FollowUp 1: Eugene Delgaudio Lies About Legislation Again

Today's e-mail from Mr. Delgaudio, who is making a lot of money spreading his hatred, is an expansion on his earlier lies.

Dear Some,

The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was only the beginning.

Next they called for military homosexual “marriages.”

No.  There are two issues that Mr. Delgaudio is incorrectly conflating.  First, the LGBTQ Community does call for marriage equality.  Marriage does not require quotation marks and homosexual who wed are in a marriage.  No adjective is required for marriage.  Second, the Pentagon released a memo in September of 2011 that gives military chaplains permission to perform private marriages that are legal in the locality where they are performing such ceremonies.  There is not requirement that any chaplain perform a private ceremony.  I addressed this at the time.

And now?  The Radical Homosexual Lobby has legalized sodomy and bestiality in the military .

It made me sick to hear it, but it’s true.

You see, our military has always been governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  This code requires the men and women serving in the military to maintain proper conduct.

But now, thanks to the radicals in Congress, a key regulation has been removed: Sodomy and Bestiality.

No.  About a month ago the Stars and Stripes covered this question.  I wrote about it at the time.  In short, there was a proposal to remove Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which covers homosexuality and bestiality.  Despite allegations made by those opposed to equality for the LGBTQ Community, bestiality is still covered by Article 134 of the UCMJ.  However, Article 125 was not removed.  It still stands.  Mr. Delgaudio is a liar.

Unbelievably, the radical homosexuals made it a priority to legalize these acts for homosexuals serving in the military.

They actually consider the “right to violate animals sexually” a basic human necessity, even while serving alongside our nation’s greatest heroes .

I am just terrified of what else they have planned for our service men and women.

Nothing true here.  The call for equality is for sexual freedom and equality of marriage for consenting adults.  Since animals cannot give consent, this is an absurd suggestion.  No one in the LGBTQ Community has made the claim that Mr. Delgaudio has underlined.  It is entirely his.

You see, their plans are accelerating.

They know that Obama is in their hip-pocket.  And they still have a majority in the Senate who are willing to go along with whatever twisted scheme the radical homosexuals set before them.

No.  If Mr. Obama was in the hip pocket of the LGBTQ Community, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would already be eliminated and marriage equality would already be our national policy.  President Obama has said that he is evolving on these issues.  I hope that he is.  As a gay man, the alternatives among the Republican contenders are simply so much worse than the reluctant Mr. Obama that he easily gains my support.

But their days are numbered.

Americans have seen how much damage they are capable of when left in power, and elections are less than a year away.

The Radical Homosexual Lobby is very afraid that this year will be their last in power.

Really?  Right now the polls are leaning slightly toward Mr. Obama winning in November.  Predictions this far in advance of an election are always guesswork, but it is far from certain that Mr. Obama will be a one term president.

The Radical Homosexual Lobby is neither radical, unless one calls the fight for equality radical, nor very afraid.  In New Hampshire, the latest gauge, those who were most adamantly anti-equality placed below Mr. Romney (who continues to flip-flop on his position on equality), Dr. Paul (who is for equality in the bedroom, but not in the courts), and Mr. Huntsman (who seems to be somewhere between Mr. Romney and Dr. Paul on equality).  Very afraid?  No.  Concerned that liars like Mr. Delgaudio are trying to drag the Republican Party into more bigoted positions?  Yes.

Their last chance to pass their perverted agenda .

And that makes them very dangerous.  Nothing fights with more viciousness than a cornered animal.

And when you couple this fear with literally limitless funds the Homosexual Lobby has access to -- there is nothing they will not try to do to kill the Family.

Limitless funds??!?  Really?  Mr. Delgaudio seems to be taking in plenty of money.  Personally, I have made zero money in my activism.  I've spent a while looking for financial records on the Internet and those that I have found are usually incomplete.  The big players on both sides of the fight for equality seem to take in lots of money.  Limitless funds is hyperbole, typical of Mr. Delgaudio.

The LGBTQ Community treasures family.  That is why we want our families recognized.  If my partner and I wed, no heterosexual couple's marriage is harmed.  Mr. Delgaudio's purpose is to keep our family from being legally recognized.  What wants to kill the family?

Some, just think about it.  They actually repealed the military regulation forbidding soldiers from engaging in sodomy and bestiality.

If that’s their idea of “good”. . . well I simply can’t imagine what they won’t do .

My friend, as much as it pains me to say, the legalization of bestiality is not even close to being the gravest threat to our nation.

There is a virtual avalanche of destructive homosexual legislation coming down on the American Family...

... and Public Advocate is the only force in our nation that is fighting back !

Nothing true here.  No regulations were repealed.  There was no avalanche, virtual or otherwise.  And the big players against equality, American Family Assocation, Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, and others, would be surprised to learn that they are not fighting against equality as Mr. Delgaudio is.  What a pack of lies!

19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.

14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.
13 June 2012, FollowUp 5.
12 July 2012, FollowUp 6.

Repudiation: Peter Heck Linking Bestiality, Pedophilia, and Homosexuality

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Praise: Stars and Stripes on UCMJ Reform

Since the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), there has been concern because the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) continued to prohibit sodomy.  The word sodomy is italicized because the definition is quite broad and inconsistent.  

Originally, Christians called homosexuality the sin of Sodom, in reference to the destruction of that city in the book of Genesis.  The actual sin of Sodom is a failure of hospitality.  Compare the treatment of the three strangers by Abraham in Genesis 18 to the treatment by Lot's neighbors in Sodom in Genesis 19.  Sexuality is a side issue, not the greater sin.

The UCMJ uses sodomy to mean any homosexual relations or any sexual relations with animals.

925. ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

unnatural carnal copulation is usually meant as anal sex.

So, with lesbians and gays being allow to serve in the United States military, the prohibition of homosexual activity seems out of place.  But, the article is the same one that prohibits bestiality.  So groups opposed to the repeal of DADT and opposed to equality have been complaining that Article 125 needs to stay in place, at least for the sake of the animals.  Here are a few examples.

CNS News quoted Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”

Perkins said removing the bestiality provision may have been intentional--or just “collateral damage”

As reported by MediaITE, Les Kinsolving, a World Net Daily reporter, tried to ask Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, about the repeal of prohibition of bestiality.

Kinsolving then asked Carney about the recent repeal of the UCMJ provision that bans sodomy, but which also included a ban on bestiality. There are a lot of interesting ways to approach this question. Article 125 of the UCMJ didn’t ban sodomy and bestiality, it said they were the same thing. While Article 134 does contain language specific to animal abuse, that section refers only to “public animals,” and carries a much lower penalty. There’s a legitimate question as to whether additional protections for animals are needed in the UCMJ, and whether those are in the works.

Les didn’t tackle the thing from any of those angles, though, instead asking Carney, “Does the Commander-in-Chief approve or disapprove of beastiality in our armed forces?”

Carney said, “Let’s get to something more serious,” and called on ABC News’ Jake Tapper.

The same article refers to a letter from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

In their letter to Carney, PETA said, “we were upset to note that you flippantly addressed the recently approved repeal of the military ban on bestiality. With respect, this is no laughing matter,” and concluded with, “I hope that in the future, you will address important issues with sensitivity and not dismiss them with a joke.”

The good news comes in an excellent article in today's Stars and Stripes.

WASHINGTON — Just in case you weren’t sure, bestiality is still illegal in the U.S. military.

After citing the controversy, the article includes

For their part, Pentagon officials say the deletion of bestiality is a legal technicality and does not represent any fundamental change in the military’s moral code for servicemembers (and service animals).

“The department’s position on this issue remains unchanged and that act remains illegal,” said defense spokesman Lt. Col Todd Breasseale.

The end of the Stars and Stripes article:

Breasseale said the whole controversy is off-base.

Even if Article 125 is removed, the UCMJ contains provisions under which troops can be punished. Article 134, for example, forbids “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces” and “all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” Breasseale said that would cover any and all animal abuse.

In fact, past instances of bestiality in the military have been prosecuted under that statute, instead of Article 125. The legal record dates back to 1957, when Pvt. Ricardo Sanchez was convicted of “an indecent act with an animal” under Article 134, even without specific wording prohibiting sex with animals.

In addition, before the potential language changes reached Congress, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice drafted a list of punitive offenses under the UCMJ which specifically includes animal abuse. That is set to be included in the Manual for Courts-Martial, and will give clear guidance on what to do in such cases.

Breasseale said the change pending before Congress is truly just a legal clean-up effort, and will in no way endanger animals.

“It is difficult to envision a situation where a servicemember engages in sexual conduct with an animal that would not be conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting,” he said.

Many thanks to the Stars and Stripes for setting the record straight.