One thing: After reading all those editorials yesterday morning about Pace's anti-gay comments, I noticed a recurring phrase that I had also read in some blogs. The Washington Post said: "He's entitled to his opinions, of course." The Chicago Tribune said: "It was his personal viewpoint, expressed with conviction, and the general is certainly entitled to his opinion." I've always seen the raison d'etre of writing, from blogs to newspapers to theater to fiction to SOTU addresses, to provide a perspective for the audience, whether it be a new spin on an old idea or an application of that idea to a different topic or a new voice on an old message or something totally new, for the purposes of entertaining, informing, or persuading. (Wow, I sound textbook.) But using fancy-speak for "The First Amendment exists" doesn't seem to accomplish any of those goals. It just seems like a re-hash of the old "That's just his/her opinion" statement that always seems to come out when talking about gay rights with people who are heterosexual supremacists.
Seriously, have you ever noticed how many times they use that phrase? They're entitled to their opinion, we all know that, but if someone disagrees with them, the former is accused of silencing the latter, victimizing him/her somehow. The entire anti-gay movement is stuck on the idea that they're the real victims, no matter how material the oppression of queer people is, so that they can obscure the real subject of the conversation whenever anyone disagrees with them.
Isn't that why Pace brought up his "upbringing" right in the Chicago Tribune interview that started it all - to put his opinion in the realm of personal morality, and, therefore, for some reason, beyond reproach? Do we really need to have editorials reinforcing that? Especially since it's so obvious and so false at the same time - yes, he's entitled to his personal beliefs, and, yes, there's no legal means of changing someone's personal beliefs - but, no, when they influence policy people have a right to try to change them or change the person in that position, and, no, disagreeing with Pace's statements on public policy does not even remotely make him a victim. The shield of labeling something as personal morality stops when the object of that morality is exclusively others.
The other thing, after the jump.