Commentary on Peter Pace’s Comments
Written by Daniel on March 13, 2007 – 5:23 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
As doubtless many of you have seen in the news today, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made some comments to the Chicago Tribune about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy (Text of the comments after the jump).
A few thoughts:
First off, this is an illustration of the problems with Lawrence v. Texas. In the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion held that moral condoning/condemning is not sufficient “rational basis” for a law against sodomy. Thus, for the Gov’t to get a law upheld, it needs more of a rational basis.
In this instance, these comments will doubtless prompt a gay rights group to rush to the nearest federal district court in the 9th circuit and say, “SEE! The Chairman of the Joint Chief admits it - it is only about morality! There’s no rational basis here!” Now the case won’t get far, because there was a defense of the policy that General Pace did not make - the whole unit cohesion argument.
Much of the commentary I’ve seen (for instance, the pundit panel on FNC’s Brit Hume show tonight) says that Pace should have focused his defense of the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” on the unit cohesion argument.
But we should ask what the unit cohesion argument (surely a sufficient rational basis) is in turn based on. I would submit that it is at least in part that members of the military are generally more conservative in their personal political and moral views than the general public. General Pace was simply expressing the same view of homosexual conduct shared by many of the troops who serve under him. If we were a nation in Western Europe, where homosexual behavior is not viewed as immoral in the same way it is America, then the unit cohesion argument wouldn’t have the same force.
Third, I think General Shalikashvili, former chair of the JCS, makes a mistake in basing his argument on the current military readiness status. Either we should allow active gays in the military or not; we should not base our policy on whether we are stretched thin.
Fourth, this statement from U.S. Senator John Warner, R-VA, ranking member on the Senate Armed Services: “I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.”
First of all, General Pace did not say that homosexuality as an orientation is wrong; he said that homosexual acts are wrong. There are, from what I’ve read, differences of opinion within Christian moral theologians about whether a homosexual orientation is inherently sinful, different from the widespread concensus among traditional theologians about homosexual acts.
Second, obviously I disagree with Senator Warner, and I don’t know why he issued the statement proactively (as opposed to waiting for a press conference question) and so publicly disagreed with the Pentagon’s top general, a strong ally of the Administration.
Full text of General Peter Pace’s comments to the Chicago Tribune editorial board:
“My upbringing is such that I believe there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members wives are immoral in their conduct, in that we should not tolerate that.
“I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts so they don’t ask don’t tell allows an individual to serve the country (there is a second hit on the audio) if we know about immoral acts regardless committed by who then we have a responsibility.
“I do not believe the armed forces of the US are well served by saying through our policies that it is ok to be immoral in any way not just with regard to homosexuality. So from that stand point saying that gays should serve open in the military says to me that we by policy would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity and therefore as an individual I would not want that to be our policy. Just like would not want it to be our policy that if so and so were sleeping with someone else’s wife that we would just look the other way which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the armed forces.”
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Remember when he was lampooned? - September 4th, 2008
- The Media has it both ways - September 3rd, 2008
- New MULS Law faculty blog - September 2nd, 2008
- Concluding Convention Thoughts - September 1st, 2008
- Another Nixon Observation - August 30th, 2008
Posted in Ministry of Strategery |
March 13th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I wonder how many gay lives have been saved and how many extra straight lives have been lost as a result of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell… bet that stat would change a few conservative minds on the issue…
PS, if for some reason the draft is ever reinstated, you’re going to be shocked at how many men start macking on other guys. Really is sad that something as irrelevant as who you may or may not want to sleep with somehow effects your ability to operate a firearm and defend freedom. Wouldn’t you think that the people who stand strong in the face of societal oppression and opposition would be best suited to stand up to the enemies of the freedom they so desire? Seems counterproductive to keep the strongest fighters for rights out of the fight for freedom, don’t you think?
March 14th, 2007 at 8:35 am
The ‘orientation’ is a disorder.
The ACT is immoral.
Big difference–thanks for pointing it out.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
You’re wrong on both accounts Dad29, but thanks. I happen to have no disorders, and I’m probably one of the most morally sound people you’ll ever meet. I happen to have been born a homosexual, like 10% of the rest of the population. I should point out that YOU, sir, have a condition that is recognized as being a specific personality type prone to prejudice. You’re a right-wing authoritarian personality type in which you submit to those in authority and denigrate those who are weak or different. You emphazise conformity, tradition and security, and you de-emphasize self-direction and the concern for the welfare of all human beings. According to psychologists, these values are compatible with prejudice and you’re likely to dislike anyone who doesn’t fit into your image of the societal norm (i.e. white, heterosexual, upper class, christian, male). I just took a test about people like you at the lovely Marquette University. Now go ahead and tell me I’m disordered.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I guess I don’t understand why anyone thinks homosexuality is immoral. It doesn’t make sense to me at all.
1. It occurs in every mammal.
2. Almost every reputable scientist agrees sexual orientation is not a choice. I guess I don’t have to be so handsome and smart, but it’s natural for me. For someone to call me immoral for that is crazy - just like it’s crazy to call someone immoral for being gay.
3. More women for me!
4. It doesn’t affect me in any way.
March 14th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I agree with the policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” - and discharging homosexuals.
The book “Exclusion, the Case against Gays in the Military” (by JAG Lawyer Major Melissa Wells-Petry) presents a compelling reason why to exclude gays from the military.
One of the biggest factors is the HIV/AIDS concern. Remember that Magic Johnson retired from basketball because he felt that his HIV infection presented a risk to other players. Since there is a tendency for homosexuals to engage in unsafe acts with multiple partners, and it can take 6 months between infection before an individual tests positive for HIV - a homosexual in a military environment where there is a risk of being “bloodied” places everyone else at risk. (Warfare … hello - slightly more risk than the basketball court!!!)
Yes - I understand that lesbians are at much less risk than gays or even heterosexuals … but a consistent policy that is justifiable in terms of health risks, in addition to the morality concerns - MAKES SENSE.
The military should not be required to accomodate very short people or very tall people - imagine if a 4 ft. 2″ person said he/she had a right to serve - but none of the equipment fit that individual. Forcing the military to accomodate every one who wanted to serve, regardless of their fitness, would impose an impossible burden on the military.
A person who had homosexual tendencies but would remain celebate could, under the “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy, serve honorably.
But the percentage of the population that is homosexual (around 1 - 2 percent - not the 10% that is touted, without any real basis (except for the discredited Masters/Johnson report).
And the military is required to place anyone who does test positive for HIV in a “non-deployable” status. Most countries that have US military presence prohibit the entry of HIV positive individuals.
Major Wells-Petry basically states (and did so as part of Army testimony/court briefs to justify their policy) - that military readiness would be affected if homosexuals were admitted to the military. There would be much risk, and no real benefit.
Now - if/when the HIV/AIDS issue can be resolved - and there is absolutely no chance of the blood-borne spread to other people can be positively guaranteed - it might be worth re-visiting the policy. Until then - NO WAY!!
March 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
People need to leave General Pace ALONE.
Visit: OsiSpeaks.com or OsiSpeaks.org
March 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Go ahead and tell the people of Africa that HIV/AIDS is primarily a homosexual disease. I dare you.
And the numbers ARE larger than 1-2% of the population, it’s just that our society has attached so much shame to being gay that a large percentage of gay people “play straight” to avoid being shunned, discriminated against, murdered, etc. You would be shocked at how many students I’ve met just at Marquette that have told me they’re gay but they don’t feel like they’d be accepted by their families/friends/etc, so they’ll probably never actually come out. It’s the saddest thing in the world, being forced to live a lie.
I’d like to think that keeping gays out of the military is a good thing because it protects the gay population from government sanctioned genocide (that’s really all war is anyway), but exclusion is just another way we’re discriminated against for the way we were born. We can’t lead boy or girl scout troupes, we can’t teach young children, we can’t be active leaders in the church (though when it comes to the church, beggers really shouldn’t be choosers at this point), we can’t serve in the military, we can’t even have our relationships looked upon with any kind of legitimacy by the general public… yeah, America certainly is the land of the free… oh wait…
Gay people wake up every morning and work to defend their own freedom. You really don’t want someone like that defending yours?
March 14th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Jess:
In an unrelated note, are you pro-Israel? I understand Israel is the most gay-friendly place in the world, outside of perhaps Europe.
March 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
mu socialist, Africa has AIDS/HIV problems because of Adultery, which according to the General was as immoral as homosexuality is.
Homosexuality is wrong. Everything that NAMBLA stands for is wrong. Socialism is wrong.
Defend NAMBLA, I dare you!
March 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’m sorry - that made me laugh. I’m going to end all my emails from now on by saying “Conservatives are wrong. NAMBLA is wrong. Bush is wrong. C’mon! I dare you! Defend NAMBLA!”
March 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Crazy Zoal,
You are a blithering idiot. Defend NAMBLA!!! No one is defending pedophilia. The issue is whetehr there is a rational basis to exclude gays from the military. Now, all evidence shows that gays have ALWAYS served in the military, and served with valor and distinction equal to their heterosexual counterparts. You;ve heard th eline that there are no atheists in foxholes, well- there are no homophobes in foxholes either.
Had the DADT crap not existed, the military would not have expelled a substantial portion of its Arabic translators, whose jobs were–among other things– transcribing intercepted messages from Al-Quaida. But hell, 3,000 deaths in NY (and 3,000+++ since then) are not too high a price to pay to keep out them gayboys (as you all admit lesbians are A-OK).
One of the heroes of Flight 93 was (!!!) gay! But I am certain that as the plane went down, his fellow passengers called him a fag**t.
The truth of the matter is that young people do not care about sexual orientation the way closeted old military farts do. They care about whether or not the guy or gal next to them would give his life to save theirs, and whether they are capable of performing their jobs well. Those should be the ONLY criteria for belonging to the military.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:58 am
There are estimated to be 65,ooo gay Americans that work to keep the nation safe as they serve in the military. For Pace to show utter contempt to them with his outrageous and illogical statement shows his lack of respect for a large segment of the armed forces. His biases and bigotry have shown that not all people who wear a uniform are ones we should consider role models.
If his shallow ‘moral’ argument is all that the conservatives have to prop up their lame argument for keeping gays out of the military then it is the rest of us who can laugh at Pace and his type. We know there is no rational reason that gays should not serve openly in the military. (Israel and other nations which allow gay people to openly serve do just fine.) (And what is it with these straight boys who think every gay guy would find them attractive! GET OVER YOURSELVES!) I suspect that in decades past Pace would have also feared the idea of black Americans in a pup tent alongside him. Lets face it. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.
Finally I find it ironic that Pace would dare talk about morality given the fact that the military often finds itself in foreign lands killing people. Pastor Pace has a far different view of morality than I do, and for that I am most grateful.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Chuck –
To be honest, I have no knowledge of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I know, I’m awful. I know that I’m *supposed* to be pro-Israel because of their ties to the U.S. and because Americans are evidently supposed to hate Muslims now, but I genuinely can’t say either way. I suppose that if they are as gay-friendly as you say they are, great, it’s wonderful that people somewhere aren’t persecuted for being who they are. But I honestly don’t know enough about Israel to really make a judgment. I’m not actually Jewish, I just agree with their principal of tikkun olam when it comes to how I live my life.