Why Homosexual Activists Hate General Peter Pace

TFP ^ | 06.27.08 | Michael Whitcraft

[Coleus]

President Bush has awarded Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), General Peter Pace the US’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Not surprisingly, he is once again enduring a “moral lynching” at the hands of liberal media and homosexual activists across the nation.  Controversy began plaguing General Pace, a Catholic, after his March 12 statement that homosexual acts are immoral and therefore, should not be condoned by the military.^[1]  Following this statement, General Pace was maligned and ultimately lost his position as JCS Chairman, making him the first in over forty years to hold the position for only a single term. Officially, he was not nominated for a second term due to potential difficulties at his congressional confirmation hearings, because of supposed mismanagement of the Iraqi war.  Nevertheless, many believe that he lost his post because of his position against homosexual acts. The premature ending of General Pace’s career was not enough to satisfy homosexual activists. Still inebriated from the victory over traditional marriage in California and New York, two groups spearheaded a protest against General Pace’s reception of the presidential award.

Moral High Ground
These two groups are no strangers in the struggle against morality in America. One organization called: Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gay (PFLAG), began in 1972 and today is well-known. The other, whose stated purpose is overturning the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, is called: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). This organization, which has been more vocal against General Pace, issued a June 18 press release, in which SLDN Executive director, Aubrey Sarvis is quoted, saying:

Honoring General Pace with the country’s highest civilian award is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops currently serving on active duty in the armed forces.^[2]

Sarvis’ choice of words like “insensitive” and “disrespectful” demonstrate a claim to the moral high ground in the debate. This is substantiated by the images on the SLDN web site, showing different people whose countenance is carefully crafted to give the impression of indignation against unjust persecution. These images serve as page-headers for the entire site, with a different person for each section.  Each one seems to be saying: “how dare you deny me my rights.” This is especially true of the man pictured in the “Newsroom” section. Because this contention is admittedly subjective, readers are encouraged to take a look for themselves by clicking here.

This sanctimonious image is rather peculiar for a web site promoting active homosexuality in the military, a cause that not only contradicts the well-established moral depravity of homosexual acts (as was well-argued by the TFP statement: “Battling for America’s Soul,” click here), but also denies America’s soldiers their rights to safety and dignity. Certainly, the open acceptance of homosexuals in the U.S. Armed Forces would make the close-quarter reality of military life difficult for normal soldiers. This is especially true, since battlefield conditions do not always permit high standards of modesty. Troops forced to expose themselves in the presence of homosexuals who desire amorous relations with them would be denied their basic dignity.

Furthermore, a soldier going into battle, must be prepared to be bathed in the blood of his comrades, as often happens in the heat of battle. Considering the enormous disproportion of STDs among active homosexuals, especially AIDS,^[3] this would put innocent servicemen at risk of contracting behavior-related illnesses from which they would be free, otherwise. It would unnecessarily endanger their safety. These moral issues must be considered. Thus, paraphrasing the words of Aubrey Sarvis, allowing active homosexuals to openly serve in the military is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the vast majority of America’s normal troops.

At the award ceremony, President Bush praised General Pace as a man of "complete integrity."

Peter Pace: A Man of Integrity

Clearly, the homosexual lobby lacks the integrity to admit the consequences of the aberrant sexual behavior they promote. General Peter Pace stands in stark contrast to them and is a veritable rock of scandal in their midst.

At the award ceremony, President Bush stated:

 

One of my great privileges as the President has been to meet so many outstanding Americans who volunteer to serve our nation in uniform. I've been inspired by their valor, selflessness, and complete integrity. I found all those qualities in abundance in General Peter Pace.^[4]  This “complete integrity” is exemplified by General Pace’s reaction to the political maelstrom that followed his statement on the immorality of homosexual behavior. While the liberal media and homosexual activists cried out against him, he refused to apologize for his beliefs. Rather, he reiterated his views in a September 2007 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying:

We should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God’s law.^[5]

 

Years of public service had certainly taught him the ramifications he would suffer by standing true to his convictions. Nevertheless, he remained undaunted.  Later, when he was asked to retire from his post rather than suffer the embarrassment of being denied nomination for a second term, he once again maintained his integrity. At a press conference, he explained that he refused to step down for one “fundamental reason.” No Marine or soldier should:

think — ever — that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield. That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind.^[6]

It is this fundamental integrity that has caused General Pace to be despised by the liberal media and homosexual lobby. Had he retracted or apologized, he certainly would have suffered less. However, this integrity is also what has elevated him to hero status in the minds of Americans nationwide. It is a quality most needed for this nation in these days of relativism and compromise.

Footnotes:

1. See “Is the Uproar Against General Pace the Beginning of a Religious Persecution?” http://www.tfp.org/index.php?option=com
   _content&task=view&id=477&Itemid=108.
2. http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html
   ?section=2&record=4907.
3. See the statements of leading AIDS researcher Dr. de Cock, as quoted at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/
   2008/jun/12/aids.health and Michael Fumento’s book, The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS: How a Tragedy Has Been Distorted by the Media and Partisan Politics.
4. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
   2008/06/20080619-9.html.
5. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?
   Page=/Culture/archive/200806/CUL20080619b.html.
6. http://johnib.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/
   general-pace-was-forced-out-refused-to-resign-in-wartime/.

[airborne]

Sounds to me this fine man should be our candidate for president not a politician.

I don't know enough about him to nominate him for President, but he certainly is a fine man.

Unfortunately, being a fine man often appears to be a disqualifier these days.

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

You’re right of course Airborne.

[airborne]

You’re right of course Airborne.

It happens now and then. ;^)

[Cicero]

Yes. All very well for Bush to give him this medal, although he will be giving it to a flaming leftist at the same ceremony.

But Bush did NOT stand behind General Pace, who was only doing his job and—as it happens—enforcing the rules that Bill Clinton set in place (Don’t ask, don’t tell).

Also, it should be mentioned that he said he would enforce the rules against open adultery. So this was not just a case of bias against gays, but a statement that the basic rules of sexual morality in the military would be enforced. And such was his duty.

Very sad that Bush refused to fight for his reappointment.

[jjm2111]

It’s actually probably fairly accurate. there are about 2.8 million serving the armed forces; active and reserves. 65k would be 2.3%.

[RobbyS]

An inconvenient truth that has been covered up by the homosexual labby with the complicity of pro-homosexual politicians is that AIDS is a disease that is spread by homosexual behavior, that such behavior is medically unsafe, that the blood of many active homosexuals is tainted by HIV. In combat, this becaomes a problem. So soldiers have to put on gloves like medical and dental practitioners? Even to put the question is to be thought “homophobic” by people who ought to know better.

[Bishop_Malachi]

So is his model based on the assumption that is roughly the same as the population at large? Half the popluation at large? I’m wondering how he got the figure. It seems high given military culture versus the “culture” of the gays and lesbians I know (although I do know one lesbian who entered the military).

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[paterfamilias]

Thanks for posting this article. Gen. Pace is THE MAN.