Activists Call Troops a Threat to the Military in Attacks on Mark Green

Homosexual activists and their supporters continued an (ongoing) campaign to try to make it look as though Tennessee Senator Mark Green, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of the Army, was not only a ‘hater,’ but also facing increasing opposition in an apparently doomed nomination.

Neither is true, and these activists have done little more than reveal their own privilege and bigotry in the process.

Ashley Broadway-Mack’s American Military Partner Association — which claims to advocate for “modern” military families, but apparently not other military families — first issued a press release with the dramatic title “Members of Congress Speak Out Against Nomination of Mark Green as Army Secretary.”

However, even some of their supporters noted the content of the release was far less dramatic than the title implied. The “members of Congress” were 31 members of the House of Represenatatives — that is, only 31 of the 193 Democrats in the House signed the letter. That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement.

Most obviously, the “speak[ing] out” didn’t really come from “Congress,” but from the House of Representatives. It is the Senate, not the House, that confirms presidential appointments, making the few Representatives’ statement ultimately meaningless.

Broadway’s AMPA — which is a 501(c)3 “charitable” organization — then issued another press release opposing Mark Green, though it originated at the homosexual activist Palm Center. This time, activists claimed the sky was falling because “21 current and former Faculty Members” of military-related academic institutions were concerned about Green’s nomination. Of the 21, 14 are civilians. Surprisingly, one is an active duty US Navy Captain. (CAPT David Smith appears to have made a virtual career writing and speaking about women and sexuality.)

The natural response: Who cares what these faculty members think?

Despite coming from the same activists, the “faculty members” tried to broaden the attacks on Green beyond the homosexual movement by claiming, for example, that Green was “anti-military” — because he’d criticized General officers and said “we need a warrior ethos.” With that criteria, the entire US Congress and probably the majority of the country is “anti-military.”

Most interesting, however, was the “who’s who” of anti-Christian and homosexual activists who signed the faculty letter — including a few associated with Michael “Mikey” Weinstein’s MRFF:

Not exactly paragons of tolerance and religious liberty, those three, all of whom have been discussed here before. (Given how Edie Disler’s “faculty” career ended, her inclusion somewhat undermines the supposed gravitas of the list.) Some of the others on the list are the “usual suspects” whose names have appeared on various homosexual advocacy efforts in the past.

Ultimately, the treatment of Mark Green will stand as an example of the treatment of Christians in society — and within the US military. Coming after an openly celebrated homosexual led both the US Army and the US Air Force, Mark Green’s nomination is a test of sorts for the homosexual community.

Can homosexuals work with someone who disagrees with them? Do homosexuals really care only if you can “shoot straight,” or do you have to affirm their sexual behaviors, as well? Is their loyalty greatest to their sexual community, or to the US Constitution?

In other words, can homosexuals do what they have demanded of others over the past few years, or would they instead attempt to deprive fellow citizens of rights and liberties purely because of what those citizens think and believe?

Hundreds of thousands of US troops share the same values as Mark Green. To call Mark Green “unqualified” or a “serious threat to what makes our military great”, as activists have done, indicts the many service members who share the tenets of his faith and belief.

Broadway’s AMPA, the Palm Center, and other homosexual activists seem to be openly advocating hypocrisy, implying they want “freedom for me, but not for thee.” They demand “equality” — but only for themselves, because they are apparently more equal than others. They want “tolerance” for their sexual behavior — but they will not tolerate those who do not think like they do. They will not just oppose, they will attempt to destroy anyone who does not support them.

And the people who really suffer the results of their bigotry?

They are willing to sacrifice US troops on the altar of their sexual preference.

And that is reprehensible.

Also at the Stars and Stripes.