Retirement Golf -- a fun future for General Peter Pace USMC

U.S. Marine Corps Staff Sergeant (Retired) Eric Fidelis Alva.

When I think something's illegal or unconstitutional, I can consult books of state and federal laws, and the U.S. Constitution. I may not get a perfectly clear and unambiguous answer, but at least I can cite a document defined and accepted as "the law." In a legal fight, such citations are powerfully persuasive, and if the opposite side can't come up with its own citations, courts are bound to rule on the side with the most relevant citations.

When I think something's immoral (and I frequently think This or That is immoral), what documents in which libraries can I point to and cite to bolster my case? Which Code of Morals can I click on for clear guidance?

Here's an old rant a Canadian newspaper was thoughtful enough to publish:

==============

The Oakville Beaver (Ontario Canada)
Wednesday 21 November 2001

Police & Morality
Strange Bedfellows

In "Neighbourhood Pot Labs Busted" (16 November 2001), you mention the Halton Police's "Drug and Morality Unit."

Why are the Halton Police enforcing morality? And whose morality are they enforcing? Is there an official national Canadian morality? Where can I obtain a copy of this document? Are the police enforcing Protestant morality or Catholic morality? They differ on several significant issues; some things condemned in one are permitted in the other.

When I have questions about moral behavior, I consult a trained and ordained member of the clergy. The notion that police officers, with their somewhat different training, have taken it upon themselves to scrutinize and enforce the community's morals is, quite frankly, very chilling. The notion that the government takes its preferred system of morality and translates it into criminal law smacks of 14th-Century Europe and the Inquisition, and is downright terrifying.

Robert Merkin

===============

Halton's Morals Cops were just busting pot growers, universally acknowledged as Immoral Villains throughout planet Earth (except in the Netherlands, India, British Columbia, Jamaica, Morocco, Lebanon, Northern California, Lambeth UK sometimes, Mexico and Nepal -- have I left anyone out?).

But here we have the USA's top military officer, 4-star General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publically declaring that homosexual acts are immoral and should not be tolerated in the U.S. military.

Says who? Which Code of Morality is he citing?

And if he can cite some particular Code of Morality -- who gives a flying fuck? In the United States, Law alone matters. And Morals that reflect ANY religion's belief system Don't Matter, they have no force in any court of law, and they have no force even in the military's Uniform Code of Military Justice. I cite

United States Constitution
Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I suspect General Pace is citing two Codes of Morality: His grandmother's, and the one his Sunday School teacher taught him.

I mean no disrespect for grandma or the Sunday School teacher or the Pope (Roman Catholic or Coptic), the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, or any assortment of bishops or patriarchs in Christendom.

But the U.S. Constitution clearly forbids any of these Morality Teachers from having any influence whatsoever on government or military policy. How the U.S. military command structure deals with homosexuals is and legally must be entirely a matter of the Laws enacted by Congress.

When the world's loudest faggot-basher (Ann Coulter this week) goes after gays and lesbians in the U.S. military, the moment the Morality Crusade reaches a federal court, the judges are obligated, by the clear words of the first clause of the First Amendment, to bang the gavel, say "case dismissed," direct the queer-basher to the EXIT, and move on to Real Legal Business that can be decided by Real Laws.

It would deeply please me as an American, and a veteran of the U.S. Army, if this dustup grew legs, pissed off increasingly vast numbers of decent Americans (who are scared to death during the Bush/Gingrich Era that America is adopting and enforcing a State Religion), and ended up facilitating General Pace's early retirement from the U.S. Marine Corps.

There is much golf for him to play on the hundreds of excellent golf courses on military bases throughout America and its overseas bases in his honored Golden Years.

It's been easily 20 years since a front-page article in The New York Times took its readers inside the blacked-out door of a gay bar outside the main gate of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina -- and found the place jammed wall-to-wall with active-duty male United States Marines.

WWGD? (What Would Grandma Do?)

They're here, they're queer, they're drinking beer -- and when Bush starts a new whack war, queer Jarheads will be in the first assault wave. At the top of this post is a photograph of Eric Fidelis Alva, one of the first Marines wounded in the Iraq War.

As gay soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen have been risking their lives and dying in uniform in every American war and military action since the Revolutionary War. Lesbians in uniform ditto. Whether Peter Pace's Grandma thinks it's Immoral or not.

Time for a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Somebody who obeys the Law, somebody who doesn't just swear to uphold the United States Constitution -- but who actually read it once or twice, knows what's in it, and knows why Grandma's Code of Morals isn't in it.

===============

Time (USA weekly magazine)
Tuesday 13 March 2007

Pace Comments Renew
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Debate

by Mark Thompson

WASHINGTON -- Amid the turmoil of the Iraq war and the scandal at Walter Reed, the last thing the nation's top military officer should want to do is generate more controversy by renewing the debate over gays in the military. Yet that's just what Marine General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has done in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, telling the paper that "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts."

His comments have not surprisingly sparked a flurry of criticism from gay advocacy groups and lawmakers, but they are unlikely to change the status quo. Ultimately, many military officers believe, openly gay men and women will be allowed to serve in uniform, but it's just not going to happen very quickly. And for that, ironically, you can blame the most gay-friendly president ever: Bill Clinton.

Prior to Clinton taking office, the rule barring gays from serving was set solely by the president — and could be lifted by him, or her, as well. But once Clinton came in pledging to lift the ban, the opposition of his chairman of the Joint Chiefs — Colin Powell — and the hapless efforts by his first defense secretary, the late Les Aspin — ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill. As the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise was hammered out, Congress took the extraordinary step of removing the policy from the president's hands and writing it into law.

Ever since that heated 1993 debate over the issue, senior military officers have tended to mute their opposition to gays in uniform simply because it shows them as being out of step with much of the nation. Not only that, cashiering gays from the military when the Pentagon is desperately trying to hold on to every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine doesn't seem to many people to make a lot of sense.

One of the reasons the military hasn't typically spoken out loudly on the topic is because they basically won the debate. Under the policy, gays may only serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual activity. Commanders also are barred from asking about their orientation.

Pace probably would have been better served choosing different words to explain his opposition to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform; the word "immoral" hasn't generally been used by senior officers to justify the ban. But Pace, the son of an Italian immigrant, carries a lot of his father's old world values into his position. He made emotional remarks at an immigration hearing in Florida last July, citing the progress his family had made since his father emigrated to the New York area in 1914. "There is no other country on the planet that affords that kind of opportunity to those who come here," Pace, whose name means "peace" in Italian, told a Senate panel meeting in Miami.

"General Pace1s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces," says C. Dixon Osburn, who heads the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay advocacy group in Washington (the 65,000 estimate is a UCLA study's estimate, the group said). "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. " Tuesday afternoon, Pace stuck to his guns but backed away a bit from the moraality anlgle. "I should have focused more on my support of the policy," he said in a statement, "and less on my personal moral views."

Three weeks ago, the first Marine seriously injured in Iraq declared he was gay and called for "don't ask, don't tell" to be tossed out. Retired Staff Sgt. Eric Fidelis Alva, 36, of San Antonio, lost his right leg to a land mine in the war's opening days. His wound got him a Purple Heart from President Bush, as well as a profile in People Magazine and an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show. "It was like carrying this enormous secret that you want to share with someone," he said last month. "I eventually formed close bonds with other Marines and did confide in them. They treated me with the same respect and dignity afterward. We were still buddies." A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office showed that about 10,000 service personnel have been discharged since the policy took effect, including 54 Arabic specialists.

Alva is not alone. Senator Hillary Clinton, who was first lady when Congress wrote "don't ask, don't tell" into law, wants it repealed. Retired Army general John Shalikashvili, who served as chairman after Powell, also wants it removed from the books. But far more important is the view from the ranks. A recent poll by the Military Times newspapers showed that only 30 percent of respondents think openly gay people should be allowed to serve, compared to 59 percent who are opposed. Until those numbers are reversed, "don't ask, don't tell" won't change.

- 30 -

Copyright © 2007 Time Inc. All rights reserved.