The other day after General Pace (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) indicated that gay people should not serve in the military because gay people are "immoral", his staff and several others pointed out that this was the
General's personal opinion and damn it, he was entitled to it. Well sir, with all due respect, this is my opinion and I AM ENTITLED TO IT TOO. Don't ask, don't tell is a law that allows gays to serve in the military as long as they do not reveal their sexual orientation or engage in "homosexual conduct". The reasons for this policy, according to the Department of Defense is as follows.......
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the
military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by
their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct,
seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence
of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to
maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and
confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of
rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of
service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions
affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed
forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to
prevent breaches of security."
General Pace, in his moment of truth, clearly indicated that he thought gays should be banned from the military, not for the reasons listed above, but rather because he says:
".....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 e
lse's wife, that we would just look the
other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace
said." (Chicago Tribune)
Nowhere, in this statement does he state anything about morale or unit cohesion or the other reasons that the military imposed these restrictions in the first place. He basically said that he finds homosexuality morally offensive and that he did not feel that the military should endorse "immoral behavior" by letting gays serve openly. I am comforted of course by General Pace's concern that the military only recruit "moral" soldiers but this begs the question. What are your standards for determining whether or not a soldier is moral? In the last few years the military have issued a
significant number of so-call "morals waivers", because recruiting has
plummeted after the Iraqi war and there was a need for new recruits. These moral waivers allow soldiers with felonies and multiple misdemeanors to enlist in the service. The New York Times recently reported on this:
"To keep filling the ranks, the Army has had to keep lowering its expectations.
Diluting educational, aptitude and medical standards has not been enough. Nor
have larger enlistment bonuses plugged the gap. So the Army has found itself
recklessly expanding the granting of “moral waivers,” which let people convicted
of serious misdemeanors and even some felonies enlist in its ranks. Last
year, such waivers were granted to 8,129 men and women — or more than one out of every 10 new Army recruits. That number is up 65 percent since 2003, the year
President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. In the last three years, more than
125,000 moral waivers have been granted by America’s four military services.
Most of last year’s Army waivers were for serious misdemeanors, like aggravated
assault, robbery, burglary and vehicular homicide. But around 900 — double the
number in 2003 — were for felonies. Worse, the Army does no systematic tracking
of recruits with waivers once it signs them up, and it does not always pay
enough attention to any adjustment problems. Without adequate monitoring and
counseling, handing out guns to people who have already committed crimes poses a
danger to the other soldiers they serve with and to the innocent civilians they
are supposed to protect." (
NYT, February 2007)
Now let me get this straight. General Pace says gays should not serve because "we don't want to encourage immoral behavior" but it's all right to enlist convicted felons who commit robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and vehicular homicide. What the F@@@??? Uh...last time I looked people who steal from and assault others are considered "immoral". Is this the message you want to send to people? You can be bad...really bad...kill someone with your car even...and still join the military. But if you are gay...well shit...that knocks you out for good. Come on General. This is bullshit, sir. There is no other way to describe this line of thinking. What is the military necessity for keeping gays out? Can you give us a reason other then homosexuality insults your morals? Please sir, you owe the men and woman of the Armed Forces an honest discussion on the merits of keeping this outdated, useless policy. And lets cut the morality play. You should be implementing policy not making it. Let congress debate this issue on merit and let the chips fall where they might. State your view on the policy not on your personal view of homosexuality. And let all qualified men and women who love their country and who are willing to give their lives in its defense serve. Bigotry has no place in America or in our military.
