Homosexuality and Military Service (Merged thread)

[DVC]

I don't think it's edge, no. That opinion is based on my definition of the term "edge", though, so I won't bother trying to defend it.

But it doesn't matter, frankly. There is an inherent reason to try to keep soldiers fit, and both the fitness tests and the BMI standards are attempts to reach that goal. If there are edge cases where the fitness tests and BMI standards conspire against a particular soldier, well, there are ways to deal with that and one of those ways is to remove the soldier from service. But being an 'edge case' is not enough reason to boot somebody from the military. I doubt there are many, say, six-foot Filipinos who speak fluent German and were born and raised in Wisconsin. I certainly don't know any, much less any who want to serve in the military. Should we keep such soldiers out, just because there aren't many of them? I don't see any reason to do so, and this logic applies to gay soldiers as well. There is not an inherent reason to keep gay soldiers out of the military, which means there's no reason to keep gay soldiers out regardless of how many of them there are.

The military's standards for body shape occasionally screw up and exclude people who are fit for combat. The fact that the military screws up in one area is not carte blanche to screw up anywhere else. (This is probably what I should have said to your first post about BMI/fitness.)

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior. Yet soldiers are discharged for overeating but homosexuality has become more or less a protected behavior in the military. The mainstream media does not cover the health problems associated with homosexual behavior because it deosn't fit with the cause celeb that affirmation of homosexuality has become for the media/Hollywood.

[Deus Ex]

Not sure where Hancock's 200 block is, but it must be an "interesting" place.
Sex in a public place would seem to be close to the ultimate expression of one's identity, if that is determined by whom one has sex with. After all, there is no conclusive data that sex in public causes physical harm and do we really want servicemembers to have to hide who they love in order to serve their country?


I would propose that the Declaration of Independence's Preamble is best understood as establishing the basis and purpose of human government. The Constitution builds on that and in a government by the people, of people, for the people, is best understood as the contract between each and every citizen and each and every other citizen on how the federal government was to operate.

It seems many of the Founders had a very dim view of homosexual behavior, then called sodomy or buggery. Hard to see them acknowledging it as a basic human right or anything but a disqualification for military service http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=101. If it is in the penumbra of Constitutional rights, it is so far in the penumbra as to make it in a different galaxy from the intellectual space or worldview that the Founders operated in.

The original Constitution allowed slavery. Please don't mire this debate in the inconsequential views the Founders had regarding homosexuality. Women also couldn't vote according to our Founders. Should our entire modern civilization revert back to what the Founders thought? Of course not. Your argument is absurd.

[selil]

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior.

Actually the CDC report doesn't say that at all. It says that better HIV drugs have caused a lack of safe sex (risk taking behaviors). There is no contention that homosexuality is causal, it is the studied group not the causal element. The CDC report is not really research but a survey of other research (common). If you dig into that other research you will find that there are caveats all over the place that similar results are found in heterosexual populations and the issue is education not homosexuality.

Your contention would have to be that sex is as great a risk as overeating. Regardless of sexual preference and that isn't going to stand up either. Go ahead and try and recruit in a volunteer military and state NOBODY is allowed to ever have sex until they retire. I think they call that marriage.

[JMA]

At no point did I say that our army is 'better than it has ever been', so you're arguing a strawman of your own construction. My exact words were "the situation facing the Canadian military today is better than it has been in decades", and I stand by that.

And I ask you the question (which you ignored) once again:

"BTW who told you the modern Canadian army is better than it was in the past?"

But we have now pegged the time frame which you cite as being as at the end of the cold war. That brings up the date as 1991.

I will agree with you on a single point- Somalia was most definitely a 'low point', but it was not the low point. It was early on in roughly a decade of time that formed a plateau of low capability and morale within the C.F.

End of Cold War = 1991
Canadian Military bottoms out = 1993

Sorry the Canadian military must have been on the downward spiral some years before the end of the Cold War.

Hint: probable cause is the crappy peacekeeping operations post Korea the Canadian military got involved in. Look through the list here.

So I see it that WW2 and Korea were kind of high points for the Canadian military for which the nation should be justly proud. But from 1953/5 its been mainly downhill to hit an all time low point in the early 90s. The virtual collapse of the Canadian military gave the politicians the opportunity (which they seized gleefully with both hands) to socially engineer the military in the vision of political liberals. What improvements have been made? How does one measure the improvement made since the Somali low point, I don't know.

I can tell you is that when climbing out of the rubble of a humiliating disaster the tendency is to overcompensate and talk ones own achievements and competence up.

I can understand too that one can offer a veneer of success to outsiders while internally accepting privately that there is much work to do and a long way to go.

You said: "we have a better equipped, better trained, more modernized and more combat experienced force than we've had in a long time"

And I ask... but the problems were a leadership meltdown and chronic systemic failure... so throwing modern equipment at the military does not address the underlying problem.

I come back to my quote from Napoleon: "There are no bad soldiers, only bad officers."

There is evidence that the officer problem in the Canadian military is far from solved. Stats from 2006/7 indicate that of the summary trials fully 8% involved officers (with 4% for sgts to warrant officers). It is clear that a serious problem relating to the Canadian officer corps still exists. Yes there is some effort being made to fix it... but it hints of a problem at selection level prior to officer training. Perhaps the selection is designed to produce officers who fit the demographics of the nation rather than those with the potential to be effective officers? Go sniff around there and maybe you will find the answer.

The situation in 1993 is not indicative of the situation in 2010. Our current chief of defence staff and chief of land staff had not even commanded battalions yet. Most of our current battalion and brigade commanders were very junior officers. If you honestly think that you can take 1993 as a metric for the current state of our armed forces, you clearly have an ill-attuned ear to the ground on Canada's national defense.

Our military has undergone both literally and figuratively a generational change since the early 1990s. At that point in time we'd hit pretty close to rock bottom- a period colloquially known as the 'decade of darkness' where we were eviscerated materially by the peace dividend, had our public image shattered by Somalia, had many of our best take early retirement force reduction plans. We crawled out of that in the late '90s/early '00s. The wholesale change in military culture - particularly the culture of leadership has been more recent, with Afghanistan as the raw fuel and General Rick Hillier as the catalyst. His book 'A Soldier First' is excellent, and is essential to understanding the changes that have undergone the CF both materially and in our culture. I unreservedly state that our military is better focused and better equipped than it's been since the end of the Cold War, and that our leadership is significantly better than it has been since earlier still. I will reccomend that if you have an earnest interest in the modern Canadian military at all, that book should be at the top of your list. Leaving that, we will now get back to the subject at hand.

The bad news is (and you better believe it) that the Decade of Darkness is not over yet.

Hillier may will have set the military on a new course whether that course has been sustained and refined by those following him remains to be seen.

and you unreservedly state and I ask yet again who told you?

[JMA]

This seems to be the main thrust of your argument, most of the rest of it failing tests of reason or logic. That soldiers will be 'distracted' by the possible presence of gays or women in their midst.

heh heh heh... fails the test of reason and logic you should have added IMHO to that statement. But to dismiss something out of hand gets you off having to address those issues I suppose. Someone will buy that approach I guess... sorry I don't.

As I stated earlier, I've worked with a number of people I didn't like to a variety of reasons, each one in and of itself as distracting as any other thing might be. I sucked it up and dealt with it. The 'distractions' argument is fundamentally no more sound than, again, the argument raised against letting blacks into the military, and then into the combat units.

So we just keep adding distractions and if the troops complain we just tell them to suck it up, right?

I'll tell you the same thing I would tell my soldiers: deal with it.

OK, so we are back to leadership again and sadly it seems to be a problem among the other ranks as well.

Gen Bill Slim made an address to West Point in 1953. A quote from it is:

You will soon have bars on your shoulders; I’ve got things on mine that you’ve never seen before - but they both mean that we are officers. We have no business to set ourselves up as officers unless we know more about the job in hand than the men we are leading. If you command a small unit, like a platoon, you ought to be able to do anything you ask any man in it to do better than he can. Know the bolts and nuts of your job, but above all know your men. When you command a platoon you ought to know each man in it better than his own mother does. You must know which man responds to encouragement, which to reasoning, and which needs a good kick in the pants. Know your men.

Telling your soldiers to deal with it is a leadership cop out. In my time I had to act against NCOs who for one or other reason had been promoted beyond the level of their competence. Never a pleasant task. I watched how my sections and later platoons operated to see two things. One, if the commanders/leaders we up to it and two, what I could expect from that particular group in combat. Certainly one does not put a dysfunctional, lacking in cohesion callsign up front in a critical attack or whatever.

So what am I learning about the modern Canadian Army's leadership doctrine?
Is "suck-it-up" and "deal-with-it" the way junior leaders lead their men?

Look PM me your email and I will email you by return that wonderful Brit Army publication on leadership they hand out at Sandhurst. Its called Serve to Lead. Outstanding, read, re-read and digest.

Thereafter get your hands on Sydney Jary's book "18 Platoon" form your library or buy it here. Buy it, read it, then leave it lying around in the hope your platoon commander will pick it up and read it.

If, while doing the job, you are unable to focus yourself on being a member of my infantry section for no better reason than the personal life of the person next to you, then you have no business in my team. We have soldiers deployed overseas facing impending divorces at home. Sick family members. Kids who are getting in trouble. Hell, friends getting killed from time to time during the length of their tour. Soldiers have proven themselves remarkably good at shoving distractions aside and carrying on. There are more than enough people capable of doing so that if someone can't, tough cookies for them. A soldier who cannot compartmentalize themselves enough while on the job to focus wholly and solely on the mission at hand, the commander's intent, and the bigger picture within which he fits frankly lacks, in my opinion, the emotional maturity to be worth the risk. A soldier who cannot focus on their job is a liability. Shall I kick the black guy out of my section because my closet racist finds him 'distracting' or unpleasant to be around? No. So why would I any more cater to homophobes?

You got to read that book and Serve to Lead.Trust me, you need all the help you can get. I'll tell who are the first that should go... the bad leaders. Not reassigned (as someone told me the other day) but straight out the door (or down a rank or two).

A word from Sydney Jary:

Unlike characters in novels and films, most men react nervously to real battle conditions. Discipline and regimental pride are supports but, in decisive moments of great danger, the grip of the leader on the led is paramount. Infantry section and platoon commanders must possess the minds and hearts of their soldiers. Strength of character is not enough. Successful leadership in battle, although complex and intangible, always seemed to me to depend on two factors. Firstly, soldiers must have confidence in their leaders’ professional ability and, secondly, they must trust them as men. It helps, too, if a leader has the reputation of being lucky.

[JMA]

You ask 'What defines the ability to do the job'?

Yes I did because that seems to be (shall we say) flexible, depending on the desired outcome.

Its kind of like lowering the physical fitness standards to allow women to pass and thereby enter the service. And that is often justified by saying that maybe the standards were too high anyway.

Then the next one is where (like the Canadian military) there is a recruiting problem. Then everything, every standard becomes negotiable. (this ringing any bells with you?)

You have abundant experience in the combat arms as part of a small unit and as a leader. You don't need to ask me that- but since you have, I'd say some things such as the ability to carry and fire a rifle or other small arm accurately, to respond calmly and decisively under stress, to carry a heavy load on bad ground in crappy weather, to communicate clearly and proactively, to navigate by day or night, to know the job of the man or woman beside you, to know, as best as you're able, the job of the next two people in the chain of command, to maintain and employ your weapons with a great degree of speed or skill, to exercise sound judgement ('strategic corporal'), to appreciate to some extent the myriad factors influencing contemporary operations (cultural, religious, etc), to be possessed of a high degree of physical fitness and motivation, to be willing to take over and lead when your boss goes down... I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I would say that it is determined by an assessment against a standardised set of tests which are applied equally and evenly across the unit as a whole.

Then we have factors which even though the person may pass all the standardised tests may possess personality/character traits and hold certain views and/or beliefs or indulge in certain behaviour that would adversely affect the performance and cohesion of the unit.

Then there are issues relating to rank and command which maybe beyond what we are talking about here.

I see not one of these that inherently excludes any human being motivated to serve who is possessed of normal physical and intellectual abilities, and somewhat above normal drive to serve their country.

I agree pass all the tests and then don't bring more problems to the party than benefits.

There is frequent talk from your side of this debate about 'distraction' and 'cohesion',

No, I spoke of the introduction of sexual tension and suggested that this was a better way of explaining why women and gays should not serve (at least) in combat units. Gen Amos (USMC) spoke of distractions.

... but it's always relying on a select number of quotes or anecdotes form a small number of high ranks who've weighed in on the subject.

Its just me and my quoting gen Amos and my suggestions of a better way he should have explained it to the Senate committee. He is about my age (so he may be losing it a bit) and may be in need of a few good staff officers.

Have you noted that no body has been able to say that the introduction of females and gays has not or will not introduce sexual tension to the detriment of the cohesion and performance of the combat unit.

I contrast this with discussions I've had with other people on other sites, currently or recently serving NCOs or officers. The prevailing opinion I see is 'whatever'. Most of those I speak to on this - Americans included - care much more about their soldiers accomplishing the mission.

Well yes. Its a done deal for better or worse. That does not make it right/better or whatever.

Yes I know the "whatever" types. How do you interpret a "whatever" response? He doesn't understand what is being discussed, even if he did he doesn't have the smarts to analyse it, and having enough trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time is just going to go with the flow. Gomer Pyle style.

As I've said, perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm 24. More people my age just don't seem to care if someone's gay, and as we're increasingly fleshing out the ranks of the military, perhaps it's inevitable. Military composition typically lags but does track social trends. But at the end of the day, I have a section of soldiers to lead and command, and any soldier who can meet my expectations and contribute to the accomplishment of the mission has a place in my section.

There you go again... this is not about being gay... or being a woman... it is about the introduction of sexual tension into a combat unit and the negative impact on cohesion and operational performance within the unit.

General Amos is correct when he said that gay servicemembers might cause a “distraction” that could result in increased injuries and deaths.

[Brihard]

You've said what you have to say, I've said what I have to say. Since you've chosen to interpret my words in such a way as to permit you to come after me personally based on what you perceive as my 'poor leadership' I see no percentage in continuing this. We shall have to agree to disagree.

Have a good day.

[Steve Blair]

This thread is rapidly failing the signal to noise ratio test. Suggest folks take a step back, breathe, and come back when they can all behave. There is valid discussion here, but personal attacks will not be tolerated. Everyone needs to keep that in mind.

[DVC]

The original Constitution allowed slavery. Please don't mire this debate in the inconsequential views the Founders had regarding homosexuality. Women also couldn't vote according to our Founders. Should our entire modern civilization revert back to what the Founders thought? Of course not. Your argument is absurd.

Good morning to you too, Deus Ex. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments abolished the evil of slavery. The 19th Amendment established the vote for women. What amendment has made homosexual behavior normal and natural in the sight of the law or codified a changed view of this behavior from that held by the Founders and by extension their constituents?

Again the Constitution is the contract between each and every citizen and each and every other citizen on how we will be governed at the federal level. The contract has provisions for changing the contract. These changes are called amendments. Changes made to a contract, or to the clear understanding of a contract, made outside of the provisions for changing the contract enshrined in the contract, are wrong.

[DVC]

Actually the CDC report doesn't say that at all. It says that better HIV drugs have caused a lack of safe sex (risk taking behaviors). There is no contention that homosexuality is causal, it is the studied group not the causal element. The CDC report is not really research but a survey of other research (common). If you dig into that other research you will find that there are caveats all over the place that similar results are found in heterosexual populations and the issue is education not homosexuality.

Your contention would have to be that sex is as great a risk as overeating. Regardless of sexual preference and that isn't going to stand up either. Go ahead and try and recruit in a volunteer military and state NOBODY is allowed to ever have sex until they retire. I think they call that marriage.

Selil - let me restate my contention-common homosexual behaviors carry health risks greater than overeating or being overweight. Overweight is a cause for discharge while homosexual behavior soon will not be.

Re: what the CDC release says. A quote:

However, this trend began to reverse as gonorrhea rates among MSM in the county increased from 225 cases per 100,000 in 1997 to at least 475 cases per 100,000 in 1999. By comparison, in 1999 the gonorrhea rate in the remainder of the county's population was approximately 44 to 49 cases per 100,000. The researchers identified a similar trend for cases of chlamydia among MSM in the county.

Understand this is a sampling of one county (King County, Washington) for the year 1999 and math was never my strong suite. That said it looks like Men who have Sex with Men (MSM in CDC terminology) had 10x the rate of gonorrhea that the rest of the population had. Or do you have a different interpretation of this data?

[selil]

That said it looks like Men who have Sex with Men (MSM in CDC terminology) had 10x the rate of gonorrhea that the rest of the population had. Or do you have a different interpretation of this data?

The issue is with the assumption of the sample sizes and the comparison between samples. All variables being the same you would appear to be correct, but the variables are not consistent between the samples selected.

Blatant example of hidden variables. Imagine if you were looking at alcoholism of blue collar mill workers, and alcoholism of white collar bankers. You might find a ten fold difference between the samples, but if one sample population was New York (Bankers) and the mill workers were (Detroit) the variability between the samples would be highly suspect.

We have to be very careful when trying to make correlative assessment and especially causative assessments based on these type of studies.

[Brihard]

Motorfirebox - let me restate my contention. I think there is reason to believe that common homosexual behaviors pose at least as great a health risk as overeating. I think the CDC report points to the dangers of homosexual behavior. Yet soldiers are discharged for overeating but homosexuality has become more or less a protected behavior in the military. The mainstream media does not cover the health problems associated with homosexual behavior because it deosn't fit with the cause celeb that affirmation of homosexuality has become for the media/Hollywood.

Your analogy is suspect. Are soldiers discharged for overeating, or are they discharged for being fat and unable to meet the physical demands of the job? My understanding is a soldier can eat as much of whatever he wants, as long as he meets the standards of fitness and of body fat % required.

Let's say we accept the highest figure you've offered here for gonorrhoea prevalence amongst homosexuals- 475/100,000 MSM, or 0.47%. So a bit under one in every two hundred

If we began running a list of all risky behaviours and eliminating form candidacy for membership in the armed forces every person engaging in risky behaviour that has a 1/200 chance of something bad happening, there'd be problems. Odds of alcohol dependency amongst people who drink are substantially higher than 1/200. Smoking has a host of related cancers and health concerns.

At some point people must be accountable for their own actions and for mitigating the risks they take. Would we exclude 200 smokers because one will eventually get lung cancer (arguably a more serious medical condition than the clap)? Would we allow nobody who drank to join the military, even though some will develop dependencies, or get DUIs?

The numbers you state also indicate that about 99.5% of 'MSM' homosexuals are pretty careful about their behaviour. I would venture to guess that if all 'MSM' homosexuals were subcategorized into groups based on lifestyle patterns, probably there would be a disproportionate concentration of STD cases in a much smaller subset, just as there is in the rest of society. Not every homosexual is going out to gay swingers' bars on the weekend and hooking up with whomever.

If a soldier gets fat, or if a soldier gets drunk, or if a soldier gets an STD, those are all valid reasons for the chain of command to take action to curb that soldier's behavioural excesses in whatever soldier. To collectively punish everybody who might share and arbitrary attribute with that soldier because he does something stupid does not make sense. If I had one fat soldier, I'd still let the rest eat cake. If one of them gets a DUI, I'll not tell the rest they can no longer go to the mess after work. It's funny to see risk aversion used as an argument against homosexuals being allowed in the military though.

[DVC]

Are soldiers discharged for overeating, or are they discharged for being fat and unable to meet the physical demands of the job?

Brihard, I somewhat liked my analogy. In the U.S. Army, soldiers can be discharged for being fat even if they are able to meet the physical demands of the job. Homosexuality is a fashionable cause. Who's out campaigning to end fat-o-phobia?

[Brihard]

Who's out campaigning to end fat-o-phobia?

..the Navy?

[DVC]

..the Navy?

Touche'

[motorfirebox]

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments abolished the evil of slavery. The 19th Amendment established the vote for women. What amendment has made homosexual behavior normal and natural in the sight of the law or codified a changed view of this behavior from that held by the Founders and by extension their constituents?

Such an amendment is unnecessary, unless you can show the Constitutional provision that restricts gay rights.

[DVC]

Such an amendment is unnecessary, unless you can show the Constitutional provision that restricts gay rights.

SCOTUS (Lawrence v. Texas) threw out civilian sodomy laws by creating a new, previously unknown constitutional right to sexual behavior, as long as it was consensual and between adults.

The Founders, for example Washington and Jefferson, seemed to view sodomy as a crime. If they thought buggery was a basic human right worthy of protection against state interference, it seems they would have included it in the Bill of Rights. By comparison, many states had established religions and religious requirements mandated by law at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The majority of Founders, including some very devout ones, found this objectionable, thus the religion clause in the first amendment.

So after 200 years, homosexual behavior, which had been held criminal at the time of the Constitution (Jefferson apparently wrote part of the Virginia criminal code that included sodomy as a crime) and ever since, suddenly becomes a constitutionally protected right. In my book for this to happen, should have taken a Constitutional amendment.

[Fuchs]

This is part of the reason why people go to study law before they become judges.

There are different theories for the interpretation of legal norms of any kind.

One legal theory is to attempt to meet the intent of those who powered the legal norm (such as the representatives and states which wrote an amendment). That's what you use and pretty much how AQ interprets the Qu'ran.

Another legal theory interprets legal norms as if they were written in our time. This one allows for changes of interpretation and is afaik the relevant legal theory, which has been used in the SCOTUS for generations (the right to bear arms would otherwise be limited to blackpowder weapons). It's also how enlightened Christians interpret the Bible (really, we don't stone people to death for almost everything although it's required in the Old testament).

[DVC]

This is part of the reason why people go to study law before they become judges.

There are different theories for the interpretation of legal norms of any kind.

One legal theory is to attempt to meet the intent of those who powered the legal norm (such as the representatives and states which wrote an amendment). That's what you use and pretty much how AQ interprets the Qu'ran.

Another legal theory interprets legal norms as if they were written in our time. This one allows for changes of interpretation and is afaik the relevant legal theory, which has been used in the SCOTUS for generations (the right to bear arms would otherwise be limited to blackpowder weapons). It's also how enlightened Christians interpret the Bible (really, we don't stone people to death for almost everything although it's required in the Old testament).

Fuchs - I think the first legal theory you point to is called originalism or textualism and the leading proponent on SCOTUS is Antonin Scalia and it seems to follow the basic lines of the Constitution means what is says and if it is silent on an issue, the issue should be left to the legislature.

The competing theory or theories I think are called "Living Constitution" approach this means IMHO that the Constitution should be interpreted according to current norms, mores, and sensibilities.

I know if I am party to a contract, and I am in regards to the Constitution as a U.S. citizen, I don't want it changed because one party unilaterally wants to make it fit their norms, mores and sensibilities. Capital punishment is a classic example. It was used fairly frequently at the time of the Constitution's ratification so how dare a modern court say it is unconstitutional today in and of itself unless the Constitution is amended to say what is formerly legal is now unconstitutional.

SCOTUS split 6-3 on the Lawrence. The majority appears to have followed some sort of living constitution approach finding that homosexual conduct was now a basic human right after being criminalized in most of the U.S. since before the ratification of the Constitution. The minority led by Scalia basically said the majority had feces for legal brains.

RE Christians and stoning. Christians don't stone and haven't, not because of some shifting modern interpretation of the Scriptures but because the New Covenant (Testament) has replaced the Old Covenant(Testament) and the Church's mission is to lead others to Christ, not to enforce societal order. That is the government's job.

Fuchs, have you ever read the New Testament? Cover to cover, not just bits and pieces? In your country, I believe those who called themselves Christians but interpreted the Scripture as though it was written in their time (1930s) ended up cravenly supporting Hitler. Many of the German Christians who took the New Testament as an unchanging guide, like Bonhoeffer, resisted Hitler and paid the price.

[motorfirebox]

SCOTUS (Lawrence v. Texas) threw out civilian sodomy laws by creating a new, previously unknown constitutional right to sexual behavior, as long as it was consensual and between adults.

The Founders, for example Washington and Jefferson, seemed to view sodomy as a crime. If they thought buggery was a basic human right worthy of protection against state interference, it seems they would have included it in the Bill of Rights. By comparison, many states had established religions and religious requirements mandated by law at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. The majority of Founders, including some very devout ones, found this objectionable, thus the religion clause in the first amendment.

So after 200 years, homosexual behavior, which had been held criminal at the time of the Constitution (Jefferson apparently wrote part of the Virginia criminal code that included sodomy as a crime) and ever since, suddenly becomes a constitutionally protected right. In my book for this to happen, should have taken a Constitutional amendment.

Let me clarify. Such an amendment is unnecessary unless you can show a provision in the Constitution restricting gay rights. Such provisions exist restricting the rights of blacks (or, well, restricting the rights of slaves, which wasn't quite the same thing even back then but close enough) and women (through omission). That's a big part of why there are Constitutional amendments on those matters. So far as I'm aware--and I've looked--there's no such restriction on gay rights, even so far as any statement in the Constitution about sodomy. All such restrictions are in local and federal law, and can be dealt with in the same arena without making another addition to the Constitution.