No surprise that Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is taking some heat for calling homosexuality immoral, likening gay sex to adultery and saying the military should not condone homosexuality by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
Pace is entitled to his opinion, which is widely shared as a matter of faith by many Americans. But the real issue is how much longer the armed forces can continue the phony “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which has forced the discharge of an estimated 10,000 troops, including more than 50 badly needed specialists in Arabic. John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted in 1993, recently said conversations with gay service members have led him to conclude that “the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.” (Well, maybe not by Pace.)
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
58 Comments
I just don’t get it.
What is “immoral” about love between two consenting adults?
It’s none of my business what consenting adults do in bed unless I’m in bed with them.
I’ve got more important issues in my life than to judge whether you and your wife playing “Escaped Prisoner and the Warden’s Wife” is kinky or not. If your sex life is “every Saturday night after the bath whether you want it or not,” what difference is it to me or anyone else? If you boink like crazed weasels on the kitchen table in front of the kids, just don’t spill the corn flakes. It’s none of my business. (But I wouldn’t want to pay your kids’ psychiatrist bills.)
Human sexuality is such a non-public issue, it astounds me that people have the energy to generate so much hate against people whom they suspect are doing it differently than they are.
I don’t care if “God” doesn’t like it, or St. Paul didn’t like it, or if Phred Felps is so afraid of it he has to picket soldiers’ funerals. I simply can’t understand how other people get their carnal jollies affects me in the slightest.
Do it with a trapeze over your bed. Dress up like Batman and Robin and boink in the parking lot of every turnpike rest stop. Tell him you love him then give him a false phone number. If you’re both of age and I’m not involved, where’s my dog in this fight?
If you want to join the Army, then by-God be a good soldier. What you might want to do on a weekend pass is not my concern. Somehow I think — even if you’re gay or have a foot fetish or play sexual games with whipped cream and chocolate syrup — when the bullets fly, you’ll probably be more interested in fighting than kinky love-making. That’s your job.
You recreation is an absolute non-issue.
Homosexuality, adultery, polygamy, polyandry….all are between consenting adults and as such, should be left alone.
The only time society needs to step in, is when children arise from a sexual union that are uncared for, or neglected by their parents, or when anyone is pressured into a sexual situation.
One thing we know for sure – gays aren’t contributing to that statistic.
But at the same time – we have to remember that Pace has his own opinion and is entitled to it. It doesn’t make him ‘hateful’ because he believes in a biblical morality and wants to measure his life by that, but he’s going to fail, the gay’s aren’t going back in the closet anytime soon.
Contrast this with the topic of fatherless babies being born. Mayor Nagin of New Orleans stated that the rate of babies born to single mothers was fully 70%. Now THAT impacts society.
Before this devolves into the usual nutroot military bashing contest some info needs to be put out for our consumption.
Yesterday Mrs. Pelosi stated…”I think the MILITARY should consider changing the policy”
Mrs. Pelosi seems to be unaware it is NOT A MILITARY policy. It was MANDATED by congress. It is a congressional policy.
Now that she is the head ho, she needs to stand up and change it and shut up about it being a MILITARY policy. As should the usual Leftist Academic types that infest universities and clamor about being upset when the military visit due to this “military” policy, when it is not.
But what do you think…is it a good whipping boy for awhile? Yep.
(dont get to excited about the “whipping” part guys.)
“Don’t ask don’t tell” is and always has been a stupid rule. By its very nature it is bad for moral and discipline in the military.
The military is ruled by the “Uniform Code of Military Justice”. The ‘code’ is a matter of Federal law. It is the result of an act of Congress.
Military comanders are not allowed to pick and choose which articles of the code that they deem worth enforcing. As such, even during ‘don’t ask don’t tell’, when a commanding officer was aware of homosexual activity in his command the ‘code’ required him to prosecute the offender.
If you want to allow gays in the military congress must change the ‘code’. That aint going to happen folks.
Hank
No, the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” rule is the exception granted by President Clinton. The unfortunated sidutation that exists in the military today is that this has evolved into a “if we find out, you are out” rule.
Plus we have forgotten about the Sacred Band of Thebes, and their war fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
And there was Alexander the Great who had a few proclivities such as traveling with a chariot load of little boys. Seemed to work for him.
I can see Rosie and Andrew Sullivan out there now as spear chucker/catcher.
ie, it was an executive order, not a Congressional law.
No, Chris, it law. Passed by Congress. As GS noted above.
The UCMJ prohibition of homosexuality in the military is a law, passed by Congress. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was implemented by executive order.
As Hank has pointed out, to remove the UCMJ prohibition, it will take an act of Congress to amend the UCMJ.
Go ahead Dems. Pay back what you owe to the homosexual lobby and carry their water. Show the American people just how far out your agenda really is. This will help insure your time as the majority party is mercifully short.
Chris,
It never evolved. It has always been a “if we find out, you are out” rule.
The guidelines as implemented by Colin Powell in 1993:
“Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender.” — quoted in “The Pentagon’s New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military”.
Do you want to know the only thing that changed? The enlistment procedure. Before “Don’t ask don’t tell” enlistees were asked if they were homosexuals or if they had ever had a homosexual experience. If they said yes they weren’t allowed to enlist. If they said no and it was later found out they lied they could also be prosecuted for a fraudulent enlistment.
Clinton’s “don’t ask don’t tell”, like so many of Clinton’s BS was never what people thought it was.
Hank
Best to get past bigotry and let anyone who thinks this country worth defending defend it. The number of such people is fading fast.
The efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces is what’s important, in fact the paramount issue for the military. Members of the military do not have personal freedom of movement or a choice in who they are placed in close contact with under military command. The military separates the sexes in basic living requirements out of necessity for performance and to minimize sexual attraction and tension. I am sure they do not wish to contend with that over sexual orientation, and by the rule, outward homosexual conduct. I am all for General Pace’s stance on this subject from strictly a national security issue and his adherence to the established Congregational mandated rule, but personally I also soundly applaud his candid honesty and refusal to compromise his belief. That is exactly what we need in a commander. It’s not just his belief, or mine or any-one’s, God has unequivocally condemned homosexuality and that’s enough for General Pace, and for me.
Wasn’t a good idea for Pace to relay his personal feelings about the Homosexual policy in the military. Wouldn’t surprise me if he doesn’t receive some sort of disciplinary letter from the Defense Secretary. Most likely there will be howls from the left to ask for his resignation.
The fact is, is that discussing your homosexuality in the Military is punishable under the UCMJ.
Personally, it wouldn’t bother me to allow homosexuals in the military under the same condition as anyone else. The military is short handed and needs all the help it can get. I’m sure they can work along side their military peers without sexual conflict.
And besides, sexual harassment is already covered under Military Law. Any conduct unbecoming, or unwanted advances can be punished. That includes male or female.
Well, it was pretty much “don’t ask don’t tell” when I was in. When you are standing watches, Port and Stbd., you don’t really care if the other guy is queer as long as he relieves the watch on time.
Article 125 of the UCMJ really doesn’t care if you’re getting oral sex from someone of the same or opposite sex, it’s illegal. Not a moral judgement, not a personnal judgement, it’s federal law. Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” didn’t change any of that.
All “don’t ask don’t tell” really was, was a meaningless bone thrown to the gay and lesbian community. (No pun intended).
If you want to change it, it will take an act of congress.
Hank
“Military efficiency” would require that all soldiers and Marines be right-handed. That’s the way most weapons are designed to be used and when eating MREs in a foxhole, troops weilding their sporks with the wrong hand could cause disruption. “We don’t mind if you’re left-handed, just don’t engage in ’southpaw behavior.’”
What a steaming pile of trumped-up bigotry! (In fact, in some cultures it’s taboo to eat with ones left hand since *that’s* the hand you wipe your butt with.)
What two consenting adults do in bed is not your business unless you’re in bed with them.
All other arguments against homosexuality are conjured-up excuses for small-minded people to somehow feel their pathetic lives are somehow, in some way superior to someone else.
I heard a distant cousin from Alabama once gripe, “It’s gettin’ t’ whar y’ cain’t abuse a nigger these days without it becomin’ a federal offense.” A few years later he sired his own grandson. It’s part and parcel of contemporary conservatism to preserve some sub-set of the population they can abuse “without it becoming a federal offence.” Gays are the target du jour.
I read a recent poll of conservative college students. They expressed overwhelming support for gay rights and follow-up interviews revealed that, despite their conservative beliefs, they’re reluctant to vote for Republican candidates who play the gay-bashing card. They said by the time they reach their 50s they think the whole “gay agenda” meme will die with their parents; and good riddance.
Then, of course, to provide the twice-born, unlearned bigots a bone to chew on, they’ll ban left-handers or pattern baldies or people with freckles.
It’s a good thing the military doesn’t have any problems with enough soldiers or else Pace might look like a bigger idiot than he already is. If it wasn’t for the thousands of neo-cons in Wichita signing up to join the military to go support their war in Iraq we might need those gays.
The military’s mission is defending this country, period. Allowing open homosexuals to serve would be an impediment to that mission. Something to deal with that they shouldn’t have to. And running the risk of destroying group unity and discipline for what purpose?The military should not be an affirmative action organization.
I get bashed sometimes by both sides and surprised looks when I suggest that the Military should mirror our society in how it handles employment of gays.
To me, gays in the military would not be an impediment, rather it would be just a mirror model of what already exists in our society.
As I said previously, sexual misconduct would not be tolerated in the military and would be punishable.
As long as the soldier next to me doesn’t do any unwanted sexual advances or groping, let him/her serve.
I have no phobias about allowing homosexuals in the military. They are human, citizens of the U.S. and deserve a chance to show their patriotism.
I have no problem with gay’s in the military. I wish they would say If they were Gay or Not.. If they are Gay they should be showering and using the womens bathroom..
How many of you people responding are in or have served in the modern day military? As someone who can say yes…i in turn say no to allowing openly gay individuals into the service. They are a distraction. I am not a biggot as I do have friends that choose to live their life this way. So I pose this question, When you are in an open bay shower how comfortable would you be thinking that someone of the same sex is eyeing you? It is one more stress a war fighter should not be REQUIRED to take.
I have not served in the military. It would seem to me that it would cause distractions and morale troubles. If homos wish to serve in the military and nobody knows it, what would it matter? Flaming, princing, Nancyboys would be problematic is my guess.
Hey Fleetenemaboy,
I dare you to pick the random gay Marine or soldier or airman or sailor of your choice – perhaps even the guy who was the first Marine seriously injured in the Iraq war (Eric Fidelis Alva lost his leg) – and call him a “nancyboy.” Go ahead. I dare you.
Like Jon Stewart said a few years back, the real reason you far-right, mouth-breathing morons don’t want gays in the military is this: You deeply fear 10,000 homos with M-16s saying “Who are you calling faggot???”
Most of the gays that I have known, you can’t tell that they are. There is no stamp on their forehead indicating such. One can guess their sexual preference after being around them for awhile and of especially when they bring their significant other to a party and it is the same sex.
With that said, because of this normality in everyday life, is the primary reason I support the “no issue” clause of gays in the military.
Let there be no scarlet letters issued at the gate of the Military Installations.
If he is not flaming and princing, how would anyone know?Perhaps, you chose to ignore what I wrote.
“If homos wish to serve in the military and nobody knows it, what would it matter?”
All I can say is that if I was in some foxhole waiting for an enemy who was trying his damnedest to blow me to bits, whether or not the other guy in there thought I had a cute tush would be rather far down on my list of things to worry about!
Well, Ass-tampon, perhaps people “know it” because our brave warfighters have partners, have lives, and have something you clearly lack: integrity. Maybe, just maybe, you should consider that _honest_ people don’t like going through life lying just for the chance to serve their country. Maybe you should realize that our gay military personnel think “duty, honor, country” isn’t just an empty slogan from boot camp, but is the way to live their lives.
Bln. You are a biggot! Explain the way you feel to your friends “that choose to live their lives this way”. See if you are friends anymore. I bet you wouldn’t mind if a woman who was attracted to you looked at you in the shower. Don’t worry, it’s not gonna happen, IT’S NOT AS BIG AS YOU THINK!
Give them a inch, they will take a mile.
Hey Tom, I like the graphics of your banner at mulliganvalley.com. Well done and gets one’s attention.
Hi Republikhan,
Ummm….what banner? There’s no mulliganvalley.com website; I’m only using this domain for email. Perhaps your browser got redirected to some other site?
“Hey Fleetenemaboy,”
“Well, Ass-tampon,”
Here we are on a “gays in the military” thread and all tom can do is think about “down there”. Quite insulting, don’t you think?
What happened to erudite and education?
Hank, you’re (of course) correct on Article 125, UCMJ. It is my personal opinion that if strictly enforced against all military members, there might be a personnel shortage, though.
The issue on homosexuals serving in the military is one, I believe, of regulation, which may be changed through the appropriate process should the same be deemed necessary and appropriate by those in charge.
FleetAssTampon,
“If homos wish to serve in the military and nobody knows it, what would it matter? Flaming, princing, Nancyboys would be problematic is my guess.”
You’re upset that I responded to stereotyping, namecalling, and insults with namecalling and insults? Boo’effin’hoo.
You still have ignored my challenge, to wit: Do you have the balls to call a gay Marine a “nancyboy” to his face?
My apologies Tom, it was a re-direct.
I agree. If homos act, well, “homo-ish”, then they need not apply.
Hell, next thing you know they’d be wanting to redesign the fatigues with a nice pink pastel theme. That would stand out in any battle field. Not a good thing.
“Do you have the balls to call a gay Marine a “nancyboy” to his face?”
Yes, ws, I do.
Would that be you?
I see that some of the venom spewers (i.e. Tom) have logged back in.This ‘debate’ is very, very, simple.The Military should decide who and what is needed to win on a battlefield. It is not open to affirmative action, nor second guessing.They want it, they got it.Our national defense is not a societal (sp?) proving ground for political issues.
Hey Vaughn,
You’re correct! The UCMJ, like all rules, regulations and laws gets selective enforcement.
I don’t think I’ve ever been on a submarine that didn’t have a gay person or two. This was before ‘don’t ask don’t tell’, and for the most part the crew didn’t give a damn. But, they couldn’t be openly gay.
When I was on the Henry Clay in during a refueling overhaul the weapons officer decided he was a conscientious objector. The XO wasn’t buying it so then he claimed to be gay, which come to find out was true. We lost him and two nav ET’s, one of which was gay too, the other just a fun guy.
Then while making patrols out of Guam the COB found a storekeeper and a messcook in a compromising situation in one of the storerooms. Long (and funny) story…lost them too.
All-in-all, the point I’m trying to make is that there has always been a certain amout of tolerance for violations of the UCMJ in the Navy, unless, the violations are made public. Therefore, with ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ nothing has really changed much.
Hank
Thanks Hank for your insight.I don’t think the policy should change.What one does in the privacy of one’s own home doesn’t matter.It only matters when thatperson(s) needs validation and forced acceptance for whatever it is that they do privately.
Hank, agreed; the USAF had a certain tolerance as well on the same basis, leading to selective enforcement (nothing new there). As you so accurately pointed out, the major change in “don’t ask, don’t tell” was at the recruiter; since I was separated from service well before the policy was immplemented, I don’t know what changed, if anything, for those on active duty who aren’t openly gay. Enjoyed the discussion.
Sanford said “The Military should decide who and what is needed to win on a battlefield. It is not open to affirmative action, nor second guessing.”
The military used that same excuse all through WW2 to keep black Americans in segregated units because, you know, good’ole white American boys just couldn’t bear the thought of fighting alongside people who were obviously inferior and a threat to unit cohesion.
Good grief.
You know Tom, during WWII that was a valid reason. May not have been right, but still, it was valid. That was the culture of the times.
Hank
I’m not sure if comparing Black people to gay people makes any sense. I have a feeling the Black people don’t care for it too much, either.
Tom – (or should I say WS?)
How you speak (or here, type) screams so loudly I cannot hear what you say.
Thanks to our ‘boycotters,’ the level of incindiary language here went down, the exchange of opinion went up. All views are welcome, of course. Act like a gentleman and I think you’ll be treated as one.
I think I speak for most if not all of us when I say that the ability to read and respond without having to wade through the mud is refreshing and welcome.
Don’t spoil it. Or go away.
Sanford: You complain about me being “venomous,” but keep in mind that my insults towards Asstampon are only because he managed, in one short sentence, to use four anti-gay insults in a row. He gets the respect he deserves: none.
Asstampon: Read carefully. I didn’t compare black people to gay people. I compared the attitudes of people like you now to the attitudes of people like you during the 40s. You’ll always look for a (fill in the blank) group to unleash your need for bigotry on.
Hank: Oh my. “It wasn’t right, but it was valid.” My jaw drops at your racist apologia.
I love you, capn.
Dear Tom,
Aint nothin racist, just a fact. It wasn’t Patton’s job to integrate an army from a segregated nation. If I remember my history correctly he was busy trying to get to Berlin.
Did a refueling overhaul in Charleston Naval Shipyard in the late ’60s. The shipyard was segregated. Separate bathrooms, eating places, etc. Guess what? The blacks wanted it that way!
The riggers (Shop 72) and the cleaners (Shop 71) all of the chippers (except one really crazy white guy nicknamed Hounddog, don’t ask) were all black. They had their own management and culture. They took care of all thier own problems and schedules.
That didn’t mean that blacks couldn’t belong to the other shops, there was a certain amount of integration, just not in the ‘black shops’ and that’s the way they wanted it.
So, if all you can add to the discussion, due to a lack of experience or understanding of the culture in the ’40s, is to call me a racist then I’m done with ya.
Unless, of course, you want to do lunch some day and call me a racist to my face!
Hank
I think we should allow all homosexuals to serve in the US military if they so desire. I don’t know of any reason why they should not. When I was in the USAF there were some homosexuals and we all knew they were gay. Nobody cared. Other countries including Canada and England allow them to serve.
Patton did a wonderful thing when he ordered the military to integrate. Segregation has no place anywhere in the service- or anyplace else for that matter.
For liberals it is a matter of faith that homosexual sex is not wrong. It is only a matter of time before they will have a problem and start jailing people for saying that homo sex is wrong. If more democrats are elected to congress then they will unleash a series of unjust laws to silence the truth and hide their lie. Then the Eagle’s editorial board will only cheer them on.Liberals, try thinking with your brain and not let you emotions cloud your judgement. A simple look at the human anatomy and you can deduce what goes where.
Interesting Factoid:
Horst Wessell and his grave were destroyed after WWII.
Let’s all sing together now:
Troll Troll Troll your BloatGently down your esteemMerrily Merrily Merrily Merrily, life is but a dream
II,”A simple look at the human anatomy and you can deduce what goes where.”Actually, the part of the anatomy that too many people stick in the wrong place is the nose.
Hey,I thought Ian got bounced from this party!
You know, I actually agree with Republican! I don’t see what the major issue is to allowing gays in the military… (and face it, you guys are all using men as the overriding example of why it is wrong here, but it ISN’T just gay men who are discriminated against in the military) Fact is, at this point we need all the help we can get. The problem, as I see it, with “dont ask don’t tell” is that it prevents said service members from having any kind of a personal life – if they can’t BE homosexual while in the military, how are they supposed to have a personal life? That is where the discrimination comes in to play… to me, it is the same thing as saying “hey, if you have a freckle on your big toe on your left foot and you don’t keep it concealed at all times, we can kick you out”
This is such a non-issue. Who cares about sexual orientation when you need help? Pace needs to get out from behind his desk, and everyone else that this bothers needs to get their head out of the sand. If masculinity is such a “big” issue in determining who serves and who doesn’t, maybe it’s the orientation of all those cowardly “real men” that never wore camo which needs to be questioned, and not the men and women out ducking lead.
Is the military assuming that if their personnel are making love, they won’t want to make war?