No Apology Necessary, General Pace

Unlike Ann Coulter's comments at the CPAC event earlier this month, General Peter Pace's personal beliefs about homosexual behavior as stated in an interview with the Chicago Tribune this week need no qualification or apology.  While I will defend Ann Coulter's right to say what she did to the death, I think our society needs to treat others like we'd like to be treated.  Ms. Coulter's remarks were rude and unnecessary.  General Pace's comments were true and firmly rooted in his upbringing and faith.

I am thankful for the fact that we still have leaders in high posts who are willing to be respectfully honest about their beliefs and opinions without regard for what is politically correct.  I am tired of our leaders caving into the intimidation that comes from the heavy handed gay activist community.  There is still room in the debate over homosexuality for the Judeo-Christian perspective.

Comments

[Jay]

Hey Mr. Chambers,

I don't think we've ever corresponded directly, but I do comment occasionally on Randy Thomas and Mike Ensley's blogs, and I just wanted to say that I'm glad you've decided to blog, too.

While I do agree with Pace's views about the immorality of homosexuality, I am not so inclined to agree with his position about gays serving openly in the military. What are your views on that issue?

[Michael Turner]

Mr. Chambers... I agree with what you're saying. The issue isn't whether or not someone can serve, but that it IS immoral, and that this country desperately needs to return to policies of morality and decency. If our Military is willing to ultimately become a "Pride Parade", then our enemies will continue to see us as becoming weaker. America's .Military NEEDS to cling to what is right... regardless of how citizens are abusing their right to ruin society (immoral policies and politics) here at home.

[Norm!]

It's interesting that you will metaphorically defend "to the death" Coulter's right to call people f****ts, but you're unwilling to support or respect the gays and lesbians in the military who are actually risking their lives to defend your rights.

Gen. Pace is trying to have it both ways. He knows the Chicago Tribune's Editorial Board wasn't interviewing him to hear his personal beliefs. He brought up his personal beliefs because he had no rational reason to defend Don't Ask Don't Tell outside of his personal beliefs.

[Alan Chambers]

I am not sure where I stand on gays serving in the millitary. I think the "don't ask don't tell" policy is a passive one.

As for defending Coulter's right to call people names, I would defend your right to call her something offensive, as well. I didn't say that I supported her comments or agreed with them, just that she has a right to make them. That goes for General Pace, too.

[Norm!]

Gen. Pace has the right to express his personal beliefs.
As a high-ranking government official, it is not appropriate for him to use his position to proclaim his personal beliefs in a statement to the press -- especially when discussing a controversial government policy.

I don't mean to debate you. However, it is difficult for me to believe that you don't have an opinion regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As president of one of the only national conservative Christian ministries that focuses on sexual orientation, it seems that you would have some type of expertise gays and lesbians. It really is a simple issue. Do you believe it is moral and just for a gay or lesbian soldier to be discharged for merely acknowledging who they love or their sexual orientation (in the same way a straight service member would acknowledge their spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend)?

It seems more likely that you're unwilling to state your opinion about Don't Ask Don't Tell. I would speculate that it is probably a lose-lose scenario for you to discuss whether you support or oppose the policy.

[Also, to clarify, I never implied that you supported Coulter's comments.]

[Alan Chambers]

Norm, Those who know me or of me know that I don't hold back my opinions on any issues that I feel strongly about. As I stated above, I feel that don't ask, don't tell is a passive policy. I have friends who have really strong arguments for the policy, but I just don't know how I feel about actually having gays in the millitary.

However your comment about homosexuality being merely about who someone chooses to love is simplifying a very complex issue. Homosexuality is far more than who one chooses to love, attractions or choice.

[Randy]

General Pace's freedom of speech doesn't end once he puts on his uniform. People have a right to criticize his opinion but he also has a right to explain anything he wants to explain when he is asked a question.

[Jay]

Randy, I don't think anyone's implying that General Pace does not have free speech when he puts on his uniform. The discussion is more about what is or is not appropriate for him to say when he is discussing policy.

I largely agree with his opinions. However, I am also aware that they come from his Christian background. If he had been citing unit cohesiveness, or some other secular reason to deny gays open service, then I would not have had as much of a problem with it. I would have disagreed, of course, but I wouldn't have thought it improper.

I do think it is improper, though, for him to cite his Christian morality as a reason. The military is not a Christian institution. There are, contrary to popular belief, atheists in foxholes, and there are gays and lesbians there too. Though I may disagree with their choices, I will fully respect their desire to protect this country, just like I'll respect an atheist's.

...That really didn't turn out to be as short as I had planned it to. :)

[Randy]

Jay, don't ask don't tell is a policy.

[Jay]

I know that, Randy. I said that I felt it was inappropriate for Pace to be citing his religious beliefs while discussing that policy; not because his beliefs are wrong or because he's not allowed to say them, but because the military, which he represents, is made up of a large group of people, and not all of them share those beliefs. DADT is a policy, but it's a policy I disagree with. I believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military openly.

[Norm!]

Alan Chambers: "I feel that don't ask, don't tell is a passive policy."

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to argue that DADT is NOT "passive". Whether a policy is passive is irrevelevant. The issue is whether it is a just policy and serves the country.

"I have friends who have really strong arguments for the policy, but I just don't know how I feel about actually having gays in the millitary."

Again, I just don't see how you "don't know". Either you believe it is right to terminate service members who identify as gay or lesbians or you don't. It's not complicated.

"However your comment about homosexuality being merely about who someone chooses to love is simplifying a very complex issue. Homosexuality is far more than who one chooses to love, attractions or choice."

My comment wasn't about simplifying homosexuality, but rather about US military policy of firing someone for being gay. Again, I asked: "Do you believe it is moral and just for a gay or lesbian soldier to be discharged for merely acknowledging who they love or their sexual orientation. . ?"

[Mike Ensley]

Norm, it's definitely possible to be unsure what stance to take on an issue. I'm there on this one, myself.

On the one hand, I don't at all devalue the sacrifice that anyone makes by serving in our military. Whether they identify as gay or not doesn't detract from that.

I can understand, however, why military officials would be concerned about those who openly pursue homosexuality being among their ranks. Soldiers have to have the utmost trust and confidence in one another. They must be able to put their lives in each other's hands every day. Then there's the smaller issue that they do shower, sleep, and do just about everything else in very close company.

I think it's really a military decision. If they feel it would be detrimental to have openly homosexual people in the military, I would respect their decision. If they feel it wouldn't be a big deal and they want to be totally inclusive, again I think it's their call.

The military is in a unique situation and they are also vital to our survival as a people. I don't think the same rules apply within our fighting forces as they do in schools, corporate businesses, and so on. Only those who have lived it truly understand what's needed.

[Alan Chambers]

Thanks for summarizing my feelings on this, Mike.

[Norm!]

Mike Ensley: "On the one hand, I don't at all devalue the sacrifice that anyone makes by serving in our military. Whether they identify as gay or not doesn't detract from that.. . ."

I know we'll probably never see eye-to-eye on this, but I really don't know how you claim that discharging of gays and lesbians from the military doesn't "devalue" or "detract" from their service. Discharging gays and lesbians for merely being too honest is more harmful and offensive than Coulter's name calling.

Yes, the military is a special circumstance, but that doesn't mean their policies are exempt from common sense, professionalism, and fairness. As citizens, it is our duty and responsibility to make sure those who serve are treated fairly.

Are gays and lesbians inherently less trustworthy? Are gays, lesbians, and heterosexuals less able to co-habitat than the mixed-gender, mixed-race, mixed-sexual-oriented units that now operate? What evidence is there of this? Surely, the leaders of a prominent, national 30+ year ministry regarding sexual orientation have something to offer to the public debate about this policy. Simply stating that the policy is a military decision seems like a politically correct way of avoiding a controversial topic.

[Carl]

"General Pace's comments were true and firmly rooted in his upbringing and faith."

There are many beliefs that come from upbringing and faith. Many people, due to their faith or upbringing, believe women have no place outside of the home. Many believe that there should be no mixing of the races in society. Indeed, I would imagine that many of the military officials who were incensed when President Truman desegregated the military felt that way because of their upbringing.

I'm not naive enough to believe that Gen. Pace's views are a minority opinion in the military (although large majorities of the public do believe that openly gay people should serve). But his job is not to tell us his beliefs. His job is to enforce military policy. I can't laud someone for choosing to use their job as a soapbox.

I would also point out, although I know it's not unknown, that many of our allies (Australia, UK, Israel) have openly gay soldiers and as far as I've heard, that has not caused any problems in their ranks, nor have they had a problem getting along with American soldiers.

[Greg]

With respect to your views, Mr. Chambers, I cannot recall any American leader who holds a place of high authority EVER unequivocally and totally supporting LGBTQ equality. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barak Obama would not unequivocally say positive things about us when questions were first raised due to Pace’s personal views. Instead, they tried to dodge the questions. I do not see “our leaders caving into” any alleged intimidation from LGBTQ individuals. On the contrary, we remain marginalized, and extremely so!

[GayLeftBorg]

It would serve the U.S. army right if they are totally depleted of soldiers because of their velvet rope of who can and can't serve this country. You know that's when they'll do away with "DADT", and by then, the gays will have moved to Canada, and it would serve America right if it's taken over by terrorists and jihadists at that point. Good riddance to one f'ed up country!

And then the "ex gays" who stayed here would be killed by them, which would serve them right - you know, since ex-gays like Alan Chambers advocates for the death penalty for openly gay people. Chambers and Paulk would be the first to go, since they're the most womanly looking of the most outspoken "ex gays".