Guardian UK: A Tale of Two Bigots (Coulter/Pace)

[marmar]

A tale of two bigots
Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a 'faggot' and everyone condemns her. Peter Pace says homosexuals are immoral and gets a free pass. Why?

Conor Clarke


It's nice when everyone in the United States can get together and hate the same thing. This doesn't happen much, but the stars aligned earlier this month when Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot" at a big conservative conference, and her usual defenders on the right decided she wasn't worth the struggle. Winced Michelle Malkin: "We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's pre-eminent conservative gathering." Cringed RedState.org: "I hope every single conservative in America disowns her." Music to liberal ears.

The speed with which everyone tossed Coulter overboard is surely an indication that something is going right in the world. (Yes, it's no longer OK to call a presidential candidate a faggot onstage at a major political conference. Ditto basketball players and actors.) But what about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace? Last week, while defending the army's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Pace said he believes "homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." He added that he does not think "the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way." Democrats and gay rights groups were quick to condemn. But Robert Gates and every leading GOP presidential candidate weren't. (Sam Brownback actually sent Pace a letter of support.)

Does this state of affairs make sense? I doubt it. To review: Ann Coulter gets in trouble for calling a straight man a faggot for a couple of laughs. Peter Pace slathers opprobrium on actual gay people, in support of a policy that affects actual, real-life gay people, and gets a supportive nod from his boss. All he has to do is issue a clarification a few days later: "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."

This is ludicrous. Pace's "personal moral view" is that homosexual acts are immoral. And he supports kicking gays out of the military precisely because it reduces the number of such acts. So it's a tiny bit difficult to imagine how Pace could have "focused more" on the policy, while leaving morality out of the picture. His personal morality is the whole reason he supports the policy, not some incidental feature, like an umbrella or an ugly tie, that he can just choose to leave at home. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_clarke/2007/03/a_tale_of_two_bigots_1.html