In recent years, Americans attitudes about gays in the military have changed considerably. A majority of the public, like a majority of those in uniform, believe gays should not be thrown out of the Armed Forces, simply on the basis of sexual orientation. Every Democratic presidential candidate supports scrapping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and no one seems to find their position particularly controversial.
And yet, we occasionally get stark reminders about the mentality of those who insist that discrimination is justified.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, caused a stir at a Senate hearing Wednesday when he repeated his view that gay sex is immoral and should not be condoned by the military. […]
“Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes,” he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon’s 2008 war spending request.
“We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it,” he added. “And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.”
He added his belief that “sex, other than between man and a woman inside the bonds of marriage, is a sin.”
Now, I’m not entirely clear on whether Americans are still allowed to criticize generals who make misguided pronouncements, but Pace’s comments are hard to defend. The notion that we, as a secular nation that honors the separation of church and state, would base military policy based on a general’s interpretation of “God’s law” is a recipe for disaster.
That said, and with the acknowledgement that Pace’s bizarre perspective is misguided, the outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did leave the door slightly ajar on DADT.
Maybe I’m reading too much between the lines here, but Pace conceded that gays are already serving in the military — a fact he didn’t seem too terribly concerned about. Does Pace believe the existing DADT policy should remain inviolate? Surprisingly enough, no.
The hearing resumed about five minutes later in which Pace said he would be supportive of efforts to revisit the Pentagon’s policy so long as it didn’t violate his belief that sex should be restricted to a married heterosexual couple.
“I would be very willing and able and supportive” to changes to the policy “to continue to allow the homosexual community to contribute to the nation without condoning what I believe to be activity — whether it to be heterosexual or homosexual — that in my upbringing is not right,” Pace said.
It’s subtle, but that’s actually a shift in policy. Pace is basically saying gays should be allowed to serve, as long as they don’t have sex. Existing policy says gays can serve, just so long as they stay in the closet. Pace, oddly enough, seems to arguing for a slightly more progressive policy.
Pace is effectively arguing that the military should have a policy based on behavior, not sexual orientation. The U.S., under this approach, wouldn’t have to automatically discharge openly-gay soldiers.
Progress?