SLDN to Pace: Apologize

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network to Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: Apologize for remarks about gay people.

I’m skeptical of calls for an apology. What good is an apology from Pace if he hasn’t changed his views? His apology would be worthless. Gay servicemembers don’t need an apology. They need a new policy. (That’s kinda catchy: “No apology! New policy!”)

I’ll admit, I also thought to myself: does the SLDN’s call for an apology make gay soldiers seem weak? After all, if you can’t deal with an offensive remark, how can you possibly deal with being shot at?

But this isn’t about insulting an individual. This is about denigrating an entire group of American citizens, in and out of the military. The call for an apology is a reminder that gay people have dignity. It wouldn’t be okay for Pace to make similar comments about Jews or blacks; it’s not okay to say them about gays, either.

But an apology? An apology is a nicety. It’s etiquette. Screw etiquette. People have been polite to gays to their face and then bad-mouthing them behind their backs for years. That doesn’t help anyone.

We don’t need an apology. We need a change in attitude. Who the hell is Peter Pace to judge us? He isn’t a god. He shouldn’t act like one.

We don’t need to put up with this crap in 2007. From anyone.

8 thoughts on “SLDN to Pace: Apologize

  1. Etiquette is never “just a nicety” when executed correctly. I agree that an apology from Pace at this point would be worthless (and therefore bad etiquette) because it would be so obviously dishonest. Correct etiquette here would be for Pace to resign as Chairman.

  2. Preface: Pace was out of line.

    That said, I hesitate to even comment because I live in this huge Christian bubble, but I’m genuinely curious and would love to hear some people react to what I’m thinking. In the case of the military, it doesn’t seem like the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy is the same as drawing a line based on race. Gender in the military remains separated, and should be. Men sleep in one bunker and women in another, which is sort of to protect them from themselves and to avoid discomfort or inappropriateness. (I’m not assuming sexual inappropriateness on anyone; all I know is that my husband is Air Force and when he is deployed, I don’t want his bunk to be next to a woman, nor would he want that.) So if the policy changed and gay men and women in the military were allowed to reveal their sexual orientation, where would they go? Would there need to be no sexual distinction in the military at all? Isn’t it more that the military doesn’t know how to deal with that? What would suggestions be if the policy changed? Ok, maybe I’m missing an important point here, but I’m welcoming anyone to drag me lovingly out of it. :) Hit me over the head gently; I cry easily. Just wondered.

  3. Thanks, Melanie. The first thing to ask is, how does it work in the many countries where openly gay soldiers are allowed to serve?

    Also, I think the separation of genders in their housing arrangements is to protect the women from the men, and not vice versa. I think a straight man can defend himself from the theoretical gay man coming onto him – which I don’t think would happen.

    I’m actually intrigued by the “Battlestar Galactica” idea, where it’s mixed-gender bunks and bathrooms.

  4. I think we need to organize the Million Strap-On March on Washington… starting at his office… show him we’re literally not gonna put up with his crap by filling every orifice on his body with shiny, sparkly latex… with a few cotton balls glued on the end of each one so they tease on the way in…

    My brain is thinking too many unpure thoughts today…. must be the bitter, bitter mood I’m in today

  5. Jeff,
    Ha! My husband loves Battlestar Gallactica and thinks it’s an important political statement for our world today. Also, he just loves sci-fi and puts it on his iPod to watch while he works out. :) I was talking to him last night about this, actually, because he understands the military much better than I do. He told me something I didn’t know: women never serve in units of frontline combat. I think that the reason is that if a woman and man fall in love and then are in a battle situation, the military wants that man listening to his squadron leader and not distracted by trying to protect his girlfriend. So to avoid the potential for a romantic situation, which could put the whole unit in danger, women don’t serve in front line combat. Matt (my husband) suggested that maybe a good transition point for the military would be to allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality, knowing that it would keep them from serving in front-line combat units, and just draw that line instead. He’s an officer, and he added that he has no problem commanding women and wouldn’t have a problem commanding a gay man either, if that’s what the military decided to do. Is this a good or bad suggestion? Thoughts?

  6. The oft stated reason by the US military why women do not serve in combat is two fold. First, it has the potential to cause a conflict of priorities in that male soldiers might be motivated to place greater efforts to protect their female comrades, at a potential loss to others within the group and also to their mission in the field. Secondly, it is believed that the public outcry at seeing substantial female deaths or female prisoners would be politically untenable and could unnecessarily contribute to a steep errosion of support for a conflict domestically. (Interesting, this second reason is the primary reason why Israel revoked their policy to allow women combatants. )

    Gays have openly served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) for a good number of years now, and the UK military now does the same as well. This has *not* necessitated any restructuring of living quarters or shower/bath facilities whatsoever. NONE. Indeed, soldiers unwilling to be housed alongside their gay comrades face disciplinary actions, and in the IDF’s case this usually means a week or two in a military brig. To their armed forces, it is actually homophobia that is more of a problem to unit cohesion than a gay soldier ever would be.

    All these armed forces, France, the UK, Germany, Israel, etc all expect their soldiers to be professional and mature –> and that means waking up to the fact they gays already sleep, shower, and shit next to them, and have been doing so since before the days of spears and bows. Indeed, gays often serve with greater distinction and prowess of skill than the less proficient (and relatively less decorated) straight soldier.

    There is no need to rework the US military to allow gays; Just look around.

    rob@egoz.org

Comments are closed.