More gay-bashing at the Washington Post

It's been a little while since the Washington Post last provided a platform for gay-bashing, so let's check in on the On Faith microsite, shall we?

Uh-oh. This won't go well: It's a discussion topic about gays in the military. And the Post's introduction to the discussion quotes the the anti-gay views of three people -- but doesn't quote any gay-rights advocates.

And right off the bat, Frank Pavone, president of the National Pro-Life Religious Council and a Catholic priest (last seen writing in the Post that sex can only be had “in a marriage between a man and a woman, and when open to life” ) chimes in with a post encouraging military chaplains to denounce gay service members. Here's Pavone:

On military bases, when our service people gather for worship, they are gathering as a community called together and united by the Word of God. By so gathering, they are saying they accept that word and are striving to live by it. If they come together as Catholics to have Mass and Communion, they are identifying themselves with a community that has a specific set of beliefs and practices, and they are saying they accept those beliefs and practices.

Those beliefs and practices include accepting and respecting God's plan for human sexuality and striving to live accordingly. The chaplain's role is to lead the community in the affirmation of those beliefs, and to bring God's strength to those trying to live them. The chaplain draws clear lines between what corresponds to Christian belief and behavior, and what doesn't. It's not up to the chaplain to create or change those boundaries.

If we institute policies which are going to openly condone homosexual activity, let's not be surprised or complain when chaplains do their job.

So, I guess Pavone isn't among those who consider “unit cohesion” an important goal. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't be quite so eager for military chaplains to sow discord among troops by devoting sermons to the supposed immorality of gay service members.

Pavone also suggests gays shouldn't be allowed to serve openly, demonstrating a clear double-standard in the process:

Now if a gay person wants to serve in the military, I honor that person's commitment to defend this country and serve its citizens.

At the same time, I would think that defending the country and serving its citizens are precisely the motive for entering the military - not, on the other hand, making a statement about being gay.

I don't know where Pavone got the idea that people who want to be able to serve without lying about being gay are more interested in “making a statement about being gay” than in serving their country, but I'm quite confident he'd never write such a passage about troops who want to be openly straight.