What about the morality of homosexual behavior?

Janice Shaw Crouse
|
Posted: Mar 20, 2007 12:06 AM
What about the morality of homosexual behavior?

Pity poor Peter Pace. When asked point blank by the Chicago Tribune if he thought that homosexual behavior was immoral, he had the temerity, the audacity, the impertinence, the gall and the bad judgment to respond — get this — in the affirmative. Predictably, he set off shock waves among the politically correct. Can you imagine someone of his level of experience –– you don’t get to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff overnight or by making off-the-cuff remarks –– painting himself into such a corner? What was he thinking, poor fellow? Surely he knows better than to give his personal opinions when asked for his personal beliefs on a matter.

I suppose it just goes to show what can happen to a person’s thinking if he spends his professional life in the military with all those rules and stuff about obeying orders. Too much Marine discipline can influence the way you think. I mean, calling homosexual behavior immoral is so old fashioned, so rigid, so moralistic, so Judeo-Christian. What a throwback to the antiquated ideas of the nineteenth century or earlier. You have to wonder how someone at his level could be such a quaint, old fashioned, fuddy-duddy straight arrow.

Never mind that Pace’s views represent the teaching of all the major religions of the world. Never mind that Pace’s views are mainstream for virtually all cultures in human history. Never mind that polls clearly show that Americans are consistent in their agreement with Pace toward homosexual behavior. Never mind that Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University, told the

Tribune that he has repeatedly heard enlisted members oppose gays in the military because “it’s a question of cohesion, but morality is something they always bring up.” Never mind that in 1993 General Colin Powell viewed homosexuality as “incompatible” with a military setting.

Certainly, expressing views based in morality is not a good career move for anyone in today’s non-judgmental society –– especially a military man –– what with the left in control of Congress and liberals under the control of the lavender lobby.

I’m guessing that General Pace’s world view is so out-of-date that if you asked him what he thought about to two neighbors unhappy in their own marriages who found understanding, solace and comfort in each others arms, he’d probably think that was immoral as well. Actually, I don’t have to guess. He likened homosexual behavior (forbidden in the military in 1993 by Section 654, Title 10) to a heterosexual soldier committing adultery (an offense prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 134). What a Neanderthal. Heaven only knows what else he’s against.

Fortunately, Hillary and Obama are around to correct the flaws in his thinking. Can’t have people in positions of leadership letting their own particular personal convictions — grounded in centuries-old near-universal religious teaching about sodomy — cloud their judgment. It took Hillary a try or two to get things properly triangulated, but she finally came down squarely adjacent to the side that says homosexual behavior is most certainly not immoral (her traditional Methodist heritage notwithstanding). She and her friends in the denomination have had plenty of experience in contradicting Methodism’s Book of Discipline. Given her extensive experience in adjudicating moral matters, I guess she knows a thing or two about what “is” and “is” not immoral.

By the way, it was Hillary Clinton’s husband who promulgated the disastrous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 1994 –– the very policy that General Pace was addressing when he made his remarks. You’ll recall that the policy prohibits commanders from asking about a service person’s sexual preference, just as it prohibits service personnel from revealing their sexual preference.

A gaggle of amateur, self-appointed theologians dismiss the General’s views as “controversial.” Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., demanded, “Don’t Lecture us on Morals, General!” He dismissed General Pace’s comments as a “detour around critical reasoning,” reducing Pace’s stance to a simplistic “wrong because it’s wrong.” Further, Pitts called anyone with Pace’s views “bigots.”

The New York Times, long the nation’s reliable arbiter of morality, weighed in also, calling Pace’s views “wrong,” “bigoted” and “out of step.” That’s what it means to be non-judgmental and anti-bigotry today. It also exemplifies the left’s respect for free speech and religious liberty as foundations for discourse in the United States.

On the Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) declared, “We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” On a similar note, Senator John Warner (R-Virginia), a former Navy secretary, chimed in that he “strongly disagree(s)” that homosexuality is immoral.

Of course, the lavender lobby roared its outrage. C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network described the General’s comments as “outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful.” Others called Pace’s remarks “retrograde” and “offensive.”

In the face of all the self-righteous outrage, General Pace has refused to issue a fake apology. His decision was supported by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) who said, “We should not expect someone as qualified, accomplished and articulate as General Pace to lack personal views on important moral issues. In fact, we should expect that anyone entrusted with such great responsibility will have strong moral views.” Such views are part of our nation’s history all the way back to George Washington. We used to call leaders with strong morals “statesmen.”

Marines don’t retreat without orders. It would be a crime if General Pace were given such orders in this case. The Marine motto is “Semper Fidelis” — Latin for “Always faithful.” As the daughter of a Marine, I am proud of General Pace for being faithful to Biblical truth as well as having the courage to espouse sound military policy.