I-Word
Here’s a guy who’s currently watching his career flash before his eyes. Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace calls homosexuality “immoral.”
UPDATE: Gay groups want apology. Pace aide says, sorry, you’re not getting one.
UPDATE: Gen. Pace, “I regret that I opened my big mouth.”
Topics: military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:40 pm Comments (20) on Monday, March 12, 2007
20 Responses to “I-Word”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Oh dear.
Maybe we’ll get a real soldier next time.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Rut roh. Is he going to get in trouble because homosexuality is not included in his list of ‘moral things to do’? Or is it because he said it out loud…
March 13th, 2007 at 1:58 am
oh, dear, alphie, how would you know what a real soldier looks like?
Jules — it’s a fair bet that GEN Pace is going to retire after this tour as the CJCS, so I don’t think his career is flashing by his eyes. Indeed, I expect that he feels relieved at being able to express himself openly. Had he said this earlier, you would be right. Some people might call for him to resign, but I doubt that he will.
Many soldiers in fact view homosexuality as immoral; I can’t give you a number, but the feeling is common. OTOH, they can live with it if the behavior is not open. Soldiers are people who have to work together in difficult situations, and there is some give and take in the interpersonal relationships….including the give by homosexuals, who are generally in the minority. They can’t be openly gay.
The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law is unpopular, but it’s a reasonable compromise that generally works. Hypocritical? Somewhat. But most of our laws are compromises, since they involve people; this is just one that happens to deal with a controversial subject. Maybe this will change in a generation or two, it’s hard to say. But the system works, and I wouldn’t monkey with it.
Ultimately, this is a matter for the commander in chief, and GEN Pace will live with it; he’s a professional. But I don’t see that he has done anything wrong. Politically incorrect, yes. Wrong or illegal, no. The basic premise of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law is that homosexuality is not acceptable behavior in the military, because it is considered immoral. Just like adultery. As GEN Pace said. Our basic values need to shift that much for this to change.
And, yes, I’ve seen the problems that this law causes, first hand. It’s not like I’m guessing here.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Bill’s Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.03.13
Some maybe I’ll find time to do more with ‘em later things and some things too short to excerpt and too good to not mention. I occasionally move things from Bill’s Nibbles to longer posts as the day goes on.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Bill’s Nibbles // Open Post — 2007.03.13
Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post, some things too short to excerpt and too good to not mention. I occasionally move things from Bill’s Nibbles to longer posts
March 13th, 2007 at 7:46 am
He’ll have to go to reeducation camp with Rock Hardaway
March 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Homosexuality is as immoral as adultery? Looks like he’s not going to endorse Guiliani, McCain or Gingrich anytime soon. And Cheney’s daughter probably has some issues to discuss as well.
Real JeffS, it’s good to hear that Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is working out so well as a compromise. I remember the days when Limbaugh and company said the policy was Clinton’s secret plot to destroy the military from the inside out.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
And you guys didn’t think Ann Coulter was on to something.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Looks like he’s not going to endorse Guiliani, McCain or Gingrich anytime soon. And Cheney’s daughter probably has some issues to discuss as well.
Exactly right, corndog. I’m sure that you meant that as some sort of epiphany inducing comment, or maybe a slam, but you are spot on. Some people do view homosexuality as immoral. That said view is politically incorrect matters not to them, as these same people hold morals higher than they do cultural diversity. Just a thought.
I remember the days when Limbaugh and company said the policy was Clinton’s secret plot to destroy the military from the inside out.
I said that it works, and that we should not monkey with it. I never said it was a good thing, nor working “so well”. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was a political compromise. Was that compromise made for the good of the military, for the good of society, or for Clinton to score political points? Or all three?
Because I also said “Many soldiers in fact view homosexuality as immoral; I can’t give you a number, but the feeling is common.” This is something that I observed while in the miltiary. Those soldiers accept the law because it’s the law. Not because they want to.
This can hardly be described as “working so well”. It’s enforced behavior, corndog, not a change in the nature of those people. Not unlike homosexuals not being allowed to be openly gay. People have to suppress their attitudes and alter their behavior against their nature. As I recall, this is what brought the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law to the attention of Clinton in the first place.
Limbaugh and company had a point about this potentially destroying the military; not because of the homosexuality per se, but because members of the military were being required to change their behavior to fit a standard that went aganst their own culture.
It chafes at the soul, corndog. Whether you believe in a soul or not, I can assure you that a good many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do. From their perspective, this is not a good thing. That is what GEN Pace is speaking to, and rightly so. Straight troops are every bit as much his concern as are the gay troops. He has to make this work, with his hands tied by this law. It’s not an easy task, and he deserves kudos for speaking his mind.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
PS: I agree, Clinton didn’t have a secret plan to destroy the military. He did that openly, by drawing down forces, contracting out, and similar measures. There was no need to be secretive.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Check out these interesting AOL poll results: Do you agree with General Pace?
March 13th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Excellent points, Real JS! I don’t think you’re right, though that racially integrating the military was a move to destroy the military “not because of the [different races] per se, but because members of the military were being required to change their behavior to fit a standard that went aganst their own culture.” I’d say it was a move to actually help the military by opening the military up to the full range of our country’s peoples.
March 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
corndog, ultimately people have a choice about their sexual preferences. It used to be that this choice was denied them by tradition and law. That’s changing, regardless of what I think of it. Gays are out of the closet.
People, however, do not have a choice in their race. They inherit that. Maybe they’ll deny it, or re-define it to feel better, but it’s built into their DNA.
So I do not equate race with sexual orientation; I know that many people do, but until someone can prove that sexual orientation is passed genetically (like racial characteristics), that’s the way I (and many people) will see it.
Thus, your attempt to conflate long standing racial discrimination, based on physical characteristics that are difficult (at best) to hide, with discrimination based on sexual preferences (which can EASILY be hidden, and possibly changed) flops big time. They aren’t the same thing. Not even close. I agree, discrimination applies to both, but not to the same degree.
And I don’t deny gays the right to come out of the closet. Just as I won’t deny the rights of non-gay people to question that move….based on their moral values.
That’s what GEN Pace did. Maybe he’s the last gasp of the older generation, pining for the days of old. Maybe this law will be changed, allowing gays to openly serve in the military. Like the black Americans in WWII, they’ve certainly earned the privilege by putting their lives on the line in the defense of this country.
But that’s not going to change the values of some people. It will merely change their behavior. Which is not the same thing. It works, but it’s a pain. The only real value is buying time to change attitudes.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Real Jeff,
I think your message speaks for itself and doesn’t need anything further from me. It’s interesting to hear that you’ve chosen your sexuality and could flip in another direction if you so chose.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Corndog, do not put words in my mouth, or build a strawman by being obtuse. You do not know me, and likely never will. Nor did I say I “could flip”. So don’t try to have the last word by being an ass.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
PS: Too bad you can’t discuss this seriously, corndog. It needs serious discussion, not flippant comebacks.
March 13th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, Jeffers. Isn’t the central part of your argument that sexual preference is a choice?
March 13th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
That’s what I said, corndog. And it implies that I made a choice. A choice that you have made, I am sure. (And no, I don’t care which way.)
You made a stupid comment to a serious point. If you disagree with my premise that it’s about choice, say so, and say why. Don’t be obtuse, don’t be condescending, and don’t be personal.
If you bothered reading what I wrote (and it’s clear that you are cherry picking), you would have noticed that I don’t care which way someone “flips”. So long as they can deal with the rules and laws as they currently stand, I’m cool.
On the other hand, corndog, what do you think of GEN Pace’s refusal to apologize for his personal values?
March 13th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Who’s being condescending, Jeffy? You’re the one trying to tell me what to do!
I don’t need to make anything more than a stupid comment on your central point because just about everyone except for you and the Rev. Haggard (and the Rev. Haggard is working it out for himself) know that sexuality is genetic, an immutable characteristic very much akin to race. The policy in place is unfortunate because it kicks out needed people like Arabic translators because of characteristics the soldiers can’t do anything about, while another policy allows criminals in.
What do I think of Gen. Pace’s refusal to apologize for his personal values? I think it’s unfortunate that he allowed his personal values to trump the needs of the military. I think it’s also unfortunate that he places his personal pride ahead of the needs of the military. If he really wants to make his personal values clear, I’m sure he would be all about condemning divorce as well. But I don’t think that’s going to go down too well with the troops.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Jeffins,
I retract what I just said about Pace’s comments. Looks he sort of apologized after all, more or less saying what I just said. I think that’s a good thing.