While many in Congress apparently don't have the stomach to battle the Islamic terrorists in Iraq, they don't hesitate to take up a fight with the head of the U.S. military over his opposition to a proposed law that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S. military. In an interview in which Gen. Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was asked about a bill introduced by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), Pace said that homosexuality, like adultery (both of which violate military law), is immoral. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) was quick to fire off a response saying he strongly disagreed with the General's statement that "homosexuality is immoral." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) joined the anti-Pace volley, saying, "We don't need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs." Even administration officials, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signaled retreat from the General when he said "personal opinion really doesn't have a place here." The Washington Post accused Gen. Pace of "bigotry."
Many Americans do not know that military personnel have a separate set of laws that govern their conduct; it is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ homosexual behavior, like adultery, is criminal. It is immoral. The outrage should not be focused at Gen. Pace for defending the law, it should be directed at Rep. Meehan and others who in the midst of a war want to make political correctness a priority and try and turn the military into a laboratory for their liberal social ideas. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Pace should not have to apologize for defending the law; rather, he should be applauded for upholding it. We urge his colleagues and the administration to resist the urge to retreat and instead follow his brave leadership.
Comments (3)
"Under the UCMJ homosexual behavior, like adultery, is criminal. It is immoral."
So why should we assume that because a person is homosexual, that he/she will partake of immoral behavior? And why the prior restaint?
We don't ban married heterosexuals because they might commit adultery while they are away from their spouses.
March 15, 2007 10:14 AM | Comment Permalink
History. Just a few decades ago, homosexuals were widely considered to be sex-crazed, and every single one was considered a potential child-molester. These views have now been shown to be false, but the UCMJ has yet to be updated. There used to be laws in the US that made homosexuality a criminal offense, and similar ones in the UK. These have all been either struck down to repealed. If the UCMJ was subject to the same consitutional limits as civilian law, it would have been removed from these by a court as well. But in the country founded on constitutional law, the military seems to be able to make its own laws outside of that.
To my great annoyance, the UK law resulted in the death of Alan Turing, quite possibly one of the most inteligent people. Ever. He is to information theory as Einstein is to physics. His work in cryptanalysis shortened the second world war, and may have changed its outcome completly. But he was also homosexual, and when it was discovered a court ordered he undergo hormone therepy in an attempt to change his orientation. It failed, but it did drive him to suicide.
March 16, 2007 6:58 AM | Comment Permalink
There is a world of difference between women and gays in the military. Women are protected with their own space they have private apace from men. Men are housed together they have no space of their own they have no privacy.
March 16, 2007 9:12 PM | Comment Permalink