Thoughts on the Peter Pace controversy....

So look at the picture above of the Pentagon's top general, Peter Pace, addressing the troops. You gotta figure that there are more than one in that crowd who are gay, who are not being asked and who are not telling. They are choosing to serve our country, gay or straight, and I am grateful beyond words. That's why I was so glad to see the world come down hard on Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he told a Chicago Tribune reporter this week that he supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy because it allows gays to serve and doesn't make "a judgment about individual acts."
Then he went on to say the following: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well-served through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
OK, so that's how he feels. I'm SURE he's not immoral in any way.Pul-eeeeeze! And is he about to tell Dick Cheney that his lesbian daughter is immoral in any way? Does this Pace believe that our stretched-too-thin military is better off for discharging more than 10,000 troops including more than 50 specialists in Arabic since 1994?
After a flurry of condemnation, Pace responded by saying that he "should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Ya think?
Politicians from both parties, of course, weighed in. Nancy Pelosi slammed Pace as did Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts who has introduced legislation seeking to repeal the anti-gay policy. "Our military is struggling to find and keep soldiers we need. We are turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination," Meehan said. But I was most interested in the statement made by Virginia Senator John Warner, a former Secretary of Navy who is mighty Republican but was also married to Elizabeth Taylor for six years: "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."
It is ironic that Warner's statement was stronger than those made by Democratic presidential front-runners Senators Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill. who initially played it safe in that maddening way that politicans do.
Said Clinton Tuesday when an ABC reporter asked her whether homosexuality is immoral: "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."
Huh?
Said Obama on Wednesday when pressed Obama for reaction to Pace's comments: "Traditionally, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."
Inspiring.
It wasn't until a homosexual advocacy group ripped both candidates for being so wishy-washy that they finally said something that resembled a position.
"Well, I've heard from a number of my friends, and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely," Clinton told Bloomberg News Thursday. "I do not think homosexuality is immoral."
Gee, good thing she heard from her friends. Otherwise she would still be leaving it up to others to decide and not have a position?
Also Thursday, Obama released a statement on the issue. "I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
Yawn.
Thank God that Jo Wyrick, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, let Clinton and Obama know just how lame their initial comments were. Without mentioning either of the 2008 presidential candidates by name, Wyrick said that "most Democrats understand, and should understand, that morality isn't derived from sexual orientation or gender identity. Morality is how you treat your neighbor, support your community and sacrifice for your family and country. When I tuck my daughter into bed at night, those are the values I teach her.
Wyrick went on to say: "We expect Democratic candidates and elected officials to reaffirm those same values, to speak up when families or individuals are scapegoated or maligned for political gain, and to proactively argue the benefits of treating all Americans equally under the law without regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Well said.
Hey! Maybe Wyrick should run for president! She at least has the guts to say what she feels and to express herself clearly and thoughtfully. Imagine that.