White House says they appreciate the sacrifice of gay troops (Dead gay troops are good gay troops?)

[Ian David]

White House voices support for gay troops
by Bob Roehr

In what is believed to be a first, the White House last week acknowledged gay service members in the wake of homophobic comments made by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace.

In a March 12 meeting with editors and reporters of the Chicago Tribune, Pace said, "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts." He did not frame his support for the anti-gay military policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the traditional terms of homosexuality being detrimental to unit cohesion.

Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, was asked last week what message Pace's comments sent to gay service members serving in Iraq. He replied, "The president appreciates the sacrifice and service of every service member, and what they're doing on a daily basis to improve the situation."

Steve Ralls was stunned. The spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the leading group working to repeal DADT, said, "As far as I'm aware, this is the first time the Bush White House has said they appreciate the sacrifice of gay troops."

<snip>

"The military intends to add more than 18,000 troops each year for the next five years," said Gates. The Pentagon could achieve one-sixth of that total by eliminating DADT and retaining more gay service members.

More:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1665



My own, personal opinion is that I support gay people having ALL rights equal with straight people-- including the right to military service. But I would much, MUCH prefer if this particular injustice took longer to correct than others.

Gay people deserve the right to serve their country.

However, this country does NOT, in my own, personal opinion, deserve the right to ask gay people to sacrifice for the current regime, or under the current government-sanctioned injustices that it inflicts upon them.

I think that we need to pass a Constitutional Ammendment that simply says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Oh, wait.

I think we already have that in there somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[LiberalFighter]

1. How can they acknowledge the service of gays in the military when

they are not permitted to reveal their sexual preference?

If they do reveal their sexual preference will the WH still appreciate their sacrifice?

[rodeodance]

2. nope--gotta be quite about such stuff!

[Pab Sungenis]

3. "The only good queer soldier is a...."

They love us, don't they.

"Support the troops" my ass.

[Lobster Martini]

4. Unless there's more to Bartlett's quote than was published...

Unless there's more to Bartlett's quote--Bartlett's Quotations? That's odd--than was published, it doesn't mean anything. It sounds nice, but there's no content. That is the most generic comment he could have made.

[Ian David]

5. Their silence is part of their sacrifice? n/t