Group demands Gen. Pace apologize.
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network on Gen. Pace’s statement that homosexuality is “immoral“: “Our men and women in uniform make tremendous sacrifices for our country, and deserve General Pace’s praise, not his condemnation. As a Marine and a military leader, General Pace knows that prejudice should not dictate policy. It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” More from the AP.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
46 Responses to “Group demands Gen. Pace apologize.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Apologize for what?
March 13th, 2007 at 10:32 ammr. general, you are fired. we have no need for your services any longer. I suggest a banana republic for your type of “military”
March 13th, 2007 at 10:33 amI thank the Lord for Military Officers like Gen. Pace. General Pace, thank you for maintaining/voicing your beliefs. You will be marvelously blessed by God.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:38 amHand picked, he is.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:38 amMore like nose picked, way to go chymp, now put a damn muzzle on the venerable general before he gets you in more hot water.
As we saw in the 90s a PC military gets American civilians killed. Good for General Pace to speak the truth to the reprobates.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:42 amRe: post # 5 …As opposed to the current politically incorrect (and illegal) military campaign of the present, in which many more Americans civilians and soldiers are being killed and wounded…
I am counting the nearly equal number of “corporate security contractors” (read mercenaries) currently in the employ of the United States as civilians
March 13th, 2007 at 10:50 amSeems these incompetent generals get enough Americans killed by their terrible tactics at war, you know…not having a defined goal and all will tend to do that. Perhaps this general should refocus on winning this war, saving American lives, and stop trying to dictate morality.
The best way to protect American citizens might just be to stop occupying irrelevant countries, inciting them to hate our culture even more, as we fall into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:53 am(amplification)…
March 13th, 2007 at 10:56 amthere is an estimated 120,000 mercenaries in Iraq, and an estimated 700 of them have died. Figures for the wounded security contractors are unknown to me.
Now you moonbats are making things up. “illegal war”, “inciting them to hate our culture”. That is BS of course and I assume it is because you can’t address the truth that this brave American hero has spoken to power.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am“… brave American hero has spoken for power..”
March 13th, 2007 at 11:00 amMaybe you’re too dense to realize that when we (even accidently) kill a few Iraqi innocents, the starving little brothers we leave behind will, without a doubt, hate our guts. We claim we’re not occupying them, yet that’s exactly what we’re doing. But I can see why your congitive abilities are rather lacking with all that inbreeding there Captain West Virginia Values.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am–That is BS of course and I assume it is because you can’t address the truth that this brave American hero has spoken to power.–
Bet you said the same thing about Bull Conner in the 50s and 60s…
March 13th, 2007 at 11:02 amIt’s interesting that Brittain hasn’t had a problem with gays serving openly in the military.
It’s interesting that Israel hasn’t had a problem with gays serving openly in the military.
I guess the US just isn’t up to the standards of the British and Israel in waking up to the fact that gay people are just as good at being service members as straights.
Poor sad, little America.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:03 amHe has to apoligize for his personal beliefs based on his religious upbringing? OMG free speech down the drain.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:05 amI don’t equate sodomy with race and neither does the general.
The idea that “they” hate us because of Iraq is shown by the big hole in downtown Manhatten to be BS.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:07 amIf only he had included Republican in his list of “immorality”. . .
Oh, wait! He said that people who sleep with other peoples wives are immoral! Newt, he’s talking about you, buddy!
March 13th, 2007 at 11:08 amHow is BEING gay immoral? Maybe he is counting sex out of wedlock as immoral but BEING gay? Does this mean being STRAIGHT is immoral. Is he referring to sex acts, which is a private affair, or is he reffering to ones STATE of BEING? Folks behaviour is not determined by sexual preference. Lots of straight folk in the military are having “gay” sex right now. Sota like prison I guess…
Texas Juice
March 13th, 2007 at 11:09 amHe doesn’t have to apologize for his beliefs …but he should have kept them to himself. We only want to here about how he’s going to win this war…we don’t want or care about his opinion on gays. But since he’s clearly loosing this war, he’d rather distract everyone with talk about gays (Republicunts favorite thing to talk about).
March 13th, 2007 at 11:10 amimmoral, eh? kind of like dropping white sulphur on people? torturing prisoners? raping and shooting civis?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:17 amPace has said a handful of reasonable things compared to a crapload of very unreasonable things. He pretty much a lockstepper.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amMany different religions view many different things as immoral. So what? What does that have to do with anything? Some religions view drinking alcohol and dancing as immoral. Is General Pace going to suggest we keep drinkers and dancers out of the military for their immoral behavior? MOst religions view sex outside of marriage as immoral. Does Pace expect all members of the military to remain celibate since they are either unmarried or do not have their spouses with them while they are in Iraq? Some religions view masterbation as immoral. Is Pace planning to do bedchecks every night to make sure no one is whacking off?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:39 amDaryll loves the gay sex threads. It’s his excuse to think about gay sex when he declares to be so against it. Yeah, he wants to be “against” it alright.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:41 amThese guys like Pace and Daryll like to focus on one of many immoral behaviors, its their excuse to think about the gay sex.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:45 amHow did I know I’d find Daryll here?
March 13th, 2007 at 11:46 amFor a General in the U.S. military to say something so utterly offensive concerning gay people is beyond a simple apology. His career should come to a screeching halt and his name made synomynous with bigotry and prejudice. “Keep up the Pace”, should be defined as: gays are inferior to heterosexuals and will not be tolerated. Who the f* is this a-hole anyway, that his opinion counts as anything important? He can’t even run a decent war campaign.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:50 amAm I upset over Gen. Pace’s remarks? Not really.
Why not? In about 20-30 years, people like Gen. Pace are going to be dead and gone. His kind (sanctimonious bloviating pick&choose moralizers) are a dying breed, thank God for that!
Gen. Pace only speaks for a very small (and, thank God, dwindling) minority of people in the military. Most of the people currently serving in the military have learned that gay people can (and do) honorable serve in the military with no problems. It’s the narrow-minded holier-than-thou in-your-face-with-their-opinion people that are the loudest to complain about anything that doesn’t fit in their exclusive midset that gets the attention.
I’ll be glad when people like Gen. Pace are pushing up the daisies. Maybe then they’ll actually contribute something helpful, rahter than force their opinions onto others.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:53 amNO General Pace must immediately resign. Enough of having Bush creeps giving phony apologies for the vile things they spew. Pace and the entire membership of the Bush Regime must be forced to resign.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:54 amApologize for what?
Comment by Patrick1
For this: claiming that the military should “not tolerate†homosexuality just as it rejects “military members who sleep with other military members’ wives.†He is injecting his personal religious beliefs into his position as a military leader on the decision making process of who “should” be allowed to serve. There is no comparison with adultery, which is a direct harm done to one person by another. There is no SECULAR reason to deny any social right to homosexuals.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am#14- “He has to apoligize for his personal beliefs based on his religious upbringing? OMG free speech down the drain.”
No one is saying this man’s rights to free thought and free speech should be violated. Free speech doesnt mean consequence-free speech however. Sometimes you lose your job over it.
Part of this man’s job is to represent the US military publically. He has voiced an objectionable opinion in that capacity. If the SecDef, Prez, et al object to having this personal opinion represented by one of their employees, he loses his job- end of story. Much the same way that if you or I went around bad mouthing our boss in public, we would find ourselves out of work.
Free Speech != Consequenceless Speech
March 13th, 2007 at 12:00 pmPace should not resign. He is the chief military advisor to the President. The President should make it clear that this man’s personal opinion is not the view of his administration by firing him.
Oh wait, maybe this *is* the view of the administration…..
March 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmThe thing that is moral about it is keeping the ranks free of unacceptable behavior. The military is not a bridge club or softball league, nor even a business. It is a machine designed to defend and destroy, and its requirements are dictated by that mission.
(As an aside, the purpose of the military is not to “protect our freedoms”. That’s the citizen’s job.)
Even a temporary condition such as illness or excess weight can disqualify a person for military service. Homosexuality is an immutable trait, we are told. It happens to be a trait that the military concludes is outside the acceptable range for service.
Not everyone gets to serve. It isn’t about “equality”, but accomplishing the mission without unnecessary distractions and tinkering by social engineers.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pmDaryll,
Whatever you do, don’t think about gay sex.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pmYou decide which action God may consider immoral behavior:
Making love with someone who wants to make love with you
versus……
Arranging for the slaughter of hundreds/thousands of people you never met, civilians and combatants alike.
For me it’s a no-brainer. This fool might leave the morality questions to others a bit more qualified to make such determinations.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pmDoes anybody else smell a Bush Administration tactic here? D.I.S.T.R.A.C.T.I.O.N.
I mean, lets see the complete transcript. How did these topics come up? I’m assuming a roundtable (out of nowhere) with the (conservative) Chicago Tribune had mostly to do with Iraq….right?
I’m not feeling this one. Pace to me has always seemed like #1 he will follow and do what hes told, no MATTER what the orders are and #2 hes pretty thoughtful….these comments do not seem like his own.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:15 pmEven a temporary condition such as illness or excess weight can disqualify a person for military service. Homosexuality is an immutable trait, we are told. It happens to be a trait that the military concludes is outside the acceptable range for service.
Not everyone gets to serve. It isn’t about “equalityâ€, but accomplishing the mission without unnecessary distractions and tinkering by social engineers.
Comment by Patrick1
No one has ever shown that “homosexuality” somehow interferes directly with the military mission and, therefore, the exclusion of homosexuals from the military and this post are both pure drivel. Exclusion of homosexuals from any part of society is “tinkering by social engineers” of a particular religious stripe, devoid of any secular reason for such discrimination. As some either-or thinkers are wont to say - “end of story”.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:28 pmComment by Patrick1… What makes the general think he has the right to decide what is moral and what is immoral? Some people would say that dedicating your life to the art of killing other people is immoral. If he wants to debate morals he should do it in church on Sunday, the rest of the week belongs to what is legal and illegal.
March 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pm#30 - “Not everyone gets to serve. It isn’t about “equalityâ€, but accomplishing the mission without unnecessary distractions and tinkering by social engineers.” Comment by Patrick1 — March 13, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
Ok, Patrick1, how do you justify keeping a ban that the majority of serving military think should be rescinded? How do you justify keeping a ban that other countries have successfully ended?
All the arguments used in support of the ban are almost the same as the ones used in the 40’s to support banning black from serving. At the time, they claimed that white service members would be uncomfortable serving with blacks and that morale would suffer and all manner of horrible things would happen if blacks were allowed to serve.
Let me guess, Patrick1, you would support the ban on a racially integrated service had you lived in the 40’s, right?
March 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm[…] Senior aides to Pace said today that he “won’t apologize for calling homosexuality immoral” despite calls by advocacy groups. […]
March 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pmNot everyone gets to serve. It isn’t about “equalityâ€, but accomplishing the mission without unnecessary distractions and tinkering by social engineers. Comment by Patrick1 — March 13, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
We agree. That’s why ’social-engineering’ religious nuts like Pace, and you shouldn’t be serving. You distract from soldiers getting their job done, with all of your homophobia. The people with the apparently ‘immutable trait’ that makes them unsuitable for service are homophobes like yourself! Gay people prove every day they are capable, and suited to serve. Homophobes like yourself prove every day you are incompetent and unworthy of service.
That’s reality - not your ‘religious social engineering’ - nutjob.
March 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pmIt’s immoral to have been born gay? WRONG!
It’s immoral to continue wars against the voices of “by the prople for the people” government.
It’s wrong to enact laws like “The Patriot Act” to get around that pesky Consitution and to over-extend the reach of the Executive Office.
It’s wrong to cut funding to PBS — the last remaining free press in this nation.
It’s wrong to lie to start and maintain wars and it’s wrong to steal elections.
It’s wrong to explout other nations and peoples (I personaly demand to see a photo of Bush in a sugar cane field — INSIDE the hell of an ACTUAL sugar cane field not standing on the hill up at the big house — any treaty with Brazil requiring the production of sugar cane should have ensured minimum standards of health, safety and wages for the workers whose blood we will be driving our cars on).
It’s wrong to kill people. It’s wrong to “out” your enemies and it’s wrong to disappaer and torture people.
It’s NOT wrong to have or to express the sexuality God sent you to earth with.
It is however, immoral to judge others, line up (as if you, in fact, were God) sinners and non-sinners, and to withhold rights from certain groups. The withholding right bit is particularly galling in a country built on equality for all citizens.
I am not personaly gay, I am just a big supporter of the Constitution and of God.
Thank you, Dian Larkin
March 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pmIs it not allowed to interject your own personal beliefs into your job? Is it possible not to? Honestly, that seems flat inpossible to demand that people not use their morals and personal views while on the job. It is funny to try and think of a bunch of people brainless working like that though. Very computerized indeed.
March 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pmIs it not allowed to interject your own personal beliefs into your job? Is it possible not to? Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Not if it prevents you from being able to do your job. This is why we don’t have Amish soldiers - dum bass.
If your *beliefs* prevent you from doing your job, or being *qualified* for that job - then you shouldn’t hold that job. Whether you’re a pharmacist that won’t sell prescribed medication, or a bigot that shouldn’t be commanding troops, or a blogger that’s too st*pid to qualify to post on a progressive blog. You’re just as unsuited to be here, as that *sshole is to be there. But you’re both too st*pid to know it!
Honestly, that seems flat inpossible to demand that people not use their morals and personal views while on the job. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
So it’s OK for you, if a gang banger is allowed to be a police officer? After all, you don’t want to prevent them from having the job because of their personal views and morals - right?
It is funny to try and think of a bunch of people brainless working like that though. Very computerized indeed. Comment by Roger_Roger — March 13, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Thing about yourself, and brainless people is exactly what you get! You’re one st*pid old c*nt - are you girlie-man?
March 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pmIs it not allowed to interject your own personal beliefs into your job?
Well, moron, since they cannot legally criticize the administration during active duty I would think they shouldn’t be allowed to voice their other beliefs.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:24 pmPace WILL APOLOGIZE WHEN CHIMPya, Cheney and Rove CALL HIM INTO THE oval office AND THREATEN TO MAKE HIM PLAY LEAPFROG WITH THEM–WITH HIS PANTS DOWN AROUND HIS ANKLES, THAT IS!!!!!
March 13th, 2007 at 10:27 pmUniversity of Chicago has invited General Pace as a Keynote Speaker at their Graduate School of Business (GSB) Management Conference. The student there are working very hard to try to stop it from happening…. please go here :
http://www.petitiononline.com/PaceUofC/petition.html
to sign the petition “Keep General Peter Pace’s Bigotry Off Our Campusâ€
Thank you very much
April 24th, 2007 at 5:13 pmPlease keep updated on our campaign at the U of C! We are trying very hard to keep Pace away!
Sign our petition:
April 26th, 2007 at 4:17 amhttp://unaskpace.googlepages.com