The Morality of General Peter Pace

Jim Burroway

March 13th, 2007

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Chicago Tribune yesterday that he supports “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because homosexual acts “are immoral”:

“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.

Now Gen. Pace is expressing extremely limited regret over his comments:

In a statement Tuesday, he said he should have focused more in the interview on the Defense Department policy about gays — and “less on my personal moral views”.

However, Gen. Pace’s senior staff members who wished to remain anonymous said that the general had no intention of apologizing. Senator John Warner, the senior Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, strongly rebuked Pace’s comments, saying “I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman’s view that homosexuality is immoral.”

Staff Seargent Eric Fidelis Alva, who is America’s first serious Marine casualty in the Iraq War, responded this way:

“Judging gay men and women in the military for factors unrelated to their fitness to serve undermines our military’s effectiveness. Certain leaders’ bigotry should not be a rational basis for discrimination. This kind of prejudice is going to continue to have a direct impact on our national security as we allow qualified gay men and women to lose their jobs for no good reason. This policy — and General Pace’s bigotry — is outdated, unnecessary and counter to the same American values our soldiers are giving their lives for each and every day.”

So here’s a question that Gen. Pace ought to answer: is Staff Seargent Alva immoral? Alva, you may remember, lost his right leg to a land mine during the early days of the war, and was awarded a Purple Heart from President Bush himself. He also publicly came out as gay three weeks ago and is now the Human Rights Campaign’s spokesman against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Gay men and women are serving this nation with distinction in Iraq, Afganistan and elsewhere. Thousands more want to, but can’t. The Williams Project at UCLA (PDF: 246KB/22 pages) estimated that there are about 65,000 gay and lesbian troops in the US military, and another one million gay American military veterans. The Government Accountability Office found in 2005 (PDF: 1,007KB/50 pages) that of the 9,488 service members who had been discharged since 1993 under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” about 757 “held critical occupations,” including 322 with “skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean.”

If there is an “immorality” problem, it’s not with those who have served our country. That immorality rests with those who would prefer that we accept convicted felons over proud, brave, and loyal men and women exemplified by Staff Sgt. Alva.


March 13th, 2007

“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…”

Um, we prosecute adultery? I think the General is confusing the United States with Saudi Arabia or another country where he spent a tour of duty. He’s certainly entitled to believe that being gay is immoral. The question is whether it impacts ability to serve. And it does not, as other militaries have demonstrated.


March 13th, 2007

If you are a member of the US armed forces you can be prosecuted for adultery. It’s kind of complicated though, according to this website:

Adultery is still a (civilian) crime in some states as well, although (as ck notes) it’s not really prosecuted these days. I’d be curious whether adultery laws would stand up under Lawrence (Scalia thought they wouldn’t–his dissent is a fascinating read, weirdly inspiring).

Pace is surely an idiot, but I’m glad to see the issue being discussed. From what I’ve been reading, a lot of people are pretty tired of DADT and I’m a little hopeful that it actually may finally be done away with.

p.s. the link for “responded this way” just seems to lead back to

Jim Burroway

March 13th, 2007

Oops! Sorry about the faulty link. And errant cut-and-paste is the culprit. Yeah. That’s it.

Holly Holly Holly

March 13th, 2007

General Pace should use his authority to prosecute unmarried virgins, since the Bible forbids fornication. The military believes that torture can secure confessions. Perhaps Pace could authorize torturing single soldiers to determine whether they’re virgins. And married soldiers could be tortured to determine whether they’ve remained true to their vows.

Of course, I don’t believe this, but I do believe that the majority will forgive its Biblically-based sins while casting out the minority for their alleged Biblically-based sins. I write “alleged” because many Biblical scholars note that the sections of text that the fundies all cite to justify their hatred of homosexual citizens has been recently modified.


March 13th, 2007

Thanks for the link, werdna. I had forgotten about that, and was thinking civil law.

However, even in the case of adultery, it looks like more must be proved than mere lust after a married person. In addition to intercourse (not just kissing, flirtation or other sexual activity) to someone married, the military must also demonstrate that the act brings “discredit onto the armed forces.”

It’s not just that the act is immoral.

Further breaking down the parallel is that homosexual *activity* is not the focus, but even orientation.

General Pace needs a course in ethics, I’d say. The two situations simply aren’t the same.


March 13th, 2007

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral”
“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”

He thinks that the mutual consent of two persons is “just like” two people conspiring to cheat on a third – and also the ignoring of it by those who know about it?

Zero victims is equal to one victim? Honest consent is equal to dishonest conspiracy? And this is the “morality” of a top US General?

Nothing inspires confidence in the person in charge of your safety like knowing they don’t know the difference between nothing and something.

I might agree that he needs a course in ethics, but the morally relative don’t “learn” morality, they design it.

Lynn David

March 14th, 2007

Am I the only one who thinks what Gen. Pace said was all that bad? By definition, homosexuality, the homosexual act is immoral under the military code. Being homosexual, having homosexuality, is unfortunately also considered immoral under the code if someone finds out. Pace’s opinion is simply that idea which created the code in the first place. That he should have such an opinion is certainly understandable. And since the code backs him up why shouldn’t he be able to pronounce it?

Yeah, on the other hand, he’s a dinosaur, and things need dto change in the military. But until then he’s basically only saying what the code supports. Eh….


March 14th, 2007

Thank you Lynn David,

I always did have a soft spot for him. He’s so graceful with the media. He always seemed like someone I could trust.

So there’s the projection part of me that’s lashing out against a hurtful stereotype, complicated with the seeming betrayal of trust.

Poor guy, he’s so nice, I actually kind of feel for him now that you mention it. I mean, who elso would put there foot in their mouth like that but someone who was open and honest.

Well, at best I’ll keep a prejudiced open mind. But I’ll do my best. :-)


March 14th, 2007

Even worse were the comments of an idiot US representative whose name I have mercifully forgotten–saw him on Countdown–who said that the majority of the army and marines proudly share Pace’s opinion, and that people should really really remember that and the fact that these guys are fighting for “our right to have those kinds of morals and standards.”

Yesssss…. fighting religious extremists for the right to be religious extremists. Gotta love America.

Michael Reinelt

March 15th, 2007

It does strike me as totally weird, that gayness or sleeping with a buddy’s wife is considered “immoral”, while Gen. Pace doesn’t even dream of the murder of civilians in an occupied land as immoral.

If the US military can’t keep combattants apart from civilians, they shouldn’t invade a country on a whim and without any need. The Iraqi resistance has a right to fight back, but to eliminate civilians because the resistance is too smart for the US military is the wrong response — which applies to Afghanistan as well. That’s what qualifies as immoral in my book.

I am writing this from Germany, and many here meanwhile view the US with utmost suspicion, because the US resembles more and more each year what the Americans of a long-forgotten generation liberated us from. The fascistic leadership now is just much more incompetent by comparison … but that’s another blog, altogether.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.


Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.