There's another part of Gen. Pace's comments that deserve as much attention as his discussion of gays. Here's his quote as described by the Tribune and the New York Times:

"Earlier Tuesday, senior staff members for Pace said the general had no plans to apologize for his comments, which included comparisons between homosexuality and adultery -- behavior that he said is prosecuted in the military.

"My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral," Pace told the Tribune. "I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct."

Pace also told the paper, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts."

The statement on sleeping "with other military member's wives" implies that sleeping with the wives of non-military men is not immoral. Or is it just a basic belief that this is strictly a military morality question, nothing to do with society at large?

I also notice that, interestingly, some subsequent characterizations of Gen. Pace's remarks have added "husbands" to "wives" regarding who is sleeping with whom and provides a belated recognition that there are women in the military as well as men. But Gen. Pace's initial remarks should stand as a recognition of many prejudices, ill-befitting any American military leader in the 21st Century.

L. D. Howell

Posted by: L. D. Howell at March 19, 2007 04:02 PM

I work for the VA in the laboratory. We are working so short handed we can't get the work done in a timely manner and be sides working under too much stress I am the patients are not receiving the quality of care they deserve. I don't understand why, if we are spending upwards of 365 million dollars a day in Iraq, why we can't get enough funding to hire more people to help with the work and care our veterans deserve.
I suppose it will take a congressman's family member to be effected before the money is put where it is needed.

Posted by: Walter Hearin at March 17, 2007 10:23 PM

Mr, Haskins said, "...otherwise why would God have made man and woman!"

I would ask him why God also made so many vriations on man and woman. Don't forget that we have Klinefelter's Syndrome, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Androgen Insensitivity, Mosaic Chromosome, and Turner's Syndrome babies, not to mention those born with both male and emale gonads and genitalia. One or more in 2000 babies born do not belong to either the male or female category. Since God makes no mistakes, there must be a reaon for this and for gay babies. Hmmmmm. Let'd try Christ's second commandment, shall we? Love your neighbor as yourself. It's caled unconditional love.

Posted by: Robyn Walters at March 17, 2007 11:57 AM

Good Evening Folks,

My post had nothing to do with Christianily, even though the Holocaust did enjoy support from many if not most Christian groups in Europe and America. It was only after conclusive evidence came of the death camps that the Christian Community started showing it's revolution to the racist polocies of the Nazis. Many Christian communities strangly 62 years later still strangley quiet on this subject and hve shown no outrage to the murder of six million people that included along with Jews, Homosexuals.

Geneal Pace as they say in the Military was out of line in both his reference to Homosexuals in the military and expressing his personal beliefs while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Marines.

In making the statements that he made General Pace politicalized his position as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that is not his job.

In the 1930's after Hitler came to power the military fell all over itself in endorseing the Nazi Policies of the German state. General Pace has shown that he is willing to do the same.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2007 09:46 PM

Gen. Pace, in addition to being an outstanding Military man is obviously also a firm beleiver in the Holy Bible. And anyone one who does not beleive in the Holy Bible is, by God's word,not mine, going to Hell. God, in the Old Testament and the New Testament says quite plainly that Homosexuality is a sin that will send you to Hell. If you wish to argue with this, then argue with God! Not me! I did not say it, but I beleive it, otherwise why would God have made man and woman! Also, there has been sin in this world since Adam and Eve. Anyone who does not know those two should read the Basic Guide for living - the HOLY BIBLE. Try it - you might like it and learn something worth while.

Posted by: Jack Haskins at March 15, 2007 09:05 PM

Mr. Skinner, how can one possibly equate what the good general said to what the Nazis preached against the Jews? I suggest you read the One Book.

Posted by: Arlene Ray at March 15, 2007 08:00 PM

The reporters should not have asked the question, if they were not ready for the response.

Posted by: Willie Smith at March 15, 2007 07:11 PM

Good Morning Folks,

I've been watching the comments here on this for the past few days and it seems what Gen. Pace said didn't make a connection. It not about "Homosexuals" it's about a great deal more. Like where are you at Noah?

An earlier generation of Generals in another place and another time routinly made the statement: "Jews are not human.". We all know what happened after that.

The Marines were the first of the military services that came out with a reading list for all ranks, "The Commandants reading list." I would like to suggest and addition to that list, "Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holicaust" by Aniel Jonah Goldhagen.

General Pace, you can still buy it over on Amazon in paperback, $17.00 list. I suggest you read it and put it on your recomended list.

Posted by: Byron Skinner at March 15, 2007 12:58 PM

I will not comment on morality of this issue but wish to recall a few past things from the news.

During the "don't ask, don't tell" days in the Clinton administration someone asked Barry Goldwater what he thought of homosexuals in the military. His answer was "Can they fight?"

Also the military has a dire need for Arabic linguists. A year or so ago six homosexual Arabic linguists at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA were kicked out of the army for being openly gay (or perhaps just being outed?). Are we cutting off our noses to spite our faces???

Posted by: Tony F at March 15, 2007 11:52 AM

While General Pace correctly apologized for using the opportunity as a platform for his personal views, I will defend to my last breath his right to have those views.

Just as I spent many years of my life defending that same right for all Americans, gay or straight, regardless of race or religious belief.

But let's get our facts straight; the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a step forward for the Armed Forces, whose previous policy allowed active identification and removal of gays from military service. And it's the right policy; no one questions whether a heterosexual is qualified to serve, and neither should we question the qualifications of the homosexual. Rather, we should (and do) let the individual's actions speak for them.

And while I agree on a personal level with the comments about moral relativism, it's another example of our willingness to pass judgement on one another.. something we could do less often.

I, for one, am thankful that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is both resolute enough to speak to his beliefs, and wise enough to recognize that a public forum was the wrong place to do it. Our Armed Forces deserve leadership that knows the difference.

Posted by: Lewis E. Butler at March 15, 2007 11:18 AM

Since 1967 this country has gradually morphed into and embraced moral relativism. For those not familiar with that term - it simply means, "that ethics are arbitrary and transitory, determined by the individual or the culture." In the pursuit of political correction and the disrobing of moral accountability, we as a nation have all too eagerly donned this mentality. Our national morality has gradually shifted from a base of solidification to the current phase of unstable, popularity driven by strength in numbers. Regardless of the explanations and attempts of justification - homosexuality is wrong. That does not mean that the individual can't shoot well, run well, think tactically, operate well in stressful situations, etc.; rather, it simply means that their choice to engage in homosexuality is wrong/immoral. The fact that homosexuality is more popular today than it was 20 years ago does not in any way minimize the decision - it only makes it more accepted among a cultural degradation delving into moral relativity. Augmenting that mentality in America is the complete lack of accountability in most facets of American culture. Nothing is our fault any longer: it's either someone else's fault, situational effects that "made me do it", or the fact that "I was born that way". Popularity and morality are two distinctly different things - one depends on the winds of current fads and acceptance and the other does not. I have also heard mentioned that barring homosexuality is somehow a recent restriction in military services. To set that record straight - it is not. Article 125 of the UCMJ (sodomy) was adopted into the Articles of War by the Continental Congress in 1775 - yet because it is now popular - many do not want it to be illegal. I can only hope pedophilia or rape never becomes popular among the masses; else what will this country be forced to accept then?

Posted by: Shane at March 15, 2007 09:21 AM

How very disconcerting. So many people and so much ignorance. I notice that the less a person actually knows the more they refer to unsubstantiated statistics. I served through 3 conflicts and oft heard an old saying. "whats the difference between a straight marine and a gay marine? answer: a six-pack of beer." Fellow responders: I think thou doth protest too much. In fact, there ARE many gays in the military, there always HAVE been and, god willing, there always WILL be. They, much like our grizzled herald of paucity, General Pace, have served as citizens and soldiers since long before EITHER of us greybeards stepped up to the plate. Having served with all branches over the course of my long career, I cannot believe that any of the anti-gays actually speak for the "majority of military personnel". I mean, was there a vote? Did someone take a comprehensive survey? Truth be told, those who protest are afraid of sexuality as a whole and are merely using it as a shield to mask their own insecurities (sexual or otherwise). I dislike a leader who cannot set his/her personal opinions aside and serve the greater good. But, in fairness, General Pace is not alone. He stands among a bevy of religeous-right hippocrites who either passively or actively impose their own non-american secularism on those they lead. One responder here said long live freedom... I say long live he truth, for without truth there can be no real freedom.

Posted by: JP Maier at March 15, 2007 06:37 AM

I am glad that we have a Commandant of the Marine Corps who can tell who not afraid to take a stand for what is right. Not is what politically correct. We need leaders like that, not ones who waffle like the majority of Congressman, Congresswomen and Senators.

Posted by: Kenneth C. Sanborn at March 15, 2007 06:33 AM

Bottom line homosexuality is wrong! As far as I am concerned, gays shouldn't have the right to serve in uniform!

The military is a respectable organization that requires the best of the best. President Bush should support General Pace and not cower to these left-wing homosexual groups or the ACLU, liberal media, etc..

Bill Clinton is the scum-bag that allowed this policy of "dont-ask, don't tell" to come about. I had hopes that we had moved beyond the social playground days of the dishonorable Bill Clinton.

Looks like I was totally wrong! It is a shame that an honorable man such as General Peter Pace should even have to think of making an apology for speaking the truth!

Semper Fidelis, General Pace; you hit the nail square on the head. Long live the United States and the United States Marine Corps.

Posted by: Charlie Davis, USMC Veteran at March 15, 2007 06:13 AM

"Everyone has their own opinion" Until their opinion pisses you off! You people are such hipocrites, the general has spent his life fighting for what he believes. If he chooses to express his views openly that is his right. He and myself unlike most of you cry babies, fought for that right. If you don't like what he said or has to say, change the channel or turn it off. I just happen to agree with him as do the other 85% of the free world. I will use my freedom to listen to him, you can use yours to not listen, or cry about it. Long live General Pace! Speak out! iT'S YOUR FREEDOM!!!!!!

Posted by: Dale at March 15, 2007 05:42 AM

For the last twenty years of my career as a soldier the military decided it was responsible for teaching soldiers the values and morals a parent should have taught them..The problem therein becomes who's version of morals and values are taught? The military has a "Don't ask, Don't tell policy", signed into law by a president who liked to keep secrets, which basically says being a homosexual is not accepted as the norm in the military but as long as noone says anything about it you can stay! Basically keeping secrets or telling an untruth! I believe that to be unethical and immoral and against the "Training" the PC folks think Warriors need. There have always been homosexuals in the military,like it or not, and they have done a fine job, however, It is not socially acceptable to discuss your sex life, or use it to make personal, or political statements if they will negatively impact the workplace.( In this case the military). General Pace is bound by law and an Oath and is responsible for carrying out the orders of the President of the United States and supporting and defending the Constitution, even at the cost of his life.. No military leader can carry out those difficult and sacred duties if he/she doesn't believe in them. We are Warriors not politicians and our jobs are far different. Most politicians fall very short when it comes to the standards of morality expected and demanded in a lifetime of service in the United States military. If any "Politically Correct Thinker" wants to influence the military and thinks that they can fill our boots, please feel free to consult with your local military recruiter!

Posted by: SFC (R) Robert Blanchard at March 15, 2007 01:47 AM

General Pace is entitled to his own thoughts. However, when in a public position such as his, he is also obligated by duty and code to reserve his personal opinions and uphold the policies and values of the armed services. He has now offended at least 65,000 troops and many many more American Citizens!!! I call for his resignation as he has breeched his duty and postion with his own personal preferences. Under his leadership, people are not given an opportunity of fairness and he is leading others to ignorance and bigotry...I urge him to take responsibility and step aside. This is a SERIOUS MORALE ISSUE now!!!!!!!!

Posted by: TCM at March 15, 2007 01:37 AM

This damnable political opportunism that arises the instant an old school warfighter states an opinion
prevelant within the rank and file of the military
organization is sickening.
we have kids fighting for an getting chewed up for our freedom to weedle and whine about social correctness.so whats more important,worrying about hurting somebody's feelings about their"preferences"
or making sure both warfighters gay and straight
have the body armour,vehicles,weaponry,ammunition,
food,medical emergency care on the battlefield and
back here at home(hello,walter reed?)that they
desperatly need.we need to worry more about how
to equip and lead the warfighter more then we need
to make political hay over the opinions of a
general whose trying to maintain unit cohesion so
that his soldiers,gay and straight can accomplish
their mission.and,lets face it,when you'r ass is in the grass,and the lead is in the air,the last thing on a soldiers mind is wether or not the guy next to him may take a shine to him in an amorous way.This debate is stupid,get the troops better
stuff in order to win in war.quibble over sexual prefernce when we achieve peace.

Posted by: katsesama at March 14, 2007 09:52 PM

Everyone has their own opinion & that's one of the things we've fought for, however it doesn't nor should it matter what your sexual orientation is. Especially on the battlefield we're, all there for the same reason. I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is doing an alright job in keeping conflicts down inside of units, however due to want/need of more troops & the large number of troop being discharged due to their sexually, I strongly believeed it should be revised & altered!

Posted by: M.J. at March 14, 2007 10:11 AM

So they want to pull out the moral rulebook when it comes to homosexuals, but then hide it when someone needs to be 'extraordinarily renditioned'? How does that work??? lol...amusing.

Posted by: DS at March 14, 2007 10:08 AM

Out of touch with whom? The Armed Services? You might try asking around a barracks, wardroom, or dormitory (for the Air Force), and see what sort of responses "don't ask, don't tell" draws. My guess is that Pace's opinion isn't going to be all that different from the replies you get. Just less colorful.

Posted by: Nanonymous at March 14, 2007 09:14 AM

Clearly the military have a long way to go with dealing with homophobia, and until that's resolved there will be all kinds of trouble.

At a time when recruiting and retaining enough bodies is a real problem, this kind of thing has to be addressed.

Posted by: Wembley at March 14, 2007 08:35 AM

The question is, why is this even a matter of debate at this time? We're fighting wars on several fronts and Congress and the military is engaged in another social science debate.
Gen. Pace has an absolute right to his opinion, but he should have known that statement will be used as a political football by the left.
Doesn't he know that taking a position on the immorality of homosexuality is a loser from the get-go in today's media environment? They own the debate and they'll win it every time. Why bother?
It says alot about his political wisdom, unless it was planned to pre-empt another debate about gays in the military for the next administration and a Congress with a Demostratic majority.

Posted by: j house at March 14, 2007 08:13 AM

Ok ... here's the what if?

What if Pace means to go into politics, post-retirement?

Maybe his stunt was calculated?

I know it's crazy, but what if?

Posted by: Stephen Trimble at March 14, 2007 06:57 AM

Further proof that the US Armed Forces are not really on a war footing. The thing that is killing us is out of touch General Officers; maybe the Officer Corps in general. We are trying to fight the GWOT and people are worried about this stuff?

Give me a break.

Posted by: Big at March 14, 2007 03:15 AM

Younger people want gays banned from the military entirely? Unless you're writing from Iran... okay, or from Missouri... you need to get out more.

Posted by: mike at March 14, 2007 12:01 AM

What is the reason that in the Military that there are facilities for both Men and Women? To keep the possibility of romantic relationships within a unit to a minimal. With the introduction of openly Gay men and Women into the military unit how do the administrative bodies prevent increasing the amount romantic relationships. Do they have the gay men share bunks with the straight women, or vise versa?

Posted by: Galls at March 13, 2007 07:13 PM

I think the policy makes no sense to younger people, because younger people would want gays banned from the military entirely.

I think the older people are the more tolerant ones.

Posted by: Kaltes at March 13, 2007 06:11 PM

Gen. Pace is entitiles to his personal opinion, and therefore should not apologize. On the other hand, I do not support the current policy. It makes no sense to younger people, and therfore it will be changed after the older command structure departs. Anyone who makes it out of the battlefield alive earned the privilege to be, think, and say whatever they want.

On a more pragamtic note, the US needs as many bodies as possible, for this 30 year campaign.

Posted by: BT at March 13, 2007 05:44 PM