It is amazing how well the General Peter Pace episode turned out. The underlying homophobia of the military's gay ban was fully exposed, prominent politicians challenged the nation's highest military officer, and for the first time leading presidential contenders openly stated that homosexuality was not immoral. It was a breakthrough moment.
Recall that Gen. Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. 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 it 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."
Since he offered no other reason for the policy, the Tribune not unreasonably wrote that Pace supported the gay ban because he thought homosexuality was immoral.
When Pace was attacked by gay groups for his comments and learned of the strong disagreement by Republican Sen. John Warner of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pace expressed "regret," said he was stating his personal moral views, and offered no apology. He further claimed that the military gay ban "does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts." But of course it does. Why else may heterosexuals talk about their sexuality but homosexuals not do so?
Furthermore, Pace again offered no rationale for the policy--none of this absurd pretense about maintaining discipline or unit cohesion or a fear of showers.
Pace's comparison of gays with adulterers does not even survive casual examination. Pace said, "Military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct." But the compoarison is too broad because a single gay serviceman might have sex with another single serviceman of the same rank. No marriage is violated, no third party is harmed. Or a gay serviceman might have sex with someone outside the military. The military does not prosecute servicemen who have sex with civilian women.
And Pace's argument is too narrow because there is a great deal of "immorality" that the military tolerates. Many conservative Christians regard abortion, even birth control as immoral, but does the military punish people who use birth control? Some religions view any oral and anal sex as immoral. But does the military prosecute men for giving or receiving oral sex by a woman? And if not, what exactly is the difference between oral sex performed on a man by a man or by a woman.
This shows once again that when many otherwise intelligent people try to talk about homosexuality it overloads their mental circuits and blocks their ability to think clearly. They lose their ability to analyze their own arguments and say all kinds of illogical nonsense.
It would take a whole separate column to follow the adventures of Senators Clinton and Obama through the political thickets of responding to Pace's comments. Asked on ABC News about Pace's view of homosexual immorality, Clinton's ambiguous response, "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," was no profile in courage. Obama was no better: Newsday reported that he declined on three separate occasions to respond at all.
Later a Clinton spokesman said she "obviously" disagreed with Pace. No, it wasn't obvious. The next night her campaign tried again, quoting Clinton as saying, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple." Later still, associating herself with Republican Sen. Warner, she finally stated through a spokesperson that she did not believe homosexuality is immoral. Obama too through a spokesman later said he did not think homosexuality is immoral.
These were important breakthroughs. Anyone who remembers how politicians kowtowed to Gen. Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during the 1993 controversy over ending the military's ban on gays cannot help but be gratified by the current willingness of politicians to stand up to the head of the military.
And it is an important breakthrough that a prominent Republican senator and two of the leading Democratic contenders for the Presidency are willing to say that homosexuality is not immoral. Many people take their bearings from what prominent public figures say, so it is enormously encouraging that a few of the most important public figures are finally willing to speak out about our moral legitimacy. Our job is to increase their number.