Senior defense leader says the US military leads in social change…

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy Rosemary Freitas Williams was the keynote speaker for the American Military Partner Association’s “inaugural gala.” The AMPA is a homosexual advocacy that has lobbied for “homosexual rights” — and, more recently, those of “transgenders.”

Williams wholeheartedly endorsed the AMPA’s advocacy for homosexuality in the US military [emphasis added]: 

Williams said AMPA and similar groups are among the new generation of pioneers within the ranks of military and veterans service organizations.

“History will record your actions and your significance for all time,” she said.

Williams also lauded AMPA’s desire for “seismic change” in family programs and community outreach, which she said is directly aligned with DOD’s desire for fresh dialogue on issues of concern…

Notably, Williams also fed the fires of those who have said advocates are using the military for “social experimentation” or to advance their own social agenda when she said

Throughout our nation’s history, the Department of Defense has led social change…

The irony, if there is any, is that Williams speech has generated essentially no controversy, and the Department of Defense even released an official press article on the event.

By contrast, military and government leaders who have stood in front of audiences and similarly supported the goals of faith-based groups (as opposed to sexuality-based groups), or might dare to call on them to use the military as a vehicle for “seismic change,” have been not only lambasted, but also accused of illegal activity.

The notable difference, too, is that religious freedom is recognized as a human liberty and protected in the US Constitution. Not only is “sexual liberty” not, the opposite is actually true.

Ultimately, there’s nothing technically wrong with advocating for the acceptance of open homosexuality in the military. Of course, in a world free of viewpoint discrimination, the same is true for advocating against it.

When it comes to freedom, however, some have missed the obvious irony:

“I believe homosexuals should be able to serve and live openly in the US military without discrimination.”

“I believe Christians should be able to serve and live openly in the US military without discrimination.”

Based on some very public incidents, making one of those two statements — or trying to live them out — will earn members of the military or government a rebuke.

Care to guess which one?

ADVERTISEMENT

---

---