General steps on gay landmine

General steps on gay landmine
Copyright by The Chicago Tribune
Posted by Frank James at 11:22 am CDT

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited the Tribune Tower yesterday and met with Chicago Tribune journalists.

A story by my Washington bureau colleague Aamer Madhani, who covers defense issues and attended the meeting, is drawing wide attention because Pace controversially called homosexuality "immoral" even as he said he supports the military's "don't ask-don't tell" policy which allows gays to serve in the military so long as they stay deep in the closet.


Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts "are immoral," akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.
Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not "condone" immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal "upbringing," in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

Pace's comment raises questions of logical consistency. If as leader of an institution as important as the U.S. military you believe people are engaged in immoral behavior, the fact that they keep quiet about it doesn't make it any less immoral, does it?

So why would Pace be OK with don't ask, don't tell? It seems the only logically consistent attitude would be for him to oppose the current don't-ask, don't-tell policy and, instead, to support purges of suspected gays.

Pace likens his stance to the antipathy the military has for adulterous affairs which, among things, are known to be bad for morale and are thus punishable offenses in the military.

But many adulterous affairs are carried out in secret for obvious reasons, certainly a form of "don't tell."

The military, however, doesn't have a laissez-faire, "don't ask" policy about them. Commanders who suspect those under their command of having such affairs are expected to ask. So while Pace compares the two forms of "immoral" behavior to use his word, he's fine with the divergent treatment.

Pace also attributed his views on homosexuality to his "upbringing." But what if the lessons he learned and internalized as a youth included a dislike of blacks or Hispanics? Or the army? (Pace is a Marine.) It's doubtful that citing his "upbringing" would be an acceptable explanation for holding such views.

By citing his upbringing, Pace appears to be saying his views are so foundational, of such long-standing that he can't or won't change them. But surely he has revised other views he was taught as a youth just as most of us have. So clearly he has some choice about the views he holds as an adult.

This isn't meant as a criticism of Pace. It's meant to use Pace as an example of how confounding the issue of homosexuality is when one makes black-and-white moral arguments about it.