Group Opposes Army Nominee Mark Green over Views on Sexuality

Some have recently said that a person’s views of or support and advocacy for homosexuality should not be relevant to the government office they are appointed to fill.

However, some of those same groups are now opposing an appointee to government office — purely because of his views on sexuality [emphasis added]:

The American Military Partner Association…accused Mr. Green of making “a shameful political career out of targeting LGBT people for discrimination…Based on his vicious, anti-LGBT record, Mark Green cannot be trusted to ensure all those who serve have the support they need and deserve.”

Mark Green is a Tennessee state senator, identifies as a conservative Christian, and he is now President Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Army.  If he has made a “career” out of targeting people for discrimination, it should be easy enough to demonstrate — which Ashley Broadway, AMPA’s President, fails to do. In multiple articles complaining about him, the only legislation cited is a proposed Tennessee law that would

…prohibit government entities in Tennessee from taking “discriminatory action against a business based on that business’s internal policies.”

That’s hardly “vicious” — much less “anti-LGBT” (as if “anti-LGBT” even means anything). Rather, Ashley Broadway and her AMPA seem more concerned about what Mark Green believes and what he has said.  The most common accusations against him are speeches, not policy — and not discrimination.

In fact, Broadway’s AMPA and the HRC — represented by Stephen Peters, formerly of the same AMPA — specifically cited Green’s “views” in their objection, saying

Green’s views are radical and outdated…

They want to deny him the position of Secretary of the Army because they don’t agree with his views and beliefs on sexuality.

Where’s that “tolerance” these activists are always demanding?

If anyone had criticized the nomination of former Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning — who, besides being homosexual, also had a long history of being pro-LGBT — would not Broadway and those like her have called them a bigot?

In fact, someone did. And homosexual activists did call Mike Huckabee a bigot.

When the AMPA impugns the character of a man because his views on LGBT issues are contrary to theirs, does that not also make them…bigots?

How is it that passing a law to protect Americans from discrimination when they exercise their constitutional rights is “bigotry,” but the creation of government policies requiring Americans to actively support homosexuality isn’t?

Perhaps that’s their version of “equality.”

Mark Green has the support of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who did not say Green was nominated for his views on sexuality, but because

Mark will provide strong civilian leadership, improve military readiness and support our service members, civilians and their families.

It would seem Ashley Broadway’s AMPA — which claims to advocate for “modern families” — doesn’t want to support those kinds of families.

It is true that all men are created in the image of God — and it is also true we are all sinners.  What we choose to do about our sin…well, that’s a different story, isn’t it?

Which way will you choose?

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus…
Romans 3:23

I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5:32

ADVERTISEMENT



5 comments

  • Anonymous Patriot

    I am hopeful that Mark Green gets the nomination. I am sick and tired of bigots trying to assassinate the characters of good men because they don’t approve of sexual abnormality.

    Wes Modder was an alarm bell to everybody concerned with the consequences of DADT’s repeal. Now, gay supremacism is trying to rear it’s ugly head into the glorious United States Army. The hatefulness of the sexually deviant knows no bounds.

  • David Standifer

    Objecting to someone who has demonstrated animosity toward any sector of the U.S. population based on legally acceptable deviation is not bigotry. It protects all of our rights.

    To say that a resistance to homophobes is discrimination is like saying resistance to the white racists is discrimination.

    • @David Standifer

      Objecting to someone who has demonstrated animosity toward any sector of the U.S. population based on legally acceptable deviation[?] is not bigotry. It protects all of our rights.

      To say that a resistance to homophobes religious persecution is discrimination is like saying resistance to the white racists is discrimination.

      Fixed it for you. You probably didn’t realize your (flawed) logic worked both ways, did you?

    • Freedom Fighter

      Resistance to white racists IS discrimination. Just like resistance to black racists, Latino racists, or Asian racists is discrimination. In fact, every time you drive your car or get on an airplane, you are complicit in discrimination.

      What you meant to say is that you prefer, and you think society should prefer, a particular type of discrimination above others. The problem you have is that our Constitution, and our laws, have already established a particular hierarchy when it comes to protected classes. Sex and sexual orientation are simply lower in the pecking order. No matter how much you attempt to analogize them to race, it will not make it so.

    • Anonymous Patriot

      By that logic, Resistance to Gaystapo and their allies is fair game, because Christophobia is the only reason the Gaystapo exists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *