Insomnia (insomnia) wrote,

Top Marine clarifies military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hypocrisy...

The chairman of the U.S. military Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, is now on record as to why he supports "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policies.

It's all about the (Judeo-Christian) morality.

(Of course, shooting people, bombing their villages, indiscriminately blowing up houses, wildly firing your weapons in cities... that's okay.)

He then proceeds to compare potentially loving, consentual same-sex relationships to adultery, both technically being grounds for dismissal.

But the thing is, adultery isn't grounds for dismissal in the military, in most cases. it is only grounds for dismissal if it can be shown to "bring discredit upon the armed forces, or (be) conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline." 

In most cases, this means that people are only drummed out of the military for adultery in the event of cases of fraternization (officer & enlisted personnel) or in relationships with another military member, or a military spouse. If a soldier cheats on a civilian, well... that simply doesn't matter as much.

So, why doesn't the military simply apply this same fair, reasonable, common sense standard to homosexual behavior in the military? Hell yes, I can see why soldiers having sex with other soldiers while deployed / on duty might be a bad thing, no matter what their sexual orientation is. But that's not what military policy forbids with "don't ask, don't tell." 

General Pace is a professional soldier, and should really provide journalists with a more detailed, rational argument showing exactly why we've spent $190 million U.S. taxpayer dollars to drum thousands of skilled soldiers out of the military during a time of war. Instead, everyone gets a short answer. "'Cause the Bible says so", basically. 

So, while he's apparently willing to tolerate gays in the military so long as they remain closeted, if they are investigated and found to be gay, or have a homosexual relationship (even with non-military personnel), they're immoral and should be dishonorably discharged. This, incidentally, is a more rigid anti-homosexual policy than the Catholic Church has for its priests, which allows them to be ordained if they "overcome their transitory gay tendencies for three years".

Indeed, even Catholic priests who are against homosexuality in the clergy don't make the same value judgements that General Pace does. 

"It's an affective disorder. That does not mean that those who are afflicted with it are bad persons. In fact they are images of God and due our respect." 
- Father Joseph Fessio, provost of Ave Maria University, editor-in-chief of Ignatius Press. Close friend / former theology student of Pope Benedict.

Apparently, while it's morally indefensible to knowingly let homosexuals serve their country, it's completely acceptable to send soldiers to Iraq and expose them to greater risks, as there are fewer doctors, fewer interpreters... Sure, send soldiers back to Iraq so wounded that they can't even wear body armor or evade enemy fire, but don't send them there if they are homosexuals.

Who knows? Maybe one day, Pace and a bunch of his buddies from Vietnam will find themselves in hell for torching a village, only to be surrounded by a bunch of immoral, wicked homosexuals. Here's hoping they all have a good time together.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.