Gen. Pace vs. Parson Warner

[thedrifter]

Gen. Pace vs. Parson Warner
by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted: 03/15/2007

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you," said Leon Trotsky. And that is surely true of the culture war.

Before an editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not only endorsed presidential policy by which active homosexuals are discharged from the service, he declared that policy to be right morally.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immorality. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Equating homosexual sex with adultery, Pace added, "(I)f we find out so-and-so is sleeping with somebody else's wife," we do not tolerate it. As Pace was supporting policy, why did he find himself in a Beltway firefight?

The responses to Pace's moral assertions are indicative of the state of play, the correlation of forces, in America's culture war.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemed to duck the big question. "We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don't need a moral judgment from the chairman of Joint Chiefs."

But Pace never suggested gays were not patriotic. He said homosexual activity is outlawed in the service -- and is immoral.

The Washington Post allowed as how Pace "is entitled to his opinions, of course," but should have considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance on the men and women he commands."

But if declaring homosexual acts immoral is an "expression of intolerance," the Post is charging the Catholic Church and traditional Christians with 2,000 years of intolerance, as well as all U.S. Armed Forces prior to 1993, when homosexuals were routinely severed.

What do the moralists at the Post say of Pace's "intolerance" of adultery? Should the general have first considered the "impact of his public expression of intolerance" on the adulterers in the barracks or officers' club?

"Homosexuals serve admirably and openly -- without fear of prosecution or sneering judgment -- in 24 countries, including Israel," retorts the Post. Why Israel was brought in was not stated. And, yes, adulterers, too, have served honorably and heroically. But should, then, the ban on soldiers sleeping with other soldiers' wives also be lifted?

The questions raised by the Post are several:

What is immoral? Whose moral code do we consult? What is not only immoral but ought to be grounds for dismissal? For not everything that is immoral should be illegal and not everything that is illegal is immoral, as Catholics demonstrated during Prohibition.

Two Republican heavies have now weighed in. Ex-Sen. Alan Simpson, in a Post column, "Bigotry That Hurts Our Military," says he has grown since voting for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and now calls it "prejudice" to sever active homosexuals from the service.

He relates the story of professor Alan Turing, a British homosexual who helped crack the Nazi code. "Would Pace call Turing immoral?" asks Simpson, who went from the GOP caucus to Harvard and now as faithfully parrots the latter's values as once he did the former's.

Good question. From what Simpson relates, Turing was a hero. But if Turing spent his nights cruising SoHo, he may not have led a moral life and ought not to be bunking in the barracks of Fighter Command. One may be patriotic in public service and immoral in private life. Lots of folks have been -- even a few presidents.

It is John Warner, however, ex-chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who hit the issue squarely. Of the moral beliefs of his fellow Marine, Parson Warner declared, "I ... strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Is homosexuality -- not the orientation, but the activity -- inherently immoral?

On Pace's side, that homosexuality is immoral, we have the Bible and Koran, 2,000 years of Christianity, Orthodox Judaism and natural law, the moral beliefs of virtually every society to the present, and the laws of every state before the 1960s. Up to 1973, psychiatrists treated it as a disorder. Nations where homosexuality is rampant have been regarded as "decadent."

Who, Sen. Warner, are the moral authorities for your assertion that homosexual conduct is moral -- other than the Bishop Robinson wing of the Episcopal Church?

What this uproar tells us is that America is no longer a moral community. On the most fundamental issues -- abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality, euthanasia, sterilization, cloning, and the creation of, and buying and selling of, fetuses for research -- we are at war. What part of the nation sees as progress, the other sees as depravity.

And where there is no moral community, there will not long be one country. For in a religious or culture war, there is no peaceful coexistence.

One side wins, the other side loses.

As President Bush said, he who is not with us is against us.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

GENERAL IS RIGHT, IT IS IMMORAL
By Bob Lonsberry
March 15, 2007

You've got to admire Peter Pace.

He's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A tall ramrod of a man, almost 40 years a Marine, four stars and not an ounce of fat. The first Marine to become America's top military man, he has the energy and looks of a man 20 years his junior.

But he's been around.

In 1964, when the stuff was just starting to hit the fan over in Southeast Asia, he sought an appointment to the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. Four years later, in 1967, he was a lieutenant of Marines, a newly minted ground pounder coming on the scene at the peak of the Vietnam War.

That's how he got that green and white ribbon on his chest.

And over the generation since, this Marine has been on duty.

But none of that matters. Not in our "gotcha" society. All that matters is what he said on Monday. His career and reputation hang literally on a half a dozen words spoken to a reporter for the "Chicago Tribune."

He said homosexuality was immoral.

He equated it with adultery.

He wasn't angry, he wasn't hateful, he wasn't on a tirade. He was answering a question. In a military which has touted its values for 20 years, he simply said it wasn't good business to endorse something that is immoral.

Now they want to string him up.

Gay groups and members of Congress have demanded that he apologize. Some have whispered that he should resign or be fired.

All for a word.

"Immoral."

But it's not just gay activists and Democrats calling for his hide. The secretary of defense - the appointee and representative of an evangelical Christian president - chastised him on the Pentagon's own TV show, saying, "Personal opinion really doesn't have a place here."

That's a funny thing to say in America.

But not as funny as what the top Republican military expert in the Senate said. John Warner was secretary of the Navy once, and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He's from Virginia - in the Bible belt - and is the picture of a Republican senator.

"I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," he said.

That's not what you'd expect out of a Republican senator from the South. Further, you wouldn't think that there would be much pressure to come out and declare your moral approval of homosexuality.

Though the senator's statement kind of begs a question.

If so many politicians feel compelled to loudly and publicly denounce the general - and claim that homosexuality is moral - why aren't there any politicians who feel compelled to loudly and publicly support the general?

Are there no members of the Senate who believe that homosexuality is immoral? Does that view - though arguably held by a majority of people in this country - not have any defenders in the Congress?

Apparently not.

Because none of them have been heard from.

Or is it that they share the general's view, but not his courage? Have other believers in the immorality of homosexuality decided it's better to be silent and safe than honest and hounded?

For example, what about Orrin Hatch? His press people are quick to remind reporters that he used to be a Mormon bishop, so he presumably believes that homosexual practice is immoral, yet he's not been heard from. Ditto for his Utah Republican colleague - Bob Bennett. And what of Sam Brownback, the Midwestern senator hoping to ride moral conservatism all the way to the White House. He is missing in action on this issue.

In fact, while some of the Democratic presidential hopefuls have denounced the general, none of the Republican hopefuls have defended him. Not even Mitt Romney, who has defined himself as the morally conservative candidate.

Further, aren't there a bunch of senators and congressmen all across the South and Midwest who hold office because of the votes of moral and religious conservatives? Wouldn't you think that just one of them would have said out loud that, yes, in fact homosexuality is immoral?

And what about the new Muslim member of the House of Representatives. While mainstream Christians have fudged the sin out of homosexual practice, Muslims have not. Homosexuality, in the teachings of Islam, is patently immoral. Why has that Muslim congressman not said anything?

Because he's just as cowardly as the Christians.

Peter Pace, on the other hand, believes in his faith and in his values. And he's not afraid to say so. He's not the type to put his morals on ice in order not to offend the harsh gods of political correctness. He's not obnoxious about what he believes, insisting that you believe the same way. But he's not going to hide his beliefs just to kiss your backside.

Which is the way Jesus wants it.

If we are to take Jesus at his word, he said his followers should be a light of the world. He said that men shouldn't light a candle and put it under a bushel. He said that believers should be a city set on a hill.

That doesn't mean that Christians themselves are the light, but rather the gospel and faith they have embraced is the light. And that light is to show through them. They are to stand up for it.

And that light is fairly clear.

For some 2,000 years of Christian history, homosexuality was immoral. In much of the American church, that light has gone out. But in Peter Pace's heart, it still shines.

He's not afraid to say what many believe.

He's not afraid to speak the truth.

Unfortunately, in official Washington, he's the only one.

[thedrifter]

Brownback throws support behind Pace
Other candidates disagree with the general's stance on gays.
From the Associated Press
March 16, 2007

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback is backing the Pentagon's top general over his remarks that homosexual acts are immoral.

The Kansas senator said Thursday that he planned to send a letter to President Bush supporting Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who this week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs also said he believed that "homosexual acts between individuals are immoral …. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Lawmakers of both parties criticized the remarks, but Brownback's letter called the criticism "unfair and unfortunate."

"We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as Gen. Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues," Brownback said.

Asked whether he agreed with Pace's comments, Brownback said: "I do not believe being a homosexual is immoral, but I do believe homosexual acts are. I'm a Catholic and the church has clear teachings on this."

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama initially tried to sidestep the issue when asked about it this week, but Thursday both Democratic candidates sought to clarify their opposition to Pace's comments.

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

Clinton (D-N.Y.) told ABC News on Wednesday that it's for "others to conclude" whether homosexuality is immoral. 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 Sen. John Warner's statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe," her statement said.

Meanwhile, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic hopeful, called Pace's remarks "unfortunate" and said the Bush administration should reject them, adding that he would push Congress to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell policy," which requires service members to keep their sexual orientation private.

On his campaign bus in Iowa Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) declined to comment when asked whether he agreed with Pace's comment that homosexuality was immoral. He said he still backed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "It's working."

Another Republican candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, said he thought Pace's comments were "inappropriate for public discourse."

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Even Think It
By David Limbaugh
Friday, March 16, 2007

Marine Gen. Peter Pace has violated a cardinal rule of our politically correct culture: stating his opinion that homosexual behavior is immoral. While some of his critics say they are upset he uttered his remarks in his official capacity, that's a mere sidebar. Their real beef is with the content of his remarks, not in what capacity -- official or personal -- he made them.

Had Gen. Pace, in full dress uniform, expressed approval of homosexual behavior, do you think there would be a similar uproar? Or would he have been celebrated as a man of courage and enlightenment?

But that's not quite what he said in an interview with the Chicago Tribune on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which essentially provides that as long as homosexuals don't engage in homosexual conduct, their orientation will be irrelevant and certainly not disqualifying.

Pace said he believes, "that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." But he was clear that he was expressing his personal views "as an individual."

After activist groups and politicians went ballistic over Pace's remarks, he said he regretted emphasizing his personal views and that he should have "focused more on the policy." But he refused to apologize.

The advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) issued a statement on its website that, "Gen. Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in the armed forces. Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve Gen. Pace's praise, not his condemnation. prejudice should not dictate policy."

But Pace did not show disrespect for or demean the sacrifice of homosexual service members. In fact, he said he supported the policy, which allows homosexuals to serve, and that it does not make "a judgment about individual acts." In his support for the policy, it's obvious he believes homosexuals can and do make valuable contributions to the services.

Contrary to SLDN's statement, the policy is not grounded in prejudice against homosexuals, or even morality, for that matter -- it does not make "a judgment about individual acts." It is based primarily on national security concerns, which experts evidently believe would be compromised by permitting homosexual behavior.

Pandering politicians expressed their indignation as well. Similar to SLDN, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi implied that Pace was challenging the patriotism of homosexual service members, which he manifestly was not.

Congressman Marty Meehan, D-Mass., who introduced legislation to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," said Pace's opinions were in the minority in both the civilian and military populations. Assuming for purposes of argument that Meehan's dubious assertion is true, it is completely irrelevant. We don't formulate our moral positions based on the polls. Certain values, such as opposition to homosexual "marriage," in the words of Pope Benedict XVI -- and I'm not Catholic -- are "nonnegotiable."

Meehan also said the military's policy discriminates against homosexuals. But it doesn't bar homosexual orientation and, actually, tacitly condones it. It only forbids homosexual conduct. Many, many laws discriminate against certain behaviors.

Whether, given his official position, Pace should have offered his personal views on the morality of homosexual conduct instead of confining his remarks to the military policy is one thing. But that's not what this flap is really about.

Pace's hanging offense is having passed moral judgment on homosexual behavior and those engaging in it. Certain opinions are strictly forbidden in our society, whether you utter them in uniform or civvies, in public or in private.

If Pace's unpardonable sin is being judgmental, aren't many of his accusers guilty of the very same thing? Are they not passing moral judgment on and demeaning him for passing moral judgment on homosexual behavior?

Many homosexual activists and others, while demanding "tolerance," want to silence and demonize those who disapprove of homosexual behavior. For them, it's not just "don't ask, don't tell." It's "don't tell, and don't even think these thoughts."

Pace is right not to apologize for the content of his remarks, which would be insincere. While I'm certainly not trying to be offensive, and people are free to disagree, Pace's moral position on this has been affirmed by virtually every religion and society throughout history, and by "Nature's Law," upon which this country was founded. He has just as much right to express it as his critics have to express theirs.

If the tolerance police are looking for a target against whom to direct their wrath, they should consider Sen. Hillary Clinton, who, with characteristic courage and forthrightness, declined to answer whether "homosexuality" was immoral, saying that was for "others to conclude." Like Gen. Pace, perhaps?

[thedrifter]

The crime of conviction: General Pace and morality
By Chuck Colson
Friday, March 16, 2007

Our nation’s top military officer, a veteran decorated with no less than forty-eight military awards and a very distinguished career, made a startling revelation this week: He has moral conviction. The world gasps, hurls insults, and demands an apology. How dare one of the top leaders of our land have a moral belief and share it when questioned!

But that’s exactly what happened this week when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—the first Marine general ever to hold that position—General Peter Pace, commented in a wide-ranging interview with the Chicago Tribune, “My upbringing is such that I believe that 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, and that we should not tolerate that.”

But then Pace went on to tell the Tribune, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

Well, stop the presses.

Of course, all that the radio, news, and television outlets have focused on since General Pace’s comments are his remarks on homosexuality. Never mind that he puts immorality of all kinds on equal footing. General Pace went on to say 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.”

While the world should be applauding a man who proposes that one of the most important institutions in our country should have moral integrity, instead we hammer him for having a conviction.

But I believe this goes far beyond the whole question of homosexuals in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This cuts to the core of the question of whether anyone in public office is free to speak his deepest religious or moral convictions. The Constitution says there will be no religious test for office, and yet we are applying one. We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views—especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior.

This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.

I have long said that C.S. Lewis was prophetic when in 1943 he wrote about the irony of our education system, saying, “Such is the tragicomedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. . . . In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Ironic that today, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the military should have consistent policies of moral integrity, and the world demands an apology. Maybe it is time to lock him up: General Pace is guilty. He has committed the intolerable crime of our day: He has stated his conviction in a value-free society that respects only so-called “tolerance.”

As for me, well, General Pace makes me proud that I am a former Marine.

[thedrifter]

Colonels & Captains Call for Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire

A group of seven high-ranking military veterans today responded to recent remarks by General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who earlier this week called lesbian, gay and bisexual service members "immoral" and re-iterated his support for the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members.

The officers, who are all lesbian or gay, called on Congress to repeal the law, and demanded that General Pace apologize for his remarks. COL Stewart Bornhoft, USA (Ret.); CAPT Joan E. Darrah, USN (Ret.); CAPT Robert D. Dockendorff, USNR (Ret.); Chaplain (COL) Paul W. Dodd, USA (Ret.); CAPT Sandra Geiselman, USNR (Ret.); COL E. A. Leonard, USA (Ret.); and CAPT Robert Michael Rankin, USN (Ret.) issued their statement on Friday morning. "Our community has a long history of serving our country in the armed forces," the group said. "Today, there are more than 65,000 lesbian and gay troops on duty. Another one million gay and lesbian veterans, including the seven of us, have served in our fighting forces. General Pace's remarks dishonor that service, as does the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law.

General Pace must offer an immediate and unqualified apology for his remarks and Congress must take action to repeal the ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans who want to serve our country." The highly-decorated officers each served more than 20 years, and several considerably longer. They have earned scores of awards, honors and commendations during their careers. Four served in the Vietnam War. They have served as company commanders, helicopter pilots, medical officers, commanding officers, psychologists, chaplains, combat engineers, platoon leaders, infantry officers, supply corps officers and intelligence officers. "Does General Pace believe we are immoral, or that our service was unacceptable?" the group asked. "Does he appreciate the sacrifice and dedication of every patriot in our armed forces, regardless of their sexual orientation? As military leaders, we never discounted the enormous contribution that every service member brought to our armed forces. General Pace should do no less, and owes an apology to our men and women on the frontlines and their families." "Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is enormously proud of these stellar officers," said C. Dixon Osburn, the group's executive director.

"These seven, who stand on behalf of one million gay veterans now living in the United States, are irrefutable proof that lesbian and gay patriots have made valuable contributions to our fighting forces. They have commanded companies, advised government leaders, fought on the ground and directed troops from the air. It was their outstanding performance and dedication to our country, not their sexual orientation, that made all the difference." For more information on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and biographies of the officers, please visit www.sldn.org. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is a national, non-profit legal services, watchdog and policy organization dedicated to ending discrimination against and harassment of military personnel affected by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and related forms of intolerance. For more information, visit www.sldn.org.

[thedrifter]

Dancing a two-step to a little jive
March 16, 2007

A lot of people are telling it to the Marines. Gen. Peter Pace, who serves as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set off a firestorm of lavender fury when he observed, answering a direct question, that he regards homosexuality as "immoral."

Like it or not, but this is a teaching of all the major religions of the world. But the editors of the New York Times, dissenting theologians all, insist that the general "is wrong in every way, and out of step." Not only that, his remarks "carried a special meaning of hurt" when "thousands of gay men and lesbians are serving their country in Iraq."

This suggests that the correspondents of the New York Times have been sampling forbidden pleasures in the fleshpots of Baghdad (such as they are), compiling statistics on who's gay and who's not. No other polls have been taken. But how can we rely on the efficacy of this sampling? The military rule is "don't ask, don't tell."

The first rule of the mountains from whence many of our soldiers come is, of course, that "we always lie to strangers."

You can see why. "General Pace should apologize for his remarks, forthrightly," the newspaper demanded. "Then perhaps some good could come out of his bigoted remarks if they add to the growing movement on Capitol Hill to finally allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military."

The Times and its congregants no longer have access to the rack and the thumbscrew, so the general's joints and fingernails are probably safe for the moment. But you get the idea of where the high priests of the secular church would take him if they could.

The "special hurt," however, has probably not been inflicted on gay soldiers and lesbian drivers and medics so much as on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They're trying to respond to the general, a straight shooter who only answered the question he was asked and as a faithful Roman Catholic has a perfect right to hold to the tenets of his faith. The contretemps is particularly difficult for Mzz Hillary, often photographed leaving a Methodist church with Bible in hand, as she tries to be faithful both to the Methodist Book of Discipline and the catechism of the Democratic left.

The general is responsible first for the fighting spirit of the troops, and there's ample precedent for allowing the military to decide how to nurture this fighting spirit. Anyone who has slept in a military barracks understands the general's concerns, but how would most of the general's critics know?

They wouldn't be caught dead in their country's uniform. But both Barack Obama and Mzz Hillary, eager not to offend the great unwashed on whom they know they must ultimately depend, approached this issue as if it were an angry porcupine, with quills aquiver.

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his comments to military matters," Mr. Obama said, scurrying away from reporters on the Hill as gracefully as he could. "That's probably a good tradition to follow." Pressed by a reporter for Newsday to say whether he thinks homosexual sexual relations are "immoral," Mr. Obama demurred, and answered questions nobody asked. Only later, he sent out an aide to say that the senator does, in fact, disagree with the general.

Mzz Hillary danced delicately to similar music. When a reporter for ABC-TV asked whether she agreed with the general, she first replied: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."

A day later she succumbed to pressure from the red-hots of the lavender wing of the party. "Well," she said, chastened, "I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with Gen. Pace completely. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of 'Don't ask, don't tell' is not working. I have been against it for many years."

This is, of course, precisely the policy that she assisted in formulating, back in the day when she was something she and Bill called a "co-president." She was what we got when the voters fell for Bill's famous offer to "buy one, get one free."

This "explanation," such as it is, hardly quelled the anger on her left, nor is it likely to satisfy her hoped-for straight friends, particularly in the black church, who agree with Pope Benedict XVI that opposition to divorce, abortion, homosexual "marriage" and euthanasia are "nonnegotiable" Christian values

So who's out of step?

Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Gates does not say if Pace should apologize

The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Mar 18, 2007 14:53:55 EDT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to say Sunday whether the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should apologize for his remark that homosexual acts were immoral or whether it was a slur on gay members of the armed forces.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace made the remark last Monday in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. The next day, following criticism from several lawmakers and gay-rights groups, Pace said he regretted having stated a personal opinion but did not apologize.

“I think General Pace has made pretty clear that he wished he had avoided his personal opinion,” Gates said on “Face the Nation” on CBS. The secretary said he did not plan to ask Pace to do anything more in regard to the remark.

Asked if Pace’s comment was a slur on members of the armed forces, Gates said: “I think I’ll leave it at the fact that I don’t think this is an issue where personal opinion has any place.” As far as Pace apologizing, Gates said, “I think we should just move on from this point.”

In the newspaper interview, Pace said that while he supports the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve in the military, he believes that “homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.”

Gates indicated that he was not reviewing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

General Comment
Peter Pace called homosexual acts 'immoral' last week. It wasn't the first time he'd weighed in on the matter.

By Dan Ephron
Newsweek

March 26, 2007 issue - Brian Fricke says he played the "pronoun game" for about three years. The Marine Corps sergeant substituted "she" for "he" when he told peers about his relationships, keeping the fact that he was gay from all but a small number in his unit. It wasn't until the day he left for Iraq in 2004 that the pretending got to be too much. Fricke, a Tennessean stationed at Miramar air base near San Diego, was being driven to the departure point by his boyfriend, Brad. The two had been together for several months, and it dawned on Fricke at the staging area that, with the bombings in Iraq, he might not see Brad again. Around them, Marines were taking leave of their own loved ones. Fricke felt the resentment rise. "I'm putting my life on the line like the others," he recalls feeling. "Damn it, if I'm not going to say goodbye to the person I love." Fricke kissed Brad hard on the lips. When he turned to face his unit, he realized no one cared. "People want to know that you'll be there for them in battle. Everything else just matters a lot less."

Not to everyone, it turns out. Gen. Peter Pace, another Marine who heads the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a storm last week when he called homosexual acts "immoral" in response to a question from the Chicago Tribune. He explained later he was expressing a personal view, but NEWSWEEK has learned it wasn't the first time he'd done so. At a 2005 Wharton School leadership seminar, Pace told grad students, also in response to a question: "The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence." In both instances, Pace was arguing the merits of "don't ask, don't tell"—a 1993 law that says gays and lesbians can serve in the military only if they stay in the closet. But as the military establishment clings to the policy, the experiences of Fricke and others, buttressed by recent polls, suggest younger service members are more willing to accept gays in their ranks, even when they're out.

The shift mirrors a rising acceptance nationwide of homosexuals. The new NEWSWEEK Poll shows 63 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. When members of the military were asked a similar question, 58 percent either agreed gays should serve openly or were neutral in a Zogby poll taken four months ago. Experts offer the Iraq war as one explanation. "When the bullets start flying, that's precisely when military people don't care about the [sexual] identity of people next to them," says Aaron Belkin, who researches sexuality and the armed forces at the University of California, Santa Barbara. And with the war impinging on recruitment and retention, the military seems to apply "don't ask, don't tell" selectively. Only about 600 gay and lesbian service members were kicked out of the military last year, compared with about 1,200 in 2001.

Still, Belkin and other congressional observers say the policy won't change any time soon. When Democrats swept Congress last November, Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts drafted a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." More than 100 House members have signed it. But with an election campaign underway, many Democrats believe it's the wrong time to be seen as catering to a liberal constituency.

Which leaves service members like Fricke feeling vulnerable. Though he came out to more members of his unit while in Iraq, Fricke remained worried that a less tolerant officer might find out and press for a dishonorable discharge, which would jeopardize his benefits. When Fricke returned home, he told Brad to stay away from the arrival hall, where the family reunions tend to get giddy and tearful. Greeting him there seemed too risky. Nine months later, Fricke turned down a fat re-enlistment bonus and left the military. "I was hiding less, but by then I didn't want to hide at all," he says. In his civilian life, the pronouns are all in order.

Ellie