Marine Gen. Peter Pace created a furor last week by saying that homosexuality is “immoral” and akin to adultery. But Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., defended the general.
“We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as Gen. Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues,” Brownback wrote in a letter to the White House. “In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views.”
But the issue was not whether Pace has the right to his own opinion — he does — but whether he should express that personal opinion while representing the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Pro-con on Obama’s China visit
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
29 Comments
…..yawn…..
As a manager- which essentially what Pace is- he has the right to whatever moral views he wants. He does not have the right to pollute the workplace (service) with his views or to impose them on others. If he has a problem with homosexuals then he should not be a homosexual.
Actually, he has a
General Pace points to an obscure Old Testament passage as his authority for the immorality of homosexuality. Thing is, the Old Testament also requires the death penalty for disrespectful children, forbids the eating of meat cooked rare, and obligates the man who rapes a virgin to buy her from her father and marry her. I’ve seen no groundswell of support for those commands. Also, I don’t hear General Pace condemning pre-marital heterosexual sex, something I would guess that 90% of his soldier had participated in, or are currently participating in. Selective morality if you ask me.
This is just outrageous. The same old crap as was used back in the 60s to defend segregation.
Gays and lesbians are not going away, ok? They have always existed –just like women and African-Americans before them–and it’s about time the patriarchal “white man doesn’t want to share his power” crap got flushed down the toilet it came from.These people defend FREEDOM? Only when it’s the right kind of freedom. What a bunch of flaming hypocrites.
One of the issues I depart from the normal Republican. I served in the military and there were homosexuals before the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. There was never a problem.
They were just as patriotic as I was and did their jobs. When your standing in groups of forty, marching down the road in unison, there is no sexual preference check.
Yeah, some old style dorms had the open showers. Never felt threatened or uncomfortable showering with the same sex. We were all professionals in conduct. Didn’t matter if it was in the shower room, the training area or the scorching hot tarmac in Saudi Arabia.
Hmmm. My earlier post didn’t get posted completely. I’ll try again.
Pace has a duty to prosecute any serviceman that practices his sexual preferences outside of marriage. Yep, that’s right! Any sex outside of marriage if you are a service member is in violation of the UCMJ.
Until congress does away with the sections of the UCMJ that make sodomy and adultery a crime then all levels of military leadership are required to prosecute.
Immoral? Well, thats a personnal judgement that Pace is well within his rights to express. Sorry. Illegal? Yep and Pace has no control over that.
Hank
Hey Republican,
I think that in an earlier thread I expressed my view on homosexuals in the military. I don’t think I was ever on a sub that didn’t have one or two. I didn’t care.
However, if homosexualality became legal I can see some possible problems. An openly gay sailor on a submarine could cause a lot of problems. If he was discreet and didn’t pester the other men it would probably be OK, but that probably wouldn’t happen.
Hank
Hank,Is that the reason that every military base is surrounded by the illegitimate and unsupported children of servicemen? I rather doubt they were fathered by gay servicemen.
Hank, any sailor can cause any kinds of problems at any time. How do you deal with any of the rest of it? Why is it different than prosecuting any other violator?
Exactly Hank. Existing rules in the military handle inappropriate sexual behavior, there is no issue about that.
Anyone who has ever been in the military knows gays exist. I can only remember a couple of cases where some gays got out of line. In one case they were drunk and the other the personality of the guy as I understand it was just a type of personality that would have been fired from any job. That is, overtly pushing unwanted sexual advances.
I say you better let anyone who wants to serve in the military. Such folk aint in high supply due to the way the military has been abused lately.
Jed,
Yep, and if a mother of an illegitimate child can prove to the base commander that a serviceman is responsible the commander will ensure that the serviceman is held responsible.
Outside every base there are women that make a pretty good living by entrapping servicemen in paternity suits.
delsol,
I’m not sure what your question is. When I was stationed in Idaho the last time I was the Senior Enlisted Adviser. One of my duties was liaison between the civilian authorities and the military authorities. I tried very hard to ‘handle’ all problems through the military side, but to maintain credibility with the civilian authorities I had to make sure that the problems were fairly handled.
I could go to the jail at 3AM in the morning and get just about any sailor released into my custody. I had that ability because they were confident that I would take care of the ‘problem’.
Trust me, on many occasions I would leave the offender in jail. And on most occasions the offender would rather deal with the civilian authorities instead of me!
Hank
Interesting myth J R,
Truth is the ‘all volunteer’ military is doing quite well. The reenlistment ratio is at an all time high for a country at war.
The Marines have no problems with their initial inlistment quotas and they have a high re-enlistment rate. One of the reasons they do so well is that they are the only branch of the service that separates men and women during boot camp.
Now, contrary to popular belief, a majority of Americans think that homosexual acts are a sin. If the military allowed openly gay people in the service it would probably make recruiting a lot harder than it is now.
JMHO
Hank
Hank, my point is that everyone who signs up for the military should understand what the rules are, and that sexual harassment is the same for all.
And that anytime a soldier breaks a code it would be dealt with. Since everyone knows the rules, why would there be more problems because gays are in the military (as Republican points in their post)?
I am straight and have a family but work with many gay people, have known many gay people, and have a sister who is gay. They are not the cartoon chrarcters you see on tv (though those people exist) and they don’t want to hit on your kids, or YOU, any more than the general poulation does.
Being homosexual isn’t a choice. But conducting a homosexual act is a choice.
I make no judgement nor have an opinion on the matter. People can do what they want to do.
But you can be kicked out of the military for extramarital affairs.
Since gays can’t marry, I guess they’re in the clear. Sodomy, too, is only one of many sexual acts.
I agree with you, Joe. The rules should be applied equally to all and understood by all.
Pace has gone out of his way to level a judgment on people who serve under him that has nothing to do with their performance. That’s why he’s out of line. But he won;t be reprimanded, because it’s “only gays.”
Hank,”Yep, and if a mother of an illegitimate child can prove to the base commander that a serviceman is responsible the commander will ensure that the serviceman is held responsible.”
And what amount of proof would be required if the father was an officer? Same level the christians demand for evolution?
Wow Jed…
Did you go to the school of poorly formed analogies?
Tell me Jed,
What exactly are your qualifications to discuss this topic? Can you bring anything to the discussion other than the incredibly ignorant bias that you have demonstrated so far?
I’m just wondering how simplistic my response to you needs to be for you to understand.
Hank
Joe,
I think the term adultery is used in the military. At least that’s how I remember that particular term in those periodic UCMJ briefings from the Legal Office.
Hank,My qualifications come from talking to children of Viet Nam-era soldiers who were denied any aid whatsoever or even admission to the U.S. until long after the war ended. Even with the advent of DNA testing, the Pentagon stonewalled, and refused to release data needed to prove paternity. I’ve heard similar stories from the Phillipines, and that the issue was one of the reasons they refused to renew leases on our bases there.
Bull Squat Jed,
Talking and doing is two different things.
If you really have the Alligator mouth to match your chipmunk behind, you would have done more than talk.
Another liberal fairy tale of victimhood.
Interesting fairy tale, Jed. Curious, what bars would one go to to talk to these children?
And what legal responsibility or authority would the Pentagon have to provide DNA of one our soldiers to a foreign national?
Are you really that stupid, or do you think we are?
Hank
Please do not comment about the Bible if you don’t know what is in it. Homosexuality is referred to several times in the New Testament on several occasions. If you have a problem with repentance then I guess Christianity isn’t for you. However this topic is about our moral General who made comments that are truth and within reason. I applaud him for standing up for the truth and not bending to this world and their lies. I think it is so amazing that gays rely on science to prove their stance, and equally amazing that they rely on discrimination of peoples skin color as an equally damnable offense. Well then I guess fornication, lying and pedophilia among other things are biological. Maybe science should look into that too? Because we ALL know that what the world flocks to is an absolute truth!
Of course the Chairman has a right to express his opinions and convictions. He did not lose his rights as an American citizen by accepting his current position. If he had said, “it is the opinion of the Joint Chiefs that homosexual acts are immoral,” then he would be out of line – but he did not say that.
An interesting side of this is that if the General had said that he had no personal objection to homosexual activity, there would be no media uproar. No one would be asking whether the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs had a right to express his personal views, because his personal view would have fit in with the media’s bias.
Those of us who still recognize that homosexual acts are immoral have become so accustomed to hearing the pro-homosexual rhetoric and propaganda being spewed forth by the media and other public figures that we have become resigned to it. We expect it, and more or less accept it with a sigh of resignation.
General Pace’s remark is not the least bit outrageous. What is outrageous is the way the media and pro-homosexual activists have responded to it.
The stupid editors of the Eagle express their personal views everyday. If Pace cannot say what his views are then you also have to shut up. Don’t try promoting things that are evil, you will pay for it one day. The liberals are moving to a day where they can prosecute people for having opinions. If you can be judgemental about what a person says then you can be judgemental about certain actions.
“the media’s bias”
You mean the right-wing media bias?The Sean Hannity/Fox News/Bill O’Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/talk-radio media bias?
The reason there is an uproar, again, is because the general’s position goes against the military’s policy and against the laws of this country.
Homosexuality is not illegal.
It would be the same kind of uproar if the general said he was against Irish people because some of them use birth control…which is about the same kind of argument.