BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:24 PM

Any culture, sub-culture, society or whatever, which forces people to lie in order to survive, has weak underpinnings - is, in fact based on lies.

A dear friend of mine had to lie in the late '30s when she pretended to be male in order to get her "electrical engineer" paper. Then she had to pretend to be male in order to get a job. She loved her work but finally gave up the lie for fear of being found out and beaten to a pulp.

I am sure there are still places in these United States where any male (particularly) who is gay has to pretend/LIE in order to survive. A government agency where he is a servant of the people must not be one of those places. Else we, the people, are condoning the lies perpetuated by our government. That government is us. We are liars when we allow the lies of this government and in as much as we do not insist on changes in this policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 05:21 PM

the military and being gay is one of the big differences between UK and US here it is not a problem.
i would think that most soldiers have photos of loved ones back at base, why should it matter if it is a picture of someone of the same sex or not?

it does not cause a problem here and i do not understand why it would do anywhere else.

i am not sure about the police force or firefighters but i would think that if the military can make it work then so could they.

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: John P
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 04:27 PM

Little Hawk, part of the problem is that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't the whole story. A military person will be discharged if they are found, by any method, to be gay. There have been instances of both malicious and accidental outing. The soldier didn't tell and still got fired.

It is also true that someone's sexual orientation is other peoples' business if the other people are their friends and family. How would you like to live in a situation where you could never introduce your wife to your friends and coworkers for fear of being barred from continuing to pursue your profession? Always going stag to company parties, leaving your spouse at home? Especially since always going stag while living with a single member of the same sex is often seen as a road sign pointing to "gay".

Also, living with institutionalized bigotry is very hard. It's unconstitutional and dishonest, and military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:55 PM

The Dan Choi case is intriguing. I hadn't heard about it before.

On the one hand, I understand his concerns.

On the other hand, "the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy" seems like a pretty sensible idea to me, and here's why.

Why should anyone be asked BY anyone else what their sexual preferences are? That's entirely their own business.

And why should anyone make a point of telling everyone else about their sexual preferences and thereby turning it into a public issue, when it's a private matter and nobody else's business?

If they do choose to make their sexual lifestyle a public issue, then they are going to probably arouse opposition in some quarters, specially if they directly challenge a bureaucratic organization like the Army or the Police. Such organizations do not like being challenged by a member of the rank and file, and their normal reaction to such a challenge is to penalize, demote, or expell the member.

So, seems to me that Dan Choi has deliberately waved the red flag in the face of the bull...and the bull, not surprisingly, has charged...and Dan Choi feels hard done by on account of that. What did he expect?

Who is responsible for Dan Choi's problem then? The Army or Dan Choi?

Is he a martyr to a noble cause, or is he a person with somewhat of a chip on his shoulder, and out to prove a point, and bringing unnecessary trouble on himself by so doing?

That will depend on whom you ask...Dan Choi or the Army. ;-)

Like I said, I can sort of see both sides of the coin on this one. I wonder why anyone, though, wants or has to be seen and recognized "officially" as being heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, polysexual, asexual, or any other darn choice they make? What for? It's nobody else's business anyway.

There ya go, Amos. Real comment. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 02:35 PM

Little Hawk:

Would you just stop with your aloof superiority? It is self-serving and ungentlemanly.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 02:02 PM

Damn right, Jeri. ;-D It's like an equine graveyard at this point. All kinds of dead horses lying around and every one of them is mysteriously beaten to a pulp.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:35 PM

OK, I've taken my water skis off and apologize to Dorothy Parshall for the quick trip into some tension reducing silliness

I confess that I was unaware of the situation regarding Lieutenant Dan Choi but todays Times online article Dan Choi ordered out of US military for announcing his homosexuality has rectified that.

At West Point Dan Choi majored in Arabic language and environmental engineering, skills that he put to use during a 15-month tour of Iraq beginning in 2006.
He has been ordered out of the US military after publicly announcing his homosexuality in a direct challenge to the army's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

'He said that his declaration was a protest against a policy that forced soldiers to lie in order to serve their country. "It's an immoral code that goes against every single thing we were ever taught at West Point with our honour code," '

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

The shark jumping thing was definitely a non-sequitur. This THREAD 'jumped the shark' a long, long time ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:32 AM

are you trying to get my head to explode amos? the link was good but it refered to science, a subject i am even more useless at than english language puntuation
...........      SPLAT........ now lets see if there is any difference??

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:27 AM

LH describing locked together antagonists on another thread -

This reminds me of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner...except the odds are more evenly matched.
Either participant may run off the cliff, jump the shark, etc...

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:22 AM

JEddy:

As one of the side benefits of owning an Internet connection and a browser, you have the language of the world at your fingertips.

Type "define:protoplasm" into a Google search box, and voila!!

Here, I'll do it for you:

define:protoplasm

A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:15 AM

oh i forgot to say well won LH whats next?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:13 AM

i have always wondered the same thing. it is very suspisious that he always wantsd to eat tweety.
lol

j x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:08 AM

I've always suspected that Sylvester the Cat has a thing for Tweety Bird and vice versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:04 AM

thankyou i now realize i have been talking like that for years!! except i have been calling it going off on a tangent. i can now impress people !!

i am wondering whether jerry has a thing for tom, they do say that if you constantly torrment someone you are likely to fancy them, maybe it is the other way round and jerry is not interested.

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 11:02 AM

or as Les Barker (sadly not the new poet laureate) said

Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead
Do not walk in front, for I may not follow

Go over there somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:52 AM

Yes, well, Bob Dylan did once say, "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters".

If you follow...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: curmudgeon
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:51 AM

"A nonsequitur is anything verbal that has no connection to the context;" it doesn't follow.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:45 AM

The Micky Mouse thing was in answer to the question, "what's a nonsequitur". A nonsequitur is anything verbal that has no connection to the context.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:27 AM

I don't think Mickey and Minnie ever got married, although they certainly discussed the possibility. Their relationship was for years clouded by the disturbing rumours that kept going around in the comics world that "Minnie is fuckin' Goofy!"

One thing for sure, though. They've never seen one another with their gloves off!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:18 AM

frog prince, please take it slower than you normally would with me??i am not feeling very intellectual today!!

what does mickey mouse have to do with this, i always thought he was a good guy lol, and i am still not sure whether him and minnie are married?

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:13 AM

Jeddy: The first Micky Mouse cartoon was released on May 15, 1928.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 10:10 AM

Nineteen Hundred.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: jeddy
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:44 AM

right, firstly what on earth is protoplasm? i know what ektoplasm is, is this simialar?

secondly there is not much i agree with ake over, but the machanisation of the human mind in schools is one of them. i had this dreram once when i was 14ish that all my school freinds were going into this big machine and coming out with big metal plates over their faces, so they would all be the same, is that the sort of thing you meant ake? i figured out that this starts in school and how on earth are young kids suppoesed to figure all this out when they are too confused to even figure themselves out.

george galloway is a true free thinker he works for the sole purpose of his constituantsand i believe he is a gentleman, why would you not call him a liberal though?

tia, thankyou it is good to know that i am getting my point across, sometimes what is in my head doesn't always come out right, of course it helps that i have to think about it and then type it so my brain has time to get it right.

we have 2 collie crosses and a mongrel thing who(don't tell the other two) is the cutest one of them all, not to mention that he is also the stubborn and crazy one, so it is no wonder we called him keith!(donnelly).

what does this mean
'A non-sequitur?' it sounds alien to me. i like using big words i can't always spell them, but you lot make me look simple!! lol

take care all

jade x x

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:14 AM

No, Emma, not looking for a fight at all, but the number of churches for or against is not germane to the topic under discussion, since nobody is asking ANY of them to change their stance on this matter.

As most of them adhere to vastly differing dogma and liturgy, it is difficult to see why they would not agree to differ on this particular issue, which leads to the suspicion, as with the argument about health issues, that there is a sub agenda which has more to do with prejudice than with reason.

Don


Akenaton,

The lady responded to my "last" post with one which, in my opinion, needed a reply. I replied.

That is what we refer to as good manners.

I know you can't wait for me to disappear, so that YOU will never have to show me the same courtesy.

Know what? I don't give a damn. Your twisting, turning, avoidance of the REAL topic has become boring.

Bye Now

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 09:08 AM

I think he's spoken for himself.

I believe this (edited) is an all-time classic: 'A non-sequitur? I do not follow.'

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:55 AM

I think he's already spoken for Emma.. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:31 AM

"a nonsequitur" Don? - I do not follow

I replied with the simple factual statement that only a minority of Christian churches were prepared to support blessing of same-sex unions whereas "the Judeo-Christian religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are too numerous to mention here"

Nowhere did I express any personal opinion or judgement on this situation or even suggest there ANY grounds for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches

Same sex civil unions as a 'legal status' between individuals does not by itself conflict with Church teachings about the sacredness of "Marriage" however The Episcopal Church in America, (many dioceses of which permit the blessing of same-sex unions) nevertheless rejected at their 2006 General Convention a resolution allowing the solemnization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is recognized by civil law.
British Quaker meetings celebrate same-sex commitments by a special act of worship but none has yet called this marriage

please note this was information for discussion purposes or
are you really looking for a fight that isn't there Don?

I'm beginning to feel like LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 07:19 AM

This is gettin' like one long Service of Remembrance.....so many "Last Posts"!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 06:59 AM

""4. There are churches ready and willing to extend a welcome and perform marriages, so that homosexual couples may be both legally and spiritually joined in the same way as their heterosexual counterparts.

This is also true but they are in a minority.""

This is a nonsequitur Emma. I don't believe anyone is asking for all churches to perform same sex ceremonies, so what possible grounds can there be for refusing to allow ceremonies to be performed in that "minority" of churches?

All the coercion in this affair is on the anti side, as far as I can see.


""until there is a separation between state and religion in America, this is likely to remain a major obstacle to the equality that has been advocated by many people in this thread and elsewhere.""

I believe that there is already such a separation in the USA, in fact it is, I think, part of the Constitution. Of course, some Americans don't seem to know that, even some Presidents.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 03:15 AM

Silly fuckers, I'm not against liberty or freedom, why do I have to explain that to educated people?
I'm against what has replaced liberty and freedom, it has "liberty" on the label, but in reality is as insideous and repressive as the totalitarianism Orwell warned against.

It is a set of political rules for the manipulation of society.....to make us all think identically, some call it political correctness, but it's much worse and more far reaching and should be fought against in the same way as that other medium of manipulation "Capitalism".

Any system, social or political, which sets out to destroy reason and replace it with cant,is evil and repressive.

The most obvious example lately of how this works was Blairs manipulation of the British people and the UK parliament to drag us into Iraq, citing "Liberal" values and the defense of "democracy" as the reasons......when we all knew the real reasons.
One of the only politicans with the guts to come to America and throw the truth in the faces of the Senate members was George Galloway who has been a lifelong leftist, but will NEVER be a "liberal"......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:24 AM

In the midst of all this fantasy and non-fantasy, would it make sense to remember to support Dan Choi?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:15 AM

Oh, sorry--wrong fantasy. I meant Uma Thurman and as far as I know she is not (yet) one of your visionary inspirations.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 12:00 AM

jeddy,
You make more sense drugged-up than many do substance-free.
What variety of dogs?
TIA

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:46 PM

If God can't love protoplasm, what good is she?

And who's "Ulla"?

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM

Aw, Little Hawk,

Ulla, Winona, Ms Tyler--you're all mixed up with the bandwidth of protoplasm, not Gawd's favorite hunting ground.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:29 PM

Excellent point, Amos! ;-D

I need a God I can really worship. One I am willing to serve hand and foot. One whom I will do just about anything for. That is why my idea of God closely resembles Liv Tyler. I'll go a long way for a God(dess) like that, lemme tell ya...

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:20 PM

If it were a He I wouldn't be interested in his sexual instructions anyway!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:09 PM

"he"?

I always pictured "God" as looking sort of like Liv Tyler... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:05 PM

"I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction,..."

                And the reason he doesn't is because he ain't there!

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:53 PM

Well, Amos, when people get locked in long circular arguments they sometimes inadvertently slide into some rather extreme rhetoric, don't they? And they do it when they get sarcastic or satirical too. Wouldn't you say that tends to happen even to the best of us at times? People like...say...you or me?

Akenaton ain't a perfect human being, but he's no reactionary redneck.

Remember that old phrase in the Bible warning people not to judge the speck in the other guy's eye whilst ignoring the log in their own eye? ;-) It's not that I'm quoting the Bible for authority...I'm not...but it's still a useful thing for any of us to think about from time to time.

I think that if people here were more interested in understanding where someone else is coming from and why, and less inclined to stereotype one another in some way, then they'd get a lot farther and not get so ticked off at each other.

Are we "Spear chuckers"? "Honkys"? "Tree-huggers"? "Rednecks"? "Homophobes"? "Sexists?" "Anti-semites?" "Bleeding Heart Liberals"? Etc...

No. We are none of those simple-minded, one-dimensional negative stereotypes that those pejorative words convey. We are all complex and multifaceted human beings, all of us quite unique, and we will agree and disagree about a great variety of things for a great many unique reasons.

If those reasons were better understood, the snap negative judgements we make on others would not be so easily made.

One other quote I like from the Bible: "Blessed are the Peacemakers"

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:43 PM

Little Hawk, read what Ake has said in recent posts about liberals and liberalism.

Among many other things, in his post of 30 Jun 09 - 08:21 p.m., he says "The creed of 'liberalism' is danger to freedom and human happiness and will inevitably create a society very like the one described here by George Orwell."

That's completely bass-ackwards.

And he has been using the word "liberal" all through this thread as an epithet.

I'm not in a position to observe his actions, so how else am I to know what he believes than by what he says?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:34 PM

Whatever category you decide he belongs in, the fact is he is reactionary and distinctly illiberal in his thought processes in this thread, which is where (in case you did not notice) I placed the remark you refer to.

I know how good a man he is at heart, which is why I dare to make such rude remarks to him when he is being obstreperous.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:18 PM

I thought that Akenaton was a committed leftist and a left wing political radical deeply opposed to right wing policies and redneckism in general. Matter of fact, I know he is, from long acquaintance. He's also a fervent atheist. He just doesn't fit the stereotypical reactionary political profiles that are being ascribed to him on this thread by those individuals who happen to disagree with him here on this one thread, but very seldom on most other threads.

It's downright odd if you ask me. ;-)

Well...we're rapidly approaching 1900 anyway, so it's not all bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 09:06 PM

Why We Are Liberals and

Origins of Liberal Thought

might be good places to start your eddification, Ake. You don't want to be a dour redneck reactionary for the rest of your life, now do you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 06:50 PM

". . . coming from someone who is totally obsessed by the need to "win" this debate. How many months have you been here Don?"

No, Ake, not at all obsessed by a need to "win" this debate, because I know there is no "win" with someone as rigid and inflexible, and who clings so fiercely to the erroneous ideas that you cherish so dearly. Apart from my own comments, any of my rebuttals of your posts were to set the record straight for those who might be taken in by the misinformation in them. And, of course, to try to get an answer to the question I asked you way back—and which others have been asking you repeatedly—and which you still haven't answered.

It isn't always about you, you know.

And by the way, if you go back toward the beginning of the thread, you will note that you've been posting for somewhat longer than I have.

Also by the way, judging from your remarks about liberalism, it must be far different where you are than it is where I am. Refer to the dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster on-line) that I posted 29 Jun 09 - 06:50 p.m.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:21 PM

Glad to hear it, Emma B. Good for the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:15 PM

Discrimination on religious grounds has only one legitimnate home--the centers of religion.

Civil law, contrariwise, may not and must not be colored by one or another temptation to discriminate maong people on any but civil and legal grounds, and never on simply religious principles. To embrace one set (or part thereof) of religious principles is effectively to favor the religion which asserts it in their catechism. This is a can of worms no far-seeing government should even want to open.

If good principles cannot be embedded into religion-neutral law, they need to be redrawn as principles.

I am pretty sure God does not give sexual instruction, beyond the fundamental appetites thereof.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Emma B
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:58 AM

"The United Kingdom's policy is to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, and discrimination on a sexual orientation basis is forbidden.
It is also forbidden for someone to pressure LGBT people to come out."
Wiki

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Oc NY Times May 21, 2007

"Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military.
The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news.
It has for the most part become a nonissue."

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, told members of the Army-sponsored Fourth Joint Conference on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Matters that homosexuals were welcome to serve in the Army.

In a speech to a conference in London in October last year, – the first of its kind by any Army chief – Gen Sir Richard said that respect for gays, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-sexual officers and soldiers was now "a command responsibility" and was vital for "operational effectiveness".

He also added "We have made real progress in our understanding of equality and diversity in the military context, and there is a desire to achieve more yet.
My recent Equality and Diversity Directive for the Army sets the standard that we must live by, and, importantly, it communicates that standard to everyone in the chain of command.

"Respect for Others", one of the Army's core values, is at the heart of this directive."

Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

Question: In the UK are known gays permitted in the military?