Give it a rest, Side-Show Bob.  Del. Marshall must think Virginia won the Civil War and that the Old Dominion is not part of the United States. 

It seems that Marshall wants gays banned from the Virginia National Guard.  He says history is on his side.  According to the News and Messenger:

Del. Robert G. Marshall, R-Prince William, said he will introduce legislation in the 2011 General Assembly that would prevent gays from serving openly in the Virginia National Guard.

He said he has history on his side.

According to numerous Internet sources, Lt.  Gotthold Frederick Enslin was drummed out of the Continental Army on sodomy charges in 1778.

“The policy started with George Washington. This is not something that’s brand new, but the press has largely ignored it because they don’t read history,” Marshall said.

Policies restricting gays from serving in the military have been in place since Lt. Enslin was dismissed.

Marshall said the recent repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy — put in place by President Bill Clinton — was simply President Barack Obama’s appeasement of the left wing of the Democratic party.

Perhaps Marshall would like to see what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about all this?  Were they against repeal of DADT?  Marshall’s logic is flawed.  George Washington’s family owned slaves also.  Much has changed since Washington’s day.  Hell, they even let the little woman vote nowadays. 

Marshall droned on:

This is going to precipitate a need for the draft,” he said.

Marshall also said he had the U.S. Constitution on his side and that federal law couldn’t trump state law when it comes to militias. He said he believes his legislation would stand up against federal law.

“Article 1, section 8, clause 16 gives exclusive control of the militia, of the selection of the officers to the militia — which we now call the National Guard — to states and the training thereof as prescribed by Congress,” Marshall said.

Clause 16 states:
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be  employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

If the Virginia National Guard is called to federal duty some provisions might need to be made, but the feds can’t dictate how the states control their militias, Marshall said. 

“They may effect attitude restructuring courses which have nothing to do with military preparedness and defense once the troops are federalized, but they can’t announce that we’re going to have people who engage in sodomy and other health debilitating behaviors on our recruitment list,” Marshall said. “Obama can do it for his army, but he can’t do it for the National Guard of Virginia.”

Perhaps Marshall should concentrate on transportation, jobs, the economy, and paying back the VRS.  There are important issues out there and he wants take up important legislative time over this?  Does he want to get the Old Dominion sued over a civil rights issue?  The AG has already started down that path when he first came into office. 

Conservatives need to rein in this pack of fools before we are tied up in court for years. 


66 Thoughts to “Marshall’s ‘Luv Canals’ Don’t extend to Gays in the National Guard”

  1. Steve, I didnt really misunderstand you totally, I just didn’t express myself well.

    You bring up an interesting bunch of questions.

    The only answer I could give would be that Loving vs Virginia forbid marriage between whites and blacks. It was overturned in 1967. What would have been done if a black man had a white wife and was in the Virginia National Guard? I would think the same situation would apply. What did the military do then?

  2. Elena

    I would like to address the HIV issue as simply not factual. ANYONE can have HIV, and today, black women are more at risk than any other group.

    People, throughout the ages, always have found excuses to fear one another. I wonder, how many of those so against this policy have gay friends? Guess what, gay people are no different than you and I, they just prefer falling in love with the same sex.

    Furthermore, in a fox hole, or on the battlefield, how many fighting soldiers are thinking about sex? My guess is not a whole lot, yes that probably applies to gay soldiers also! If a gay soldier could save your life, would you choose NOT to have that person in your unit, even IF they were an excellent soldier?

  3. Rick Bentley

    I have only talked to 2 or 3 soldiers about this, but those soldiers, who served in the last 10-15 years, lived/worked alongside known gay soldiers and there was little friction in those units.

  4. BS in VA

    Rick: I also knew of gay soldiers. At that time (1960’s) blacks congregated together, gays congregated together, Mormons congregated together, etc. There was very little friction between groups and none that affected the mission. The only soldiers that were ostracized and universally distrusted were the haters.

  5. Steve Thomas

    I did acknowldege that it is settled law. Whether or not it will impact combat rediness will or will not materialize, but for better or worse it’s the DoD’s issue now. However, no one seems to want to address the very real implications of the same-sex married serviceman. There are implicatications here that reach far outside the realm of gays serving in uniform, which I believe is the primary strategy of the movement.

  6. Censored bybvbl

    Steve Thomas, I agree that there are farther reaching implications – the biggest being that all states may be forced to recognize gay marriage. It’s an issue that the court will ultimately determine. The military has usually led the way in societal change – particularly in times of the draft. Men – and women – from different backgrounds have been forced to work together. And -surprise – the world hasn’t come to an end! I imagine that a gay partner would be treated in the same manner as a straight partners – given the same benefits, perhaps banned from working in the same unit or being the other’s immediate subordinate, etc.

  7. Rick Bentley

    Gay marriage is inevitable anyway. I haven’t yet heard an arguement against it that made a damn bit of sense.

  8. Elena,

    Actually, males are still the most likely to get HIV through the nature of their sexual activity. However, in females, black females have become the most likely. Probably because it was minority gay and bisexual men that are most at risk.

    I predict we will see an increase cases of HIV from blood transfusions and from sexual activity. in the military.

    But, I also predict that, in accordance with military culture and custom, the military will carry on and do their duty. There will be complex problems because of this ruling, including ones we don’t foresee. But the military “Can Do!” attitude will make it work. We’ve done it every other time the politicians have “bright ideas.”

  9. Rick Bentley

    “in females, black females have become the most likely”

    It’s because :

    A. The stereotype of the black male as sexual stud has more gay and bisexual men staying in the closet and having sex with women who don’t suspect they’re bisexual, than with non-black men
    B. High incarceration rates of black men

  10. Rick Bentley

    A bisexual white man is more likely to be known to a female lover as a bisexual white man, a bisexual black man more likely to be a “down low brother”.

  11. Morris Davis

    The Center for Disease Control found that “the risk for acquiring HIV infection through blood transfusion today is estimated conservatively to be one in 1.5 million, based on 2007–2008 data.” According to NOAA, the odds of getting struck by lightning in any given year is one in 750,000. According to the National Safety Council, in 2008 there were 13 traffic accident-related deaths per 100,000 people making the one-year odds of dying in a car wreck of about one in 7,500. The data shows the troops are at far greater risk from storms and cars than from blood transfusions. And remember, troops are tested for HIV annually and before every overseas deployment (unless things changed since I retired 2 years ago). The bad blood argument makes for a good fear tactic, but it is not factual.

  12. Elena

    As always Moe, thanks for providing the facts, always critical when hoping to make an informed opinion.

  13. Since the troops are tested for HIV every six months are supposed to be heterosexual, the risk assessment is based upon that activity. Once homosexual activity becomes commonplace the risk for HIV entering the military transfusion system becomes greater. The system is safe NOW because of safeguards enacted in the 80’s because HIV was transmitted.

    1. @Cargo,

      I would think that shore duty and hookers would also increase the likelihood of HIV as well as a lot of other things people don’t want.

Comments are closed.