And claims it's mostly "conservative" families sending their kids to die in Iraq

Source: BBS News Commentary
Date: March 14, 2007

Republican Representative Duncan Hunter from California, brushing up his "conservative" credentials for a run for the US presidency, backed General Peter Pace on his stance on anti-gay bigotry in an editorial today in USA Today. Hunter writes:
"Gen. Pace's principles reflect the strong aversion of our Marines and soldiers to homosexual conduct. These moral principles also reflect the position of the predominantly conservative families who send there young men and women to serve in the U.S. military."

What is "conservative" about about a politician, in this case Duncan Hunter, simply and clearly misleading readers into thinking that there is an imaginary "aversion" to gays not having to hide like second class citizens in the military?

And where does Hunter get off claiming that it's "conservative" families kids who are fighting the nations wars?

There nothing conservative about stating things that are not true and worse yet, pretending these utterances are factual when reality and facts tell a different story.

Zogby ran a poll of troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan recently and one out of four knows someone who is serving and gay. More than half of them were told by the service member. The survey said:

"The data also indicate that military attitudes about homosexuality have shifted. In the early 1990's, many senior officers argued that U.S. troops could not form bonds of trust with gays and lesbians, according to Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, who has written widely on the subject. According to the new Zogby data, however, nearly three in four troops (73%) say they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians. Of the 20% who said they are uncomfortable around gays and lesbians, only 5% are "very" uncomfortable, while 15% are "somewhat" uncomfortable. Just two percent of troops said knowing that gays are not allowed to serve openly was an important reason in their decision to join the military."

In other words, the people who object to gay people are a tiny minority and perfect candidates for diversity training. After all, training in anti-harassment of gays and lesbians is part of mandated Defense Department policy, surely Hunter must know this sitting on the House Armed Services Committee.

Conservative Families Kids Fighting America's Wars?

This statement made by Hunter is completely contemptuous of the roughly half of Americans who are serving who are not Republican or conservative. The Military Times recently reported that those surveyed who said they were Republican has dropped to 46%. The LA Times reported in January of this year:

"The drop in Republican Party identification among active-duty personnel is a sharp reversal of a 30-year trend toward the 'Republicanization' of the U.S. military, and it could mark a sea change in the nature of the military — and the nature of public debates about national security issues."

Sitting on the Armed Forces Committee as the ranking Republican one would expect that Duncan Hunter knows all this quite well.

In other words, in his opposing viewpoint to true American diversity, he is quite obviously pandering to the narrow minded constituency of homophobic bigots that make up the Republican base.

Is this really someone Americans should consider as a serious contender for President of the United States?