WASHINGTON, March 13, 2007

General Won't Apologize For Gays Comment

Gen. Peter Pace Said Homosexuality Is "Immoral" And The Military Should Not Condone It

  • Video Pace's Comments Renew Debate

    Marine Gen. Peter Pace's comments on homosexuality have renewed the debate on the status of gays in the military. David Martin has more details.

  • Gen. Peter Pace answers reporters' questions on problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, March 7, 2007. Pace's aides say he won't apologize for calling homosexuality

    Gen. Peter Pace answers reporters' questions on problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, March 7, 2007. Pace's aides say he won't apologize for calling homosexuality "immmoral."  (AP)

  • Interactive Military 101

    Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.

  • Interactive Gay In The U.S.A.

    State-by-state laws on gay issues, the marriage debate and photo essays.

(CBS/AP)  "General Pace's statements aren't in line with either the majority of the public or the military," said the Massachusetts Democrat. "He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing" and that the military is "turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination."

Pace, a native of Brooklyn, N.Y., and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, 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," he said, according to the audio and a transcript released by his staff.

The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.

Louis Vizcaino, spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said Pace's comments were "insulting and offensive to the men and women ... who are serving in the military honorably."

"Right now there are men and women that are in the battle lines, that are in the trenches, they're serving their country," Vizcaino said. "Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their capability to serve in the U.S. military."

"Don't ask, don't tell" was passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate in which advocates argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units.

John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.

"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.

"For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to make this kind of statement is somewhat alarming," says CBS News military affairs analyst Mike Lyons, a retired major in the U.S. Army. "If he felt this way when he took the job, perhaps he should have had second thoughts, because it's this kind of feeling that he knew would get him into trouble politically."



© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 812 Comments
by liselle3 March 16, 2007 10:08 PM EDT
I will never cease to be amazed at the hypocrisy exhibited by some of the general public when it comes to *** and lesbians, whether the topic is *** in the military, allowing the gay population to marry, etc.
Gen. Peter Pace feels that *** are inherently immoral... how is it that the heterosexual population gets away with a ~50% divorce rate and unrestrained pre-marital *** when the bible states that both of these are a sin. Is it that once you marry, the sin has resolved itself, and the individual has been absolved? Anything short of being gay is tolerated, forgiven and overlooked by but those most vocal on this topic.
Throughout history, the public forum has taken it upon itself to play God, with the powers of judgment on what acceptable moral standards are -what group is unacceptable in society, what color, creed, religion is tolerable and acceptable %u2013 and history has shown us the countless atrocities inflicted upon humans by people who within the realm of %u201Cacceptable%u201D.
Reply to this comment
by sethbenoni March 16, 2007 9:41 PM EDT
morals and courage. how refreshing!!
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 15, 2007 11:06 PM EDT
Simplemind2,
You too are a zealot, give it up and get a life. Your opinions are your opinions, but not correct in any way shape or form. If you do not like what Bush or Pace or your other friends have done get elected and show us how it is done correctly.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 15, 2007 11:03 PM EDT
firststate,
your arguements reveal you as a zealot, you have given up all compitent reasoning. crawl back in your hole.
Reply to this comment
by anopinion1 March 15, 2007 10:22 AM EDT
I'm sure even God will frown on that kind of heinous behavior - gang rape an under-aged girl and then cold-blooded murdered
her, her parents and her young sibling.
POSTED BY SIMPLEMIND2

my post messed up but anyway....

would you rather have a gay platoon and then have to read about the same story and an under-aged boy instead.....i think not
Reply to this comment
by anopinion1 March 15, 2007 10:19 AM EDT
I'm sure even God will frown on that kind of heinous behavior - gang rape an under-aged girl and then cold-blooded murdered
her, her parents and her young sibling.
POSTED BY SIMPLEMIND2
Reply to this comment
by anopinion1 March 15, 2007 10:19 AM EDT
I'm sure even God will frown on that kind of heinous behavior - gang rape an under-aged girl and then cold-blooded murdered
her, her parents and her young sibling.
POSTED BY SIMPLEMIND2
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady March 14, 2007 10:24 PM EDT
djayc1:
Established military policy is "don't ask, don't tell" if Pace had stuck to that there wouldn't be 97 pages of nonsense and probably a LOT of lost recruits.
The military also does NOT look favorably on political acts or statements in uniform which this is bordering on. The controversy it stirred up makes the reason very evident.
Feeling a DRAFT yet?
Reply to this comment
by homespunlady March 14, 2007 10:13 PM EDT
97 pages and counting. yawn.
Osama, Jim Jones and that Waco guy have used religious zealotry to recruit.
America has in the past used freedom of choice and Patriotism.
If some of the more lucid of you believe that this line of arguement is helpful for retention or recruitment PLEASE SIGN UP we need to help the overburdened military members handling real problems. Like recovering from wounds at Walter-Reed.
Reply to this comment
by firststate March 14, 2007 9:00 PM EDT
Pace should perform his duties as a military commander first. The record of his accomplishments in Iraq combined with a year of training would qualify him to be a parking enforcement officer. Our nation's great military leaders from the past must be spinning in their graves that this a$$ kissing political hack is Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. In less time than we've been in Iraq, we defeated both the Germans and Japanese fighting on multiple fronts. If this bunch had been in charge of the military in WWII, we'd either still be fighting or using another language.

Pace seems to be the embodiment of the principle bearing his given name. He has risen to the level of his incompetence. He's learned from laurel and hardy in the white house that a distraction can postpone embarrassment. The most effective distraction is one that is controversial, divisive and can work our radical Christian extremists into one of their famous frenzies. Pace's moral pronouncement on homosexuality is a winner.

What it doesn't do is provide real plans and strategies for our brave men and women who are stuck in Iraq while their top commanders spend their time coming up with new labels for doing the same things that didn't work yesterday, last week or last year. Pace and the other members of the Joint Chiefs should concentrate on handling the military situation. After we are out of Iraq, if they feel the need they can return to their interest in our soldier's *** lives. It's a matter of priorities.
Reply to this comment
by djayc1 March 14, 2007 7:16 PM EDT
Gen.Pace is accurate in his support of established military policy.

AND as an American the Constitution protects his rights under Freedom of Speech, when asked for his personal opinion (however detailed and far reaching he chooses to share).

His position does not negate his rights.

Or the political platform of "Gay Rights", would be illegal to discuss on both sides of the issue.

Come on people wake up!

Special interest groups should not sway peoples' views to one way, by ostracizing any citizen that chooses to exercise ALL of their Constitutional Rights.

Signed,

The Pendulum Swings Both Ways.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 14, 2007 6:59 PM EDT
As you have never seen me, you must be pretty darned confident that you could give me a bloody nose. I wouldn't count on it.
And since you said I was full of ***, I'm not convinced my rebutal wasn't justified.
Posted by Zoroastor
____________________________
I did not say I was not going to get beat to a pulp after you got up, but as you have never seen me work you would not know that would never happen.

There are other ways to say one is full of sh** without using those words, if you are so smart you should have known that. But then maybe you are not all you profess to be.

You are not only full of sh**, but you are more likely to be tugging some underaged boy into an alley than I will ever be. Or does that happen in your church duties instead of an alley?

I do not think you are that person, but i wanted you to see I can sling it as well as you can. I, unlike you, do not rush to sling it when I cannot formulate an intelligent arguement. Let it go.
Reply to this comment
by scott4261 March 14, 2007 6:01 PM EDT
Just passing through this time.... Agnim, do you even KNOW any gay people? That is complete BS and you should know that if you have been in the worls at all. Roughly 10% of the population is gay (Roughly 30 million in the U.S., more or less, but that point is not even worth debating because the argument is circular and pointless). Do you honestly think that any more than a very small percentage are molesting children? If so, you really need to examine that, because that argument is completely without merit!

Jeez, you make me tired!
.
.
.

Back to boards. God's peace....see you all on more important debates.....
Reply to this comment
by anopinion1 March 14, 2007 6:01 PM EDT
Zoroastor

No answers for me???
enlighten me with your religious nonsence!!!!
further my belief that it is complete bs..

when did i claim to know everything about christians???? i am not one nor would I ever wanna be one..

Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 14, 2007 5:25 PM EDT
anopinion1,
don't let Zoroastor get to you, he is one of the know it all and my way is the only way zealots that have made the Muslims look bad. He is the kind that is quick to assume another is bad and would have been on Osama's team if he had been born in another land possibly.
Reply to this comment
by anopinion1 March 14, 2007 5:19 PM EDT
Zoroastor

OK you may have made think even more that religion is total hogwash.

soo j-walking is a sin against god because it is against the law in the united states.....

lets ponder this then.... way back when people used to eat coco beans(cocane) while they worked which let them work longer and faster. and it wasnt against the law at the time to do this so it was not a sin then???? whereas today people who would do this would be considered a sinner because cocane is illigal in the U.S.????????

so any ole law we make in the united states that a person breaks is a sin???? what if that person moved to a different country where that is no longer against the law, would it still be a sin against god?????
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 14, 2007 5:13 PM EDT
As you have never seen me, you must be pretty darned confident that you could give me a bloody nose. I wouldn't count on it.
And since you said I was full of ***, I'm not convinced my rebutal wasn't justified.
Posted by Zoroastor
____________________________
I did not say I was not going to get beat to a pulp after you got up, but as you have never seen me work you would no know that would never happen.

There are other ways to say one is full of sh** without using those words, if you are so smart you should have known that. But then maybe you are not all you profess to be.

You are not only full of sh**, but you are more likely to be tugging some undeaged boy into an alley than I will ever be. Or does that happen in your church duties instead of an alley?

I do not think you are that person, but i wanted you to see I can sling it as well as you can. Let it go.
Reply to this comment
by zoroastor March 14, 2007 5:12 PM EDT
And I'm sorry for the implication. You are right, you simply asked, without making an assertion of your own either way (the pedophile thing).

and with that, I really am leaving. Have a civilized discussion guys. Hope the whole issue is sorted out by the time I wake up and the world will be a happier place.
Reply to this comment
by scott4261 March 14, 2007 5:10 PM EDT
armjdm,

I don't share your views completely, but I understand what you are saying and why you believe as you do.

May the peace of God be with you.

See you all on another board.
Reply to this comment
by guysdigdirt March 14, 2007 5:09 PM EDT
Okay, what are you, a Mormon? There's nothing wrong with it if you are, but it would mean we have a different starting place. This is what the churchin which I am ordained (Church of God) believes ALL sin is equal in God's eyes and there is only one heaven. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with your faith, but we obviously can't use that as a point of contention between us.
So let's agree that we will never convince each other on that point.
Posted by Zoroastor
________________________

Once again assuming. If the bible says there are 3 does your religion only believe the parts of the bible it wants to?
Reply to this comment
See all 812 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Obama, GOP Clash over cure for Economy

    (295 recent comments)

Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: