Friday March 23, 2007 SGN.org |
 |
Volume 35 Issue 12 |
 |
|
Saturday, Sep 06, 2008
|
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| A military morality play |
 |
|
When the nation's top general said Gay sex is immoral, some leading 'champions' dodged in response. Do we really want politicians defending our honor? by Chris Crain - SGN Contributing Writer The country was treated to a fascinating morality play in recent days, as politicians and pundits reacted to the pronouncement by America's top uniformed officer that Gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly because "homosexual acts" are "immoral" like adultery. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Peter Pace later said he regretted the remarks, but only because he injected his personal views into his defense of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which allows Lesbians and Gay men to serve but only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. Given the penchant of those in the president's party to cite their personal religious views to justify discriminating against Gays, it should come as no surprise to see top military brass like Pace - who is Roman Catholic - do the same. How conveniently conservatives like Pace and the president forget that it's the "other side" in the war on terror that wants to write into law their own strict moral code. Or are the Islamists right that the battle isn't really pluralism and tolerance vs. Islamic extremists, but Christians against Muslims? The widespread criticism Pace received for his remarks is an encouraging sign that most Americans know which side we ought to be on. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly reminded his top general that personal religious views shouldn't determine public policy. So why did two Gay favorites, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, catch so much grief just for saying they respected that very same separation? Asked by ABC News whether she agreed with Pace on the morality issue, Hillary deflected the question. "Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said, though she went on to argue for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Obama did the same when pressed three times by Newsday to respond to Pace's moral condemnation. The reaction from Gays, myself included, was as quick as it was angry. How could these politicians who call themselves our champions and who ask for our support and our money, decline to defend us when we're under attack? The Human Rights Campaign jumped into the fray, pressuring both Clinton and Obama campaigns behind the scenes to correct the record, especially since two other Democratic contenders for the White House, John Edwards and Bill Richardson, had gotten the question right the first time they were asked. To their credit, Clinton and Obama both spoke out the next day, personally filling in the blanks they had left with their previous evasions. But in so doing, they ended up parsing their words as much as the good general had. In classic "hate the sin, love the sinner" language, General Pace had said in his original interview that his objection wasn't to Gay people. He simply believed "homosexual acts" are "immoral," like adultery, an answer that conveniently tracks the language of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" itself, which allows Gays to serve so long as they don't act on their feelings. But when Clinton and Obama came out with their clarifications, they didn't talk about "homosexual acts" they just said they disagreed with Pace that "homosexuality is immoral." Were they loving the sinner and pleading agnostic on the sin? It's not purely a matter of semantics. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by itself does not put Gay and straight soldiers on a level battlefield. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits acts of sodomy only between two people of the same sex, and neither Clinton nor Obama has said specifically whether they favor repeal of that provision as well. Of course, allowing homosexual sodomy under military law isn't the same thing as saying Gay sex is "moral," but it's a much more practical and important question for our Gay men and women in uniform. Perhaps we all fell too easily into the trap set by Pace's remarks, expecting politicians to defend our morality instead of our equal treatment under the law. If we truly believe in the separation of church and state, and that personal moral views have no place in politics, then we shouldn't demand that Gay-friendly politicians pronounce us "moral" any more than we accept it when conservatives like Pace call us immoral. We know more than enough about most politicians and even most religious leaders not too much stake in their moral approval anyway. Let's not get distracted from the real equality issues at the heart of the movement. Chris Crain is former editor of the Washington Blade, Southern Voice, and Gay publications in three other cities. He can be reached via his blog at www.citizencrain.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International Readers read the SGN in Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 post your own information on Seattle Gay Blog |
|
 |
copyright Seattle Gay News - DigitalTeamWorks 2006