Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave an interview on Monday to the Chicago Tribune. Among the topics discussed was the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has been a part of the military for over a decade. The present policy is that a person will not be asked his sexual orientation and does not have to tell provided that he or she does not engage in homosexual activity. This was a compromise position enacted in 1993 under President Bill Clinton after criticism erupted over his attempt to overturn the longstanding tradition of not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military.
Pace said he supports the present position about homosexuality. He then added, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." He then compared homosexuality to adultery which, he stated that in his view was likewise immoral.
Immediately General Pace was criticized for his position and there is incredible political pressure for him to retract his statement and apologize for what he has said. Here’s my problem with what is going on. First of all, I happen to agree with the General. In fact, there are a great number of Americans who would also agree with what he has said concerning homosexuality. In a free country we are within our rights to hold to our convictions and moral standards. We have a right to publicly and privately express our moral beliefs. He never said this was the position of the military or necessarily this is why the military has this position. The stated reason for the policy is to not disrupt the cohesion in combat and would also hurt morale and recruitment.
Secondly, why is it that homosexuality has suddenly become the new protected class? We have blurred the lines in our arguments and have tried to join together racial issues such as discrimination against blacks or other minorities and moral issues such as homosexuality. Homosexuality is a behavior and a lifestyle, it is not a race. We should not allow the thought police to put it into the same protected category as racial discrimination or racism. One can have a view of homosexuality as inherently sinful or immoral or whatever and not be a bigot or homophobe. One does not need to go to sensitivity training or to rehab if he believes that it is wrong (or if he happen not to like homosexuals).
I believe there are a lot of complex reasons and circumstances that causes homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. However, explaining some of the reasons behind the behavior does not mean that we have to then accept the behavior as normal and moral. I could give a detailed analysis on why someone is an alcoholic (dare I use the word “drunk”), looking at his family background, circumstances etc., and still be completely justified to say that the behavior is harmful and that person should change his behavior. Likewise, I could study all the reasons and circumstances that have lead a person to homosexual behavior including the increased health risks and still be perfectly justified in saying that the behavior is wrong and the person would be better to change. (In addition to added sexually transmitted diseases there are a host of psychological problems known to exist among practicing homosexuals.)
My point here isn’t to debate homosexuality (although I’d be willing to discuss it if you like). Rather to address a larger issue that a person should not be automatically castigated for speaking out his personal moral opinions. Opinions I might add that have been held by many throughout history. I hope that the General sticks to his guns and doesn’t cave under the thought police and the politically correct crowd.
7 comments:
of the hundreds of immoral but not illegal acts, it's ridiculous that Pace thinks that "we should not condone" this particular one.
for me, the issue here is less about homosexuality, than about the attempt to legislate morality. especially such a narrow and particular segment of it.
you and i are free to banter until we're blue in the face about this stuff, but if he's speaking on authority as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he has a responsibility to keep his personal morality out of the discussion.
if he wants to rant about this stuff in plainclothes, on his blog, that's freedom of speech. Doing it in an interview as an officer, implies a connection between his personal views and the rest of the armed forces. since what he's saying contradicts their stated policy, i don't think he has that right.
Adam, I respectfully disagree with you. Granted it may have been wise for him to consider the impact his words were going to have while in the uniform and in his position, he was very clear that he was giving his opinion on the issue not stating it as military policy.
We may differ on this issue. However, I don't see the need to divide "public" policy and "personal" opinion. All legislature is based on someone's morality. It is just a matter if you happen to agree with that morality or not. Even traffic laws are based on an assumption that it is for the common safety to have certain laws as opposed to others.
He has a right to speak his mind and others have a right to critcize him. What concerns me is when we start to say that certain speech is off limits.
i know we disagree about the issue at hand, so i'm deliberately trying to stay away from it.
I'd say that there are far more pragmatic reasons for traffic laws than "someone's morality". my right to speed directly impinges on other citizen's right to live. my right to not wear a seatbelt will ultimately cost the state more money to clean me off the pavement, than if i die inside my car.
i agree that saying certain speech is off limits goes against the freedoms we enjoy. i don't see that as the issue, here, though. The outcry against Isaiah Washington, or Ann Coulter isn't an issue of them being censored, it's an issue of their morals and values being misaligned with their audiences.
similarly, I think it's reasonable to expect such wisdom from a military official of that rank.
The majority of laws exist for the efficiency of the state that enacts them, and can be measured against that. Personal morality may often run counter to legality (e.g., suicide being illegal), but that doesn't change the state's need to have such laws.
Conversely, society exerts pressure on celebrities based on their shared values and morality, regardless of the legality of their speech, as is the case with Coulter and Washington.
"The majority of laws exist for the efficiency of the state that enacts them, and can be measured against that. Personal morality may often run counter to legality (e.g., suicide being illegal), but that doesn't change the state's need to have such laws."
I likewise disagree. Our laws do not exist for the efficiency of the state, but for the protection of the governed. Or, at least that's how this nation was founded. Our laws, based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic, were founded upon the notion that we as the citizenry consent to be governed and this (meaning the laws) is how far the government is to go. Going beyond that, goes outside of the "consent" the "governed" provided. Government does not exist to rule us; it exists to serve us.
As to the issue of Gen. Pace. True, his position requires a reticence at certain points. Yet, his donning of his military uniform does not require him to shed his personal morality. In constitutional terms, so long as his statement was made in his personal capacity, he is within his rights. More to the point, he has transgressed no legislation of morality b/c (a) he has no legislative power and (b) the homosexual lifestyle is not yet a protected class of persons. The homsexual lifestyle is just that: a lifestyle. It is not an inherent, immutable condition like race or gender. It is choice to be made, despite the agenda of NGLBT and others to suggest it is immutable.
Finally, Dave makes a correct point: legislation is filled with morality, the question is whose. Unless you operate in a postmodern construct where everything is relative, hence nothing is absolute, life is governed by a perceived set of morals. I should say, individuals are governed by a perceived set of morals. Legislators are people (mostly), ergo they live their lives within the worldview (what they see the world through) of their choice. Amorality is as much of a religion as morality. Atheism requires as much, if not more, faith than theism. Thus, the proposition that we legislate with only the secular is a false positive.
Personal morality cannot run counter to legality in a system of absolute truth. Of course, if truth be relative, what good would our laws be?
dave-
i respect you as well, and it's always a pleasure talking about things like this with you, because you've always thought long and hard about them. you have the most considered faith of anyone i've ever met.
j. grant-
'the protection of the governed' is certainly a nice idea, and certainly a better stated purpose than efficiency. nonetheless, i don't see any way in which we need protection from homosexuality.
you've guessed correctly, i am for these intents and purposes, an atheist. i find your categorization of all atheists as moral relativists disturbingly cliché, and contradictory to my experience. you're right, laws must be based on morality, although i disagree with the idea that personal morality is more important than collective morality in determining what is legal (not what is right).
"you're right, laws must be based on morality, although i disagree with the idea that personal morality is more important than collective morality in determining what is legal (not what is right)."
Then who's morality? How do we have a collective morality apart from a personal morality? If personal morality is held by the individual, and collective morality is that defined by a group of individuals, collective morality requires a personal morality from which to collect.
If you assume that not everything that is legal is not also morally right, at what point does legality and moral rightness overlap, if ever? Is it possible for the collective morality of the populace to define murder as legal AND right? Does such a definition remove the moral wrongness of homicide? In short, is man the summation of all things simply b/c we vote it to be the case?
"nonetheless, i don't see any way in which we need protection from homosexuality."
I forgot to add this: If there be no need to have protection FROM the homosexual lifestyle, then there is equally no need to have protection FOR the homosexual lifestyle.
Post a Comment