2. I understand you make "allowance" for gays serving in the military under DADT primarily under moral and theological grounds rather than pragmatic or practical ones ... which I believe would be your best defense, btw. It would be unfair to characterize this allowance as tacit approval of sodomy ... or is it ... under your proposed litmus test?
However, you also have made the strawman argument that
repealing the language of this law is an endorsement of "open homosexuality sponsered by the state". Please point to the specific language
in the repeal where our state endorses or sponsors "open" homosexuality, fornication, Wicca or any other legal sin for that matter? I'll be waiting ... anxiously.
Allowing an individual homosexual to disclose his/her orientation if they so desire is the issue... but most importantly it allows them to remain without penalty if they exercise their right to do so ... a guarantee of equal protection under the law. This is not about flaunting or brazen endorsement but rather allowing equal access without excluding for something that is not illegal as agreed upon through our legal process and the democratic ideals you pontificate yet adulterate.
Again, unless you are advocating for it to be a crime as it was decades ago ... or limit their rights to equal protection under the law (the 14th amendment).... all this does is takes away a discriminatory barrier to exercise a right all law-abiding citizens have to serve and
in serving .... EVEN IF IT MEANS THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES TO DISCLOSE THEIR LEGAL LIFESTYLE.
... A holy kiss for my homophobic brother.