Our Constitution never once uses the word "moral," yet huge debates center on the morality of issues, while completely ignoring the Constitutional basis of our republic.

Moralizing endlessly won't change the Constitutional protections, nor the extent of its intent as noted in the Declaration of Independence: "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Much has been made, lately, of Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Pace's comments about the immorality of homosexual behavior.

Constitutionally speaking, we recognize that the natural rights of the individual extend only as far as to where they would infringe on the rights of other individuals. That's not as fine a line as it might seem; especially in matters that only affect the individual, such as sexual preferences.

What transpires privately of a sexual nature -- either alone or between consenting adults -- is nobody else's business. We used to accept that in a society that still understood the Constitution...and polite behavior.

However, proselytizing of the once-private sexual business in the public venue -- such as through sexually oriented parades, programs in schools, etc. -- intrudes on the rights of those who do not embrace the same preferences.

I, like many, do not want to see sexual exhibitions, whether gay, straight or between animals, in the street. Nor do I want sexually oriented lifestyles -- of any nature -- taught in the public school system, which uses my tax dollars.

The latter point is an especially important distinction while kids are still under the guardianship of their parents, those whom should be the major influence on their children; not teachers.

Schools are natural venues for teaching procreation-sex but not for teaching sex-oriented lifestyles. Obviously, this limits public-school sex education to heterosexual topics.

General Pace's comments and actions, within their own context, are two separate issues.

His comments are protected by the First Amendment, and others are equally free to openly disagree.

But as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he alone is responsible for his decisions. If he feels gays shouldn't be in the action, it's his call, not ours.

Instead of debating from a moral standpoint, perhaps we would move closer together by providing for everyone's Constitutional rights. Moralizing serves little except to avoid acknowledging those rights.

© 2007 Nonin Stone— All rights reserved