During an interview in 2007, Marine Corps General Robert Magnus addressed what it was like having to deal with intolerance and bigotry in the ranks during the 1970s:

When asked if being Jewish was ever a liability in his expansive military career, Magnus' answer is matter-of-fact: It has not. More pointedly, when asked about anti-Semitism, he recalls only one incident, years ago, when as a captain someone foolishly called him a "Jew boy." His response: "I punched him in the face."

Ironically, the now-retired General Magnus -- whose own career was enabled by the tolerance of those not like him -- is now actively working to prevent gays from serving openly in the military.

This is hypocrisy.

When it was announced last week that over 1,000 flag and general officers had signed a letter urging President Obama to continue barring gays from serving openly in the military, General Magnus was among them.

Now, this one general's hypocrisy aside, the whole thing struck me as odd. When I read the letter to President Obama, I became even more perplexed by the language:

Our experience as military leaders leads us to have great concern about the impact that repeal of [the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law] would have on morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall military readiness. We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.

Break the all-volunteer force? For one, that type of overwhelming homophobia just isn't representative of the military I knew during my time in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wondered why so many senior leaders -- men who'd sacrificed so much in their own rights on behalf of the nation -- would suddenly come out against a repeal of the outdated policy.

As it turns out, the flag and general officers who signed the letter had all entered the service between the beginning of World War Two and the end of Vietnam -- in an era not known for its receptiveness to homosexuality, especially in the military.

The fact is, while they've certainly earned the right to express their opinions, this group of older, retired officers is largely out of touch with current cultural norms and what constitutes "mainstream" in 2009 -- and they certainly don't speak for those who've served overseas in the years since 9/11. While many are combat heroes themselves, their experiences range from Korea to Desert Storm. But not one of the 47 four-stars on that list has ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan with today's military, much less had to depend on one of the 58 gay Arabic translators fired in 2007 alone. These officers were brought up in a draft military at a time when open homosexuality was typically viewed as deviant -- unlike today, when 81 percent of Americans think gays should be allowed to serve openly in the military.

And when I say they're out of touch with the shifting views of society on this one, I'm not just taking a cheap shot I can't back up. While it's clear that younger troops are more receptive to a repeal of DADT, we can see a perfect example of how views change -- even in the military -- by looking at remarks made by General (Ret.) Colin Powell over time.

In 1993, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Colin Powell testified that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military would lead to a dangerous degradation of unit cohesion. And he said, "We cannot allow anything to happen which would disrupt that feeling of cohesion within the force." Which, of course, is true.

But just last week, now-retired Gen. Powell had this to say:

But it's 15 years later. A lot has changed. Attitudes have changed. And so I think this is a time to review that policy and review it before congressional committees to see if a change of law is now appropriate. I am withholding judgment because I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anymore. And I think we have to hear from our senior military leaders about the effect of a change in the law would have on the force. And if they came forward and said, "Let's do away with it," or, "Let's modify it or change it," that would mean a lot to me in terms of my point of view.

He sees how national attitudes have changed. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a good idea in 1993, but it's now run its course.

Ultimately, the point is this: Linguists, surgeons, seasoned counterinsurgents, intelligence experts, and other skilled professionals are absolutely vital to our own national security. At a time when our all-volunteer military is more strained than it has ever been, we have neither the time nor the luxury of finding replacements for these individuals who were fired on account of their personal relationships.

This is something we feel strongly about at VoteVets.org, and it's why we've started a petition to urge the White House and Congress to overturn the outdated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. If you agree with us on this, you can help by signing the petition yourself by clicking here. (And if you don't, I'm sure I'll hear about it in the comments section.)

As I've said before, with two wars raging, as long as you can shoot straight -- or speak Arabic or Pashto -- it's shouldn't matter whether or not you are straight. Leaders like General Magnus should know that better than anyone.

So please help us if you can. With two ongoing wars, we need as many qualified Americans in the ranks as we can get -- regardless of their sexual orientation.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.