"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."
Anti-war protesters sitting behind Pace jeered the four-star general's remarks with some shouting, "Bigot!" That led Committee Chairman Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to abruptly adjourn the hearing and seal off the doors.
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.
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.
Pace's lengthy answer on gays was prodded by Sen. Tom Harkin, who said he found Pace's previous remarks as "very hurtful" and "very demoralizing" to homosexuals serving in the military.
In March, the Chicago Tribune reported that Pace said in a wide-ranging 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."
OK, for starters I disagree with General Pace's religious views about homosexuality. More than that, I disagree with his opinion that "the law of the land" ought not "condone" that which disagrees with his religious views, because I think that this elevates his religious views above those who disagree with them. (Which means that it would also tend to violate the Constitution.)
But unless I have lost my ability to be logical, this amounts to a disagreement, does it not?
Since when is a disagreement "hurtful" to anyone? The man stated his opinion, and it reflects what he says is his religious view that homosexuality is "counter to God's law."
What makes that hurtful? Either you believe in God or you don't. If you don't, then why on earth would you worry about what someone says God says? And if you do believe in God, then you either agree with General Pace's interpretation of God's law or you do not. You might have a different interpretation, as I do.
Suppose for a moment that you're a pagan, and you believe that your religious rights include the right to engage in what amount to sexual rites, including homosexual rites. (Rights are rites, right?) Would this be "hurtful" to others?
If so, then religion is inherently hurtful. I don't think it is.
Unless the goal is an orgy of mass delusions of persecution, I think people need to get over it.
Personally, I think this is just a convienent way to attack GEN Pace in a way that doesn't appear to be the sniping at a Bronze Star-winning Marine over war policy by a bunch of career politicians. In other words, Code Pink can't call Pace a Chickenhawk, so they yell "bigot" instead. It's easier to hit a guy like Pace over an issue like this than it is over war policy.
Colin · September 27, 2007 08:20 AM
I don't think General Pace is an idiot.
I think he's a smart, honest man. Gay or not, as a Marine I would expect General Pace to ask the question, am I a good Marine? Am I serving the Corps well? Do decisions about my personal life positively or negatively affect my service to the Corps?
Do I believe in God? If I do believe in God and in His Commandments must I follow God and His Commandments?
Is what I say the truth? Do I, have I, expressed my self truthfully? Do I have an obligation, to myself and to the men I serve with, to tell the truth?
Do I know that my beliefs, truthfully expressed, run counter to others who disagree with my beliefs? Do I remain honest, with myself and to the men I serve with regardless of the outcome? Or, do I conceal the truth? And, if I attempt to conceal the truth from men, can I conceal the truth from God? Would God know that I deliberately concealed the truth? If God knows and I know, what is it about the truth that should be hidden from other men? Could it be, that from time to time, the truth hurts?
Avoiding truth because it may be hurtful doesn't seem like a sound policy for running something as important as our nation's military. When men and women are putting their lives on the line, I think they should demand and expect nothing less than the truth. And any military leader that gives less than truthful answers should not lead.
General Pace. A hero in the culture war. Is there a "Bleeding Heart" award?
Maybe the real issue here is not "is it hurtful?", but how important is it to "not be hurtful?"
General Pace thinks I'm immoral. Well, that IS hurtful; I'd rather he think nice things about me just like I do.
The whole "hurtful" issue is a lingering part of our PC culture that says I have a right not to be offended by others' opinions and that their opinions should be censured to protect me from hearing things I don't want to hear.
tim maguire · September 27, 2007 12:50 PM
Tim Maguire put his finger on the reason that what Gen. Pace said it hurtful when he said, "General Pace thinks I'm immoral. ... that IS hurtful ... I have a right not to be offended by others opinions and their opinions should be censured to protect me..." Tim also identified this as a part of the PC culture.
Tim is absolutely right in saying that this is the problem. It is political correctness that is at the root of this problem and nothing else at all. In this, as in everything else, political correctness tries to place shackles on peoples ability to think and to speak their minds freely. No one has the right to be protected from hearing something he does not want to hear. He can always walk away if he does not want to hear it; PC is totally un-American and must be stopped.
Nothing about this exchange indicates that Gen. Pace was looking for an opportunity to disparage gays in the military. On the other hand, he was not going to be untruthful when ask a direct question either. One thing that many liberals have difficulty understanding is that when you question a man of integrity, you will almost certainly get an honest answer, even it is not the answer you were hoping to get. Liberals seem to be perpetually disappointed in this way.
Dr. D · September 27, 2007 03:28 PM
Gen. Pace offered a personal opinion, he was not presenting a DOD policy that "homosexuality is immoral". IIRC, there is no mention of morality in the policy, or in the Manual for Courts Martial.
The question is, does Gen. Pace uphold the policies set forth by Congress? He apparently does.
As for me, I wouldn't have a problem with gays in uniform, but many of my peers would. We are all hitting retirement age. The policy will almost surely change, but not by any action Code Pink would take.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Well said! I agree, General Pace's statements shouldn't have been called "hurtful", nor is believing in God inherently "hurtful" to anyone.
Unless, of course, you're looking for an "opportunity to be hurt".