined participation." The practical bottom-line result ofthe new UCMJ rape statute is that this once serious crime will be plea bargained to one ofthe dozen lesser crimes or misdemeanors found in the new Article 120 laundry list. In the civilian model the results over the decades have proven that sex offenses are decriminalized and punishments, if any, are reduced by the change. For the military, the outcome ofthe law revision doesn't promise to be any better.