"This article is the basis for prosecution of adulterous officers, fraternization among the ranks and other crimes that threaten the cohesion, effectiveness and order that are necessary in the armed forces."

Your own argument states that these things are not allowed because they threaten the "cohesion, effectiveness and order that are necessary in the armed forces." Where does morality in the military even come into play here, except when dealing with homosexuality?

"A military cannot operate without order and discipline throughout the ranks. Policies like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are meant to prohibit behavior that threatens the order among the ranks."

Military fraternization is already prohibited, so you must be arguing that openly gay soldiers increase the chances of military fraternization, which has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality. Since fraternization is not allowed, good soldiers should not be having sexual relations with other soldiers, no matter if they're gay or not (apparently they still do, according to your example, even with Don't Ask, Don't Tell).

You are implicitly arguing that gay soldiers would be less able to control their sexual urges, so they shouldn't be allowed to serve openly. This is the same reasoning people use when they try to argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed around children.

about 20% of the U.S. military is currently female, about 80% male. if showing any propensity for homosexual behavior implies lust for comrades and is impermissible, then showing any propensity for heterosexual behavior should be banned on the same grounds. i'd love to see that one enforced.

Britian and Australia allow gay personnel to serve openly, and there have been no problems with unit cohesion there. The USA needs to grow up and recognize the value and contribution of openly serving gay men and women. Allow them to serve openly but keep restrictions on all forms of sexual relations (homo or hetero) on military premises.

"What is surprising in this affair is how quickly apologists from the Right were able to ally themselves with their leftist counterparts."

Why does acceptance or inacceptance of homosexuality necessarily have anything to do with Left/Right boundaries? Do these left/right boundaries even exist and if they do, why should we discourage people from crossing them or blurring them with labels like "apologist"- a term which today connotes justification of atrocities such as genocide. (By the way, the term "apologist" doesn't even make sense in this context, because an apologist is someone who "argues in defense of something, such as a doctrine, policy or institution", and the policy in question is Don't Ask Don't Tell; homosexuality is not an institution.)

Your sensational headline isn't even logical after reading the article - the piece made no ernest attempt to connect orgies or adultery with Don't Ask Don't Tell, or to connect the three with some other topic of interest.

I enjoy reading about diverse viewpoints and would like to learn more about how other people think. Unfortunately, articles as full of illogical leaps, seemingly blind adherence to bipartisan roles and reliance on stereotypes as this one make it seem that many people don't think.

Daily Sun, I know that you all work very hard, but I wish you'd take a little more pride in publishing quality articles.

Gay servicemembers are not seeking the right to participate in orgies or any other behavior prohibited by the UCMJ. They simply want what everybody else wants...the right to be who they are, and the right to live free from unwarranted and unfounded comparisons to criminals, and miscreants of every sort simply because of who they are. As a retired army lieutenant colonel with more than 20 years of exemplary active military service, I would strongly suggest that Mr. McMorris stick to subjects that he is somewhat familiar with....this, obviously is not one.

Where to begin?

What we have here is an aritcle objecting to the treatment of General Pace for expessing his opinion (1) as to "homosexual acts", and (2) on the matter of the United States condoning immoral behavior (i.e., it shouldn't). In his comments, General Pace made clear that his statements were not limited to homosexual acts or the Clinton Administration's DADT policy, but to all immoral acts, including adultery. Free speech anyone? Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would defend official U.S. military policy? It reminds me of the consternation of many liberals in this country upon the naming of Pope Benedict XVI as Pope John Paul II's successor. As Jay Severin put it: "Gee, imagine that. A group of elderly, devout Cathiolic Cardinals got togehter, had a meeting, and selected as the Pope, a devout Catholic. What a surpirse!"

As to the commentators:

Steve: Nice try. I think we would all agree that eliminating redundant rules and regulations would be a good thing, but just because something may be redundant doesn't mean it has to exist for a different, nefarious reason. In fact, the policy was passed in order to make life easier on homosexual military personnel. By the way, are you a member of the editorial board? Your comment pre-dates the publication of the article. What up?

Kaitlyn: We are not dealing with left/right boundaries here, just the author registering surprise that some on the right were quick to jump on the bandwagon launched by the left. Oh, and the principle point about Sen. Warner was his hypocrisy (or, to be kinder, flip-floppiong views. The article was not suggesting that homosexuality leads to orgies; it was pointing out that military personnel who engaged in an orgy were punished; military personnel who engaged in adulterous activity were punished, and people who violate DADT are subject to punishment. You misunderstand the headline and the use of a conjunction in it, and have the nerve to question the author's logic? Didn't you ever watch Schoolhouse Rock ("Conjunction junction, what's your function?")? Did the author even draft the "sensational" headline, or does that task fall to one of the editors? I don't know, do you?

joeinbcs: No suggestion in the article that the author was talking about gay orgies, and I don't recall him calling homosexuals criminals; sorry, just not there. Thank you for playing. By the way, all military personnel I have ever known are humble about their service. None has ever bragged to me about their "exemplary active military service"; they leave the making of such comments to their friends. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that someone may be claiming a certain pedigree as a ground for scoring rhetorical points. By the way, I am far more leary of the actibvisim at work here than you may be. In the ciivlian context, we have gone from homosexuals saying all they seek is tolerance, to just let us have visitation rights in hospitals, to participation in benefit plans, to civil unions to gay marriage. My point being that the next time a lobbying group (homosexual or otherwise) says "all we want is . . ." you can be sure of only one thing: that is not the only thing they want. In fact, that's why we have DADT in the first place. Can you say slippery slope?

I will save my "flip" comments (as if some of the prior ones don't qualify) for Amanda and Johnsxx:

Amanda: "A civilization that sends its women into combat is not worth defending." Don't remember who said it, but it's a great line. I love the "any propensity" standard referred to in your comment. Is that the official military interpretation of DADT?

Johnsxx: In the immortal words of Archie Bunker: "England is a fag country." Despite all the similarities, celebrate the differences between the US and Britain.

Just curious: how come nobody (other than Johnsxx's assertion that life is wonderful in England and Australia) addressed the point about unit cohesion, as it is the lynchpin for both the regualtion and the policy?

I'm tired; you've been a great audience. Arrive home safely.

"Free speech anyone?"

I love it when people get all riled up about free speech as if you have the right to say anything without being criticized. Would you raise the same point if he said that he didn't like a certain ethnic group? In fact, if General Pace was giving these statements in the line of his employment, then he is not subject to First Amendment protection. You would probably argue that he wasn't, because he said he was just giving his own views, but why was he being interviewed in the first place if not for something related to his government position? When the President gives an interview it is because he is the President, not because we want to know what his favorite ice cream flavor is

"I think we would all agree that eliminating redundant rules and regulations would be a good thing, but just because something may be redundant doesn't mean it has to exist for a different, nefarious reason. In fact, the policy was passed in order to make life easier on homosexual military personnel."

But McMorris doesn't address this. His argument is that the army bans openly gay soldiers because it thinks that conduct is immoral. To support this, he cites another immoral conduct that the army bans. However, when describing why this conduct is banned by the army, he says the reason for this ban is because it affects troop cohesion, military effectiveness etc. That has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with conduct committed by soldiers.

As for redundancy, a general principle of legislation and rules is that every part is supposed to have meaning. The military already bans fraternization because of its effects on troop cohesion etc. What is the further purpose of Don't Ask, Don't Tell if not to condemn homosexual conduct? If it is simply because people think being gay is immoral (and that morality is most definitely traced back to religion), then I would argue we have an establishment clause problem, as the government is respecting an establishment of religion by banning gays from serving openly based on religious views framed in the context of morality. Neither you nor Billy have tried to argue that openly gay soldiers cause some sort of problem in the course of service other than people think it's immoral.

"By the way, are you a member of the editorial board? Your comment pre-dates the publication of the article. What up?"
No I am not. The time stamp on the column is not necessarily when the column first comes online. Also, if the Sun is still maintaining a well-trained staff, members of the editorial board and the paper in general should not be posting comments to any articles.

"Did the author even draft the "sensational" headline, or does that task fall to one of the editors? I don't know, do you?"
Usually the editor is the one drafting the column headline.

"Just curious: how come nobody (other than Johnsxx's assertion that life is wonderful in England and Australia) addressed the point about unit cohesion, as it is the lynchpin for both the regualtion and the policy?"

Did you read my argument? My whole point was that McMorris did not address this point as it relates to banning openly gay soldiers. He says that General Pace thinks being gay is immoral, but that's ok since the army bans other immoral conduct, then justifies the reason for the conduct ban with non-moral arguments (unit cohesion).

When you decide to put your life on the line for the “rights” of your fellow citizens, then you tell me that my sexual orientation is, and can be, the sole reason for my discharge from the military. I am tired of being silenced. I am tired of the accusations that my loving, non-abusive, committed and happy relationship with an individual who is of the same-sex is incompatible with MY military service and the cohesiveness of my unit, the armed forces and country. My marriage to a man was more incompatible to my military service because of its unhappy, abusive and destructive nature. Wake up! A majority of relationships within the military are not sustainable because of the nature of the military itself. Stable and happy relationships, of all combinations, are almost impossibly difficult to sustain because of deployments, intensive trainings, and stressful work environments. It is not who you are having sex with that dictates what type of soldier that you are, just as the color of your skin or the genitalia between your legs. It is the commitment that you have to getting the job done. The skill with which you have to actually do your job and maintain the rigors of physical training needed to complete the mission. While individuals in their corporate suits are squirming uncomfortably in their seats because their “morals” have told them that two people of the same sex cannot maintain a sexual relationship, individuals like myself, are there, risking our lives at times, doing our jobs, completing the missions that are set forth, and maintaining our physical training regardless of what we do in the bedroom.
According to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, more than 9,000 service members have been discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy at a cost of more than a quarter billion dollars to U.S. taxpayers. Money that could be spent on armor, training, and resources necessary for successful military operations are wasted on discharging and investigating individuals who have pledged their time to the armed forces regardless of the fact that the military does not in fact support their identity, their family, their life. Many critical military personnel are discharged. Individuals who have extensive, vital skills and a commitment to serving have been lost. It is harder to discharge a lazy, offensive, racist, uncommitted soldier than a lesbian or a gay soldier because of the procedures that one has to go through to “prove” that they are unfit for military duty. It is impossible for me to go through a day of training without hearing FAG, DYKE, “That’s so gay”, so many times that I lose count. A 2000 Defense Department inspector general survey showed that 80 percent of service members had heard offensive speech, derogatory names, jokes or remarks about gays in the previous year, and that 85 percent believed such comments were tolerated. Thirty-seven percent reported that they had witnessed or experienced direct, targeted forms of harassment, including verbal and physical assaults and property damage. Overwhelmingly, service members did not report the harassment. When asked why, many cited fear of retaliation. If convicted of “indecent sexual acts” an individual can not only face a dishonorable discharge, but forfeiture of all pay and allowances and up to 5 years of confinement. This is the same, THE SAME, maximum punishment for assault.
It is impossible for me to talk about my family, because it includes my lesbian partner. Lesbians and gays are not only defined by who we have sex with, but the person with which you have that intimate connection with is integral and incorporated into so much more of your life that to speak about any aspect of life in the military requires you to censor or silence your speech. I know more lesbians and gay men who are amazing, talented and committed soldiers than I do heterosexuals. I know commanders, nurses, doctors, military police officers, fire fighters, intelligence operatives and yes, Special Forces soldiers who *gasp* have sex with someone of the same sex. Tell me that you will not go to war with me or any one of them and I will tell you that you are ignorant and idiotic. We would lose a large and extremely valuable resource if we truly did not allow Queers in the military.

Within the same article that you quoted, Article 134, para 60, Clause 1 there is a statement on the engagement in indecent acts and what it violates: Customs. Custom is defined as arising “out of long established practices which by common usage have attained the force of law in the military or other community affected by them.” It was once a long established practice to keep minorities out of the military. It was touted that these individuals possessed lower morals and standards and “disrupted the cohesiveness and unity” of the military. Customs change. People change. Equality as it has been claimed to exist within any culture, community or service has not, in fact, always been equal. I don’t care that you are uncomfortable with who I sleep with or who I love. I get the job done and I do it well. I have always been one of the best in any area of my military service. I am not talking about ROTC either. I have served in the Army Reserves for over 6 years. I joined when I was 17. I came out as a Lesbian when I was 20. I was on active duty for a year and a half. I have given my time and if the time comes I will give my life because I am a soldier. In many ways I am proud to be a soldier, but I am not proud that I am silenced or that others are silenced and oppressed.

Judge Robinson Everett, Former Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the Armed Services Duke University was being interviewed and was asked what was an absolute necessity for the military, as a value for service. He responded “Absolute trust. Integrity. Knowing that if you're commanded, if you give the order that it will be obeyed. Knowing that if you're the subordinate that the Commander who is giving you the order is giving it in good faith, is a person of integrity.” So I ask you: How can trust be fostered in a space that demands silence?

So, yes, I am sticking my neck out right now. I am putting my entire military career on the line, my name on the line. I stand now and until my last breath that I will not be silenced any longer. I will not let anyone else tell me that who I love dictates my performance or my commitment. It is in being silenced, discriminated against, and oppressed that morality, cohesiveness and the MISSION break down. It is in not being able to talk about my family, my partner, my life that distances me from my fellow soldiers and in turn does not allow me to make those connections, those bonds that are integral to a foundation of trust, understanding and commitment. When the bullets are flying over head, bombs are blasting by one’s side or you are involved in completing that mission, no matter what it is, who I go to bed with every night is not what is breaking down its completion. It is another individual’s bigotry, hatred, disapproval or violence against me that is SANCTIONED by those I serve that inhibits success.

proves why our school isn't higher on the rankings page. It's amazing how such a sham of an article could be published in our school newspaper.

Billy writes:'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (yes; she does hold the gavel, although I still do not have any idea why) slammed General Pace for having the audacity to express an unnecessary “moral judgment.”'

Come on, Billy. You wrote an article entitled: "Why Nancy Pelosi Will Never Hold the Gavel". Get over yourself.

url: www.cornelldailysun.com/node/19341

I am the heterosexual son of a retired Army Col and a grad student at Cornell.

My dad's classmates are some of the highest ranking officers in the US military and my peers are now officers on the fast track. The military's biggest problems with discipline stem from unreported, officially condoned, violent, heterosexual behavior.

There are countless rapes of young and adult girls in the towns near military bases throughout the world. I have personally been to or lived on military bases in Okinawa (where some of the most horrific crimes perpetrated by heterosexual troops are committed), South Korea, the Philippines and Germany. I have personally observed the most despicable behavior by US soldiers that is never investigated.

There are almost no reported disciplinary problems with gays in the military. I know because I read most of the DoD reports and social science studies. Many gays who have served in critical functions such as Arabic and Farsi translators and in communication posts were dismissed because of their sexual orientation and not for violating disciplinary rules. Indeed, it is no exaggeratuon to say that gays in the military tend to be exemplary on efficiency reports.

During the Cold War, excuses were made that gays could be blackmailed, but this too was nonsense. There is continuity between reasons why Blacks were discriminated against in the military and gays today. Same arguments, different group.

Though I disagree with the political use of the US military, the best way to improve morale is to improve discipline and that means having a zero tolerance against pervasive heterosexual crimes such as rape, assault, intimidation and sexual predatory behavior. I write these things as a man who admires the military as an institution when it adheres to its own standards, most of which are laudatory.