Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Christine O'Donnell - Chris Coons debate: 'Don't ask, don't tell' and abortion

Coons-gaymilitaryl92lj5nc
The first student questions regarded whether the candidates would support the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and about abortion.

Chris Coons on the military policy: Yes. "I would move swiftly as a senator to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." It's discimination, pure and simple. In my view, we should be making progress in this country ... recognizing the full range of human experience." The repeal, he said, would be "an important next step in the American civil rights movement.

Christine O'Donnell on the military policy: No. "It's up to the military to set the policy that the military believes is best for unit cohesiveness and military readiness." The military, she said, "already regulates behavior.It doesn't allow affairs if you're married ... I don't think that Congress should be enforcing a social agenda onto our military."

On abortion rights, O'Donnell is against and Coons is for, with a nuance.

"I am personally opposed to abortion," he said, "but it is not my place to put that restriction on women. I think abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

RELATED:

Is Chris Coons a socialist?

Immigration

Healthcare reform: For or against?

-- Robin Abcarian

Like this politics coverage? Click here for Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Or follow us @latimestot. Our Facebook Like page is over here. Also available on Kindle now.

Photo: Gregory Rec / EPA

 
Comments () | Archives (3)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Say something often enough and people will think it’s true. This seems to be the game-plan regarding homosexual lifestyle and the don’t ask don’t tell debate. Mullen, chairmen of the joint chiefs, said the policy is forcing “young men and women to lie about who they are.” But homosexuality is about what one does not who one is; it’s about conduct, not nature.

It is exceptionally unwise to redefine civil rights in any way to include chosen lifestyles like homosexuality. People are not born homosexual as an unchangeable condition. There is no conclusive evidence for a so-called “gay gene” and without indisputable scientific evidence, theories on genetic predisposition regarding sexual behavior should not be used to advance discussions on what is right or wrong or best for a society.

Engaging in homosexual sex is a choice people are free to make as consenting adults. But many former homosexuals have found freedom from this lifestyle. Discrimination in actual civil rights cases should be limited to unchangeable issues of nature or disability--- not the kind of sex people desire.

Those who choose to practice homosexual behavior are (and should be) protected from all forms of criminal treatment by existing laws and law enforcement. They should not be subject to hatred or mistreatment for any reason. But they should not be granted special laws made for sexual choices. We must not allow self-imposed minority groups based on people's sexual conduct.

Through radical gay-rights propaganda, people are being deceived. And, ironically, the ones hurt most by this are the ones trapped in the homosexual lifestyle. Anyone who tells you otherwise is profoundly unaware of the deep agony brought on by this lifestyle.

Many choices (not just homosexual ones) must be made about sexual conduct and about the rightness and wrongness of it. Civilized people must have laws to regulate some forms of sexual conduct and limits must be placed on claims to genetic predispositions. Don’t be misled by the widespread lie about homosexual behavior being a predetermined and unalterable condition.

Sadly, those who morally oppose homosexual conduct will be treated as if they have a psychological abnormality or as if they are all bigoted and hateful racist. I am not intimidated by the manipulative and vicious labels because I see through them with eyes of compassion toward those who long for freedom.

A suggestion would be if they want to serve in the military let them take a vow of celebacy. This way no one will be offended, then the military can get on with its mission.

It is good that we have seperation of church and state. However, before I run for office I would see if what I had to vote on is moral, or in accord with the natural law.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: