1115.org

One of the fringe benefits of blogospheric (yes, twice in two days) longevity is watching readers become inspired to create their own blogs. Believe it or not, I was even proud when the infamous JimC started his own blog in reaction to being banned here, complete with a, sadly vanished, first entry excoriating your hosts. As Jim found out, writing your own blog is a lot harder than copy/pasting talking points in someone else’s comments section, and he didn’t post consistently enough to qualify for a link here. But in the spirit of his return, I thought I’d address his most recent post commenting on my thoughts on General Peter Pace and Senator Sam Brownback with regard to their little game of gay-bashing. It’s not my habit to return to dead stories two weeks later, especially when I had my say the first time, but there seems to be rampant confusion as to what’s in and what’s out of bounds on this.

The standard argument as made by Jim and others is that Pace is allowed to smear and denigrate a segment of Americans, and Brownback is allowed to come to his defense, because of free speech. And it’s true, they can say whatever they damn please. But that doesn’t mean they should, and it certainly doesn’t mean that they’re above criticism for their bigotry, especially when their words come in their official capacities. The most annoying part of these types of “debates” comes when defenders of people like Pace, Brownback and many others of their ilk whine about how their critics must show tolerance for the intolerant words they speak.

The bottom line is this: I have infinite tolerance for people to believe whatever they want. This includes homophobic bigots, white supremacists, anti-semites, and all other assorted hate-mongers. But there is a bright line where the government is involved, and as the highest-ranking military official in this country, and the chief military advisor to the President, Pace has power and responsibilities that trump his personal expression. Let’s revisit the substance and context of what he actually said:

“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.

Pace was asked about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as it has been back in the discourse lately, as military recruiting goals go unmet, and studies showing it to be responsible for approximately 10,000 discharges are released. He didn’t stick with his supposed area of expertise by saying that he doesn’t support the policy on military grounds — though 20 out of 25 NATO countries allow homosexual service — with the usual nebulous claims of its effect on unit cohesion. Even that would have been a dodge, as no one was asking him if gays should be able to serve openly. But Pace, wearing the uniform and appearing in his role of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went out of his way to inject his personal homophobia. In doing so, he denigrated the service of gays and lesbians who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and serving elsewhere by offering his opinion that their lifestyle is immoral. As if that wasn’t enough, he went on to compare homosexuality to adultery. Like every American, Pace is entitled to his opinion, hateful, misguided and untenable as it is. But as the ultimate superior to the brave gays and lesbians who choose not only to volunteer for service at a time when the military is being used in a reckless manner, but accept the risk that at any time they may be involuntary discharged for simply being themselves, Pace’s comments cross the line into what members of his own side often call “Not Supporting The Troops.”

Just like his fellow General Jerry “my god is bigger than his god” Boykin, Pace simply has no business saying what he said while wearing the uniform of a country that, by definition, offers its citizens: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And this is where the misconceptions of the people who view Pace’s public homophobia as an opportunity to high five each other and engage in a round of attempted justification come off the rails.

JimC: One problem is that those who throw intolerance bombs try to conflate hatred of the homosexual person with hatred of the homosexual act. Christians have no right to hate anyone because Christ loved us all and we all are sinners. However, the sin, we can hate and should hate and desire to keep that sin from being accepted by the community.

This “hate the sin, not the sinner” is the same kind of nonsense we’re already used to. Sure, it sounds nice, but it makes about as much sense as when we’re told that some fiasco or another is “Bush’s responsibility, but not his fault.” In the eyes of the government, homosexuality isn’t a sin. Past that, hating the “sin” in practice necessarily ends up punishing the “sinner.” Christ has nothing to do with someone’s fitness to serve in the United States military, and community acceptance isn’t in the Constitution. It’s an excuse to normalize homophobia and provide cover for bigotry.

JimC: When does the right of the individual trump the right of many individuals otherwise known as a community? If that community of many individuals deems certain things immoral then they are immoral. Right now, this is the debate, which community gets to decide what is immoral or not? The liberals would say that the individual gets to impose their morals on the whole. Why is that? Why does an individual outweigh many individuals? If in San Francisco, they want that morality in their community, then they can choose it. We shouldn’t have to become tolerant of standards we do not agree with because someone calls it intolerance of a person or group of people.

The irony of course is that homosexuals aren’t imposing anything on anyone. No one is pushing for legalizing public sodomy. The worst that homophobes have to suffer is the idea of homosexuality. JimC mentions San Francisco, the city I’ve called home for 10 years. I’m sure if you took a poll here, teh gheys would outperform the god squad. Does that mean that San Franciscans should have the ability to discriminate against religious people? Of course not, and the reason is a principle that guided Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as they mapped out the contours of this country, pluralism: “A condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.” Unfortunately, you do have to tolerate people who are different.

JimC: I would be willing to wager, they would object mostly to a group of conservative Christians setting up shop next door.

How much money did you just lose? I take cash.

The point I keep coming back to is this: The two sides in this “debate” are not equal, and it’s got nothing to do with whose morals you use to judge. One side wants to live their lives with the same rights and privileges afforded everyone else. The other side wants the ability to restrict who is eligible for these rights and privileges and, where possible, to codify these restrictions. The problem for the bigots is that the Constitution is the source of power in this country, not the bible, the koran, or the dead sea scrolls, and the Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence, provides for equality, no matter who you want to have sex with.

Meanwhile, Pace, who would have been fired by any President outside of the sociopath we’re currently saddled with, serves on. And who better to supervise an increase in sexual assaults in the military and Army recruiters who think it’s OK to tell prospective recruits over email to “go back to Africa and do your gay voodoo limbo tango and wango dance and jump around and prance and run all over the place half naked there.”

Who better, indeed.