The openly gay former brigadier general asks...

Why American men and women are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?

Hunter: “It would be bad for unit cohesion.”

Huckabee: “Uniform code of military justice is probably the best conduct… when their conduct could put at risk the moral or even the cohesion that Duncan Hunter spoke of.”

Romney: “My view is that at this stage this is not the time to make that kind of change.”

Romney dodges the question about whether he looks forward to the day when gays could serve openly in the military.

The general: “With all due respect, I did not get an answer from the candidates. American men and women are professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians. For 42 years, I wore the Army uniform … I revealed I was a gay man after I retired. Today, don’t ask, don’t tell is destructive to our military policy…”

Huckabee says he'd welcome the support of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Comments

I'm tired of the flip-flopping frontrunners in this primary. They change their tune too often. First they say they oppose the Confederate flag, because it's divisive and it hurts blacks. But then they say they'll support Dont Ask Dont Tell (the military's anti-gay policy), even though it's divisive and hurts gays. Can we have some consistency please? We need a president who'll protect everyone's rights, no matter how you look or act (unless your a criminal or something).

Posted by Tony M. | November 28, 2007 10:24 PM

Tony, you make an excellent point.

There's a rumor that the gay General is part of the Hillary Clinton camp. I hope not. CNN is trying to confirm this information. It would be unfortunate if that were the case.

Posted by Blanca M. | November 28, 2007 10:44 PM

It seems that the gay retired General, Keith Kerr, is a member of Hillary's GLBT steering committee. I am proud that he asked the question about gays in the militaries and the controversial "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It appears now that CNN did not disclose that the retired General is a member of Hillary's GLBT steering committee. Oops!

Posted by Blanca M. | November 28, 2007 10:58 PM

I thought Hunter's answer was intolerance masquerading under a thin veneer of utilitarian bullshit. Substitute 'black' for 'gay' and dial the clock back to 1948 - his argument would be as valid against integration then as it is today. Which is to say not at all in my eyes.

Posted by bbartlog | November 28, 2007 11:13 PM

The rumor is indeed true...

Brigadier General Kerr is a national co-chair for the Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary Committee.

Posted by 2008Central.net | November 28, 2007 11:25 PM

There's several sources showing Keith Kerr as a long-time member Democrats' campaign support committees. He's backing Hillary now and he was Backing Kerry four years ago, the last time he was on CNN.

Of course, Anderson Cooper claims they had no idea.

Unfortunately, I actually agree with CNN's spin on this one but I think they're hurting the case with their blatant dishonesty and candidate loyalty.

Posted by underground | November 28, 2007 11:32 PM

What about the question from right wing activist, and K Street architect Grover Norquist?

Posted by Moldy Chum | November 28, 2007 11:43 PM

It was very unfortunate that the audience boo'd him. This just shows how the far right-wing "supports our troops" by treating vets like this man so badly.

I thought it was a very valid question what he said. All of these republicans are so full of shit, the US is a modern liberal democracy, I think our military can handle openly homosexual men and women serving.

The republicans like to act as though everyone in the military is as hateful and bigoted as the GOP.

Posted by David | November 28, 2007 11:52 PM

It makes sense that the General, and most gays, would vote democratic. The Republicans are the ones who, every election, bring out the rant about wanting to change the Constitution to forbid homosexual marriages, and then after every election, drop the issue. The Democrats support the idea of equality for homosexuals.

Posted by Glenn | November 29, 2007 2:20 AM

The general's question was edited out of the broadcast. It was a good question, and revealed the GOP for what they are-- wrong on the issue. Unfortunately, the fact that Kerr was an active supporter of Clinton and it was not disclosed shows CNN for what they are-- lousy journalists at best.

Posted by adam --- | November 29, 2007 3:28 AM

err, sorry... edited out of the REBROADCAST, I meant to say.

Posted by adam --- | November 29, 2007 3:30 AM

Gays can serve openly in Britain and Australia. Are we Americans so backward that they can't serve openly here?

Posted by joe | November 29, 2007 7:00 AM

What a group of presidential candidates.! All support a backward policy against gays in the military, some would end the income tax, most suppirt unregulated gun ownership, most oppose sensible policies on illegal immigration, and one won't condemn waterboarding.

Do they think we need all those guns to protect against the threat of gay marriage?

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Posted by altara | November 29, 2007 7:34 AM

Well, it seems obvious that the majority of you commenters here are not or have not served in active duty military, so I'll give you an inside point of view. The reason that gays can not serve openly in the military is because it is a sexual preference; as opposed to skin color, religion, etc. It puts you, the openly gay member on the forefront, and the mission and unit cohesion behind. When you join the military you are no longer one individual person. Your liberties and opinions no longer matter. By putting the issue of sex in forefront, you are seriously putting the men and women in uniform in danger.

Posted by Patrick | November 29, 2007 8:21 AM

Granted CNN should have done their homework, but why should the general's being a Clinton supporter affect regard for his question? Shouldn't people have a chance to learn the Republican candidates' positions on such things beofre one of them gets their party's nomination?

Let's have as much open exchange as we can. The more disparate the starting viewpoints, the better.

Posted by Debbie | November 29, 2007 8:39 AM

Patrick says: "The reason that gays can not serve openly in the military is because it is a sexual preference." Patrick, just as you believe that those who have not served in the military need an "inside point of view," you obviously are woefully uninformed and need to be enlightened with regards to homosexuality. As a gay man who has absolutely NO desire to serve in the military and was raised as a Southern Baptist in a hysterically anti-gay environment, I can honestly tell you that, at no point in my life, did I make a conscious "choice" to be gay. I would wager that you also never made a conscious choice to be heterosexual. It's just there - it's an inborn orientation, not a preference. And, it should not be used as justification for discrimination. You are wrong about something else in your comment: Religious affiliation is a preference. While I may not have chosen to be gay, I have chosen to no longer associate myself with the Baptist denomination, nor any other denomination, for that matter.

Posted by Walter | November 29, 2007 9:17 AM

Such ignorance, Patrick. Do you honestly think an openly-gay person in your unit would hop onto your back when you least expect it? Are you that bigoted?

Posted by Tom F. | November 29, 2007 9:23 AM

***There's a rumor that the gay General is part of the Hillary Clinton camp. I hope not. CNN is trying to confirm this information. It would be unfortunate if that were the case. ***

Um, this may come as a huge shock to the poster quoted above, but Hillary Clinton is a legitimate candidate for the Presidency. It isn't like "the gay General" was chief cook and bottle washer for Osama bin Laden, although I regularly hear talk radio screamers who wouldn't make the distinction.

Posted by talkstocoyotes | November 29, 2007 10:24 AM

How ironic. I have 2 sons in the military (2 different branches) and there are openly stupid and dangerous people that are somehow allowed to get through boot camp and serve. Some are a clear danger to themselves and others, but with the Army dumbing down to get recruits, this is going to be more and more the case. Most HONEST service members who are thinking about their service (and not their own prejudices) would rather serve with a competent gay person than a less than intelligent or dangerous individual who will put their units at real risk of bodily harm.

Posted by WaMMo | November 29, 2007 10:56 AM

Patrick is right: obviously most people in here have not served themselves. There is no way an openly gay person could function in an infantry-platoon or aboard a cramped ship. That's just the way it is, and it might not be fair, but unless we want to put pro-gay policies, rather than military cohesion and security, in the forefront, it's not going to work.

Saying something like this:

"Do you honestly think an openly-gay person in your unit would hop onto your back when you least expect it? Are you that bigoted?"

...is just beside the point. Most young men of 18+ , especially in a macho setting like the military, have absolutely no respect for gays (to put it very mildly), and would not be willing to live intimately with one. Again, that may be lamentable, but still a fact and it won't change very soon.

Posted by Norway | November 29, 2007 2:25 PM

That Kerr is a Hillary activist is rather rich, considering that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was enacted by Hillary's husband. And the reason for the policy in the first place is that it was supposed to be a workaround to the restrictions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If gays are to serve openly in the military, the UCMJ needs to be changed, and that's the job of Congress, not the President. Is our Democratic Congress busy pushing through such legislation? Why not?

Posted by Alex | November 29, 2007 3:06 PM

Excuse me, but my husband is a combat vet and served in the military for over a decade (leaving when Bush changed the definition of torture).
Those of us who are not homophobic know the people who are serving in the military who are gay, because we ask and they tell.
They are some of the best servicemembers that the military has.
The military led the way and broke the barrier to blacks.
It's time for the military to lead again and break the barrier for ANY American who wants to serve. I promise you, morale would be NO problem.

As far as the General being "a Clinton supporter" I believe he said he was a Log Cabin Republican. He's not paid by nor has he contributed to the Clinton campaign. The question was asked of Democrats in the last debate.
It's possible she's asked his advice about military and veteran affairs and gays. I'm okay that CNN should have known this and maybe even announced it.
But Clinton has done nothing wrong, and the question was a great one.

I don't get the earth-shaking problem.

Posted by Jan | November 29, 2007 3:58 PM