As you’re all probably aware by now, during the GOP debate Wednesday night, openly gay Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr asked the candidates why they “think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.”

Pat Buchanan’s response:

[...] And who obviously did not have the courage, frankly, when he was in the military to come out of the closet and say I-m gay. And to attack the Republicans for lacking the courage to take a position he was unable to take, I think makes him look rather bad.


Pat, you are aware of DADT, right? You’re asking Gen. Kerr why he didn’t have the courage to break the law? ‘Bluestocking’ gets it right:

Give me a freakin- break already! As far as Buchanan is concerned, Kerr is damned if he does and damned if he doesn-t. No matter what Kerr might have chosen to do, Buchanan would most assuredly have come up with a reason to vilify him for it - and what’s more, although there’s no question in my mind that he would deny it vehemently if anyone were to confront him with it, I strongly suspect that Buchanan is quite well aware of this fact. (Aesop said it best - “any excuse serves a tyrant”). If Kerr had come out while still actively serving, Buchanan would undoubtedly have criticized him for it and probably accused him of using his orientation as a handy excuse to leave the military due to cowardice - but since Kerr waited until leaving the service before coming out, Buchanan is criticizing him for his so-called “lack of courage”. Buchanan can-t possibly be ignorant of the fact that Kerr would have been forced out of the military had he chosen to come out while serving his country. Has Buchanan ever served in the military?!? I doubt it - most of the neocons and their supporters haven-t.

-Bluestocking, Think Progress commenter

And another little gem on the subject from Pat:

The U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom by restricting the power of government, the source of tyranny: “Congress shall make no law …” Civil rights laws restrict freedom. Men are told they will face disgrace, fines, ruin if they act on their beliefs in deciding whom they will hire, whom they will serve in a bar or restaurant, or to whom they wish to sell or rent their homes.

If a man is free to hold beliefs we detest, and speak and write in ways we detest, why is he not free to live according to his beliefs — if we believe in freedom? Hopefully, we are becoming a better society, for we are surely becoming a less free society.


Pat’s argument is circular. He’s stating that, by offering protections for gays, his right to bigotry is being suppressed. What Pat and many others don’t get is that ‘gay’ is who you are, not what you do. And they are a part of “we the people”. Bigotry, like stupidity, is a perverse state of mind. But Pat can take solace in the knowledge that he can stand before the masses and make a complete jackass of himself via the freedom of speech.

Mr. Buchanan, the only thing being suppressed here is my desire to vomit each and every time you open your mouth.