Bill of Rights: Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…."
Marine Corps General Peter Pace is currently undergoing a series of attacks against him, based on a comment he made in the Chicago Tribune discussing homosexuality in the U.S. Military.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, compared homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
In a statement Tuesday, he said he should have focused more in the interview on the Defense Department policy about gays — and "less on my personal moral views."
Gen. Pace is being punished not because of what he said. He could have said, “Living in gated communities and sending your rich white kids to private school is nothing more then a form of racism and bigotry.” Would that have caused the uproar that is going on right now?
Well, yes it probably would have considering most of the people in power in this nation do live in gated communities and are sending their kids to private school so they probably would have started complaining.
But, General Pace would have had the right to say it. The same way he has the right to say that homosexuality is immoral. He also said that adultery is immoral, but I don’t hear any complaints coming from the ‘screwing around on their spouses’ crowd.
General Pace was, according to some staff members, ‘the general was expressing his personal opinion…’ So, ones opinion is now subject to censorship? Good. Can we get liberals to shut up about how bad Bush is? That is their opinion, and if General Pace is not allowed to speak his opinion, they should not be allowed to do so either.
In my opinion, Mariachi music played at an ear damaging level from cars in parking lots is immoral. Ok, not immoral but certainly impolite.
In the original interview, General Pace was directly asked about the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.
Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation. Notice that; General Pace supports the rule. He does not like it, and said so out loud to the interviewer: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way.” Pace said he based his views on his upbringing.
"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. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior."
Advocacy groups are saying that the General's statements were “insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces.” 65,000? Well, what about the other 1.4 million active-duty uniformed personnel currently serving in the four military branches of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)? Wouldn’t it be more important to find out how they feel serving next to a gay soldier?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mandragora
I understand what you're saying, but do you think the fact that the General is representing the U.S. armed forces, and therefore the government, should influence his freedom of speech--even to the extent of being careful when speaking his own opinions?
Ideally not, of course. However, the General is obviously a career soldier, has worked his way up the chain of command and now chairs the Joint Chiefs of Staff. To my mind, that means he accepts the fact that what he says in a public forum will be heavily scrutinised, analysed and criticised. Obviously, this isn't really fair as such, but in this case can true freedom of speech really exist?
Moving further from that, can true freedom of speech really exist in a community of people? What if after he or she gets elected, the President said that he thought Americans were actually pretty stupid and that he really wanted the top job for the influence, power and money? He may be a good President, an amazing politician, but he's just giving his opinion, right? Yet it doesn't really feel right.
This is something that's come up a lot with various leaders, celebrities, even the British monarchy (remember Prince Harry and the Nazi uniform?). They're the leaders of our society, so to speak, but the public outcry when they say something actually racist, sexist or in any other way prejudiced is scorching and loud. They're allowed to be as radical as they like, to have absolutely deranged policies, just so long as they don't openly and obviously discriminate.
Fair or not? Should our leaders be allowed to talk prejudice and to discriminate openly?
2 - Sisyphus
Larry: No one is questioning the general's right to say whatever he wants. But having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean you are not responsible for what you say.
If Pace had stated something to the effect, "my personal opinion is that I hope we lose the war in Iraq," the repercussions would be swift and serious. No doubt Pace would lose his job or worse. And rightly so.
But precisely where does one draw the line? Did Pace cross the line? Obviously, some people think so. Others do not. But your claim is that no line should exist whatsoever, which is nonsense. The U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This is not the same as abrogating a person's responsibility for that which is spoken.
3 - Dave Nalle
Sisyphus, I'm questioning his right to say whatever he wants. He's a public employee in a high profile position. He has an obligation to rein in his personal opinions and represent the military in a responsible way. IMO he ought to be fired.
Dave
4 - Bill Garnett
I support General Pace's right to express his opinion. I also think that he should be accountable for those expressed opinions.
How can sexual orientation, which is a state of being and not a moral choice, be reasonably argued to be immoral? Especially in light of conventional science and medicine on the matter?
The General must be aware that about 65,000 gays remain closeted in his military -- what is the effect of unit cohesion caused by his comments?
The military has successfully integrated blacks and women and many western nations have done likewise with gays. For someone of such high rank to make such a statement is troubling. I suggest it is time to repeal "don't ask, don't tell". My opinion is that the hypocrisy of supporting lying and subterfuge of "don't ask, don't tell" is the real immorality.
5 - Marcel
if freedom of speech can't be abridged by a law of Congress, how did the "don't ask, don't TELL" law get through?
6 - Sisyphus
The thing is, Pace's comments are consistent with the current policy of "don't ask, don't tell." All the rationalization regarding the prohibition against homosexuality in the U.S. military simply skirts around the central tenet that homosexual behavior is immoral. I do not share this view, but I don't see how one can defend the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy and at the same time believe that homosexuality is moral, acceptable, and otherwise perfectly okay.
7 - Marcel
or, the thing is, Congress already writes laws that abridge the freedom of speech. i wouldn't muzzle Pace (though I'd question his fitness to lead a secular army with his sanctimonious, or at least faith-based, moral views), I'd repeal the 'don't ask - don't tell' law, thankfully welcome anyone who's willing to serve, and demand my leaders not be bigots.
perhaps he could best defend the 'don't ask - don't tell' policy by not stepping outside the box to 'tell' his opinions when those he insults are not free to do the same without repurcussions.
8 - Chris
He absolutely has a right to speak his mind if he's willing to face the consequences and I hope the consequences include removal from his position.
9 - mikel1814
The first person in the war in Iraq to be injured - his leg was blown off by a land mine - was Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Fidelis Alva. President Bush awarded him a Purple Heart for his valor. Donald Rumsfled visited him in the hospital upon his return to the United States to honor his bravery and service.
Sgt. Alva is gay.
Would you like to tell Sgt. Alva he is an immoral person for what he has done? I wonder how Vice President Dick Cheney feels knowing that the Chairman of the joint chiefs thinks his daughter - soon to be the mother of his grandchild - is an immoral person.
No one is questioning Pace's "right" to say what he said. Of course he has the right to say it. I don't hear anyone calling for his arrest - he broke no law, and it would be anti-American to imply that he should be censored.
But when you speak, you are responsible for your words. It sounds like you agree with General Pace, so you would rightfully be defensive of someone being attacked for speaking your beliefs.
You are not the chairman of the joint chiefs. You are not being chastised. General Pace is. He runs a military in which thousands of gay men and women have given their lives for the war.
And you support General Pace's "Freedom of Speech," which is in direct contradiction to the entire crux of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." Merely saying the phrase "I am gay" in the military is not prohibited.
That's some freedom of speech.
Take it to the next level:
"Hey Private, check out this picture of my girlfriend back home. I miss her. She's the best. Say do you have a girlfriend? Any pictures of her? What's her name? No? No girlfriend? Are you married? No?"
How do finish this seemingly innocuous and typical conversation that thousands of people have every day? You lie. That's the only way around it. You are a male soldier and you have a person at home that you love that isn't a woman? Lie about it. If they ask, you have to lie.
That's not even censorship. It's even worse. That's a forced assimilation that has nothing to with your duties as a soldier.
10 - Johny
Are homosexual acts moral?
Absolutely not.
If it is moral to do this, why have any laws at all? Nothing is immoral anymore to some.
If I commit murder, it is something just in my genetic make up that makes me that way. I don't have a choice in the way that I am. Same with rape, theft, etc...
Why have any morality? It just gets in the way anyway. Is it moral only when convienient?
Sorry for the ramblings,
11 - jaz
ummm...NO military personnel have the right to Free Speech...they give that up when they sign their enlistment papers...and are then covered under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
so the issue, and this entire article, are rendered moot by the Facts
12 - jaz
for Johnny...and why do you consider homosexuals to be immoral?
due to Leviticus?
so, if you follow all the Law in Leviticus, maybe you could help me out here...
my neighbor's daughter is a fine young lady, good grades, always does her chores, respects her parents...according to Leviticus, what's a good price for selling her into slavery?
do i need to gather the entire town together in order to stone my grandmother for wearing clothes of two different threads?
or the guy down the road for planting two crops side by side?
if they promise to wear gloves, can Notre Dame still play football and "touch the skin of a pig"? how about West Point, or Annapolis?
then there's shellfish...
but you get the Point...
13 - Johny
I do.
Your points are exactly what I was trying to get accross.
Poeple don't have any morals anymore.
So why stop at adultry, murder, Theft, etc...
We are all just a bunch of animals anyway and it is survival of the fitest. There is no right or wrong. Let's just do what we want.
14 - jaz
it's called the Rule of Law...ethical standards set into place by the secular covenant of the US Constitution
you might want to look all of that up, and then come back to us to discuss further because it appears from your two comments that the concepts appear to have escaped you
15 - Doug Hunter
A central question of the article is why don't adulterers have 'advocacy groups' and outrage and all the other PC bullshit. I still don't see a logical answer though I don't suppose questions of morals lend themselves to logic very well.
If Nalle et al thinks he should be fired for expressing an opinion on morals I wonder if they would support firing anyone for any moral stance.
It's not logical to say that hetero sex is good and homo sex, pedophilia, polygamy, and necrophilia are wrong. There is no magic god given right answer it's just made up social bullshit.
Science can show that necrophilia doesn't physically harm anyone either, does that make it right? (Necrophilia disgusts some people and offends their sensibilities but so does homosexuality)
If the general had said necrophilia was wrong should he be fired as well?
I'm not saying the general shouldn't be fired or his opinions silenced, I'm just pointing out the stupidity of claiming it's based on 'logic' where morality is concerned. We need smart leaders, a smart leader would have detected the shifting winds and edited his opinions to reflect popular ones. Yeah sure, he'd be a lying flip flopping piece of shit but that's what the majority of our society wants these days (as evidenced by our leaders).
16 - Doug Hunter
"it's called the Rule of Law...ethical standards set into place by the secular covenant of the US Constitution"
So every law is necessarily 'right' then? The general's comments were perfectly in line with existing law (don't ask, don't tell) so you would agree that what he said isn't a problem.
17 - Johny
Ok.
So if there is a law that says it's ok to Murder your neighbor, and everyone agrees that this should be the law, Does that make it right and moraly exceptable?
This is what you are telling me?
I guess I can't have an opionion because it disagrees with your personal view. So you throw out personal attacks to quiet those who have different opinions.
But that is your choice.
The question still comes down to what is right and wrong?
This changes from person to person all of which will disagree on some aspects of opinion and law.
Isn't it great to live in a country where we have those priviledges?
18 - jaz
you are portraying what is known as a false dichotomy as well as pure bullshit hypotheticals
and again, you attempt to impugn what i am doing here, no personal attacks, actually
read what i typed...i asked you to look the material up because your own comment makes it appear that you are not familiar with the concept of the Rule of Law, you r comment #17 displays the same lack
the Rule of Law sets ethical standards, codified and ratified by our system of Legislation in accordance with the Constitution
what is "right and wrong" you ask...well, here in the U.S. "right" is following the laws and "wrong" is breaking them
as for the "differing opinions", the entire structure of the Judicial branch is there to resolve exactly those issues
this is all covered in the US history you are required to have 2 years of before graduating high school, as well as rudimentary for any basic civics class...hence my admonition to look it up
no insult, merely educational advice
19 - MCH
"In my opinion (notice that word?), we should allow them to fight. What they do behind closed doors (or inside a tent) is between them and God. I don't have to like it. Neither does General Pace."
- Larry Stanley
I agree. If they have the fortitude to take the action to place themselves in harm's way and risk the ultimate sacrifice for our country, they certainly shouldn't be judged by the chickenhawks who stay home and fight the wars from their keyboards.
20 - jaz
Doug..as i stated previously...military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, not the Constitution...it is that set of rules under which this must be viewed
private Citizens are allowed to hold and express what they like, that is "free speech" (with the caveat of harming others, the infamous yelling "fire" in a movie theater)
21 - Alan
Freedom of speech means not being prosecuted by the government because of one's beliefs in court. It does not mean that there are not repurcussions for what we choose to voice. Racists are rightly outcasts in our society. Politicians are voted out or are forced out by the public because of extreme views.
You have a right to believe and say what you want. Society also has the right to say what they think about those beliefs, rightly or wrongly.
22 - jaz
Alan says - "Freedom of speech means not being prosecuted by the government because of one's beliefs in court. It does not mean that there are not repurcussions for what we choose to voice. Racists are rightly outcasts in our society. Politicians are voted out or are forced out by the public because of extreme views.
You have a right to believe and say what you want. Society also has the right to say what they think about those beliefs, rightly or wrongly."
Quoted for Truth
23 - Sisyphus
"military personnel are subject to the UCMJ, not the Constitution..."
In the same way that civilians are subject to civil law, not the Constitution. The UCMJ is not independent of the Constitution. That is, the UCMJ is more-or-less consistent with Constitutional protections, which are afforded to civilians.
24 - jaz
Correct to a point, Sisyphus
there are provisions in the UCMJ which have no equivalent in the Constitution that are needed for the circumstances of military service...
case in point, it is an offense to get a tattoo (especially one visible while wearing the uniform), violators will face charges of "destruction of government property" under the UCMJ
such is not the case in the civilian world
as far as freedom of speech as we know it in the civilian world...such Rights are constrained in the military by provisions in the UCMJ
NEVER just "believe" ANY single source...look it up and decide for yourself
25 - larry stanley
Sisyphus
"But your claim is that no line should exist whatsoever, which is nonsense. The U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This is not the same as abrogating a person's responsibility for that which is spoken."
Sisyphus:
First, I don't think that 'no line should exist.' If I gave that impression, I am sorry. I would not yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless I could smell smoke or see flames. I would not tell my wife she looks too big in a certain outfit.
There are limits and there are lines. And it is a decision that most people have to make as to where that line will be drawn in their lives.
General Pace responded to a question asked him by a reporter. Was his answer intelligent? Was it sensitive to the needs, actions or lifestyles of others? Nope. But he made it, and I think he does need to be held accountable for that statement.
Does that mean taking his job away from him? Crist no. He has done an outstanding job thus far, even with his attitude toward gays. Why should that change now?
As to someone quoting Leviticus. I am a Christian. And I know a lot of people have automatically placed me in a picture in your mind of bib-overalls, a pig under one arm and I am just here taking a few moments off from chasing my younger sister to have sex.
Well, that is your right. In reality, I don't own any overalls, or any sort; I don't own pigs, and I don't have a younger sister.
She was a cousin, but that is another story.
The actual point is, Christians (please notice I use an upper case "C" here? That denotes what I call true Christians, or followers of Christ) find their rules for life in what is called the "New Testament."
While the Old Testament is used for study, for trying to understand God and the plan for life, it is not supposed to be used as a guide for a Christians life.
In fact, we are told straight out in the New Testament that those who follow the "Law", as in the Law of Moses, are predestined to failure in following God. See, the law was impossible to use to please God.
We Christians, are told that we must live by faith. That love is our goal. Not sexual, but a higher, spiritual type of love that we should have for all people.
I ain't there yet, but I try.
We are told to love everyone. And everyone included gays and lesbians. It also includes thieves, liars, politicians (or did I mention them?)adulterers, fornicators, drunkards and all sorts of people that the New Testament flat out states will not see the 'Kingdom of God.'
But, NOWHERE does it say WE are to condemn, hate, strike, be bigoted against, slander or do anything to cause any of these people pain.
In fact, we are told flat out to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." NO Christian goes against this attitude. Christians will strive to meet this attitude, even in the face of some clow...sorry, someone... attacking them.
We are told over and over to 'love one another.' And you can't do that by hating someone.
I have a lot of gay friends. They know how I feel about their lifestyle. And they also know that they can call on me for just about anything. That I am their friend, and in at least one case, their Mentor. I love them all.
I also love my friends who are involved in a sexually immoral lifestyle. And they know how I feel about what they do, and yet I still accept them and they still accept me for who I am.
Does a Christian have a right to say something is immoral? Yes, based on what they believe they do. However, if a Christian truly wants to live God and to share that life with others, they need to accept and become friends with the people they might think are immoral.
When Jesus walked the earth (according to the scripture) He didn't hang out with the rich folks in gated communities and the kids who went to private schools or owned their own charriot.
He hung out with lepers, tax collectors, whores, drunks and all the other people like me.
We both needed Him, I was the only one who accepted Him.
Should gays and lesbians be allowed to serve in the armed forces? Dang right they should be. Anyone willing to place their life on the line for this country should be allowed to fight.
Sorry for the ramble. I just felt like using my Freedom of Speech. And yes, I will be accountable.
Probably to an editor. heehee