Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – General Peter Pace Comfortable in the Shadow of Strom Thurmond

dsc03425.JPGThe Chicago Tribune reports that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, continues to support the, “‘…don’t ask, don’t tell'” ban on gays serving [openly] in the military because homosexual acts ‘are immoral,’ akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

‘I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,’ Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

‘As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,’ Pace said.

Writing more than a decade ago (the more things change…), I observed that: After hearing that with the new Republican majority in the United States Congress, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina would most likely head the Armed Services Committee where the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was given a difficult and ugly birth, I recalled watching a portion of those hearings on t.v. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was testifying before Sam Nunn of Georgia and Strom Thurmond. Nunn and Kerry were debating the probability that if openly gay soldiers were to remain in the military, then the section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“Military justice is to justice as Military music is to music.” Georges Clemenceau), dealing with sodomy would have to be revised. At one point, Strom Thurmond–looking like the weathered, ancient, evil, Father of all Beasts that he is–asked

“Senator Kerry I have one and only one question for you. Do homosexuals commit sodomy?” Kerry stammered a bit, saying that some homosexuals probably do commit sodomy but that some heterosexuals commit sodomy, also. “Just answer my question, Senator,” Thurmond shouted. “Do homosexuals commit sodomy?” Kerry stammered again and Thurmond announced that the military was not the place for “…sodomites. There’s only one place for sodomites and that’s in jail,” he said.

The polemic is clear. The lines have been drawn. What surely seems to denude the honor from the gay or lesbian soldier’s service in the minds of the anti-homosexualists is the manner in which those homosexuals make love or have made love or might make love sometime in the future. How absurd this shibboleth should frighten the bejesus out of the brass-plated bastions of what is probably the most masculine institution in this country. But, it does. And, as politically correct as Bill Clinton may have been in proposing an end to the ban, it is unfortunate that his motivation was political correctness rather than heartfelt commitment. There is a difference.

It was, I suppose, quite enough for Bill Clinton–of all people!–to have been the drum major for ending the ban on gays in the military. Drum majors strut. And, they’re supposed to strut at the head of the band until the parade is over. What seems to have occurred, however, is that our drum major crapped out at the point it was clear the band was not playing the kind of music the crowd wanted to hear.

There is something desperately wrong with the American military’s obsessive paranoia with regard to the homosexuals amongst them. Randy Shilt’s study of homosexuals in the American military (and the categorical dispossession of the military careers of those homosexuals), Conduct Unbecoming, is not read so much as something factual but as something you can’t quite believe; something like standing upon the autumn grass at Gettysburg and not quite believing that seven-thousand men once lay dead and forty-thousand lay wounded upon the gentle slopes of those quiet Pennsylvania hills. Did this horror really happen here? Did our country really do this to itself? And, now, have the lives of so many good and decent young men and women really been run through that despicable gauntlet described by Shilts? And–Shilts makes the point several times–how really committed are the gay liberationists to the best interests of gays in the military, rather than what the gay liberationists believe is in their best interests?

I served honorably in the United States Army. I was a soldier. Not a gay soldier or a white soldier or a Colorado soldier. Just a soldier. Period. That was, after-all, why I was there. But, that was only for two years. What about the career soldier who happens to be gay or lesbian? What about them? Does being a soldier necessarily preclude that that soldier may also be a human being? No, for heterosexual soldiers it doesn’t. But, what about us? What about the gay or lesbian soldier who is willing–and has and will continue–to die for their country? What about them, Strom?

Like I said, the more things change…

This entry was posted in Gays in the Military. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – General Peter Pace Comfortable in the Shadow of Strom Thurmond

  1. CharlieJ says:

    An AOL News poll showed nearly 240,000 votes as of 1:00pm EDT. The margin is two to one in favor of SUPPORT for General Pace’s comments regarding gays in the military.

    How do you feel about Pace’s comments?
    Agree 65% (more than 156,000)
    Disagree 33%
    Not sure 3%
    Total Votes: 238,800

    I applaud General Peter Pace for taking the correct stand on this matter. His comments are right on target. There is NO REASON for him to apologize to anyone. His personal beliefs are his own and NO ONE need apologize for their personal beliefs. While I agree that he should be loving and respectful in his statements and (more importantly) actions, being forced to accept and celebrate the choice of homosexual behavior is NOT something anyone should be confronted with — military or civilian.
    These gay advocacy groups need to sit down and shut up! There is NOTHING “outrageous” or “insensitive” in what General Pace said in the interview. I listened to part of his comments. He was soft-spoken and respectful, but also firm in his resolve. Pace answered one question with a very straightforward and truthful answer, “The US Military’s mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence, cooperation amongst its members, and the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the US military. I’ll leave it at that.”
    Homosexuality *is* an immoral act. It is NOT natural, normal or moral. The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity — all matters that point to trust, confidence and cooperation. General Pace should be applauded for standing his ground and speaking the truth.
    I, personally, plan to be active in the fight against these homosexual advocacy groups as they seek to villainize General Pace. Here’s hoping you will join the fight as well. It’s high time conservatives (especially Christians) stand up for our beliefs and convictions.

  2. georgeindenver says:

    Thanks, CharlieJ. Obviously, you’ve made my point: The more things change, the more they stay the same. And, indeed, who can argue with an AOL poll.

    Obviously, also, you’ve made a syllogistically unsound argument: “The lifestyle choice is rife with promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity…” My partner and I will celebrate our 25th anniversary together this year. Nope, no “…promiscuity, predatorship and infidelity…” here. Just love, devotion, commitment. And, oh, by the way, did you read the part about my honorable service to my country in the U.S. Army? Maybe I ought to ask for that back. You know, just kinda say, Whoops! sorry guys, you can give those two years of my life back to me now, ’cause the folks over at AOL can’t be fooled with.

    Incidentally, it’s a “life,” not a “lifestyle.”

    I was proud to serve. I would do it again, in spite of General Pace and all the other “hate the sin, love the sinner” hypocrites whose demagoguery defines them.

    Like I said, this is nothing new. The more things change…

  3. Shameful. That anyone would question FIRST how a person expresses their LOVE rather than acknowledge their willingness to lay that life down.

    Point – anyone that has not served and even -comments- negatively on a soldier’s sex life is simply out of line. You simple do not have the right to question someone who has gone into harm’s way for you. You embarrass those of us who honor George’s service when you do.

    Personally, why does it matter to YOU? It’s flat-out baffling, evil-seeming and beyond manners.

    Madness. Must be the indoctrination. Once we’re done in Iraq I hope our troops come home and liberate US.

  4. Stephen says:

    It should be painful, somehow, to be as stupid as the above CharlieJ and his friend, General Pace. Some neuron should fire that causes fire to shoot up and down the leg if you are that bigoted.

    To be fair, most dictionaries give ‘bigoted’ a definition akin to intolerance of other opinions. And I am not expressing an intolerance of opinions that differ from my own. Pace is welcome to his opinions, as is CharlieJ. However, when someone takes that opinion and, I don’t know, endangers the lives of people (assumption: there must exist at least one lesbian or one gay man in the military who may have confided in a dear friend, also in the military, of his/her sexual orientation), pain should result in that person’s leg.

    Or let’s assume no one in the military is gay. Okay. So now the violence (and there is violence in the military) can be turned on men who have a lisp from dental damage who are serving in the military. Or they can bottle it up and turn it on the Americans who live openly at home when they get back from serving their country, perhaps tying a gay man onto a fence to be left for dead.

    After all, if one of the more powerful generals in our country can say that it’s immoral (and immorality should be squashed, don’t you know), they can act with impunity to do whatever horrific thing they’d like to do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s