Homosexual Activists Use Military Uniforms to Advance Agenda
The American Military Partner Association (AMPA) is a homosexual “charity” that lobbies on behalf of sexual liberty in the US military. It purports to “represent the modern military family,” in which “modern” is presumably “homosexual,” judging by the photos adorning its website.
The AMPA has a history of using uniformed military members in roles that likely violate military regulations. For example, last year the AMPA used photos of “AMPA members” in military uniforms to encourage opposition to legislation — something uniformed military members (and charities) aren’t supposed to do. It fills its Facebook page with AMPA endorsements by uniformed service members, while troops aren’t allowed to endorse other groups.
The AMPA also hosted a “national gala” last year — at which a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense was the keynote speaker — and has used the photos of its leadership committee from that event to promote its cause:
Standing out, of course, are the two people in military uniform. According to the AMPA website, the man on the left is Jim Cassidy, a retired enlisted Seaman. The woman on the right is Chris Rowzee, a retired Air Force officer. (Rowzee is the former Airman who famously convened her staff to officially announce her sexuality.)
It is likely that both violated military regulations by wearing their uniforms to the “gala.”
The US Navy regulation on uniform wear by retirees explicitly allows retired Sailors to wear their uniform at specific events, and caveats the permission with the somewhat generic statement that uniform wear is permitted
when the dignity of the occasion and good taste dictate.
There is room for argument about whether a homosexual gala is something creating the “dignity of [an] occasion.” That concern may be moot, however, because uniform wear is explicitly prohibited when [emphasis added]
attending or participating in any demonstration, assembly, or activity for the purpose of furthering personal or partisan views on political, social, economic, or religious issues.
Many people — on both sides of the aisle — would assert that homosexual advocacy is a personal, partisan and political or social view.
In other words, Cassidy seems to have violated US Navy uniform regulations when he wore his uniform to the event.
As to Rowzee, the Air Force wording is different (in AFI 36-2903) but the basic outcome is the same. Attendance at the “gala” is not covered under the explicit permissions granting retirees the ability to wear the uniform, and the AFI prohibits wear for political issues and public appearances where it may “imply Air Force sanction.”
In other words, Rowzee seems to have violated US Air Force uniform regulations when she wore her uniform to the event.
Does it matter?
Only to a few people. Chris Rodda, for example, gleefully announced a few years ago that the MRFF was going after Christians in the military by citing uniform regulations — because the MRFF had been unsuccessful in attacking what military Christians actually said or did. You can still hear the background tone of that angle when Michael “Mikey” Weinstein or one of his acolytes complain that a Christian said or did something while in “full military uniform.”
The military, too, is still sensitive to where its uniforms are worn and what they represent. For example, the military explicitly prohibited troops from participating in the ALS “ice bucket challenge” last year because the beneficiary was a private organization — a 501(c)3, just like the AMPA. And who can forget the hulaballoo over breastfeeding while in uniform?
Ultimately, however, it is unlikely anything will happen. Long before it would have been remotely acceptable, a color guard of uniformed veterans marched in a “gay pride” parade, clearly violating US military rules, and nothing happened. The US military made exceptions to policy to permit military uniforms in other homosexual parades, which would have otherwise violated military regulations — and seemingly acknowledged it would not grant permission for other (non-sexual) social/political parades.
And, to be fair, the US military rarely targets retired military members, a fact that made the reprimand of retired LtGen Jerry Boykin last year all the more notable.
Still, change the background of the AMPA picture above to virtually any conservative or remotely faith-based group — say, one that supported traditional marriage or Christian ministry to the military — and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would have occurred would have been deafening. There would have been a hue and outcry over a military uniform appearing to endorse a sociopolitical viewpoint, in violation of US military regulations.
And, ideological though the motivation may have been, the outcry might have been factually correct. It is interesting to note that while the military has publicly chastised some troops for wearing their uniforms at impermissible times, it has never done so for homosexuals who appear to be doing exactly the same thing as others.