Marine Corps Community, discussions, blogs, photos & video - Marine Corps Times

Letters

‘Combat hunter’ statement

I have a question concerning a comment made in your “Going Hunting” story in the April 16 edition. Col. Clarke Lethin, I Marine Expeditionary Force’s chief of staff, was paraphrased as saying, “The Corps hopes to tap into skills certain Marines may already have learned growing up in rural hunting areas and in urban areas, such as inner cities.”

Just what was meant by that comment about the inner city? I hope to God that he’s not saying that people from the inner cities are experts in killing each other and that we all just walk around carrying guns.

He seriously needs to take a look at that comment, go to the inner cities, and justify its credibility.

Sgt. Ramsey K. Gregory

Virginia Beach, Va.

Gibbs & gays

In his recent column in which he argues that it is time to allow gays to serve openly in the military, Capt. Josh Gibbs closes by saying, “Now is the time to stand. Now is the time to push” [“Culture shift: It’s time to allow gays to serve openly in the military,” Back Talk, April 23].

I agree. It is time to stand, but the push that Gibbs mentions should be in the opposite direction. We should be standing for our collective morality, not against it. And if a change is necessary, we should insist that the dialogue surrounding the debate be founded in reasonable and sound arguments.

As is typical of people who advocate an openly gay service policy, Gibbs makes a parallel between the homosexual debate and the integration of black Americans and women into the ranks. He also asserts that open homosexuality has not yet been proven to be a harbinger of low morale and poor unit cohesion. Finally, he suggests that due to a culture shift in the U.S. regarding homosexuality, the Marine Corps should follow suit. These are the premises of what he offers as an argument for allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

The integration of homosexuals in the military is vastly different than what African-Americans or women experienced. From a logical point of view, this analogy is painful. Race and gender are protected from discrimination in the Constitution; homosexuality is not. It is inappropriate to equate gender and race to sexual orientation. Let’s not lump them together because of some base similarities. If Gibbs is addressing law, then the ultimate source of law in this country, the Constitution, should be a relevant source document. However, the Constitution makes no mention of sexual orientation. Twisting the Constitution for one’s own argument is an affront to it and is intellectually immoral.

The proper role of the military and its members, if a reminder is needed, is to protect the Constitution, not revise it. If the lawmakers in Congress change the Constitution, then the military will adjust accordingly. However, in the last presidential election, the issue of homosexual marriage was placed on the ballots as a referendum in 11 states. When the dust settled, it wasn’t even close. By an average of 70.2 percent to 28.8 percent, those states approved a ban on homosexual marriage. It would appear that there has not been a “cultural shift” among the people of the U.S.

Gibbs uses the statements of retired Army Gen. Eric Shinseki to bolster his argument. His obvious, and not illogical attempt, is to suggest that if a general officer of such accomplishment is so “enlightened” on the subject, then the rest of us should re-evaluate our positions. If Gibbs is that swayed by the arguments of generals, then shouldn’t the spectrum of general officers be considered?

If all general officers were polled, it is logical to predict that their opinions on this subject would at least mirror those of the voters in the 11 states where gay rights were an issue in 2004. And shouldn’t the opinion of Gen. Peter Pace be equally respected? He is, after all the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Shinseki’s opinion, while coming from a venerable source, is not a decisive factor in this argument.

Gibbs is wrong to imply that the question of gays serving openly in the military is the same as blacks and women serving without discrimination. He is wrong to suggest that the Constitution protects homosexuals per se. He is wrong to make out the military as an antiquated organization whose policies contradict the opinions of the majority of Americans. And he is not only wrong but also sensationalist to imply that the victims of discrimination based on sexual orientation are akin to rape victims.

But these are the pillars of his argument.

It is necessary to take a stand and push back against those who would suggest that approval of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is tantamount to racism and sexism and is unconstitutional. It is none of those things.

When it comes to the existing policy on gays in the military, let’s let democracy take its course and in the meantime let’s let the necessary dialogue regarding the issue be based on logical arguments, not inflammatory ones.

Capt. Matthew H. Peterson

Santa Ana, Calif.

Include the master guns

I would like to congratulate Sgt. Maj. Carlton Kent on his selection as sergeant major of the Marine Corps. I would also like to say that I am pleased to see that finally there is a sergeant major with enough intelligence and foresight to include master gunnery sergeants in the sergeants major symposium [“PME for senior NCOs tops Kent’s agenda,” May 7]. It’s been a long time coming.

There are a multitude of master gunnery sergeants throughout the Corps who have exceptional leadership skills and ideas along with suggestions that could be beneficial to the Corps. It is time they are recognized.

As for the prima donna sergeants major who oppose master gunnery sergeants participating in the symposium, it’s time to suck it up and think about the good of the Corps.

Master Gunnery Sgt. Thomas M. Lanier Sr. (ret.)

Havelock, N.C.

WHISKEY STORY TASTELESS

Your report on Kentucky and Tennessee’s whiskey trail [“A spirited adventure,” Lifelines, May 7] seems to be in bad taste considering how many senseless deaths, accidents and administrative discharges are a result of alcohol consumption.

How about investigating something more suitable to a responsible way of life? If people used alcohol responsibly, we wouldn't have the needless deaths, accidents and administrative discharges we have today.

HM1 Michele Brown

Millington, Tenn.