With an intolerant, bigoted boss like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace, why would a gay person want a military career?

But gay people do. They want to serve their country and get an education. They are willing to slog through a hideous political blunder like Iraq, risking their lives, to do it.

And General Pace says they are not worthy of offering that sacrifice. It’s a savage insult to gay citizens everywhere and some people are applauding him for it.

His reasoning isn’t even as sly as the usual rant against gays in the military. The prevailing idiocy allows that gays would disrupt morale and discipline. In other words, gay people shouldn’t be allowed to serve because straight people are scared of them. It’s a sad and frequently offered argument.

But no, General Pace doesn’t hide behind the morale issue. He deletes an "e" and declares it to be a moral issue. To his closed mind gays are not moral, therefore they should not serve.

I think he’s hideously wrong of course, but in America he’s entitled to his opinion. But since he’s representing the entire U.S. military, I think he should be fired faster than a speeding Baghdad bullet. That’s my exercise of free speech. It’s indefensible that he wants his personal beliefs to govern public policy. Last time I checked we weren’t a theocracy yet.

But at least General Pace is honest.

Bigots who hide behind the troop morale pretext make me gag. These people envision gay men who would choose military careers wearing nipple rings with their uniforms, soliciting in the showers, and threatening the dignity of hets as they lie in their barracks beds. You just know that’s what they conjure in their tiny intolerant brains.

Do you know any nudists (Hey, Fay, where the hell are you going with this???)? I do. At least I’ve heard that some people I know are nudists (or naturists as they prefer to be called). Since I’m not a naturist myself (I hear you breathing that sigh of relief) the world of naturism is foreign to me. Even a little off-putting, if you will, because I know nothing about it and it raises thoughts of a great big social taboo. Fine. While I’d be uncomfortable at a party with naturists behaving like naturists while I try to avert my eyeballs, I have no problem with naturists who are dressed in public. What they do behind closed doors or on secluded beaches is their business.

But if the aforementioned naturists worked at CAMP Rehoboth (they don’t, so stop fantasizing) or in a corporate setting where they valued their careers, would they strip down and show me Trafalgar Square by the water cooler? Would they attend staff meetings in the nude? Not only wouldn’t they do it, but where would they stash their Blackberries?

Let’s ask ourselves if America would put up with a public policy stating that naturists are barred from military service or corporate careers because they behave in an immoral manner in private? Sadly, now that I’ve brought the subject up, under the current political administration, they just might. But it would be unforgivably stupid, insulting and a complete waste of talented people who would show up to work in clothing, even on casual Friday.

Okay, you can pick at this analogy, but in a hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner scenario, it’s just as disturbing to bar gay people from the military when they are not having sex as it is to bar nudist people from the military when they are not butt naked.

Yes, I know, practicing nudity is a choice and practicing homosexuality is how we are born (besides, we don’t need practice, we are good at it). And yes, I know that being a nudist is a choice and being a homosexual is not. But face it, if we apply the ridiculous hate-the-sinner standard to both, nudists and gays would be suspect for what they DO, not who they are.

I think it’s ridiculous to bar homosexuals and nudists from the work place even when they are not practicing, in public, for all the world to ogle, the act that labels them homosexuals or nudists in the first place.

Ooh, here’s another imperfect but illustrative analogy of naked is as naked does. While I may not be a nudist (sorry to remind you of that image again), I do have a tattoo. A small one, on my ankle. But years ago I knew a fellow who went into a tattoo frenzy in college. By the time I met him, he was reconciled to wearing long sleeves, even on sweltering days, just to look appropriate at client meetings. He may have been a proud tattoo owner on Friday evening, but during the work week he wore his corporate drag.

Would a person who wants to show off, all the time, tattooed arms, legs, and cheeks in both possible locations want to work in a place where everybody else covers up with Armani? I think not. Likewise it would be pretty brainless for a nudist to expect to be able to show up in the Board room without his pants.

So too, even pea-brained bigots have to realize that a gay man who wants to succeed in the military would not jeopardize his career by wearing a feather boa with fatigues or a tank top saying "You Go Girl" while he’s in a tank.

I’m using the boys as an example here because we all know that the military would collapse without its lesbians. But the women who value keeping their jobs will behave correctly as well.

Now to be fair, since many a straight soldier commits rape or gets pregnant, it’s probable that some percentage of gay people (or nudists or tatooees) will behave badly as well. The only difference is that nobody is scared at the thought of a straight rapist but they go all weak in the knees thinking about a blatant homosexual.

I say we judge everybody by the same behavior standard. There are disciplined gays and lesbians, nudists, and tattooed ladies and gentlemen along with the requisite few misbehaving naturists, tattooees and homos.

I’m so furious, that this tattooed gay gal wants to strip and moon the military, starting with General Peter Pace. Close your eyes, sir, I’m not kidding.