Eleven (11) postscripts have been added to this item.
19 October 2009/07 December 2010
Marines of Conscience or Homosexual Marines
Anthony F. Milavic
Major, United States Marines Corps (Retired)
Of Marines in the combat arms, "67% . . . said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s effectiveness" if they were forced to serve with openly homosexual Marines according to the DoD "Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' ” published 30 November 2010. That "negative impact" stems from the Corps' tradition of character; character that defines Marines of conscience. In the first instance, the very nature of being Marines of conscience will prompt many of them to extricate themselves from such associations. A notable example of that imperative is the following Marine: On 2 February 1983, Captain Charles B. "Chuck" Johnson, USMC, of Neenah, Wisconsin jumped on an Israeli tank that tried to run through a Marine roadblock in Lebanon. He threatened to shoot the tank commander if he continued: The tank withdrew. Later, that Marine officer of conscience resigned his commission rather than compromise his moral convictions and serve with practitioners of homosexual acts tacitly protected by, "Don't ask. Don't tell." His action was a manifestation of the Biblical imperative voiced in The Epistle of James 2:14-26 that convictions are worthless unless practiced. If either the recent judicial opinion prevails or the United States Congress reverses itself and permits homosexual Marines to serve openly, they will force from service and replace still more Marines who value and practice their conscience.
First of all, it is Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) that precludes homosexuals from serving in the Marine Corps as well as the other Services; i.e., bans homosexual from serving openly. The, so called, policy of "Don't ask. Don't tell" is an Executive Order signed by President Clinton in 1993 to stop the Marine Corps from asking people at the time of enlistment if they were homosexual. In so doing, homosexuals are able to enter the Marine Corps, receive expensive training--such as Arabic language training--and, then, declare their homosexuality and leave the Corps without punishment for falsifying their enlistment as was previously the case. This policy also serves as a way for heterosexual Marines to exit the Corps early by declaring that they are homosexuals. Should Mr. Obama keep his campaign promise to homosexuals and eliminate the policy of "Don't ask. Don't tell," he would plug up this loophole of "easy out." The larger threat to Marines of conscience is the threatened repeal of Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) by the U.S. Congress.
In May 1999, Pope John Paul II reasserted Catholicism's position that homosexual acts were “intrinsically evil.” This opinion is not unique to the Roman Catholic Church for it stems from millennia of Judeo-Christian teachings. The earliest are the Old Testament references of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and God's explicit denunciation of homosexual behavior, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13) For Christians, those passages are reinforced in the New Testament by:
(1) Jesus Christ's reaffirmation of God's intent for man's sexual orientation in saying, "At the beginning of creation God made them male and female; for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one. So they are no longer two, but one flesh." (Mark 10:6-9 and Matthew 19:4-6)
(2) Saint Paul echoes God's characterizations of homosexual acts in the Old Testament by two condemnations: (a) “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned their lust for one another. Men did shameful things with men, and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their perversity” (Romans 1:26-28); and, (b) “Do not deceive yourselves: . . . no sodomites . . . will inherit God's kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9) (The biblical quotations above are taken from: The New American Bible, 1971-1972 Edition, Catholic Bible Publishers.)
As a result, homosexual acts are proscribed for Christians as well as Jews. Also, the Qu'ran states:Qur'an (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds....And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)"
Qur'an (26:165-166) - "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay,
ye are a people transgressing"
In counting only those who embrace Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, over 76 percent of the U. S. population are potential adherents of the conviction that homosexual acts are morally anathema to the precepts of their religion--persons of conscience.
What are these acts? Generally speaking, these are sex acts conducted by and between members of the same sex; for male homosexuals, the primary sexual act is anal sex. Both practicing homosexuals and some, who describe themselves as persons of science, argue that this is “natural” sex. However, nature's basis for sex is procreation and homosexual acts are alien to that process: a point recognized by Pope John Paul II when he stated in July 2000 that homosexual acts were "contrary to natural law'' in response to a homosexual demonstration in Rome. Lastly, they are not “natural” sex but sexual "perversions" as defined in the English language: Random House Dictionary, “perversion, 4. any of various means of attaining sexual gratification that are widely regarded as being abnormal, esp. when practiced habitually and in preference to normal heterosexual intercourse.”
Of course, male homosexuals do not restrict their behavior to anal sex. Some of those additional acts are found in homoerotic art. In 1989, a public showing of homoerotic art was scheduled for the Corcoran Gallery of Art in the District of Columbia. That was changed to another venue in our nation's capital at the last minute after the content of the show was made public: photographs taken by Robert Mapplethorpe. One particularly telling photo that remains etched in this writer's memory--it was published in the mass media in Washington, DC--showed two men facing each other in profile--one standing, one kneeling/sitting. The sexual act being advertised as “art” was of the standing man urinating into the open mouth of the kneeling and/or sitting man as exemplified by this photo from his portfolio found on the internet. Additional “art” by this same photographer is contained in his book entitled, The Perfect Moment.
Service in the U. S. Marine Corps requires the loss of many liberties that civilians enjoy; especially, the right of association. Individual Marines cannot choose their leaders or with whom they will work and live. It is beyond governmental authority to force these Americans into situations that compromise their morals. The Selective Training & Service Act of 1940 permits the granting of Conscientious Objector status to “One who by reason of religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to participation in war.” Little known is: People v. Stewart, 7 Cal. 143, “Conscientious Scruple. A conscientious scruple against . . . doing military duty, or the like is an objection or repugnance growing out of the fact that the person believes the thing demanded of him is morally wrong, his conscience being the sole guide to his decision . . . ” (Black's Law Dictionary). This “Conscientious Scruple” provision appears to give Marines of conscience a legal remedy for a morally compromising situation of serving under or with Marine homosexuals. Moreover, since there are evidently more persons of conscience in our society than homosexuals, the pool of potential recruits for the current all-volunteer Marine Corps will be reduced.
A question which now begs answering is: "How would replacing Marines of conscience with homosexual Marines enhance a Marine unit’s combat efficiency?” Rather than enhancing combat efficiency, the opposite would be the result. In large part, the degree of a Marine unit’s combat efficiency parallels its degree of unit cohesion. As the term implies, unit cohesion is a function of the emotional closeness of the unit’s members who are drawn together by both social and military common grounds. There are at least three areas by which homosexual Marines would be drawbacks to such cohesion:
1) The social “barracks talk” of Marines is dominated by the object of their sexuality as is their after work pursuits--heterosexuality and homosexuality are, by their natures, mutually exclusive and therefore would create non-cohesive groups;
2) Marines of consciences and other heterosexual Marines who fail to include homosexual Marines in those activities would be practicing, by definition, sexual discrimination and, potentially, would be susceptible to prosecution under military law. That potential susceptibility would sow apprehension throughout the unit;
3) The 2010 Defense Budget was signed into law containing an attachment adding homosexuals to the Federal Hate Crimes Law. As a result, any Marine who expresses revulsion over homosexual acts will be susceptible to prosecution by Court Martial. Also, the federal statute allows for training and prevention programs. This last provision will probably result in forced indoctrination classes in Marine units that would challenge the religious convictions of Marines of conscience and their Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion prompting virulent reactions from Marines of conscience and palpable tension in Marine units.
In creating tension and apprehension between Marines, unit cohesion is degraded and, by extension, so is unit combat efficiency: the relationship between the facility in combat mission accomplishment and cost in friendly casualties.
Lastly, those who consider homosexual acts to be amoral are accused by homosexuals and their supporters of harboring irrational fear by calling them, “homophobic.” As enumerated above, Marines of conscience are not “homophobic” but “homo-aware.” They are Marines imbued with the awareness of what is right and what is wrong, an awareness that epitomizes the highest qualities of moral character and honor. If Marines of such character were sacrificed on the altar of political expedience to allow homosexual Marines to serve openly, our nation's character would be sacrificed as well.
"Alike for the nation and the individual, the one indispensable requisite is character--character that does and dares as well as endures, character that is active in the performance of virtue no less than firm in the refusal to do aught that is vicious or degraded."
The Outlook, March 31, 1900
Semper Marines Of Conscience,
Anthony F. Milavic
Major USMC (Ret.)
(2) In a 12 January 2010 Washington Times article, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Carl Mundy, USMC (Ret.) reported that more than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers signed a statement supporting the 1993 law (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)) that precludes homosexuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and expressing concerns about consequences of its repeal. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/12/maintain-military-gay-ban/
(3) In a 2 February 2010 Washington Times article, the former Chief, U.S. Army Criminal Law Division, Col. Richard H. Black, USA (Ret.) discusses criminal acts of military homosexuals and their impact on unit dicipline http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/01/danger-to-discipline/
(4) An Army Times Publishing Co. poll of active duty Service Members published in February 2010 reveals 51% OPPOSE and 30% FAVOR letting homosexuals serve openly in the Armed Forces. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/military_dontask_survey_020510w/
(5) Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret) writes in the 5 March 2010 New York Times, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Change" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05mcpeak.html?ref=opinion
(6) "If gays serve openly, will chaplains suffer? Yes, religious liberty is in real jeopardy."
(7) Marine Corps Commandant says 95% of Marines against lifting "Don't ask. Don't tell."
(8) Retired Chaplains "Don't Change 'Don't ssk. Don't tell.' " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906974.html?hpid=moreheadlines
(9) Don't sacrifice unit cohesion for a social experiment. BY STUART KOEHL
(10) Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, dtd, 30 November 2010
(11) How Congress Was Duped Into Repealing Military Gay Ban--Frank Gaffney
In separating the import of "don't ask, don't tell" from that of the Public Law on homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, you brought me to a state of hilarity. From Obama's promise to homosexuals to military officers commenting on the effects of the removal of "don't ask, don't tell," ALL have represented its removal as the panacea for permitting homosexuals to serve openly. We truly have a government of "the blind leading the blind!"
When I was going through OCS at Quantico in the '50s, we were in squad bays and took communal showers. I guess they still do that in boot camp. In any case, I think it would be a big loss to unit cohesion if you knew the recruit in the next bunk or next to you in the shower room was gay. It would have made a big difference 'way back then.
Absolutely! Great read.
Good Morning Major:
I am so thankful I retired from our beloved Corps so long before this idiotic nonsense became such a bother.
You have written with a very truthful pen the problems that this will cause if the stupid black one and his soft hearted bunnies get their wish.
Marines are for Men of courage and action.
Jack Du Bois
1945 - 1972
I loath fags.
MSgt. USMC Ret.
Congratulations, Anthony on an eloquent piece of writing much needed. It' s one of the best I've read.
I knew Chuck Johnson and served with him before his famous encounter with the Israeli tank and it did not surprise me at all when I read later of his resignation on principle. Chuck was a principled guy.
I wrote a Letter to the Ed. for MCG back when Bill Clinton broached the subject and Carl Mundy allowed himself to be photographed with Bill shaking hands as they discussed the matter - at least according to the photo-op's caption. Only a short excerpt of my letter was published. John Greenwood was MCG Editor at the time and he told me that he had received more letters on the "Let homos also serve" issue than any ever in his stint as Editor.
My thrust was akin to yours but a little different. I made the point that a combat leader MUST truly love his Marines (now "love" becomes a touchy word - but I won't worry about that here) no matter whether he likes their personalities or their looks - this because of the huge responsibility with which he, the leader, is charged to take care of his men even under the worst circumstances, plus the enormity of the demands that the officer must sometimes place on his subordinates. So, I said (and this was three years into my retirement) , since I am intolerant of homosexual acts, I cannot love those who commit the acts. Under the proposed policy accepting homosexuals, I would therefore have to accept Marines under my command whether I respected themor not, and that therefore, were I still on active duty, I would have to resign. John liked the piece and published only a small part of it but wrote a really tough anti-gays-in-service Editorial of his own - which you very likely read and remember. It, again, was similar to yours but the main thrust was that gays have a completely different set of ethics than we do so we can't trust them. When I was active in MILINET a few years ago, I tried that thesis out on a MILINET post and got so much grief and slander from a few pro-homo Marines (staff NCO's as I recall) that I decided it wasn't worth the grief I was gettng now in retirement, and said no more about it. It's already a changed Corps.
BUT - that said, I am on your side 100%, I applaud this piece you have written, I know how much work it takes to churn out anything so eloquent, and, most importantly, if there is ever anything I can do to help, please tell me. There is still plenty of fight left in me.
Never forget the quote from that great American patriot, Samuel Adams; "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
That's all the homosexual issue throughout our society, particularly the U. S. Armed Forces, is really all about. There is a distinct minority which wants to force it's agenda on the rest of us. They started by getting the medical profession to legitimize them by saying homosexuality is not a sickness, so according to homosexuals and their supporters that must mean we have to accept their immoral behavior. Well I'm here to tell you that it doesn't have to be "sick" to be immoral and I will NOT tolerate anyone forcing their values on me. So I absolutely agree with the idea of Marines following their conscience and leaving the Corps if forced to serve with homosexuals. Homosexuals want to serve? Fine, let 'em serve. ALONE!!! See how much they trust their sex partners to back them up in a pinch.
Lawrence E. McCartney; Master Gunnery Sergeant of Marines (Retired): 1967 - 1997
The impressions and experiences noted are important for this discussion but in the end I think we will have to leave it to the young Marines of today's world to decide how they will accept or reject gays or perhaps even pregnant females which now has the services scratching their heads even more. I always shared the concerns expressed but over time relaized that within the Marine Corps I was serving with gays all the time, showers be damned, and I didn't get a clue, and some of the greatest fighter pilots continue their distinguished lives. So the point being, the youngsters today have an enormous capacity for tolerence and brush off so much of what we once worried ourselves to death about. I did serve with the Dutch Air Force for a while and they were as open as possible to the point where the first very qualified female fighter pilot had a great male nude on her locker door just to be up-to-speed with her male contemporaries who were ultra-vagina conscience yet the gays seemed to not be so flamboyant on duty. But then again after a few beers the Belgains would start kissing everybody and it was hard to figure anything out. But at the 06:00 am brief everyone was still there ready to go and they flew as they should and performed with the best of skill. In Thailand it's a total mix and there is no way to figure anything out with our mindsets, yet the gays serving in the embassy and Jusmag's may have been the biggest contributors to the solid relationship we have with the Kingdom. So maybe we should lighten up and simply let the new generation sort it out, they do understand what's important and I will just remain glad that nobody got too friendly in my shower experiences. Bottom line - we need them all today.
The issue isn't about homosexuals serving-- there are thousands serving now. The issue is acceptance of "openly gay" (including flaming queens) serving, and representing themselves as Marines. I would love to have lived in a barracks full of WMs when I was young, but I'm certain that they wouldn't have approved (or at least most of them), and that's the sort of situation we're facing, with young men of varying sexual tendencies thrown together. The problems we're currently facing with mixed-sex units (sexual tension, favoritism, etc.) would even be worse. And I hate to think about the threat to unit cohesion.
I'm sure that all of us have experienced the problems that isolated gays have caused in the past. In 1969, I was asked by my clerk to talk to a young LCPL about a problem. Since the LCPL wasn't in my unit, I naturally suggested that he should see his own C.O. Unfortunately, the C.O. was the problem. He had taken the kid to dinner and made a pass at him. I had the kid talk to our N.I.S. guy, and the C.O. was a civilian within 24 hours.
All told, the Marine Corps has been doing very well indeed for over two centuries, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Major USMC (Ret)
Did that clear into the early 70’s when I was playing DI there (platoon commander).
John "Doc" Holladay
A crusty old gunnery sergeant from Alfa Co, 5th Tank Bn gunnery uttered these memorable words about illegal drugs back in the summer of 1966, "The only thing worse than a Peter puffer is a pill popper." They do not belong in the US military.
Ski, how many wars have the Dutch and Belgians won lately? They have a losing streak that goes back to Caesar's time in Gaul. And Dutch Air Force qualifies as an oxymoron. Let's talk about REAL fighting outfits.
Perhaps its a generational issue but at a time when we occassionally struggle to fill enough recruiting slots and have trouble recruiting the right types of people I'm less concerned about someone's activities outside of work. As long as it stays professional and there is a zero tolerance policy for rampant hetero and homosexual activity in units we should be ok. I find it no less offensive to hear guys talk about their Friday night activities with the women like it was a frat house than I do to hear about someone's escapades near Dupont Circle.
I'd like to think we are all professionals, not everyone wanted to integrate the services back in the 40s but it's amazing what a lawful order can do you when you have leadership willing to enforce those lawful orders.
Just my thoughts.
Bully for Ski - another thoughtful voice in this discussion (and, there don't seem to be too many)!
It's time we “Olde Phartes” stayed outta the picture. We bring too much sexual, theological and cultural baggage with us to the table. The current generation is not full of dummies and they have already shown in other ways that they can handle this kind of problem. I say, “Let 'em!”
Does anyone remember Pershing Square sorties during WWII?
Very, very disturbing account in James Michener's autobiography, The World is my Home, about complete combat ineffectiveness of naval & Marine organization in South Pacific from rampant homosexual practices. Claimed as true but no other corroboration to my knowledge.
The above report is contained in James A. Michener's book, The World Is My Home; A Memoir, 2007 Random House Paperbacks Edition, New York, pp. 25-26, 77-87. Michener recounts events on the Pacific Island of Matareva during WWII involving a Marine staff sergeant in undercutting the authority of his Marine captain commanding officer by organizing a Marine "Club" of homosexuals. This led to a court martial with an extraordinary ending. Michener came by this story while touring the Pacific theater as an investigator for the Navy. The book is available on AMAZON.COM
Anthony F. Milavic
Major USMC (Ret.)
By way of a perspective from decades of experiences in NY City and in the Marine Corps, [the Michener] account and its "modus operandi" is consistent with my experience with homosexual group practices that were fairly common before the vast majority of homosexuals were "outed" in recent years. In my first deployment in the Med, we stopped the ship in mid ocean and removed several Marines, including a talented communicator with access to the codes, who were discovered in a "flagrantly compromising situation."
------------------------------- ---ANOTHER RESPONSE--------
Not sure if the Dutch every won a war but they are firmly on our side and that seems to count a lot more then you give them credit for. I do know that the first bomb dropped in Bosnia by NATO was from a Dutch jet flown by a woman and the first MiG-29 shot down was from an AMRAAM off a Dutch jet and that wherever the Marines and USAF fly there are a couple of Dutch jets around fully capable and willing to join in - to me that is testiment enough.
>>how many wars have the Dutch and Belgians won lately?
Well, AFAIK the Dutch Marines have a bond of freindship with the Corps. That counts for something, or at least it should in the minds of people who value those sorts of things over blind ideology.
- Mike Gatto
Good Morning Major:
Boy this is a real tough one.
I don't think I handled one homo a year for all the years I was a First Sgt or Sgt Major. Most came as a total suprise.
What I fear most is our stupid dumb congress will pass laws that will protect these people if they serve. If they make a pass and get belted. the guy who hits them will suffer from a hate crime. this is not right, but it is the way it is headed.
that is why I am for a complete ban. They will be protected by law and will be able to push their life style.
It is not right that a few percentage can over rule and run the majority of us. Like the people who are not Christians trying to push Christianity out of the American way of life. That is about 15% over 85% who are Christian.
Some day we have to wake up and know that we canot please everyone and some have to suffer so the majority can live the respectable life they were brought up in.
Jack Du Bois
1945 - 1972
As alluded to in your essay, the politicians driving this effort to permit homosexuals to serve openly are not aware--or give a damn--that the basis of the "Core Values" of the Marine Corps, especially "honor," is moral character.
Although I always read the posts on this net with interest, I’ve yet to express an opinion. Nevertheless, homosexuals serving openly in the military is too important an issue not to address.
I see not so much a "generational issue" here as an issue between those who serve, have served and/or evaluate this with regard to fighting units vs. those with a different perspective. With all respect to Ski and others, while fighter, chopper and other pilots have skill and courage to spare, (I served on a Special Forces Operational Detachment and I LOVE those who provide close air support) but they do not share the same day to day hardships, physical intimacy and co-dependency as infantry men, submariners, special ops and others. (Unless they are shot down, ect.) There is no "activities outside of work." Front line units are forced to share hooches, foxholes, crap holes, sleeping bags, and a "incomprehensible to non-vets" degree of physical, mental and emotional intimacy. Morale is a delicate thing, easy to lose.
Old guy that I am, I have acted as a sounding board to some young returning combat vets - Marines in fact - who are transitioning to civilian life and can tell you they still find homosexual conduct an alien concept.
Moreover, this has nothing to do with "sexual, theological and cultural baggage" or tolerance - the beginning and end of this discussion must revolve around combat effectiveness. Otherwise - as earlier insightful posts pointed out with regard to the wretched rules of engagement - our warriors die needlessly.
As veterans with some influence on those non-vets around us, the kids who serve are our obligation, not beating an ideological drum. Perhaps those who disagree are bringing their own "sexual, theological and cultural baggage" to this debate. PS, Race is an irrelevant matter of skin color, homosexuality is conduct. Just ask a black vet about this comparison or to illegal aliens and you’ll get an earful.
In civil society I am all in favor of majority rule, my own personal taste in clothing, a five day work week, having homosexuals protected to the same extent as other law abiding citizens - and that has what to do with the military? Are soldiers voting on tactical decisions, designing their own BDUs, picking when they’re available to go out on a patrol? No, that would be impractical and deadly. Why is open homosexual service different? Politricks.
In the military my concern is that we win wars with the fewest U.S. casualties possible, period. That is the only thing that makes civil society, including protection for homosexuals, possible in the first place.
Over and over and over again, most arguments miss entirely that
nowadays AIDS factors in mightily. And AIDS is still PREDOMINATELY a
male homosexual disease.
Armed forces are for fighting (or at the very least about threatening
to do so), and fighting spills blood. In combat, we all have nearly
continuous scratches and such.
Who is going to chance getting homosexual blood in those scratches now
that AIDS exists? Who?
What happens to esprit and brotherhood now?
Half a century ago, we used to joke that it was better to have a
homosexual in the unit than a thief. The first had to reveal (no pun
intended) himself to be a threat. The second could destroy a unit
because he performed his deeds when backs were turned.
The Aids issue should overwhelmingly kill the idea of homosexuals in the military. I'm afraid that the current administration is too stupid to realize this.
Gus Gyllenhoff, Major, USMC (Ret)
Anti God, Anti Guns, Promotion of the Gay Agenda, Universal Health Care, Anthropological Global Warming, PC, Diversity, Multiculturalism, Degradation of the US i.e. giving up our National Soverignty/ denigrating our "Exceptionalism", and the continued unfettered,taxpayer funded killing of the unborn are all the basic elements of the current Marxist Democrat Party and its leader Obama.
On 22 October 2009, the U.S. Senate passed and sent to the president for signing into law the Defense Budget with an attachment that added homosexuals to the Federal Hate Crimes Law. According to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. "This hate crimes provision is part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality.'' You can be sure, that Marines of conscience or ANY OTHER MARINE who expresses revulsion over homosexual acts WILL be susceptible to prosecution. ALSO, the federal statute "allows federal . . . grants for training and prevention programs at the local level." This last provision will PROBABLY RESULT in brainwashing classes in Marine units as was the case with Human Relations Training in the past.
This action WILL only create further tension and apprehension between Marines that WILL degrade their unit cohesion in the event homosexuals are permitted to serve openly in Marine units--especially infantry units.
Anthony F. Milavic
Major USMC (Ret.)
The worst part Sergeant Major, is that it isn't the non-Christians who are attempting to push out Christianity from our society, it's the atheists and agnostics who claim to believe in no GOD, yet feel offended when we proclaim our belief in ours.
As for the Dutch Marines, my dad served alongside some, so they get props in my books. I served w/a British Marine while I was in Iraq, so props to them as well. And, while I'm at, props to all Marines from every country around the world!
Terron D. Sims, II