Help me figure this one out.

Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, characterizes homosexual activity as “immoral” and akin to adultery, and he is rebuked by career politicians like Sen. John Warner, R-Va. He is blasted by the usual array of homosexual pressure groups. He is forced to clarify statements that seemed to me to be unambiguous and (How do I put this delicately?) self-evident.

Am I to understand that only people who approve of homosexuality are entitled to viewpoints anymore?

Am I to understand that only people who see buggery as a step forward for civil rights are entitled to express their sense of morality?

Am I to understand that no one in public life or authority today is permitted to subscribe to moral codes that have served the Judeo-Christian world for the last 5,000 years?

I’m mystified by this controversy.

Gen. Pace simply uttered a deeply held conviction, one I would dare say is shared by the vast majority of Americans, and became a source of controversy over it.

Presumably, if he had said he didn’t believe homosexual activities were immoral, that would have been OK.

Nevertheless, it would still have been a statement based on his own personal morality.

So, it seems to me there is an effort here to isolate and marginalize one specific moral code from public utterances and public policy. And that would be the Judeo-Christian moral code.

I don’t know about you, but I take offense at that kind of witch-hunting.

Listen to the nonsense being spewed by Sharon Alexander, the deputy policy director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a homosexual activist group: “When you are in a position of authority like chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there’s no such thing as an off-the-record comment or a statement of your personal opinion. When General Pace speaks, by virtue of who he is and the position he holds, he is speaking for the military. And for him to use his position to express a personal belief about the immorality of homosexuality is irresponsible, at best.”

In other words, according to this idiot, people in positions of authority must divorce themselves from their personal convictions of right and wrong.

If that is indeed the case then how in the world are we supposed to hold people accountable for war crimes?

Of course she doesn’t believe what she is saying. What she actually means to say is that no one in public life should dare be free to criticize sodomy, not long ago a crime in all 50 states and now considered by the John Warners of the world enlightened, civilized leisure activity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi chimed in, of course. She said she was “disappointed in the moral judgment” voiced by Pace. “We need patriotic Americans who exist across the board in our population. We don’t need a moral judgment from the chairman of Joint Chiefs.”

She doesn’t mean it, either. What she means is: “We shouldn’t permit moral judgments that differ from mine. We shouldn’t allow anyone in public life to rely on the Bible as their personal source of morality.”

Had Gen. Pace said he thinks it is time for the military’s ban on open homosexual activity to go, that it is immoral to keep it in place, I dare suggest Warner and Pelosi and the rest of the thought police would not have been condemning him for speaking from his own moral convictions. In fact, they would have praised him and used what he had to say as evidence for legislation to do just that.

What we have here, then, is clearly an effort to purge from authority anyone who dares represent the most basic tenets of a Judeo-Christian moral code. It’s commendable to preach a new morality. It’s forbidden even to admit to believing in the old one.

It’s John Warner who should be forced to apologize to all of us who agree 100 percent with Gen. Pace and understand exactly what he said and what he meant.

It’s Sharon Alexander who should be forced to apologize.

It’s Nancy Pelosi who should be forced to apologize.

Of course, I won’t hold my breath waiting for those moral relativists to admit they’re wrong.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

Related special offer:

“The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.