Thanks to Gen. Pace’s foot-in-mouth-while-in-uniform moment, we have a new political litmus test: Do you think homosexuality is immoral?
Politicians of all stripes are rushing forward, practically pushing one another out of the way in their haste to pass moral judgment on a segment of our society…. with the exception of this one:
Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was “proud” to stand by their side.
Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace’s controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.
“Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said.
And this one:
On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.
“I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters,” said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. “That’s probably a good tradition to follow.”
He turned the conversation to opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy: “I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country.”
And of course Hillary and Obama are coming under fire (memeorandum has some typical reactions).
Evidently, it’s not enough these day to address policy. One now has to wrap that policy — even when people agree with it — in a dogmatic wrapper with a proselytizing bow. When did we start demanding that policy be made from a pulpit?
Personally, I find it refreshing to see politicians leave their moral judgments out of the equation for a change. In my estimation, these two candidates — having had the audacity to address policy rather than personal religious conviction — have both moved to the top position of Democrats I’d consider for president.