Military Gay Marriage

[BLUEHAWK]

:cd:

I do not prefer suggesting this thread on this particular Forum, but maybe it could be for the best if the conversation can be kept to the point and not allowed to become invective again. The point is worth discussing, calmly.

In the Family Forum, which seemed correct at the time, I posted a thread (and poll) titled "Military Gay Marriage"... it rightly had to get locked off because things got personal, which is a shame since that was not the intent of the thread. From July - December 2003 it ran pretty steadily, gaining 48 posts and 807 reads on four PF pages with a 5 star rating. The question was then and is now, ever more sharply (due to recent legal developments in San Francisco, Austin, Vermont and now Massachusetts):

WHAT IS THE LIKELY EFFECT OF GAY MARRIAGE UPON THE MILITARY?

Just that much, not whether gay people should or should not marry, nor whether their marriages or civil unions are to be recognized state by state or federally, nor whether there should or should not be a Constitutional Amendment, nor whether it is or is not against or within God's Will, etc etc etc.

Simply, what do people think will be the effect of the now all but inevitable presence of married persons of the same gender on military life, garrisons, DoD policy, combat readiness, Judge Advocates and the like... please.

If the Moderator will let this run for awhile, just to see whether we can focus on the military consequences of the apparently inevitable, and should readers see fit to honor the post with their thoughts, we might be better prepared as patriots for what is to come.

My own opinions have been stated about as well as can be on the original Family Forum thread, so do not need repetition... and are still there with other ones for review.

[Seascamp]

In terms of first things first I believe the issue of Gays in the military is still very much in limbo. The Clinton don?t ask don?t tell policy is still in place as far as I know and people are still being discharged because of homosexual orientation. So the issue of Gay marriage will probably follow what ever the law of the land becomes eventually but I see it getting real complicated in terms of dependent care provisions and official military recognition.

During my Navy time the homophobes caused more disruption and difficulties than the Gays did and I don?t know if the military is more tolerant these days or not. My last calibration point on that was when my daughter?s boyfriend came home from Marine boot camp with a head full of counterproductive notions. He had big plans to go to Reno and beat up on some Gays. My message there was that was called assault and battery and he would go to jail, Marine or no. Plus he couldn?t go out with my daughter until he cleared his head of such notions. He didn?t have those thoughts before becoming a Marine so someone had to prime his pump with all that stupid stuff. And I went and had a chat with his recruiter figuring a message from the USMC would be effective, and it was. The message from the recruiter was that if he got in trouble with the law, he would be on his own and probably get a not so good discharge from the Marines. That was a real good wake up call, for sure.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

I read today in the paper that Philadelphia has, along with the other locales listed above, enacted a law permitting legal same-gender unions.

Normally, after a long period of debate and airing of opinions and positions, when a divisive issue such as this finally does get some formal recognition at the "grass roots" level, then the ball is definitely rolling in the direction of the protagonist's will (as was projected in the original thread on Family Forum).

The arguements for and against seem to go through a phase of intense debate, then a second phase of pullback and reformation, then the one with the most momentum suddenly arises again (usually due to supportive court or legislative action), which is followed by a deeper entrenchment of the opposition without much change in their essential points (all or most of which have by then been answered, as far as the opponents are concerned), followed by a codification of the advocate's propaganda into daily jargon and the eventual adoption of the controversial movement.

[Keith_Hixson]

Here Comes the brimstones.

Keith

[Andy]

It?s my understanding that during Clinton?s term in office a federal law was passed saying marriage is, as the dictionary says, one man and one woman. What we have going on now is a 10th amendment issue, states rights. If the federal constitution does not prohibit an activity (such as prostitution in Nevada), is it or can it be legal in one or more of the several states?

A few states have more or less decriminalized marijuana. The federal government has only taken token action against those states and it?s residents. This seems to have open the door for other (perhaps questionable) behavior. But those are state Vs federal questions.

A member of the military takes an oath to the federal government and must abide by federal rules, laws and of course the UCMJ. Gay?s getting married while in the military would be a no-no. Even if they were stationed in Massachusetts after May 19th. Or at least that?s my guess.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Interesting point Andy... I see what you are meaning.

Taking that to a logical end then, even with such marriages sanctioned in any state(s), so long as the Federal law under which the UCMJ operates remains as it is today, then even with certain expectable complexities deriving from the normal function of Family Law type suits, the net effect, as things now stand, is likely to be slight...

Yes?

[BLUEHAWK]

Scamp -
Exacraly...the issues of dependent care, housing, allowances, divorce, domestic violence, VA benefits, in-service medical care, survivor's rights et al.... THAT is where I see the difficulties arising mainly too...a potentially very serious, costly and time consuming problem for the military not because same-gender activities are Federally prohibited (Andy's point being well made and taken), but rather because it is highly probable, given the history of vehemence the Gay Rights movement has shown in the past 30+ years, when such domestic/Family Law issues DO arise while one or more partner is in service (and they WILL arise with about the same frequency among them as they do among everyone else, as we know!), then I strongly suspect there will be a second wave, if you will, movement to insist that the rights granted by a state must be recognized by the military judiciary.

In other words... I wish it had never come to this, I wish it would all go away immediately if not sooner, but it did not, is not and will not... in fact within a fairly short number of years hence things are more likely to get worse than better in this regard.

Eh?

[Andy]

Federal law always trumps State law. But only Federal Constitutional law trumps State Constitutional law OR decisions made by a State supreme court on the state?s Constitution.

I see this like the 1850s. Some states said their constitution indicated it was ok to have slaves, others said the opposite. We fought a long war, in part, about slavery but it wasn?t until the Federal constitution changed with the 13th and 14th amendments in, what was it, 1867, that slavery was abolished. Hey, this is Massachusetts being South Carolina!!!

If there is no amendment to the Federal constitution states like Ohio who have passed laws banning gay marriage will not recognize the marriage of people from Massachusetts. The Ohio folks will say their state law is in accordance with federal law. Massachusetts will say, as they always do, our constitution and our supreme court are older than the Federal government and although we can not abridge rights given under federal law, we can give more rights. (Example: Federal law enforcement can use body wires or tape record conversations with criminals. Cops working for the state or towns in MA can not). More rights than are required.

This bring up an interesting question. Two men are married and both are in the MA National Guard. However, once they are activated to go to Iraq or do their two weeks in another state, such as Ohio, they are no longer married, right?

The Colonies revolted against England. England was making stupid and confusing laws and our founding fathers said, ?Hey, we can make our own stupid laws, we don?t need you!? I guess they were right.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[BLUEHAWK]

Yes Andy!

"Massachusetts being South Carolina"! Exactly... and who knows how many other states attempt to follow suit. I look for California and New York making the effort, though they might not succeed as Mass. seems about to do.

Is it not rather odd, all things considered, that the political side which so often renounces conservatives for the stand usually taken on "State sovereignty" (i.e. rights), is now gleefully and vociferously invoking those same principles in defense of a moral position which a very large number of Americans oppose?

[BLUEHAWK]

p.s.

One difficult effect upon the military that the unpleasantness of the 1850-60 era had was to divide off some officers (and probably men as well, Tamaroa would know those details) from the Federal forces... they whose loyalties had been damaged or challenged went over to the "other side". One wonders if this matter is of the magnitude to have such a result, one day. To hear the adversaries talk, it would appear they are prepared to do practically ANYthing to make their points.

[colmurph]

Gay marriages will never be permitted in the military unless they throw out the UCMJ. Sodomy is still a punishable crime under the UCMJ and gay's are sodomites.

[BLUEHAWK]

Hope your are right Colonel, hope you are right... in fact, I'm pretty much countin' on the UCMJ to hold up against the PC onslaught.

[theoddz]

If "sodomy" is punishable under the UCMJ, then every time a military member has sexual relations with his/her spouse (I say SPOUSE, because adultery, which is rampant in today's culture is also punishable under the UCMJ), and these people engage in any sexual activity that involves anything else except penile/vaginal penetration, then this military member and his/her SPOUSE can be prosecuted for "sodomy" under the UCMJ.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather my sexual activites not be sanctioned or monitored by a government entity.

[Seascamp]

Observing Countries that have institutionalized homosexual marriage and have a standing military organization could provide some answers as to how all this could play out. Canada and Holland come to mind. Holland adds a level of complexity in that all their military personnel are represented by labor unions and there really isn?t such a thing as what we would consider a regular Army or Navy. Virtually all are Reservists as I understand the Dutch military structure.
But I would agree that the UCMJ; even though selectively applied presently, will be a major roadblock for the foreseeable future and I don?t see that easily overcome regardless of what the non-military norms and laws become. But as in all things I suppose there will be a lot of secret/not so secret homosexual relationships/ marriages going on anyway, regardless of what the UCMJ puts forth. My take right now is that selective application of UCMJ provisions has acted to really water down and dilute it?s effectiveness as a legal tool. The concept of ?don?t ask, don?t tell? directly or indirectly infers that the UCMJ is to be ignored when convenient or desirable. Given that, I?d say that some specific provisions of the UCMJ are ten toes over the line of being revised, but not anytime soon.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

oddz - like you say, and I'd rather NO sexual anything be discussed or controlled by anyone, ANY ONE, ever in this context.
I am dang disturbed that the gay side has made such an issue of this deal... I can see the idea of someone needing their special person(s) to have their bennies given by law and the economy... but fer cryin' out loud, what sex one has or doesn't have is none of anybody's bidness! AND, it sure ain't a cause for granting or withholding anything.

Scampness- excellent observations, as usual.

[theoddz]

....for your understanding of the situation.

As you so aptly put it, being gay is no more to do with what happens in the bedroom as it IS about just living a life in happiness, as we see fit. Having the right to marry, or have the same bennies thereof, would satisfy me. Quite frankly, I really don't care what they call it, as long as the same legal entitlements would prevail.

For me, it's all about what our Constitution provides for, which is simply "equal protection under the law". And as far as President Bush's vow to support an ammendment that would take away a certain group's rights of equal protection provided for by the US Constitution, I would shudder to think what else that would set a precedence for. It would herald the beginning of the end of our democracy, as we would be ammending that precious document to exclude the rights of any group that the "majority" had a problem with. What kind of a democracy would that be??

It's interesting to note, that, in 1850, the majority of the US population actively supported the idea of slavery (or was indifferent to it). Just because the majority of a population supports an idea, does not make it right. Slavery was an abomination and, thank heavens, our Constitution prevailed and provided, once again, "equal protection under the law" was granted to the African-American population.

Do gays deserve anything less?? The Religious Right Wing Republicans are all in favor of depriving our nation's gay citizens of our rights, which are guaranteed under the law. If pressed, this group has, at the base of its reasoning, a religious notion that being homosexual is "against God". Well, here we go again with "separation of Church and State", which is also protected under the Constitution.

I'm not going to go into my personal religious beliefs, because I don't desire to get the right wingers here riled up. I just wanted to have my say in a peaceful environment where we have a good open-minded moderator who is willing to give all sides a voice in the discussion.

Thanks for listening.

[BLUEHAWK]

Oddz -

Well, if I took it the right way, then you are we;lcome... it just doesn't seem like that it OUGHT to even BE discussed... the way it is being now. Anybody who wants to designate anybody they please to receive their inheritance or benefits has every right to do so and to change their mind... I don't see what the problem with that is. Getting the whole marriage thing involved with it is just plain dumb.

I hope your life goes well Oddz, and that one way or another it will settle down sooner than later, get it off the newspaper and TV, and you can do as you please with your hard-earned personal economics.

[Andy]

Equal rights under the law.

A man and woman can usually marry. OK, so two men or two women should be able to marry. OK, then a brother and sister, mother and son, father and daughter should be able to marry. OK then a man should be able to have several wives or a woman several husbands. OK, a 35 year old falls in love with a 11 year old and they marry. Everyone should have equal right?

Wait a minute, my religion says that during church services no one will take a sip of wine but we will use drugs so we can hallucinate in an effort to get closer to our god. My religion also forbids me from paying state or federal taxes. I?m only allowed to tithe to my church.

Equal protection should not be a license to engage in any activity. With equal protection comes collective responsibility. Marriage was created in conjunction with biology. One man and one woman should be able to engage in marriage. If, mostly for monetary reasons, a same sex couple wants to have a civil union under civil law, I see no problem. Has there ever been a society in history that had gay marriage? There is a long history of gays and bi-sexual people who left their mark but were any of them married? Do you think gay marriage just never passed the ?reasonableness test??

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Seascamp]

I really think the time for reasonable and rational thought is past us now and no matter what we may believe or think the institution of homosexual marriage has been ramrod-forced down our muzzles, that?s a done deal. The Massachusetts Supreme Court Judges decision has sent shock waves across the land and what I see now is that the Mayor of San Francisco has taken the vote mandate away from the people of California and now Judges refuse to validate proposition 22 and enforce the law. The California Attorney General, only very reluctantly, will follow the instructions of the Governor to enforce the law but that will only be a token effort, at best. Illinois and New Mexico are chomping at the bit to join the civil disobedience and blow right on by existing laws but are waiting to see what happens in California. Beyond that, we can expect to see cave-ins/civil disobedience almost everywhere. Plus we can expect to see incredibly expensive lawsuits stacking up as far as the eye can see and beyond.
But the biggest causality of all is that we are having another object lesson that laws don?t matter, votes don?t matter and the majority will doesn?t matter, only Liberalism matters. And once again we see that Massachusetts?s activists Judges are the dogs and the rest of the States are mere tails for their lab rat experiments and social engineering projects. This isn?t going to play well at all, guaranteed, but I don?t suppose those Judges give a pig?s butt about anything but their arrogance, stupid ego trips and that we all ?eat cake?.

At the end of the day, the legitimate needs of homosexual individuals will not be met and another round of deep resentment will be on the plate and that is too bad. What may have seemed as a bold step forward will end up being miles in the opposite direction and that is tragic, but reality.

In the humor of it all I guess Bush and Kerry agree on at least one thing eh. But I expect Kerry will wiggle-worm/osmossis into a pro-homosexual marriage posture once his Spin Doctors get his new script worked out. That will clear a field of fire to blast away at Bush as the identified and supposed ?boogieman-homophobic minion of evil?.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Unless I am mistaken (again:D), wouldn't it be true to say that were it not for the government and businesses KEEPING people from designating anybody they please as beneficiaries or survivor's or whatever, then this whole thing probably would never have come up in the first place?

[colmurph]

Theodds.......GAYS DO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS! They have the same danged rights I have as a Divorced person and the SAME rights as a single person. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN ME? They can leave their house/property to anybody that they designate in a will. I can't get coverage for my girlfriend without getting married and I ain't goin there. Can single guys get medical coverage for their friends? If they want RIGHTS let them marry two lesbians and move both housholds together so they can do their "Thing" at least any children will still have the "Illusion" of a Mommy and Daddy. It isn't about what people do in a bedroom behind a closed door.....this is something that is flaunted in PUBLIC! This is also going to cost the heterosexual population a boatload of money to pay for treatment for diseases that are "Peculiar" to gay men.
How do you like those pictures of Rosie O'Donnel and her new "Spouse"? How are you going to explain that to your children or grandchildred if they ask? Me........I'm just going to tell them that those are a "Couple of Dykes".

[theoddz]

I really and truly am sorry that you feel the way you do.

As far as marriage is concerned, at least you and your girlfriend have the OPTION TO MARRY and to legitimize your relationship in the eyes of the law. That's more than I have. People who have money will also tell you that money is not important, but those of us who don't have a pile of it will say it darned sure IS important, primarily because we DON'T have it. It's all a matter of perspective, is it not??

On the issue of two gay guys and two lesbians marrying each other, let me tell you that it IS done and HAS been done for eons in the same military that you and I served in. It is ILLEGAL and one can be punished under the UCMJ and other laws for fraud, amongst other things. Why should gays and lesbians be forced to resort to fraud and illegal tactics in order to have the SAME RIGHTS as you (as a heterosexual) do??? Explain that to me, and please spare me the religious overtones that are, basically, at the heart of your argument, because I am totally uninterested in religious doctrine becoming part of US laws ("separation of church and state", remember??).

I feel silly having to remind anyone, these days, that AIDS/HIV is NOT a "homosexual disease" but one that affects the entire human population. As a heterosexual, you are not having to pay any more for treatment of a public disease than I have to pay to support educate and finance the health care of the products of the heterosexual lifestyle (children).

Usually, when gays bring children into their relationship whom they did not produce themselves, they adopt children who are difficult to place or considered "unadoptable", therefore taking the burden of support of these kids off of the already overextended social system. If children are born into a lesbian/gay relationship, you can bet that they are there because they are WANTED and PLANNED FOR, as opposed to being the product of irresponsible heterosexual relations. These types of families should be applauded and appreciated for the service, love and compassion they provide for a lot of kids who wouldn't have homes otherwise. Even in nature, two female elephants will raise a young calf together without the presence of a "daddy". I might add, too, that a goodly number of gay and lesbian partners have incomes greatly above the established median incomes of their communities, thereby providing an environment of economic advantage to these children.

Quite personally, I was charmed at the picture I saw of Rosie O'Donnell and her new spouse, Kelli Carpenter, and I am extremely happy for them and proud that they had the courage to do what they did. I wish them the utmost of happiness now and forever.

And, lastly, I don't have children, however, if I did, there would be nothing to "explain", other than they are a family, just like anyone else, with all the same joys, sorrows, troubles and tribulations.

Oh yes, and you can call me a "dyke" all day long and it wouldn't offend me or any other lesbian I know of. In fact, we refer to each other that way, sometimes, although, fondly, of course.

Peace.

[BLUEHAWK]

Oddz -
A story...

I became fairly close with a lesbian couple years ago... we bought a property together in Frisco, remodeled it together and lived in it... beautiful old Victorian.

Their devotion to one another was quite strong, as strong as any hetero one I've ever seen. They were a tad defensive about their relationship in society, but I guess that works out to be sorta normal considering some of the incoming they received, even in Frisco. One of the two, the more feminine partner, was an easy goer, pretty nice to get along with. The maler partner was a downright pain in the butt some of the time... she was one helluva a better carpenter than me for one thing, but kinda went out of her way to remind me of that fact, if you know what I mean. Also, it was surprising how protective she was of her lady, almost the way males get around the woman who chose them (as we know, that IS how the choice is made :D)

If anything, what was difficult, for me, was that the lesbian community part of their relationship and life took so much of their energy, it was so dominant in their thinking every day, almost as if BEING lesbian was a self-imposed form of outcasting or something... that did get tiresome I have to tell ya... I just thought they were folks, but they would never seem to be able to let me forget they were lesbians first and folks maybe later.

It worked out pretty well all in all, and I am glad to have had the experience... but probably would avoid a similar situation again.

What say you?

[theoddz]

There are lesbians in this world who strongly identify with and prefer the company of other lesbians. I don't pretend to understand the dynamics of the various relationship roles and situations, so I can't say why your friends were so attached to the lesbian community and perhaps set their personal identities by. I've never been that way, myself. I'm one of those so-called "folks" you were talking about and hardly the "activist" sort. For lack of a better word, I guess some people need a "mantra"/banner/lable to gather under, though, I am not one of them.

For me, my sexual orientation has never been what has defined me. I've tried to live my life as a decent PERSON first and foremost. Instead of marching in parades, waving flags and going to rallies, I've been getting an education, honorably serving my country, holding down a decent job where I help others, being a loyal and devoted friend and lover to my partner, and being a good daughter to my loving parents and siblings. This is what defines me, I think. I would like to think that I live a respectable life and all of my friends tell me that I have their respect and admiration for all that I have managed to accomplish, given the fact that my health is very fragile.

I did get a chuckle out of what you said about your friends seemingly being "lesbians first, and then, maybe folks". I've met people like that, not just when it came to being gay/lesbian, but other groups, too.

You're right, that does get tiresome!! eh ehehehe

Peace.

[BLUEHAWK]

Oddz -

Nice of you to share with me your realities...

Do you think that maybe sometimes a person forces themself to become a lesbian? Or, maybe they figure there is not another choice available? Or what?

If I'm steppin' over the line just tell me none o' my business :D

[Arrow]

This thread went from discussing Military Gay Marriage to the lesbian lifestyle.We are goingfroma generaldiscussion to apersonal one.Wouldn't it be best to take the personal discussion to pm's or e-mailbeforesomeone getstheir feelings hurt again?

Just my thoughts.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

Probably so Arrow, or maybe we should have a Lesbian lifestyle thread on Women's or Family forum... it's interesting to talk about... don't get much of a chance to do so.

[Arrow]

Blue,

If you are here to keep peace on this site I would suggest to you thatbringing lesbian women in to discuss their lifestyle on a forumis not the way to do it. Lesbian women that come to this site know from jump street that it is a site for the preservation of military history. The sign on the door tells them that. Common sense is going to tell them they are going to encounter a culture of Alpha Males young and old filled with testosterone.Common sense should also tell themitwon't be a tea party where they are going to receive genteel treatment if they bring up their sexual orientation.Feelings are going to be hurt. Tempers are going to flare and there is going to be war in the camp. I still have the pm's from the last go round.

Then what do I know. I have only been hanging with these guys for thousands of hours over the last four years. If the idea passes muster with the boss. I'll just sit back and watch the train wreck.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

I am surely NOT trying to insist this be left here Arrow, fer heaven sake... I've spent a few thousand hours on here myself... I'd be most appreciative if there was some respect for that time in.

I do not, however, accept that there is NO place on PF where a lesbian could be free to give her speech... that would just go way too far Arrow, even considering all that we know about this noble and fine place. I was just thinking it could be a good idea for there to be a thread or forum available where folks could talk on the realities of the situation vs. the fears and myths. Family or the Women forums seems to be pretty good starters, or maybe PF should actually consider HAVING a gay (or whatever one would term it) forum? Boy oh boy, THAT'D frost some bones...

Why don't we close this thread right now... my original purpose in posting it (a second time) appears to have been resolved fairly quickly by the early posts. And, you are correct, it fairly soon got off again into something else.

It's mighty weird to find myself seeming to defend the free speech of anybody on PF, but Oddz (for an example) is a Marine and she is an American and there are many more like her in our company, and for those two reasons I gotta come to her aid. If the Corps saw fit to accept Oddz, then we must, all and each of us.

Would you please close this thread now?

:q: :a:

[Arrow]

Originally posted by little sparrow Blue,

If you are here to keep peace on this site I would suggest to you thatbringing lesbian women in to discuss their lifestyle on a forumis not the way to do it. Lesbian women that come to this site know from jump street that it is a site for the preservation of military history. The sign on the door tells them that. Common sense is going to tell them they are going to encounter a culture of Alpha Males young and old filled with testosterone.Common sense should also tell themitwon't be a tea party where they are going to receive genteel treatment if they bring up their sexual orientation.Feelings are going to be hurt. Tempers are going to flare and there is going to be war in the camp. I still have the pm's from the last go round.

Then what do I know. I have only been hanging with these guys for thousands of hours over the last four years. If the idea passes muster with the boss. I'll just sit back and watch the train wreck.

Arrow>>>>>>>



Blue,

My first comment was a suggestion to take this back channel before someone got hurt.Instead you ask me a question and I answered it. Then you accuse me of

1. Disrespecting your position or not giving you credit for time on line. (It was a statement not a comparison.)

2.Wanting to take away a lesbians right to speak (please note thatthe warning was if she does shecan expectsome incoming)

3. Suggesting that I woulddishonor the service of Theo because of her sexual orientation.


4. And then you want the thread closed when I didn't think it was a great idea to continue it in the first place.

To use agreat phrase "That's quite a bill of particular's" to lay at my feet.

If you want to read all that into what I wrote it'syour rodeo ride it theway you see fit.Just don'texpectthat I will answer another question for you. And ok if you want the thread closed I can do that for you too.

Arrow>>>>>>

[Arrow]

Blue would you make up my mind? First you want the thread closed and then you go to the general forum and complain because it was.

I keep making the same mistake over and over by running interference for people that do not want interference ran for them. I apologize. Let the ponies run.

Arrow>>>>>>>

[BLUEHAWK]

I am so sorry Arrow, I did NOT mean to do any complaining, and I still do believe that your take on the thread was/is correct! In fact, I violated my own first post on the thing by letting myself begin talking about the right and wrongness of gay life... I asked the thread closed, per your inclination (with which I agree) because it seems it drew good answers about how the UCMJ would come into play, which sorta settles the issue as far as I'm concerned.

I do believe there needs to be a way and place and time for discussion, if folks wish to, about the other aspects of what is involved though... so I tried two little threads on Family and Women... probably won't go much of anywhere, or won't get back to where Oddz and I (for one) were heading in this thread.

Gosh, sure did not mean to add any complexity to your life Arrow, sorry.

[David]

This is a military forum, not a gay and lesbian forum.