Pace Won't Apologize for Gay Remark - washingtonpost.com

Here's a tidbit paraphrased from an AP report in the WashPost:

"Pace Won't Apologize for Gay Remark"

What could that mean? Let's read on...

It appears that in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace had likened homosexuality to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,'" Pace said. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Pace said he based his views on his upbringing.

"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.'"

Umm...yeah, Peter? Pete? a sidebar, if you will?

Okay, sweetie, listen, I know you're just shootin' from the hip'n'all? but--how I can put this gently and politely?--you sound like a cretinous dick.

First off, you don't get to speak "as an individual". You're Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'mkay? So, whatever troglodytic, homophobic views you may hold in the deep clutch of your bosom, well, whenever you voice them to a major American newspaper, they become the opinion not of a small-minded bigot who might do well to pop his head out of his ass and blink in the daylight of the 21st century but of the entire armed forces as an organization, you see?

Second of all, I don't really care to know the specifics of your upbringing--although I would guess that being caged and pissed on daily might've comprised a substantial chunk of your Wonder-Years-ages-one-through-twelve--but whatever they may be, it doesn't really matter because you're now the highest-ranking military officer in the country and the principal military advisor to our poor, retarded President. So, really, shouldn't you be acting in a way that promotes the best interests of our nation and not in a way that might reflect that maybe Father Tony back at Our Lady of Bacciagalupe talked his favoritest altar boy into giving him a handjob by telling him that he was about to receive The Most Special Sacrament Of All? And Petey, the best interests of our nation at this moment in our history don't involve turning away or dismissing men and women who actually want to serve our country. Because, Petey?, in case you haven't noticed...you're running short of warm, healthy bodies to throw at the insurgencies. So, your choice: do you let your upbringing color your decisions or do you try to...I don't know...wake the fuck up to the reality of trying to win a gory war of economic expansion which our leaders had to deceive us to support?

Like I said, your choice, Pete.
Take your time.
Just one more note: you'll probably go to Hell a lot faster for not doing everything possible to save American lives than you would for allowing men and women whom you--that's "you", boldface, upper case--consider "immoral" to serve their country as soldiers.
'Cause truth be told? I'd rather field a platoon of kickass patriotic faggots than a division of shithead priest-gargling bigots.
Oh, I almost forgot: I would really, really soft-pedal the whole "morality/immorality" thing while you're fronting for Dick "my friends call me 'Cthulhu'" Cheney.

Thanks for your time, shug.
Smooches.



politics homosexuality military