Most of that headline was a popular saying during the VietNam War resistance. You shouldn’t have any problem figuring it out – though our Kongressional Kowards don’t seem to be any better at it than previous country clubs.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Marine Gen. Peter Pace had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in the interview. “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 was quoted as saying.
We should hang a Scarlet Letter around the neck of officials like this. Only the “A” would stand for “A-hole”.
And Republican support of the troops is to…
Cripes – you’re on your toes, this morning, Greg.
And here I thought you’d be open to alternate viewpoints on the subject.
Since I can’t get to the guardian link from work, I’ll post a quote from a related CNN article:
“‘Gen. Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,’ said C. Dixon Osburn [from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network]…
I’d really like to know what hat he pulled that number out of, or is he really saying that there are two and a half times as many homosexuals serving in the military today as there are infantrymen in the Marine Corps? Even if that were statistically possible, stating speculation as fact, when your organization has an interest in exaggerating these figures, does not help to build credibility.
Always interesting to see folks who are so out of touch with reality. The best these guys can ever come up with for keeping gays out of the military is that they fear improper sexual behavior (already covered by rules and standards for the breeders, or, that the straight men will feel uncomfortable in the shower or a foxhole.
Let me get this straight I am expected to believe that some guy can shoot people and protect our national interest, but can’t be expected to spend time with someone who is gay because he’s scared?
And don’t say its a social issue, if thats true then right-wing wackjobs shouldn’t be allowed in either.
What an idiot.
Maybe the general is afraid guys with inadequate armor and subpar medical treatment if they do get back to the states and more duty tours than even the Viet Nam war industry allowed will be entirely too relaxed the next time they get sent into combat. Might not be well regarded at the general’s country club or in the hallowed halls of the chicken hawks.
I’ll bet if they had a separate branch of the military just for gays, it’d be the most kick ass bunch anywhere. I hear that the French Foreign legion is mostly gay, and they are a truly hardcore group of men.
An executive order won’t work. Congress put the ban into law when Clinton was President.
Since when is the military a guineea pig for liberal ideas? Let the generals decide when or if a ban should be lifted. My guess is that revulsion of homosexuals is innate, and in military close quarters this type of thing would never be completely accepted.
As far as the title goes…If you’re guilty, your better off in a civilian court, if you’re innocent, your better off in a military court.