Peter Pace, Part Primo

I just couldn't resist the alliteration.

Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as you may have heard (ahem), made some completely inappropriate remarks during an interview with the Chicago Tribune:

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "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. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.

First, before we get to the actual subtance of his remarks, let's just take the context: speaking as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Pace comes out with a condemnation of a segment of the American populations (which includes, please remember, an estimated 65,000 currently serving personnel) based on his personal religious beliefs.

As might be expected, Pace's comments are receiving some criticism, which to me seems more than justified. I'll get into that in more detail as we go along.

One will find the usual boneheaded remarks about how his "freedom of speech" is being curtailed in the comments at places like GayPatriot as well as in the comments from Frank James' follow-up, linked below. (The level of ignorance revealed in the comments at the Trib is breathtaking.) Let's set something in stark black and white, which seems to be the only colors that the right recognizes: the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, guarantees it from interference by the government; it does not insulate anyone from criticism for inappropriate or even unpopular remarks. In case no one had noticed, Pace is a serving military officer, a Marine, in fact, which means that he does not have an untrammeled right to freedom of speech. (If he were Pete Pace from down the street, the Tribune in all likelihood would not be interviewing him to begin with.) In fact, as a serving officer, he is, as it turns out, in violation of Marine regs. (Andrew Sullivan links to the relevant section, but my brower comes up "file not found"; I'm sure it's just a coincidence.)

Then, regarding his analogy: Pace compares any gay relationship to adultery. Given the legalistic, nitpicking turn of the right, I can see where this originates, but that doesn't make it valid. Even by that standard, since gays can't marry except in Massachusetts, he has no argument there. Totally specious comparison.

Also, as Frank James notes in a follow-up at The Swamp:

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.

Former Senator Alan Simpson sums it up nicely:

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.

There are larger questions involved when you get into the substance of Pace's remarks vis-a-vis his position as the head of the armed forces (except for, of course, the Commander-in-Chief, Psreznit Decider). I'll have to do more on this later, since I'm running out of time. However, as a parting shot, I bring you a couple of "Profiles in Courage," or "Why I May Just Not Vote in 2008":

Barack Obama, on whether gays are immoral.

Hillary Clinton, same question.