09/26/2007
Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace Goes Out with a Bigoted Bang
In a Senate hearing today regarding the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace reiterated his comments about homosexual immorality, causing a five-minute shutdown of the hearing in which the doors to the chamber were briefly sealed. According to the AP, Senator Tom Harkin asked Pace if he wanted "a chance to amend his remarks in light of his retirement." This is Pace's last week on the job.
Said Pace: "Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes. We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it. 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."
Upon hearing those comments, anti-war protestors seated in the room reportedly began objecting and yelling, which led to the brief adjournment.
When the hearing resumed, Pace reportedly continued his remarks:
"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."
Senator Tom Harkin objected to Pace's comments as "hurtful" and "demoralizing".
Last March, Pace caused controversy when he declared that he believed "homosexuality is immoral" in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. He later said he regretted the comments but stopped short of apologizing.
The remarks ignited a national debate on gays in the military, prompting reactions, or unfortunate non-reactions in the case of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Their silence following Pace's remarks prompted outrage and demands for answers from gay rights groups. Eventually, both Clinton and Obama came forward with their thoughts on the issue.
Pace's remarks also led to a protest in Times Square by the "ACT UP Army", led by longtime activist Larry Kramer and attended by former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey.
It's anybody's guess whether the outgoing General's remarks will inspire the same kind of outrage the second time around.
According to reports, Harkin was stern with Pace after he made his statement: "Pace noted that the U.S. Military Code of Justice prohibits homosexual activity as well as adultery. Harkin said, 'Well, maybe we should change that.'"
Flashback
Gen. Peter Pace Says Military Shouldn't Condone "Immoral" Gays [tr]
General Pace Expresses Regret Over Anti-Gay Comments [tr]
Posted 6:59 PM EST by Andy in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Military, News, Peter Pace | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
You shall not kill?
Oh, never mind.
Posted by: david | Sep 26, 2007 7:12:33 PM
What a fucking insult to every gay person serving in our military. Pace is a disgrace.
(sorry right wingers. I know rhyming the names of your assholes gets your collective panties in a bunch)
Posted by: Marco | Sep 26, 2007 7:13:32 PM
Nice going, Gen. Pace. Good luck with that retirement, don't let the barracks door hit your ass on the way out.
I have read a number of things giving some hope that the younger generation of officers in the military moving up the ranks (if they don't get killed or wounded overseas), as well as more and more of the rank and file, are increasingly accepting of the reality that gays are all throughout the military. Change will come, and and dinosaurs like Pace can just go out to pasture and stay there, hopefully with his pea brain spinning as the military changes with the times. Would also help if the Congress and the next Democratic president get some balls.
Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Sep 26, 2007 7:23:41 PM
GEN Pace came to my school last year to speak. He was a great speaker and I came away from it thinking that he was one of the few officers I knew who seemed to have the well being of his subordinates as his first priority, and I appreciated that. When he came, it was a week or two after his first comments and everyone was talking about it at the time. It is unfortunate that this man who I respect as much as I do for his professional attitude has yet to grow enough to overcome his upbringing and realize the full effect of his words on thousands of soldiers.
Posted by: Adam | Sep 26, 2007 7:24:24 PM
Maybe one should demand the gay troops come home first.
Posted by: Uroskin | Sep 26, 2007 7:39:24 PM
It should be properly understood by all that these morality clauses in the military code are largely for PR purposes. 1) to reassure citizens that the military is not a power hungry entity trying to overthrow civilian govt. and 2) to reassure parents that their boys will be returned to them with their morals (virginity??) intact--lest the parents protest the draft or joining up.
In practice the military is much more anything goes.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Sep 26, 2007 7:52:15 PM
While I think of our soldiers as heroes for all they doing, especially carrying the weight of this war, I'm waiting for the Gay Soldier Hero to make his appearance. Maybe he'll save his fellow soldiers from a bombing or maybe he'll carry his superior back to camp, I don't know, but it'll happen.
I pray he has the strength to endure the media hype, the religious attacks and all the other stress when that time comes.
And I'm not saying that soldiers that come out or are open about their sexuality aren't heroes, I'm just speaking more of a military record aspect.
Posted by: Rob (lrdarystar) | Sep 26, 2007 7:54:33 PM
The military and naval leadership of the US is teeming with trigger happy christian jihadists, bigots and misogynists willing to kill someone, anyone, for Jesus and the President.
They update ready to activate plans to attack Iran, North Korea and Venezuela and present them Bush2, who like Bush1 (Panama, Kuwait-Iraq1) has no qualms about killing and butchering civilians. Their misleadership is responsible for crimes against humanity in Iraq including the mass murder of 650,000 civilians and resistance fighters,widespread illegal detentions, torture and crimes associated with the arming and pitting of religious and regional groups against each other in deadly communal warfare.
The US military command in Iraq, safe in bunkers in the Green Zone, refuses to aid gays caught by the Shiite and Sunni death squads and don’t bat an eye when our brothers are butchered. Here in the US their misleadership and bigotry are responsible for harassment, beatings and occasional lynchings of gay and lesbian service members. Their misleadership and brinksmanship constantly provoke powerful nations like the Russian Federation and the China and pose a threat to world peace.
If the Democrats and Republicans were real leaders instead of spineless chickenhawks in the service of the military industrial complex they'd dismiss all general officers who refused, as did JCS chief Pace, to disavow bigotry, misogyny, warmongering, and the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan, soon to be joined by Iran. Congress has the power to strip Pace of his rank and retirement benefits and send him to prison for inciting bigots in the military to harass, injure and lynch gays and lesbians. But will they?
Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED Organization | Sep 26, 2007 8:04:58 PM
Personally, I feel that gay people should not want to participate in a military which is oppressing and destroying the Iraqi people. But Pace aka General Jesus should not be allowed to impose his religious beliefs on anyone in the military. Since they wish to serve, our gay boys should be given the freedom to be themselves and to fuck and suck whomever they please as long as it involves consenting adults of which I'm sure they have no trouble finding.
Posted by: the queen | Sep 26, 2007 8:06:41 PM
so according to his version of his god's law, blowing guys is shameful but blowing guys to smithereens is noble...
if he's so god-fearing, then he truly believes in the Hell that he's destined to spend eternity.
Posted by: A.J | Sep 26, 2007 8:33:11 PM
when they make the movie of this nightmare administration ... nobody will believe our country sunk this low with people like him in the highest places .... this man has no honor .... or respect for the many gay and lesbian officers I am sure he knows
He is KNOWINGLY demoralizing TROOPS in battle with his comments. While he may be in line with official policy, he is AT WORK saying these things.
Imagine the bosses in your company being allowed to do this???
Disgusting man in disgusting times.
Posted by: RJP3 | Sep 26, 2007 9:23:03 PM
I'm asking for a Senate Resolution condemning this type of speech on the floor of the Senate.
Posted by: tjwdraws | Sep 26, 2007 9:35:32 PM
Once again... what the fuck do "god's laws" have to do with American law?
NOTHING!! At least in principal (and according to a little thing called the Constitution). Why aren't these archaic asshole just handed their papers and dismissed?
I wonder... does the military ever serve shellfish?
Posted by: Roy | Sep 26, 2007 9:39:17 PM
Leviticus actually tells men to KILL other men if those men are caught enjoying themselves physically/sexually together/
PLEASURE is punished by DEATH
If these people really believe in the bible, then they would have to admit that the hangings in Iran are ok by the word of their God.
But they do not believe the bible has to followed as the word of God.
They cherry pick to maintain status and power for the majority by terrorizing the sexual minority (before it was blacks, and later women).
REMEMBER ... if they believe the bible is the word of God, they really believe that they have the god given right to kill gays.
Well if not kill - then beat up.
Or legislate against.
Or descriminate against.
Christ came to wipe away the old ways - including this type of unchristian teaching. When you follow a religion that believes anal sexual pleasuring is a bigger crime than murder ... you really have been duped.
Posted by: RJP3 | Sep 26, 2007 10:21:52 PM
Apparently, Roy won’t be winning the Gay Legal Genius Award. Let's assume "god's laws" have zilch to do with American law or the UCMJ. If those two codes represent absolutes, then neither the former nor the latter presently require anyone to consider homosexuality normal or to cease from voicing an opinion to the contrary. In which case, the personal basis for Pace's stance on sexual ethics has no bearing: The stance itself squares with current law in both spheres, military and civilian.
On the other hand, if American law and the UCMJ aren’t absolutes, then any argument based on them or "the Constitution" must be, at present, self defeating. In that case, sexual ethics are whatever The People say, right?
And what to they say? If tomorrow America held a direct, democratic referendum on the question whether homosexuality is immoral, homosexuals would lose. I doubt multiplying the number of atheists in the country would change the vote much. If not, what would guys like Roy say when the shellfish objection loses currency? One thing remains for homosexuals to do: Convince the overwhelming majority of Americans that homosexuality is moral.
Best of luck.
Posted by: Will | Sep 26, 2007 10:31:06 PM
Remember when in HIGH SCHOOL you learned a little about needing to understand whty TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY was bad and unamerican.
Well just read Will's post.
Justice for minority groups, rights for minority group's, freedom for minority group's must never go up for popular vote.
That is something the wise founders of our country understood. This is a REPUBLIC not a direct DEMOCRACY.
The design is to intentionally WEED OUT and LIMIT the power of the negative and beastly masses. Honest. (Of course good woman and black men were out of luck back then too.)
Change in this country comes from electing wise men and women who can lead the masses - legally if need be.
That is how slaves were set free, and women were allowed to vote. It sure was not popular choice by the voting public.
WISE UP WILL.
Posted by: RJP3 | Sep 26, 2007 10:45:12 PM
I was going to call him an asshole, but assholes actually serve a useful purpose. Unlike General Pace who can just go crawl back to his church and pray to his make believe deities.
Posted by: homer | Sep 26, 2007 11:12:12 PM
Just another great example of how completely brain washing religion can be. This guy blatantly spews that gays are immoral - with complete disregard for those who are currently serving. And all this cause "the Bible tells me so".
We won't see the end to wars like Iraq until we destroy the control of religion. Those in positions of authority (and power) will continue to exploit "belief and faith" to their advantage and agenda. A few thousand dead means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Any day you think you matter to them is another day you have fallen for their lies.
Posted by: Mark440 | Sep 26, 2007 11:13:21 PM
We might also add that miscegenation laws were struck down by courts, and not by a majority vote either...
Funny how some of these Repubs love to throw any of these controversial issues to a "majority vote," forgetting that Dubya was first elected NOT by a majority vote...Gore won the popular vote.
Posted by: tom | Sep 26, 2007 11:15:50 PM
“Wise up,” RJP3 says. I’ll try. RJ – Mind if I call you that for short? – I haven’t forgotten my early ‘civics’ lessons, have you? I mean, did you forget while typing your comment? Did your high school government class cover the 17th Amendment?
Right after your apt, albeit anachronistic, reminder “this is a republic, not a democracy,” you proceeded to say “...change in this country comes from *electing* wise men and women...” [asterisks mine, for emphasis]. RJ: How do Americans elect representatives? AFAIK, save the POTUS/VP and rare appointments to fill seats vacated due to improprieties in airport bathrooms and deaths, every elected official in our country wins a seat by simple majority vote. Two presidential elections ago, many homosexuals bitched about that. Care to differ?
I know it hasn’t always been so: Pre-1913, U.S. Senators were appointed by state legislatures, that is, before the same egalitarian spirit which today supports the gay rights movement took hold in America. That’s the spirit with which you appear at odds right now.
Heck, I’m no fan of majoritarian tyrrany, either, but do you deny my previous assertion: If the majority continues to spike homosexuality as immoral, no political points for gays?
A better, or at least more interesting, question for you is: How can you possibly justify protecting minority rights? Surely, you don’t think the ethical opinions of all minorities should be endorsed by law. Otherwise, you’d have to permit homophobes from renting apartments to gays. Not that I wish any harm upon minorities, but now that “god’s laws” are in the historical ash heap and present law isn’t absolute, what’s your basis for insisting upon protection for minorities? Are you an elitist, an aristocrat? If so, who should rule? How do we know who the “wise men and women” are? Shall we ID them by virtue of their agreement with you or their sexual orientation?
Posted by: Will | Sep 26, 2007 11:32:40 PM
Do you know BHhouzan? Is new; is done.
Posted by: BHhouzan | Sep 27, 2007 12:04:15 AM
Tom, who, like RJ, holds democracy suspect, chimes in with “...miscegenation laws were struck down by courts...” Ah yes, the courts, another fair invention of the “homophobic bigots” who started this grand secular experiment. Tom: Did you favor confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito? Never mind that last question. How were they appointed? By the President, of course, who was elected to his first term, perhaps to your dismay, by the Electoral College, which I admit rarely occurs. But it doesn't upset me much 'cuz I like the EC. Shoot, I’d like to see the 17th Amendment repealed, but that’s just my unpopular opinion.
Ultimately, both Roberts and Alito were confirmed by the Senate, which, save the VP, is full of legislators elected by simple majority vote. Hence, despite federal courts being relatively immune to rapid change, in our system, they take shape according to the votes of legislators whose seats depend on currying the favor of simple majorities back home. If things weren’t this way, gays might already have the duct tape of sexual freedom shutting every homophobic mouth. You know, so guys like Pace can’t speak their minds without risking doing time in the federal pen for committing a hate crime.
We come full circle, don’t we? I’m not saying I favor pure democracy, but again, chuck it and “god’s laws.” What’s better? The current system? It caters to majorities. Another system? Then which one?
Any ideas?
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 12:07:39 AM
dear lord ...
we do not elect presidents by popular vote
even direct vote elections are not popular votes of a diversity of candidates
we are voting from the candidates the elite provide
you need to change the minds of the elites
so that they pust for justice for miniority groups.
As for the comment about which minority groups ... is an insult to the gay community and exposes you for what you are.
I think gay people should worry about what the straight people think. Gay people should not think they are so different that the straight world is any more or less moral. The gay movement was not just about same-sex sex ... it was about fighting back to claim much consentual adult sexuality as moral from those who would call it immoral.
While immorality is spread out across humanity, the gay movement was about letting it be known we would not let our sexuality with other consentual adults as immoral - even if that is kink, fetish, leather, bondage, S&M, or whatever else entertains a world of people.
But many worry that the straights will label us immoral - they forget they already do.
Posted by: RJP3 | Sep 27, 2007 12:22:05 AM
Before anyone questions my description of what the "gay movement" was and still is.
The "gay movement" is the greatest single accomplishment of the larger movement it is just a splinter group of ... the SEXUAL REVOLUTION.
So the gay movement always was about those great sexual freedom goals, not just gay acceptance as moral.
Sexual Freedom as moral was the goal: Freedom for every kink and fetish that two or more consenting adults can enjoy together to not be labelled as dark or bad or immoral. The gay movement came out of that. LONG LIVE FOLSOM.
Posted by: rjp3 | Sep 27, 2007 12:30:58 AM
That rustling sound you hear is another worthless Human Rights Champagne fund outraged paper airplane er press release that no one will read hurling through the air from the top of the multimillion dollar 8-story castle. Matt Foreman, the head of NGLTF was also arrested at that demonstration months ago in Times Square. But his equal in title only at HRC, Joe Solmonese apparently has that rare skin disorder that makes sunlight toxic. Apparently he's and HRC are also allergic to doing anything but crying into their champagne about bad bad men like Pace who repeatedly demonize us in public. They'd like to organize a protest, embarrass Pace whereever he goes, pay for an ad in the NY Times or USA Today with examples of all the gay and lesbian military heroes that prove him an ass and bigot but, hey, they have their annual circle jerk er national dinner coming up and 3000 cult members have already bought all the tickets and there's a waiting list for others and oh, no, it's happening...I....can't....move...
"I AM JOE LOCUTUS OF THE GAY BORG. WE WILL ASSIMILATE YOU. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!"
Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 27, 2007 11:18:26 AM
Will: While you are obviously enjoying your first semester of law school, I suggest you immediately sign up for a class in understanding sarcasm.
Posted by: Roy | Sep 27, 2007 11:39:16 AM
"...(P)roscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it"
-Thomas Jefferson
(Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1789).
Interestingly enough, and while I most certainly abhor PP for his stupidity and willingness to serve blindly, the tenets of one of our country's founding fathers most certainly provide him with the capacity for believing what he deems worthy, without the public or any institution telling him what is or is not.
HOWEVER...equally important and historically proven:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes"
-Thomas Jefferson (Letter to von Humboldt, 1813).
These are just a few letters from ONE man who happened to be one of the founding fathers of this country, but I find it absolutely astounding that people spend such an inordinate amount of time debating biblical verse, while effectively missing the bigger picture.
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Sep 27, 2007 12:18:28 PM
Is it just me or does WILL sound like yet another troll from Focus on the Family?
Posted by: peterparker | Sep 27, 2007 12:18:53 PM
Roy’s having trouble making up his mind. After accusing me of missing 10th grade civics, he now concludes I’m a first-year law student. By this turn of mind, he supplies ample evidence of his vast intellectual range and ability to argue on point.
And by that, I prove he’s right about my inability to detect sarcasm.
Maybe Roy’s a genius after all.
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 2:26:41 PM
Will: Spoken like a true lawyer, albeit a poor one. Could you please point out exactly where I have "accused you of missing 10th grade civics?"
I made one comment about the hypocrisy of Pace's statement, and you felt the need to jump all over me. I think Peterparker's right about you - you are a troll and a bad sport.
Posted by: Roy | Sep 27, 2007 2:36:00 PM
Sorry, PeterParker, I assumed this comment thread to be a free speech zone. Why do homosexuals get so uptight when someone disagrees with them? They hear an opposing argument, and rather than address it, out come the smears:
“Hey, loverboys, looks like Jim Dobson has joined the convo. Hnyuck, hnyuck.”
Nope, PP, I just happen to be among the vast number of people who reject your view of sexual ethics, especially as it touches public policy. Forget JD, his co-religionists, and “god’s laws.” After you’ve cleared your head of distractions, you might try advancing a rational argument, but I realize that wouldn’t be in keeping with the homosexual approach to public discourse, which is, when in doubt, just keep screaming, “Bigot!”
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 2:53:13 PM
Roy, you’re starting to bore me: I won’t wrangle too much here, but your last remarks came in reply to mine in response to RJP3, who explicitly accused me of missing high school civics. Prior to that, you offered your take on Constitutional Law. But let’s avoid niggling, shall we? Forgive me for assuming your comment on how presidential elections and candidacies work implied some level of agreement or participation in the thread that touched upon basic civics. Can we get back to the point?
If voicing disagreement equals jumping all over you, then mea culpa, but so what? Fact is, so far, you make no sense. If you think you’ve established that Pace is a hypocrite, you’re deluded. You just don’t like his opinion and have no response beyond name calling.
Care to take another shot?
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 3:05:45 PM
apparently WILL thought he would swoop down on us and dazzle us with his legal perspicacity. unfortunately his tortured and tortuous rhetoric does nothing but erect false premises upon which to hang his fallacious arguments. consider me abysmally unimpressed.
clearly this little twit is a shill from a right-wing blog or some such publication. need anyone humor him? why?
Posted by: nic | Sep 27, 2007 3:15:51 PM
I extend my thanks to NIC for his clear refutation. I’m impressed at how well mere denunciation works around here. Here, in the land of rationality and irreligion, all one need do to dispense with an argument is follow NIC’s formula:
To refute your opponent:
1) First, extend left-handed compliment to opponent.
2) Call opposing argument “tortured rhetoric.”
3) If that doesn’t work, add “torturous” for double emphasis.
4) Make like Pope: Declare all your opponent’s premises false.
5) After 1-4, it follows, his arguments must be fallacious.
6) Proclaim yourself unimpressed.
7) To show yourself a good sport, call opponent a “little twit” and a “shill.”
8) Urge others to ignore him.
9) Whatever you do, never argue on point.
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 3:30:44 PM
Yes, Nic, agreed. My eyes are glazed over with his double-talk.
I'm still amazed by Pace's remark, "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."
So his god is the arbiter of law? No freedom of religion here? American law must be dictated by his upbringing?
What a ridiculous old man. Good riddance.
Posted by: Gregg | Sep 27, 2007 3:36:11 PM
"Roy’s having trouble making up his mind. After accusing me of missing 10th grade civics, he now concludes I’m a first-year law student." Posted by: Will
yes, roy, let us not niggle over fact.
Posted by: nic | Sep 27, 2007 3:38:19 PM
NIC ventures to add clairvoyance to his argumentative repertoire. But his crystal ball has shattered: I’m not a law student or a lawyer. Just imagine the person who disagrees with you to be a concerned citizen who thinks your arguments are dumb. Imagine no gay bigots. It’s easy if you try.
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 3:45:57 PM
will,
you really missed the point of my last comment completely, didn't you?
and, no, dear. my previous comment was not meant as a refutation. this is my formula to dispense with an argument:
1. do not engage the person who proffers the argument.
you obviously came here spoiling for a fight with an abundance of implacability in tow. you cannot change my mind, nor i yours. so why bother?
you've considered me unimpressed. now, consider me disengaged.
my best to your bigoted right-wing friends. just imagine....
Posted by: nic | Sep 27, 2007 4:28:57 PM
Sure, NIC. You’re dismissed. Sweet dreams.
NIC claims I missed his point; sure, that’s because he didn’t make one.
NIC doesn’t understand that I don’t try to convince people who refuse to think. What hope of that? He should also know I don’t give a shit whether he’s impressed. His opinion of me, as his opinion on sexual ethics, is useless if not rationally defensible. Any person like NIC, who dispenses with an argument by refusing to engage, must be lazy or a stupid bigot.
I arrived here after searching the blogosphere for reaction to Pace’s remarks. Never heard of this place before that. If posting a comment that doesn’t toe the homo party line amounts to “spoiling for a fight,” so be it. Welcome to a public blog. Put a password on it if you want an ideological cloister.
So far, nobody has advanced a sound argument to justify condemning Pace or forcing the military – let alone the entire nation – to applaud or condone homosexuality. In the absence of a rational defense of what you believe, please don’t bitch when someone keeps disagreeing with you.
In this place, people appear to hold that if a homo serves in the military, everybody else must accept, respect, and accommodate their personal opinion on sexual ethics. Heaven forbid that person should suffer the insult of hearing an opposing point of view. On the other hand, Pace has served for decades, but that counts for nothing. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he has been asked for his opinion on a specific policy, yet his position on sexual ethics amounts to bigotry. Anyone who can’t see the obvious contradiction must be blind. Think about it: Does this farcical logic work with racism or any other ethical issue?
Again, let’s assume Pace’s “upbringing” and “god’s law” carry no weight in the debate. I presume your upbringing and religious views have nothing to do with how you justify your stance. So, what is it? I beg you... No, scratch that. I dare you to share it.
Or you could just call names and cop out like NIC.
Posted by: Will | Sep 27, 2007 5:53:31 PM
the christian Taliban telling everyone how to act and whose god to obey.
Posted by: lou | Sep 28, 2007 12:38:24 AM
goodbye pee pace, don't let the door knob hit you where YOUR good lord split you.
will,
from a logical point of view, "god's laws" are neither here nor there. a belief in a god is, perforce, irrelevant.
you cannot link two separate concepts apropos of nothing. this is why i said that you erected false premises.
you said, "If those two codes represent absolutes, then neither the former nor the latter presently require anyone to consider homosexuality normal or to cease from voicing an opinion to the contrary."
we cannot presuppose that "those two codes represent absolutes." the "law of the land" does not support the case that homosexuality is against the law or not normal. the USMJ exists on its own.
you said, "In which case, the personal basis for Pace's stance on sexual ethics has no bearing: The stance itself squares with current law in both spheres, military and civilian." obviously, no.
you said, "On the other hand, if American law and the UCMJ aren't absolutes, then any argument based on them or "the Constitution" must be, at present, self defeating. In that case, sexual ethics are whatever The People say, right?"
again, no and no. if the first leg of your argument falters, it is hard to soldier on. moreover, in what way is the constitution (the law of the land) inconsistent with the existing laws regarding homosexuals? not only does the equal protection clause apply, but so does that worrisome (for right-wingers) phrase in the declaration of independence (all mean are created equal... ad nauseum -- for you and your brethren) which has served as the lynch pin for all equal protection laws since the mid-1800s.
and what in hell does "at present" mean in that sentence? did you just cut and paste your manifesto?
further, since lincoln was president, what "the people say" has not mattered all that much. to your way of thinking slavery might still be legal, women would still be disenfranchised, and the poll tax might still be preventing minorities from voting. but you would be happy with that, wouldn't you, sweets? grrrrr, (you say) curse those activist judges (who, by the way, were appointed by duly elected members of both parties).
as much as you huff and puff, you are on the losing side of the social equation. i think that that is the reason for the invective, the last hurrah of the religious right. come over to the gay side, will. you know you want to. else why would you be lurking here?
Posted by: nic | Sep 28, 2007 5:20:59 AM
oops. of course, that's "all men"...
Posted by: nic | Sep 28, 2007 5:32:29 AM
NIC should have continued his dogmatic slumber.
Now, I have to spend multiple posts untangling that jumbled mess of ignorance and absurdity he just posted.
To start with, I should thank NIC for writing “...‘god’s laws’ are neither here nor there. a [sic] belief in a god is... irrelevant.” I’ve been pleading for someone to proceed from this premise since I arrived. Unfortunately, NIC follows this up with a pile of nonsense, which I’ll address next.
I’ll keep my first rejoinder focused so as to avoid overwhelming NIC’s logic center:
After calling belief in god irrelevant, NIC claims (for the moment, anyway) that sexual ethics do not depend upon what The People say. Putting it another way, NIC argues that “the constitution (the law of the land)” conflicts with existing law regarding homosexuals. And what does he cite as a basis for this? First, he points to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which I will set aside for the moment in order to deal with his second line of support, the Declaration of Independence.
I remind you: NIC says belief in god has no bearing on the debate. Then he cites the Declaration of Independence, which states that “all men are created equal... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...” That NIC calls “the lynch pin [sic] for all equal protection laws since the mid-1800s.” (It’s beside my point, but here I’m tempted to ask, “What? You mean like Dred Scott?”)
Point 1: This should be obvious, but the Declaration is neither part of the Constitution (the [supreme] law of the land) nor any other federal statute.
Point 2: When NIC associates the source of equal rights with the “Creator” of the Declaration, what exactly does he mean? Darwinian evolution? If so, then let him explain how evolution endows anybody with “rights” and precisely where and what those “rights” are. Does he consider every sexual proclivity a human right or just his own? Should 8-year-olds vote? I might add that reading Darwinian evolution (b. 1859) into a document from 1776 would be a neat trick. If NIC doesn’t point to evolution and would prefer to declare himself a creationist, then right after declaring god irrelevant, NIC decided to contradict himself by claiming equal rights come from god. Brilliant move.
Point 3: The Declaration of Independence was composed and later signed by many a notorious slave master. Moreover, would NIC like to venture a guess how many signatories would have approved enlisting open homosexuals in General Washington’s army? How many would have considered it an insult for Washington to call homosexuality immoral? I know NIC disregards The People (when it suits him), but how about public opinion at the time? Asking such questions answers them.
Point 4: The signers of the Declaration of Independence who survived the American War for Independence created a constitution that counted African slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation, denied the franchise to women, and, among many other things, did not include the 14th Amendment. How can NIC justify reading his godless and incoherent pro-homo egalitarianism into the Declaration?
A lot more could be said about the stupidity of NIC citing the Declaration, but why bother?
Nice try, NIC. I’ll be back later to deal with the rest of your silly ass nonsense.
Posted by: Will | Sep 28, 2007 1:15:08 PM
will,
and still you're lurking. hmmmm.
you just get ridiculouser and ridiculouser. i'm beginning to think you're more than a little demented. you are hereby dis-invited to my gay party. now go on, beat up a queer for your god. i'm sure that will make you feel better. just remember that a hate-crimes bill passed the senate.
Posted by: nic | Sep 28, 2007 6:09:04 PM
Apparently, words aren’t NIC’s forte:
“Ridiculouser?” Oy vey! Stick a dash in there or something.
Me, still “lurking?” Some secret I am, commenting away as I do.
I’m bummed (no pun intended) that NIC "disinvited" me to his party. So much for the glorious Rainbow Flag of diversity, being a good sport, and converting me to “the gay side?”
NIC needn’t worry about me beating up gays for God. Sheesh, talk about going over the top in a comment box. One just isn’t arguing with a homosexual unless he hears repeated and groundless accusations of the intent to do physical harm.
But contrary to what some would have us believe, advancing an argument that makes a group of people feel uncomfortable about their stance on sexual ethics doesn’t equate with committing or inciting violence against them. I, for one, feel satisfied speaking my mind under protection of the First Amendment and remain hopeful that the culture will return to sanity.
And if that protection I mentioned ever goes away under the auspices of expanded “hate-crime” laws (as some desire), then the death knell will have rung over the U.S. Constitution, which every American pledges to defend. In that case, at least two fundamental liberties will have been overthrown, and in the absence of their speedy restoration, I suppose some will conclude the time has come for a new Declaration of Independence.
Who will destroy America and her basic liberties to satisfy their own lusts? I hope nobody would, but regardless, freedom of speech and religion are not negotiable.
Posted by: Will | Sep 28, 2007 9:34:49 PM
Re: Will
Please don't feed the trolls.
And that's all I'll have to say about 'him'.
Posted by: Roy | Sep 28, 2007 11:22:11 PM
and even more ridiculouser.
i'm done with you.
Posted by: nic | Sep 29, 2007 5:26:01 AM
[Laughter and a smile]
Posted by: Will | Sep 29, 2007 2:29:46 PM
I wonder if General Pace condoned Defense Department policy during Gulf War I (1991) which involved the leasing of a cruise ship, docked in Bahrain, & U.S. military personnel of both sexes were rotated through. It was all about sexual intercourse by unmarried & married service members (without spouses).
Posted by: Bob Zuley | Sep 29, 2007 5:07:04 PM