US General: "Gay sex is immoral"

[Penelope]

Here's a question I've grappled with. Should anti-war-pro-gay-rights people reverse themselves and publicly support the ban on gays and bisexuals in the military as a means to give people a way out in case the draft is reinstated? Wouldn't continuing unjustified discrimination be the lesser evil compared to the horrors of forcing people to fight in a grossly immoral war?

No, that's what Canada is for. Seriously, tho, I feel we should fight for our right to serve and protect our nation, to be treated equally, while at the same time organizing against the war.

[Penelope]

Washington Post:

Bigotry That Hurts Our Military

By Alan K. Simpson
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review -- and overturn -- the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for "don't ask, don't tell." But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask, don't tell," including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

In today's perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.

First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.

Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on "don't ask, don't tell," but we should consider their common-sense example.

Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission. The Army is "about broken," in the words of Colin Powell. The Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the House Armed Services Committee in December that "the active-duty Army of 507,000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7,000 more soldiers a year." To fill its needs, the Army is granting a record number of "moral waivers," allowing even felons to enlist. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens.

The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from "critical fields" -- jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.

In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

The writer was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997.

[Penelope]

For lack of a better thread--but because some comments here kinda pissed me off--here's a link to a speech Larry Kramer gave last night in honor of the 20th anniversary of the founding of ACT-UP. Some key comments:

Day after day our country declares that we are not equal to anything at all. All the lives we saved are nothing but crumbs if we still aren’t free. And we still aren’t free. Gay people still aren’t free.

Go to Queens, go to Jamaica, go to Iran, go to Wyoming, we still aren’t free. How many places in this country, in this world, can we walk down a street holding a beloved’s hand? I went to my nephew’s wedding in Jamaica twenty years ago. They are out for blood against gay men in Jamaica now. They do it to you the minute you get off the plane. There are men with iron crowbars waiting to maim you at the airport. Does our government protest? Of course not. Who cares if a faggot dies. They are actually beheading gays in Iran. This is progress? The European Parliament which in the past had played a key role in advancing gay rights worldwide, is about to be taken over by conservative delegates that will strengthen their neo-fascist bloc, which will actually call for capital punishment for homosexuals. You don’t think that any of this can’t happen here? I do. Our country’s top soldier said so this morning. We are immoral. The Mayor of Moscow calls us dirt. Polish leaders call us scum. Ann Coulter calls us sissies. General Pace calls us immoral. Who cares if a faggot dies. A gay person murdered in Iraq or Libya or Nigeria or Jamaica or Ghana or Saudi Arabia is the same as a gay person murdered here. Why do I harp so on gay murders in foreign countries. Because gay murders in Iran have a way of becoming gay hate in Paris and London and Chicago and in the highest rank of US Army. Particularly when our own government ignores all attacks against us anywhere. Who cares of a faggot dies. It is all one world now. The disposal of gay people is an equal opportunity employer and hate is a disease that spreads real fast. I repeat: a gay kid murdered anywhere is a gay kid murdered here.
Yes, we have many things to worry about now besides HIV.

You can get married now in New Jersey but New York judges handed down some of the most bigoted “legal” hate outside of Iran, where as I have just said they are now actually decapitating gay men. They are stringing up gay boys and putting masks over their heads and hanging them as Saddam Hussein was hanged. For being gay. Does our government protest? Does any government protest? Of course not. Who cares if a faggot dies. Do you have friends in love with partners forbidden from entering America? To be separated by force from the one you love is one of the saddest things I can think of. What kind of police state do we live in? This is not right. This is wrong. It does not happen for straight lovers. It can only happen to gays who live in a country where we are hated. How many years do we have to endure being treated like this? If countries like Australia and New Zealand recognize relationship residencies for mixed nationalities, why can’t we? There was not one single demonstration against those New York judges, or indeed against any judges who are such dictators of our lives, where they work and live and sleep each night. They cannot be allowed to continue to hate us so legally. America cannot be allowed to continue to hate us so actively. It is not right. It is wrong. Don’t right and wrong mean anything anymore? Why are we not specifically included in Hate Crimes laws in many states? How many Matthew Shepherds must there be before we are specifically included in Hate Crime laws in every state?

...We are the only people in America that it is socially acceptable to hate and discriminate against. Indeed so much hate of us exists that it is legally acceptable to pass constitutional amendments to hate us even more. This is democracy? This is how our courts and laws protect us? These are the equal rights for all that America’s Bill of Rights proclaims for all?

The biggest enemy we must fight continues to be our own government. How dare we stop? We cannot stop. We are not crumbs and we must not accept crumbs and we must stop acting like crumbs.

[Greg]

Here's a question I've grappled with. Should anti-war-pro-gay-rights people reverse themselves and publicly support the ban on gays and bisexuals in the military as a means to give people a way out in case the draft is reinstated? Wouldn't continuing unjustified discrimination be the lesser evil compared to the horrors of forcing people to fight in a grossly immoral war?

[flipp525]

This story gets little attention?! The news networks couldn't fucking shut up about it! Meanwhile, the Democrats took a stand on the buildup to war with Iran the other day, and I bet not one of you knows what happened.

Ya know what, I don't really care if this is an unsurprising development, or a to-be-expected attitude from the top echelons of the military or doesn't have the evocative groundbreaking, Watergate-style, "above the fold" quality of a top news story. The more and more stories and comments like this that are brought to our attention, the better. While it might've been used by either political side as a distraction from what's really going on in the world, this is actually something going on in my world -- the continued devaluation of my way of life by ignorant, unevolved fucks who don’t know any better. I truly wouldn't mind it if they ran a story every single day on another bigoted person's lack of compassion and understanding for someone who's different than they are.



Edited By flipp525 on 1173899180

[Penelope]

Sonic, please forgive me for wanting to be treated as an equal in my own country. I won't do it in the future.

Don't Ask
The increasing incoherence of the military's gay exclusion policy.
By Nathaniel Frank
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007, at 6:07 PM ET

For years, the Pentagon has defended its ban on gays and lesbians by repeating the mantra that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." But as evidence has mounted that gays serve openly in dozens of countries including the United States without harming unit cohesion, the military has grown increasingly incoherent in defending the "don't ask, don't tell" gay exclusion.

For some years, the military has been trying to pass the buck back to Congress, suggesting the gay ban isn't the fault of the Pentagon, which merely "implements a federal law" from 1993, as obligated. But in recent weeks, the military has unveiled several new defenses of the gay ban. Each of them is bizarre, and as a group they make no sense at all.

Yesterday, Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune (registration required) that open gays should not serve in the military because homosexuality is "immoral." Pace said, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." He said he did not think the military was "well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way" and compared homosexual conduct to adultery. Today, Pace retreated from his comments, saying, "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."


Even so, Pace's frank acknowledgement that his opposition to gay service is moral signals a departure from the carefully constructed "effectiveness" argument that the military used for more than a decade. In 1993, when military leaders developed a strategy to prevent President Clinton from lifting the gay ban, some members met with leaders of the religious right, who urged them to oppose gay service on moral grounds. But Colin Powell and other senior officials decided it would be more effective to resist the change on the grounds of military effectiveness. The "unit cohesion" argument was born of this conversation, which argues that straight soldiers dislike gays so much that unit cohesion would suffer if known gays were allowed to serve.

Pace was also contradicting the Pentagon's own brand new justification for leaving the ban in place. According to the military, even talking about gays in the military will undermine the war on terror. In a February letter to Sen. Ron Wyden, Undersecretary of Defense David Chu said that a "national debate" on lifting the gay ban, "with the accompanying divisiveness and turbulence across our country, will compound the burden of the war." As a result of this conclusion, he "question[s] the wisdom of advocating a change."

This is an astonishing claim for Chu to make—that not only must gays conceal their homosexuality to protect unit cohesion, but the entire country must avoid discussing homosexuality or else it will undermine the war effort. By this reasoning, we should ban discussion of whether to increase troops in Iraq and prohibit an inquiry into conditions at Walter Reed.

It's also evidence that the military leadership, which was out of step with public opinion on gay soldiers even in 1993, has remained stuck in a bygone era. Polls show that large majorities of the American public now favor openly gay service, including conservatives, Republicans, and churchgoers. Even within the military itself, majorities say they are "personally comfortable" with gay people. For the first time, a majority of junior enlisted personnel support letting gays serve openly. Perhaps this is what prompted Pace's predecessor, Gen. John Shalikashvili, to call in January for ending the gay ban.

Chu makes another incredible argument against lifting the gay-exclusion policy—there is no such policy. Chu writes in his letter that "there is no military ban on gay and lesbian service members," merely a federal statute prohibiting homosexual conduct. This new line rests on an old trick: While the military insists its policy is based on gay behavior and not innate status, the law defines homosexual conduct to include a statement of status, even if made by a third party. When the Pentagon learns of "credible evidence" that a service member is gay, whether or not he has ever had sex with anyone, an investigation is mandated. This means if a service member is outed by his chaplain, his doctor, or his mother (all of which have happened) and is investigated, the service member can be fired if investigators learn that, 10 years earlier, he uttered the words, "my boyfriend walked his dog." The courts regard such a statement to be homosexual conduct. Most Americans, however, probably do not consider it sexual conduct of any kind.

In insisting that the policy does not punish people for being homosexual, only for engaging in homosexual conduct, the military implies that anyone who is fired under the policy has willingly chosen to break the rules. "It's not an issue of individual sexual orientation," Chu has said. "The issue is, does the individual violate the norms set out in the statute." Chu said that "if your conduct doesn't measure up, yes, we'll take action against you, and this is just one of the many elements of conduct" that the military is required to enforce.

Yet the policy is no more conduct-based than one that bans people who pray to Jesus—this is what Christians do, just as forming relationships with people of the same sex is what gays do. Indeed, the law makes clear that it is not only conduct but same-sex desire itself that is considered a danger to the armed forces. That's why it bars "persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage" in homosexual conduct, even if they don't do so, and why it includes a notorious "queen for a day" exception exempting from discharge those who engage in homosexual acts if the behavior is considered "a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior," i.e., people who are straight! The only gay and lesbian service members who are not banned from the military are silent gay virgins.

All of this would be merely absurd if it weren't for the dire situation of a military stretched thin by ongoing commitments across the globe. In the wake of the shortfalls, according to the University of California's Palm Center (where I am a senior research fellow), the number of convicted felons who enlisted in the U.S. military nearly doubled in the past three years, totaling 4,230 in the last four years. The recruits entered under the "moral waiver" program, which enlists those who otherwise would not qualify because of immoral behavior, such as committing felonies. This lowering of standards continues as two to three competent gay service members lose their jobs every day. More than 11,000 have been fired under the policy, including more than 800 mission-critical specialists and 300 linguists covering 161 different occupational specialties.

The Palm study should be required reading for Pace, so he can explain why gay counterintelligence officers are too immoral to serve in the military, while it made sense to admit Pvt. Steven Green, a high school dropout with three criminal convictions and a history of substance abuse who is charged with the rape and killing of an Iraqi family in Mahmudiya, Iraq. Green was enlisted through a moral waiver.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, is writing a book on the military's gay ban, to be published next year by St. Martin's Press.

[Akash]

Sonic you are absolutely right. And your eloquent post nailed all the relevant points. I should elaborate on my situated experience: my parents are slightly left of moderate Democrats, and I'm as far to the left as one could probably go. All my life I've been disappointed by the Democrats and I've learned to tame my expectations, but yes you are correct: this is disgusting even for them. Aside from the general ass hattery of the Republican party in so many disparate episodes the past few years, anti-war sentiment might be the ONE MAIN REASON the Dems unseated the Republicans in the elections last year. Is it too much to ask that they at least stand by that opinion and differentiate themselves from Republicans at least on that front? My god, they wouldn't even have to risk anything since so much of the country is anti-war at the moment!

As someone who actively canvassed with College Dems in 2004 trying to get undecided voters in Pennsylvania to vote for John Kerry, and then in 2006 to make sure registered Dems in Ohio actually came out to vote, I am so disappointed and disillusioned by this. And I can't even say I won't vote for them in 2008 because what's the alternative? Voting for the Green party results in nothing and not voting at all would just make me another statistic of the under twenty-five absent voting bloc (read: liberal) that gets blamed whenever Republicans win. So either way I'm f*cked.

[Sonic Youth]

That's exactly what I'm referring to, and I'm writing off the Democrats. Obviously they weren't going to live up to unreasonable expectations, but they're not even living up to reasonable expectations. And THIS is what was barely covered in the news.

I've no problem with people upset and complaining about these statements. I'm more upset with Nancy Pelosi using it as a distraction from certain things, like their backing off their Iran position, or that they're not spotlighting the ongoing plight of the Katrina victims like they should. So a U.S. general is a homophobe. So Ann Coulter is a homophobe. Did we expect them to be otherwise? The former is part of a homophobic institution, the latter is a fringe nut curiosity (albeit one that the mainstream media pays too much attention to.) Their mistake was putting words to their thoughts, the true definition of a "gaffe." Were this to be someone we'd not necessarily think of as homophobic or bigoted, then it'd be a story, IMO, such as with Sen. Biden's on-and-off bigoted remarks. Or, more pointedly, Democratic politicians who are anti-gay marriage. None of them would explicitly say gay sex is immoral, or that gay marriage is immoral. But when they're against it, or they say they're "struggling" with the issue, the implication is there.

And let me be frank, although I'll probably be flamed for this. But all things being relative, this was a pretty benign comment stemming from retroactive notions rather than true hatred. I'd hate to be gay and in the army and hear vicious anti-gay comments from pent up twenty year olds and hostile drill sargents every single day, or fear getting assaulted not because of having a gay fling but because of the possibility of giving off an antagonizing Billy Budd aura.

[Akash]

Sonic, you're right that this is nowhere near as important as the war in Iraq and the burgeoning war with Iran. I'm not in the US right now, so I'm only online for a few minutes at a time, and I didn't get to see it play out on TV - I was under the impression that this story got little coverage. Um, my bad? I guess I was just horrified that this kind of thing can still be openly said about gays and no one demands a pound of flesh. Had the comments been racist or Anti-Semetic, this guy wouldn't be able to show his face for a while.

Anyway, are you referring to the House Democrats' timorous removal of language from the $124.1 billion wartime spending bill that would prevent Bush from taking military action with Iran? If so you are correct that this is a bigger deal and something to be wary of. David Obey is being way too conciliatory and trusting when it comes to Bush and his war decisions.

[Sonic Youth]

Wait! So a general in an institution that's inherently homophobic acknowledges that he hasn't come to terms with homosexuals? And we're supposed to be shocked about this?

In other non-news, I heard that the KKK's Grand Poobah is uncomfortable around black people. The NAACP is requesting an apology...

This story gets little attention?! The news networks couldn't fucking shut up about it! Meanwhile, the Democrats took a stand on the buildup to war with Iran the other day, and I bet not one of you knows what happened.

[Akash]

So gay sex now equals adultery on the immorality scale? Whatever.

And sadly that was one of the milder comparisons. Let's not forget Ricky Santorum comparing gays sex to bestiality and the often repeated sentiment that gay sex and gay marriage spells the end of the American family. These people are nuts.

Damien, as always, good point.

[Okri]

Thank you, Damien. The hypocrisy on that one was ridiculous.

[Damien]

Yes, General, same gender sex is so evil compared to slaughtering Iraqi civilians.

[Penelope]

Actually, there has been a response, and I wonder if irony may provide for a repeal of the policy as a result of this fracas.

Gen. Pace regrets comments about gay acts being "immoral" but doesn't apologize

By William Neikirk and Karoun Demirjian

March 13, 2007, 7:05 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for calling homosexual acts "immoral," but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune.

As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune's editorial board.

"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct," Pace said in his statement. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

But this statement did not mollify critics who called the general's statements insensitive and outrageous and said he should apologize.

Pace's statements in the interview turned into a huge news story on radio, television and the Internet during the day and showed how sensitive the Pentagon's policy has become. His senior staff members said he was expressing personal views and did not intend to apologize.

Still, the incident provided a strong hint that Congress may hold hearings this year on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy approved during the Clinton administration, which allows gays to serve in the military as long as they do not disclose their sexual orientation. That clue came when Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, took issue with the general.

"I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral," the senator said. "In keeping with my longstanding respect for the Armed Services Committee hearing process, I will decline to comment on the current policy until after such hearings are held."

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the committee who has the right to call hearings, had no comment on Pace's remarks. When a spokeswoman was asked if hearings on "don't ask, don't tell" may be held, she said, "They've not made any decision about that."

Repeal of the ban on gays who acknowledge their sexual orientation and serve in the military would be highly controversial. Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) favor repeal while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and other GOP contenders would maintain the policy.

An Obama spokeswoman said the senator agrees with Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton administration, who wrote recently that he favors the repeal because the military is having a tough time recruiting and training troops.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is seeking the presidency, called Pace's comments unfortunate and said the administration should reject them.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), also a presidential contender, said, "General Pace's comments were completely out of line. Many gay and lesbian members of our military have served their country honorably over the years and I find it outrageous that at a time when we need as many good people serving in the military as possible, we are still talking about excluding people based on their sexual orientation."

Legislation to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been introduced in the House by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), and it has more than 100 co-sponsors. Meehan said Tuesday that Pace's comments are not in line with those of a majority of the public or the military, and that sentiment for repeal "is strong and growing," according to the Associated Press.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group that has represented those dismissed from the military for being gay, said, "Gen. Pace's comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces."

Eric Alva, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights group supporting gay rights, said, "This policy—and Gen. Pace's bigotry—is outdated, unnecessary and counter to the same American values our soldiers are giving their lives for each and every day."

In the interview with the Tribune, Pace said his views were based on his personal upbringing.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace told the Tribune editorial board. "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 [acceptance of gay behavior] 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," he said. "We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."

While his senior staff made clear Tuesday that he would not apologize for these remarks, the general issued his statement in an effort to play them down and declare that he should have dealt with policy and not his personal opinion.

"People have a wide range of opinions on this sensitive subject," he said. "The important thing to remember is that we have a policy in effect, and the Department of Defense has a statutory responsibility to implement that policy."

Pace added, "I made two points in support of the policy during the interview. One, 'don't ask, don't tell' allows individuals to serve this nation and two, it does not make a judgment about the morality of individual acts," adding that he should have focused more on policy and not questions of morality.

[flipp525]

So gay sex now equals adultery on the immorality scale? Whatever.