Pace vs Alva

It's always a little awkward listening to a military man speak about "morality". I recommend listening to the audio at the Chicago Tribune. One recalls Winston Churchill's remark:

"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."

But, as always, it's worth considering the argument. Pace makes a clear analogy in an attempt to argue that he is not being prejudiced toward a group, just punctilious in enforcing his view of morality. He says excluding openly gay servicemembers is morally equivalent to excluding servicemembers who commit adultery with the wives of other servicemembers. But those are two different issues, right? We're not talking merely about gay servicemembers who have affairs with other servicemembers, are we? That would fall into the category of conduct obviously detrimental to morale and cohesion. We're talking merely about gay servicemembers who may or may not have relationships or sex with people off-base or in their private lives. If the military threw out every straight servicemember who has ever had a sexual indiscretion or failing off-base or in their private lives, how many people would be left in the military? So the analogy falls apart upon inspection.

The question to ask Pace now is: why does he think a homosexual act is immoral? Is it because such a  sexual act cannot procreate, as the Catholic hierarchy argues? In which case, one expects contraception banned on all military bases. Is it because the Bible says so? In which case, we do not have a secular military, and all sorts of other Biblical injunctions need to be applied. So why is it immoral? This is not the first time that Pace has spoken on this subject. At Wharton Business School, he remarked last year that

"The U.S. military mission fundamentally rests on the trust, confidence and cooperation amongst its members. And the homosexual lifestyle does not comport with that kind of trust and confidence and therefore is not supported within the U.S. Military."

What on earth does he mean by that? That it is impossible to have confidence, trust or cooperation in someone who is openly gay? Or does he have some Kaus-like fantasies of what gay life is like that makes him think we're all duplicitous or sexually predatory and therefore unqualified to be good servicemembers? What century is he living in?

I think, given the thousands of gay men and women now putting their lives on the line for their country, Pace must give an answer. Does he believe that U.S. Marine Eric Alva, who lost a leg for his country in Iraq, is someone who is not compatible with "the trust, confidence and cooperation" that Pace expects from his men and women? Pace has maligned large numbers of his own troops, and millions of other Americans as intrinsically immoral. At the next press conference, or Congressional hearing, he needs to be asked directly what the rational basis is for his "moral" test. He started this conversation. He now needs to continue it.

(Photo of Alva by Luke Frazza/AFP/Getty.)