Tuesday, March 13, 2007

---I th ink it took a huge amount of guts to do what this man did. I admire him for his personal conviction. Thats all Im gonna say....---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A gay advocacy group demanded an apology Tuesday from the Pentagon's top general for calling homosexuality immoral.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
"General Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.
The group has represented some service members dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made his remarks in an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune. He was responding to a question about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.
Pace said he supports the policy, which prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation. Over the years thousands have been dismissed under this policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in the interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."
Pace, a native of Brooklyn, New York, and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.

16 comments:

Mark M said...

"In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery..."

...Gen. Eisenhower, who led the Allied forces in the European theater of operations in WWII, allegedly had an extra-marital affair with his secretary. Does Pace think Eisenhower should have been dismissed? What about the countless other adulterers who have served in the military? Unless Pace insists on also excluding them from military service (not that I would advocate that!), I don't think his policy is logically consistent.

Martin said...

Adultery is an offense under the UCMJ Article 134 of the Punitive Acts that carries a maximum penalty of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and imprisonment of 1 year.

I may be parsing what Gen. Pace said, but he specified that "homosexual acts", not the desire to engage in homosexual acts are immoral. The act itself is immoral from what he said. There's a difference between wanting to bang some guys wife and actually doing it.
Given what he said, he probably does believe homosexuality in general is immoral, yet he supports the don't ask don't tell policy instead of an all out ban of gays.

I don't see what good it is forcing an apology from someone for saying what they believe. The only thing you'll get is an insincere apology.

Sickboy said...

I could not agree with you more on this one Mike. very well said!

Sickboy said...

I just think it took a huge amount of balls to say what he did and I admire him for that. He could have taken the "pc" way out and made up some bullshit, but instead he stood up for what he thought is right and went with what his heart felt feelings were.

Martin said...

Mark does have a point with the Eisenhower parallel. I don't know when Article 134, or the UCMJ in general, was enacted but the morality issue goes back to at least 1917 when the Selective Service Act was put in place. The SSA required that all men physically and MORALLY sound be registered for military service. Of course in Eisenhower's case there would have been political and practical issues to deal with and he probably wouldn't have been brought up on immoral or bad conduct charges given the circumstances. As with most laws, there is a certain amount of discretion given to the powers that be whether or not to bring about charges.
Right or wrong, fair or not, Eisenhower probably would have been given preferential treatment. But of course the key word "allegedly" comes into play, so it's all academic.

Sickboy said...

what does Eisenhower have to do with gays in the military now though?

Nothing.

Martin said...

It's an issue of being constant in your moral convictions

Sickboy said...

I dont how I feel about gays in the military, but then again, the military has been allowing ex oncs to enlist as of late and I dont know how I feel about that either.

Who would I rather sleep next to, a gay person or an ex con..I guess that is the big question to me.

Sickboy said...

ex oncs? Man, I type too fast and I need to proof read.

you get what Im saying though

Martin said...

Pace was equating homosexual activity to adultery. Mark just questioned whether Gen. Pace would advocate removing one of America's most famous generals from service for an adulterous affair, had he been convicted in courts martial. A fair question I believe.

Technically if convicted Eisenhower could have been given a bad chicken dinner and a year in the brig.

Sickboy said...

bad chicken dinners are the worst.

Sickboy said...

Heres Billary and Obamas take on it.....of course at first they both chickened out...


Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama initially tried to sidestep the issue when asked about it this week, but both sought to clarify their opposition to Pace's comments on Thursday. (Read how Clinton later said she "does not share [Pace's] view, plain and simple")

Obama did not directly answer on Wednesday when asked if same-sex relationships were immoral, Newsday reported. Obama issued a statement on Thursday, saying, "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."

Clinton told ABC News Wednesday that it's for "others to conclude" whether homosexuality is immoral. On Thursday, she put out a statement saying that she'd heard from gay friends who said her answer sounded evasive.

"I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe," her statement said.

Martin said...

I'm not sure what Obama is refering to when he talks about "attempts like this to divide people" Gen. Pace made the statement during an interview. He wasn't trying to further some type of political agenda with his statement. He was stating a personal belief. If anything he was promoting the status quo regarding a policy signed in by Bill Clinton. If anyone is politicizing this, it's Obama and Hillary Clinton.
As far as Hillary's comments go, to me, there are few more disingenuous things than the faux subtlety of sayint things like "my gay friends" or "my black friends". What she really means is "these people that are viewed as marginalized yet I have deigned to keep them as associates so I can make reference to them for political expediency because I'm an enlightened and progressive person."
It's not just her that does this, everybody does.

Sickboy said...

Its like a white person who has one token black friend just so they feel good about life.

Sickboy said...

I understand what you are saying Mike. Hillary (especially) has to keep her lines open with the election coming up. She has no real friends yet. You would think that Obama at least has some of the black vote tied up already.

Sickboy said...

Here is a recent poll.....

Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.