Tuesday, May 10, 2011

What are we willing to tolerate?

Here’s more good news for America and our military. The Chief of Naval Operations has decided that it’ll be just fine for Navy Chaplains to perform same sex “marriages” in Naval Chapels, if the state where the Naval facility is located ok’s it. Perfect. Just what we needed another protected class of sailor.

Elections have consequences. When 51% of the population thinks a community organizing buffoon is fit to lead the most powerful nation in the history of the world, these are the things that nation will reap. Gay marriage in Naval Chapels, 9% unemployment, 1.6 TRILLION in deficits, 14 TRILLION in debt, $4 a gallon gas, laughing stock of the world, STILL hated by our enemies, not trusted by former friends, CIA agents under investigation for getting information that led to the demise of UBL, New Black Panthers un-prosecuted in the most obvious case of voter intimidation in the last 40 years, and on, and on, and on.

So what are we to make of this move by the CNO? My first reaction was IDIOT. Not because I’m a gay bashing Neanderthal, I’m not. But the first course of action is always to do nothing. And that is what should have been done in this case. Are same sex sailors clamoring to get married in Naval Chapels? I doubt it. So why make this announcement?

I really don’t know. The CNO, like many high ranking officers, may just be an obsequious @$$ kisser looking for favor from Mickey Mouse Mike Mullen and CinC the P-BO. For what purpose? I don’t know. You’d think once you’d reached the pinnacle of the Naval hierarchy you could stop kissing @$$. Maybe the CNO wants to get married to some same sex Chief Petty officer. Who knows?

All I know is that the number of same sex sailors signing up for this will probably be a pretty small number. So why risk upsetting the applecart? It's a mystery to me .

I could be wrong. Maybe there are hundreds of same sex sailors screaming bloody murder because they cannot be wed in the Navy Chapel.

I’ll be the first to admit that time has probably passed the old Lexter by on this issue. But I also know that the history of man supports heterosexual marriage. These things, now-a-days anyways, don’t revolve around right and wrong, but rather what’s perceived as being fair. If a same sex couple wants to get married, who are we as a people to stop them? Makes sense until you consider, if a brother wants to marry his sister, who are we as a people to stop them? Sorry for that visual that will take many long after lunch to get rid of. If two guys want to marry the same woman, who are we as a people to stop them? If a sailor wants to marry his pet monkey, really, who are we as a people to stop them? You can go through and think of all of the disgusting taboos and add the comma and then the who are we as a people to stop them line.

And that is the question. Who are we as a people to stop them? It all boils down to what we as a people are willing to tolerate in organizing ourselves. Apparently, we as a people are not willing to stop much of anything anymore. It’d be a shame to be called a racists or homophobe for standing up for something. Better to just be quite. After all, maybe the whole thing won’t collapse around us until after I’m dead and gone.

No comments: