‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Seems Certain
Seventeen years ago, just days after becoming president, Bill Clinton rushed to fulfill a promise he had made several times on the campaign trail in 1992: he would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military.
At the time, the president could have repealed the ban with the stroke of a pen. It was an administrative directive, not federal law. Clinton, however, did not lay the groundwork for repeal. His fellow Democrat, Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga), then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an opponent of the ban, held hearings which upstaged the president. Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, voiced his opposition. And Clinton had Barney Frank, an openly gay Democratic congressman, defending him. The Massachusetts Democrat had no history of military service and was not well regarded in military circles. He cast this issue as one of gay rights.
In the end, Frank helped craft a compromise: legislation that would come to be known as “Don’t Ask,Don’t Tell” (DADT). It allowed gay people to serve provided they didn’t openly declare their sexuality. But it also codified the ban. No longer an administrative directive, it was now federal law. The president would need an act of Congress to repeal it.
Since DADT has passed, discharges of gay service members have continued, with an average of over 1,000 a year in the second half of the Clinton administration and a high of 1,273 in 2001, the year George W. Bush took office. Discharges have since declined, remaining in the 600-700 range from 2003 on.
In the same time period, various interest groups representing gay people in general and gay service members in particular have pushed for repeal. While bills were introduced in Congress, neither chamber acted. In the past two weeks, however, we have seen a flurry of activity. President Obama promised repeal in his State of the Union address. Obama has adopted an entirely different strategy for repeal from that of his immediate Democratic predecessor.
Obama, like Clinton, had promised to act on behalf of gay service members but did not rush to lift the ban, offering little more than lip service in his first year in office. Indeed, many gay activists began to grow impatient with the man they backed so enthusiastically on the campaign trail. Believing the Democrat was dragging his feet, a group of left-wing bloggers called for a temporary moratorium on donations to the Democratic National Committee until Congress passed a variety of legislation backed by gay activists, including repeal of DADT.
Perhaps in response to this pressure, the administration got its act into gear. Instead of having a left-wing congressman spearhead the effort, last October, the administration reached out to Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent Democrat who is not only a long-time opponent of DADT, but is also well regarded in military circles. Barney Frank he isn’t. And indeed, Frank has been in the background on this one. Instead, one of the administration’s point men in the House has a background of military service. Patrick Murphy, a two-term Democrat from Pennsylvania who served in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and was the first Iraq veteran elected to Congress, is the author of the only legislation that would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” restrictions.
I don’t understand. Why do gays need to openly declare their sexuality in the military?
Do doctors openly declare their sexuality?
Do engineers? Do interior decorators? Ops.
And why do openly declared gays want so much to serve in the military? To shoot people? Or to find good looking men?
Maybe most gays should not be in the military, just as they should not be in the church. After all, it’s not that there are many heteros in the fashion and entertainment industries…
Total crap! Any decision to change or not change the policy should be based on polling everyone on active duty, not by a bunch of dimwitted politicians, an incompetent, lying socialist in the White House and a few 4 star yes-men. Keep it in the closet unless the troops themselves say they can live with it.
This will give complete new meaning to those time honored and proud military recruitment posters stating that, “Uncle Sam Wants You!”
This is actually a step in the right direction. No one should be prohibited from serving their country because of their sexual orientation. The Constitution says, “We the People”. If interpreted correctly, it gives the people rights and limits the powers of government.
I also agree with the methodology. The mission of the military is very different from civilian missions. If ending DADT compromises military readiness or effectiveness, then they need to figure out a work around. But I think the US is very different in 2010 than it was in 1992.
There are those that will fight this. I don’t think that you can be conservative and be anti-gay. Conservative principles apply to gay people just as much as they apply to everyone else. It should be a humongous tent.
The repeal has to be successful through the House & Senate; in an election year, I wouldn’t bet on it being repealed.
Some day soon, we’re all going to be amazed that we tolerated *any* form of a communication gap in the military!
http://bit.ly/9YNli3
(social satire)
The delusion that DADT will be reversed, is one based on Obama’s
blitzkrig effort to pretend his sec of defense–Gates, and his
Chairman of the joint chiefs Mullen, out front with Powell–all
stating reversal is a real consideration will NOT fly. Soldiers,
the vast majority who are against gays serving “Openly” ( a term )
which would result in FLAGRANTLY, or ridiculously– far
outnumber the gay voices claiming a reversal of DADT is a done deal. Gays serving openly would be a disaster forced upon our military personnel; an un-needed, unwanted and un-wise FORCED
disaster.
As an active duty physician who has had the pleasure of deploying with the Marines, I can guarantee there will be problems. It is easy for the brass to say we can have gays serve openly when they themselves are not in the trenches with these fine young men and women. There will be insubordination, assaults, decreased morale and a host of legal issues that have no place in fighting wars. Not to mention the countless hours spent in “sensitivity” training.
Don’t ask don’t tell works. Obviously there are gays serving in the military at this time. In my experience the ones who come out want out.
The UCMJ will have to be revised. Adultery is a punishable offence. Will we charge gays with adultery when they cheat on each other? Will we provide health care to their partners? Will we give them base housing?
The system is not broke and it does not need fixing. This is just a political ploy to get a victory in leftist social engineering.
Besides, I don’t know how I would look in pink fatigues.
Irony must be an acquired appreciation. The same political sensibility and social types that view staffing the army as a civil rights issue about equal opportunity for killing and dying had no problem showing up in drag to avoid the draft during the “unjust’ Vietnam War. Apparently the political bet here is that there will never be another draft, or unjust war. Or maybe there will be more draft exemptions allowed in the new Universal Selective Service Act–a contradiction in terms that already exempts females from registration. On the other hand, maybe this equal opportunity only applies to jag units, and those 58 percent of “conservatives” in favor of gays serving in the military are really neocons anticipating the return of conscription?
Obama’s thoughtful and deliberative approach may seem slow and awkward if one fails to appreciate the stakes. His clear aim is to focus on changing what he can, while recognizing that change takes time. Looking forward it will be great to have DADT repealed. A victory for all of us.
Peace.
DS
What kind of Military are we going to have ? How safe do we feel really ??
“No one should be prohibited from serving their country because of their sexual orientation. The Constitution says, “We the People”. If interpreted correctly, it gives the people rights and limits the powers of government.”
No. There is NO right to serve in the military. And the military ROUTINELY DISCRIMINATES bases on age, weight, intelligence, medical condition, etc.
Just a small error I’d like to point out. Mr. Blatt wrote: “At the time, the president could have repealed the ban with the stroke of a pen. It was an administrative directive, not federal law.”, that is not correct. Article 125 of the UCMJ http://www.ucmj.us
is the federal law that prohibits (among other things) homosexual activity in the military. That article of the UCMJ can not be repealed by administrative directive but only by an act of congress.
This president and his administration care nothing for the military. They are catering to their base and thats it! I agree with the person who said all active duty military should be polled. They are the ones out doing the dirty work for the rest of us and they are the ones who count!
Repealing DADT is a grave mistake. But realize that the real policy is not DADT but Don’t Know Don’t Care. If you can’t tell anything from a person’s behavior on the job then you don’t care.
The problem is that if you take away DADT then it will be possible for homosexual activists to serve in the military. When the issue came up during the Clinton Admin gay rights groups were calling for the full range of civiil rights benefits, including quotas on military service academy appointments. This will be utterly disasterous.
Repealing DADT is a grave mistake. We will lose far more valuable people than we will ever possibly gain.
And there IS NO RIGHT to serve in the US military. It is a volunteer force but also one that requires competitve entry.
Can someone explain why it is necessary for anyone to openly state their sexuality? All of us know what will happen if you throw a bunch of 18 to 25 year old men and women together in any situation where they are in contact 24/7. It’s already happened in the Navy on board ships even though there is a prohibition against it. The readiness of the Navy has been compromised and the medical costs have soared from pregnancy related issues. We know gay men won’t be getting pregnant but they have a whole host of other medical problems that are not only costly but deadly. Even if you allow that there will be “Activity” between gays and a work around as mentioned above is found, the loss of man power to police and prosecute the incidents will take up that much more time and money to accomplish. Take any segment of human social life and try to outlaw a type of behavior and tell me what you get. Raids on whore houses or gay bars once a year, if it’s an election year and the rest of the time nothing gets done. Well you can’t have that in the military where the people are in contact 24/7. Any problem will fester and destroy morale or create division among the troops that can be fatal in combat. How about we pass a law that says NO ONE IN THE MILITARY MAY STATE, DISPLAY OR IN ANY WAY MAKE KNOWN THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE? It would be a lot easier to police and immediate dismissal from the military would be forth coming.
in the spirit of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’…
we are going to have 127k troops in afghanistan in the spring of 2010.
find a msm outlet that points out this actual number.
Repealing DADT is a grave disservice to those at the point of the spear. It is they who will pay the price for an ill considered social experiment which treats them as guinea pigs.
perhaps someone could explain to me what “openly gay” means. i have no interest in being forced to witness any excessive public displays of affection . i don’t want to see heterosexual 18 year olds groping each other with the declaration “its natural, get over it”. on the other hand, i don’t care who does what in the back room for how much, either. repeal DADT if it means that gays can live and work and be left alone. don’t repeal it if that means san francisco gay pride type behavior becomes acceptable in the military.
To all:
1. You are assuming that the gay service member does not already have a highly developed sense of survial. As a recently retired Hospital Corpsman (please pronounce my title correctly) I knew gay grunts. They were proud to be at the very tip of the spear and they were just as macho as any other grunt. However, they were also intelligent enough to keep the personal, personal and the professional, professional. They had no sympathy for Marines who failed in this regard, gay or straight.
2. There is always the Air Force for the less macho.
Cheers
There are several critical issues that are receiving short shrift. The given is that the military structure is by nature coercive. When command says that you will admit women and minorities, that is what will happen. Mandatory policies, training, and non-judicial punishment for non-compliance follow.
So what happens with religious liberty of the First Amendment. While many are taught not to discriminate, most religions prohibit homosexal practice and actively oppose it. Are we going to require religious members of our military to violate their consciences? Are we going to infect our miliatry with the disease of dishonesty by requiring silence and compliance in order to gain promotion?
The second issue is unit effectiveness and integrity. The military is not a social petrie dish. It is a war fighting institution. In order to motivate men to enter extreme danger there must be a presumption of impartiality of command. What happens when doubt creeps in that soldier “A” din’t go on patrol because he may have a romantic liason with Officer “B”? Once this trust is broken, even if the incident is isolated and quickly dealt with, the combat effectiveness of the whole force is severely and completely compromised.
It is one of the policy pillars that prevents women from entering combt arms.
I am a combat veteran. I now teach theatre at the university level, and have worked as an actor for over 25 years. I work in a profession that has traditionally been friendly to homosexuals. I have absoltuely no beef with anyone who is homosexual. Thuis isnot a disucssion of institutional bigotry but of competing freedoms and responsibilities.
In civilian life if you don’t wish to associate youreslf with behavior you needn’t. We still have freedom of association. The military is completely different. Some freedoms are held in abience (sp) when you enter the military. As an example, the freedom of speech is circumscribed to make allowance for chain of command and miliary security issues. There are compelling and thoroughly reviewed reasons why this is so.
Homosexuality is completely new ground. It is sexual behavior codified as a right. Shall we then nullify the regulations prohibiting adultery? After all, we judicially punish Officers and Non-commissioned Officers for this violation, as it clearly leads to a degrading of combat effectiveness. I have known men and women who were transfered out of a unit immediately,a nd whose careers effectively ended, after an inter-unit affair came to light.
This is not going to end well. When units crumble people die, and the people at home are less safe.
Wow, major spelling mistakes in my last post. I give myself and F and assign myself proofreading homework.
There are around 1,473,900 US military members, and around 1000 gays a year discharged, for a percentage of less than .1%. For the sake of that .1% the government wants to take the chance of losing more than 300,000 military members? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Military members do not want the complications that come with gays in the military. Housing issues, military recognition of gay marriages, and loss of privacy issues are prime problems that would be faced. If gays are allowed to house with the same sex, than why stop straights from housing with the opposite sex? This is a can of worms we can not open for the sake of such a small group of people.
“Be careful what you pray for, God may decide to give it to you.”
The gay left may find out that there is a gay right serving in the military and they may not be all that happy with the chaos that comes. The hand that throws the grenade into a room may belong to the Sacred Band.
I have had to deal with unrequited love of a woman several times. During those periods if anyone had messed with them I might have snapped. So I wonder how a career soldier who has put his time in, taking the deaths of the ones he loves in silence, the ones he admires, is going to take people who are hassling the ones left.
Before it is all over there may be segregation again. Not by race but by sexual proclivity.
So pat yourselves on the backs about your open mindedness, about how much smarter you are than those who created your civilization, and deny any responsibility for the Chaos that occurs.
How about doing the same thing the Navy did to integrate black officers into the Navy? They took experienced black NCOs (Chief Petty Officers) and sent them to OCS, then demonstrated their excellent performance in service. This led to acceptance by the entire Navy (enforced from the top down) that skin color had nothing to do with competence.
A non-visible attribute such as sexual orientation (or religious preference, or political party) that has zip to do with performance in the job is readily ignored as immaterial. Such an attribute should only become an issue if, for example, Colonel X doesn’t write good performance reviews of subordinates with a different faith, or Major Mohammed states he will shoot up the infidels, or Captain Gay makes unwanted moves on Captain Stud of the same sex, and won’t stop when told to. The latter situation applies to PFC Stud and PFC Hot of opposite sexes now; military rules and regulations already encompass inappropriate sexual behavior by serving members.
I’m a former Marine (straight and married, so don’t even go there). I have a hard time believing anyone who has served did not know some who were gay or lesbian. And I had no problem with them. Perhaps they want to serve for the same reasons that straight people do – because they love their country and don’t want to stand on the sidelines while others carry the burden of maintaining a free and safe society. Other than wanting to make the military, and the country, into a biblical theocracy, or simply manifesting a hyper-fratguyish obligation of real men to openly ridicule gays (lest no one know they’re not gay), I see no reason to have a problem with it.
This is a political payoff to the Democratic Party’s hard left and will reignite the culture wars. If you can’t pass health care or haul the economy out of the ditch, you can still ensure that a rump of the party stays loyal. I refer to the Hollywood, Manhattan and academic constituencies that have outsized influence in the party. No one is more PC than the generals and admirals. They are politicians and bureaucrats more than warriors. Their continued climb in rank has been made possible by knowing what bottoms must be kissed and with how much ardor.
I served from 2000-2006 in the military. I cannot help but see the same logic that was used to bar minorities from serving in the military and then maintaining segregation being used to bar homosexuals. I served with a couple of individuals whose sexual orientation was basically known. The issue that these individuals faced was that at anytime, their careers were in jeopardy for no mission sensitive reason. The idea that some people have that military cohesion will fall apart simply because military members will be required to act as adults in ludicrous. Please explain to me how allowing Blacks in the military has cause our military to collapse because that was what was basically predicted during the 50′s.
When I served, if we found out that a new guy had an issue with minorities, guess how the division responded…he got to share a six pack with five minorities. Either he learn to grow up and act like a functional adult or else he could go away. If we found out they were homophobic, we basically tormented them about it too. We have troops in two combat areas and the fact that we even thing to bar volunteers from serving is a sick joke.
I think barring gays from the military is silly but the military should decide. The decision has larger implications. Gays serve in every other military in the world openly without issues. While ex miltary, Colin Powell has no real credibility. He is a weak man of even weaker convictions. Obama came right out and said he opposes gay marriage and all the gays who voted for him turned a deaf ear and thought he was faking this view.Why is he taking this on now when everything else he touches turns to crap? He is just trying to throw them a bone because they are as frustrated with him as everybody else. This is what happens when the government tries to undo something it has put into place. Gays are certainly in the military now and you don’t hear any service people complaining about it. The argument is ridiculous
Active duty Sailor, currently deployed.
I get suspicious when I read some of these comments from prior military folks.
As in, Tamdar said: I’m a former Marine. I have never heard a Marine refer to themselves as that. Not the Marines in my family, no one. They are Marines, period. (Well, the only Marine I hear referred to as former Marine is John Murtha and we all know his issues. . .)
So take the “military” folks who are commenting on this article here and other places with a grain of salt. I know very few Sailors who welcome this change, the repeal of DADT.
With 22 years in the Army (1985-2007), I knew several gays who all served proudly and honorably. Some joined before the passage of DADT, some after. None of them had a problem with their service and homosexuality that I knew of, so I’m not sure what exactly the removal of DADT is supposed to do. Other than allow gays to openly state they are gay when it would be an EO complaint should a heterosexual openly state in mixed company that they are hetero.
As for the number of “gays” released from active duty…take that number with a huge grain of salt. Congress required all soldiers released for being gay to be given an honorable discharge. Soldiers aren’t stupid, and any soldier who was close to being discharged with an “other than honorable” or “dishonorable” discharge could easily and legally ensure they got an honorable discharge (with all the accompanying benefits) by claiming that they were gay. I saw it happen frequently, and there wasn’t a company commander willing to risk their career by denying a claim of homosexuality and thus an honorable discharge from some dirtbag that they wanted to get out of the Army anyway.
By the way, I agree with Sailor 2. Anyone who writes that they are active duty, then uses terms that no active duty person would use, needs to be read with a bit of suspicion as to their service.
I don’t think there is any intrinsic reason why homosexuals can’t serve in the military. The problem is that right now, a homosexual soldier has to be pretty discreet about it, and that means that those homosexuals who are in the service are doing so because they put military service ahead of their need to make an issue off their sexuality. I’m concerned that repealing DADT will mean that a lot of gay activists will join up just to make a point of it, to be loud and proud about it–and when it inevitably leads to conflict, or discipline for engaging in stereotyped behavior–lawsuit! And then, after destroying our military, these activists will go and find something else to destroy.
Homosexual behavior is banned by article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and has been there since its beginning. It was in the Articles of War before that. It was not put there by the DADT legislation. It will take an act of congress to change that because it is a federal law, not just a military regulation. Just being a homosexual is not a violation. However, homosexual acts are.
It seems to me that having open homosexuals in the service, whose private lives admittedly involves engaging in a crime, leaves an opening to abuse of many kinds.
I think ‘don’t know, don’t care’ is the best policy.
The criteria as to what is acceptable in the military has not changed, nor should it to appease some tyrannical minority’s demand of not only acceptance but of ‘endorsement’. In the military, what delineates that which is acceptable conduct and behaviors from the unacceptable is how this this single question is answered:
Is it predjudicial to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces of the United States?
DADT, while IMHO not a perfect solution, has worked because it focuses on conduct and behavior, and generally fits within the larger construct of required behaviors of all types.
All this bleating about ‘civil rights’ is rather limited in scope and focused on only the rights of that tyrannical minority don’t you think?
Until separate sleeping and hygiene facilities that are provided in every possible field situation can be reasonably guaranteed to be equal to a heterosexual female’s vis-à-vis heterosexual male and vice versa — how will (insert heterosexual’s name here)’s sense of personal privacy and freedom from harassment be protected? Doesn’t (insert heterosexual’s name here) have as much of a right to not be quartered with a homosexual of the same sex as (insert name here) to not be quartered with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? (And isn’t all this PC gender-speak lovely?)
BTW Sailor 2: According to my Former-Marine Son and all other Marines I’ve known there are no EX-Marines, with the possible exceptions of Lee Harvey Oswald and John Murtha.
I’ve always understood that military men will kill known homosexuals when they get the opportunity. As soon as they get in combat.
Would you rather have you drill sergeant-trainee sex scandals be man-on-woman or man-on-man? Would you like to draw straws to see who has to share a room with a gay guy if there’s an odd number of them? How about the coed shower scene in Starship Troopers… would it be as good for cameraderie or not in real life?
Some have asked why the negative attitude towards gays openly serving. I’ll tell you several. 1.There are no hate crimes in the military right now unless they are spectacular and usually off base. This would become the “Issue” with openly gay men when they are treated to a Paris Island type environment and singled out by the DI for extra “Instruction” even though the extras are routine for screw offs. 2. Gay men/women serving now never openly flaunt their gayness especially toward straight men. Think what taunting towards a young shy straight person would be like if the unit he was assigned to was more gay than normal. The whistling and cat calls would be devastating to him. I was a Marine and worked in the airline industry for many years and if you don’t think gays will eventually become more prevalent in some units than others then you haven’t been around. In the airline world at the now defunct Eastern Airlines gays were in positions of hiring new flight attendants and you don’t have to be a genius to guess what happened. 3. All gays do not have the same personalities or emotional make up. But there is group, think San Francisco activist, within the gay community that would be hard to live with in the 24/7 confines of the service. God help any straight who happened to end up in a high percentage of gays unit. I know this would not happen to all or even a large percentage but gays have a way of gravitating towards their own kind in every organization and knowing the officer corps, they would be happy to let them do it. This would create a “Mash” type of environment where this group would be expected to show off.
The person above who tried to equate being black with being gay is nuts. Sure there was prejudice towards the blacks but it was based on something that they could not change, hide or be ashamed of. Being gay is a sexual preference and need never be brought up. This is not a civil rights issue either. To the person above who said that the military already has rules to cover bad sexual behavior, he is correct. But the new issue becomes what happens to the morale of the unit when the conduct disgusts the other members? Where are the personnel to handle the new rule violations to come from? Bring in more soldiers and Marines so that they can become EEOC mediators?
Finally, the most important question is, what is the benefit for the military? Name one thing this will do to improve life for the men and women in uniform. If that is not the number one goal then drop it.
Reagan Marine Grunt here.
I knew a few Gay Marines, had one as a section leader even. He was smart and discreet enough to accept that “No” meant “No” when he made a pass at me.
However, after he had made some low-key passes at a few of the other Marines in the platoon, his perversion became a fact that Simply Wasn’t Discussed.
That all being said, (or unsaid), it was also Not Discussed that we had us a government-issued volunteer should we ever need someone to walk the point in a stretch of particularly nasty terrain.
That might have come about much more quickly had this chap been less discreet about his deviancy.
What folks have to realize is that “where the bullets meet the bones” is a group of late teenagers and early to mid twenty-somethings armed to the teeth, trained and used to doing Very Nasty Things to other human beings, and with,(in reality, as opposed to the bullsh1t propaganda the Flag-rank officers say), minimal adult supervision.
A fighting outfit is a hazardous place to exist under the best of circumstances…feeling the need and believing you have the right to wave your “Freak Flag” is quite likely to make a rendez-vous with your own mortality even MORE likely.
I would remind one and all that Kara Hultgren, USNR, similarly managed to have herself whined and kvetched into the pilot’s seat of an F-14 Tomcat, over the feeble objections of a “Tailhook”-browbeaten Navy…and where is she today?
‘ch’Air Force Vet, ’93-’97. In a white collar job, having co-workers, both male and female Airman/ friends being homosexual (stationed ~40 miles SE of S.F. to boot) never effected the mission stateside or abroad.
I’m in accord with the first poster and others similar sentiments.
Since when does one’s sexuality define you? Sadly, in the game of identity politics.. it’s King for many. Can very well be one of the reasons Barney Frank is not in an 8×6 jail cell for being aware and encouraging the housing bubble.
Salt5792 comment #35, that’s one of the most absurd opinions I’ve read in some time. Apparently you’ve ‘always understood’ nothing. Though ‘great effort’ in trying to be an instigator on the subject.
If DADT is repealed, I have to wonder, what will be next on the gay rights agenda? If the civilian past is prologue, we can expect demands to escalate from mere tolerance to acceptance, then endorsement and, finally, the conferral of special rights and protections. Will the politicians in the Pentagon be able to resist as the civilian pols have not? Highly doubtful. We have a recent stark reminder of how politically correct the military has become and dangerous that can be.
The military has one job to do and I want nothing to detract from its readiness and ability to do that job. As much as liberals would have it otherwise, it is not a laboratory for their experiments in social engineering.
Ken in SC- Under article 125 of the UCMJ, any sex act, either oral or anal, between anyone, including husbands and wives is considered sodomy and punishable. If the military went out of its way to actually prosecute every person guilty of article 125 we wouldn’t have a military to speak of.
It comes do to people needing to just grow up. This isn’t even in the top 500 things facing current military members and veterans today that should be focused on by people.
If we’re going to allow gays to serve, can we also allow high functioning autistics to serve? I was dismissed from a commissioning program for being autistic, even though neither the examining physician nor my CO saw any reason not to allow me to serve on active duty. Congressman Murphy agreed, but he couldn’t convince the Bureau of Medicine that their decision was BS.
Retired 20-year military officer. That this is even an issue shows that the political leadership in this country including the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are not serious about military effectiveness. Apparently they have nothing better to do than appeasing the miniscule gay community. War in Afghanistan? Chinese and Russians building a fighter equal to or better than our F-22 Raptor, all 187 of them? Not enough money to maintain the few ships that we have? Oh, those aren’t really serious issues. How exactly does allowing gays to loudly proclaim their gayness improve military effectiveness? These are sad days for the American fighting forces.
The first post had it. Exactly when and why would gay people declare themselves once in the military? If they do not intend to and they only have a problem with the rule existing then maybe there is really nothing to this as far as the distraction it could create.
I’ll bet this goes the way of health care reform and cap and trade. I don’t care and don’t want to know if you are a sexual deviant.
So with a technically (if not always in reality) all hetero fighting force, basic steps like segregated living quarters can be taken to reduce incidents where sexuality creates problems (harassment, assault, division). I am waiting for a good answer on how this gets done with homosexuals. I guess we will have to have separate living quarters for every fighting man and woman. That does not seem very smart or effective.
Just another sign from Democrats that the extremist flank of their party controls the agenda and the Obama administration is one of theirs.
So is ok for gays to serve and die for their country as long as no one knows they are gay.
All these issues of housing and harassment if gays are allowed to be honest and not have to lie about who they are can be observed in military that don’t shame their gay service men into lying to placate bigots.
These are interesting comments. I have never had the honor of serving in our military. I am also the father of three children, one of which is gay. I know he loves his country. I also know he is proud and uncompromising about wanting to be accepted on his own terms (ala any 19 year old). I would like to think if DADT were repealed that there would be a way he could honorably serve his country in the military. If we can leave the moral relativism pink camo comments aside for a moment I will concede that military performance has to be the highest criteria when evaluating changes in recruitment, training and the UCMJ. Does anyone have any information on the British Marines adopting the policy changes we are now considering? What measures of performance would be applicable? Recruiment and readiness? An increase in violence against gay soldiers? Do we have any hard numbers supporting the contentions of previous and present service members that this is a REALLY bad idea? I don’t discount their opinions. Quite the opposite in fact, but if we can look at Britain, perhaps we can better plan our own potential adoption of a similar strategy.
@1: “Why do gays need to openly declare their sexuality in the military?”
We straight folk openly declare our sexuality every day, by having pictures of your husbands or wives, talking about our dates from the previous weekend, bringing spouses to squadron/unit functions.
If someone wants to serve, let them enlist. Period. If they can’t deal with the military environment (a la the argument about activists infiltrating our military), the system will weed them out. Do you really think that our military is so fragile that a relative few homosexuals will cause it to collapse from within?
Get real, people. And get over it.
so what if a gay unit gets in a bind and the other units drag their feet to respond is that going to be a good thing? women were complaining about sexual harassment and crimes committed against women in the desert, will this be an issue for straits in a mixed unit? what will the military do if a lot of their mid level NCO s bail out what effect will this have on unit cohesiveness and experience. can the country afford to take a hit like this, for the sake of a few gays in the military? who would want to serve in a gay unit if they weren’t gay? there is a lot of interservice rivalry to begin with and you want to add that to the mix, people will get killed over this for sure. bad idea.
47. It isn’t a lie to say nothing. If any truth cannot be spoken because it would cause harm, it is always fine to say nothing at all.
ps. didn’t a sailor get killed at a Marine base for allegedly being gay. it was another sailor who did it, but kids with guns and issues, that’s a bad combo
NEWS FLASH Phranc: there really are bigots in this world.
To allow gays to openly serve in the military raises several important issues.
First, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was a stupid and immoral policy from the beginning. It encouraged people to lie about their sexual preference to remain in the military. Officially the United States refused to allow homosexuals to serve but gave a wink and a nod at their service as long as they lied about it. DADT was a sad reflection on our morally ambiguous society.
Second, the repeal of DADT is not comparable to the desegregation of the military. Skin color is not a personal preference. The color of a person’s skin or their ethnicity is not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality is a behavior and a chosen behavior. Behaviors have consequences.
Third, what are the legal ramifications? Will the U.S. government recognize homosexual partnerships and all the rights that go along with those partnerships? Is this not just a backdoor to getting gay marriage recognized by the U.S. government against the will of the people?
Fourth, what role will political correctness play if DADT is repealed? Will homosexuals in the military be held to a different standard? Will those in authority be afraid to write the truth or will they whitewash fitness reports so they will not be accused of discrimination? Does the Ft. Hood shootings ring a bell?
#49 Scott:
“If someone wants to serve, let them enlist. Period.”
Employment in the Armed Forces is not a civil right, chum. It is the Military and Naval Service that decides who they will accept for enlistment and commissioning. This isn’t a Little League “Self-Esteem Building Exercise”, y’know.
All of the criticism of the DADT policy from homosexuals and their advvocates strikes me as pretty ironic, since DADT was THEIR “baby” in the first place. Had they not pressured the Clinton Administration to allow open service, there would never have been such a compromise.
“If they can’t deal with the military environment (a la the argument about activists infiltrating our military), the system will weed them out.”
One hopes that it will, so that the weeding out process doesn’t have to be done in the field at fire-team and squad levels, but I wouldn’t be so confident in the services’ bureaucracies. There are still people who can’t cut it in uniform, but are allowed to stay for fear that they will make a claim of racism or sexual discrimination or Islamophobia…Major Hassan’s career comes to mind, does it not?
“Do you really think that our military is so fragile that a relative few homosexuals will cause it to collapse from within?”
Yes. Taking things like the strength and resolve of the Armed Services for granted so that you can entertain someone’s notion of “fairness” through military and naval social engineering policies is EXACTLY what will, and already has, weakened the services.
“Get real, people. And get over it.”
Listen, you simpleton, don’t casually toss of your flip hipster doofus slogans.
The reality is a small group of teenagers with powerful weapons, alone and a million miles away from the EEOC or ACLU chapter. or frankly, ANY law enforcement agency.
Do you think you have a “reality” more “real” than that?
At the pointy end of things, you live or die at the sufferance of those around you.
Again, I remind you that all the EEOC bureaucrats, ACLU lawyers and NOW activists were of no help whatsoever to Lieutenant Kara Hultgren USNR, when she was on final approach to the carrier.
1. Not that there’s anything wrong with that:
“Do doctors openly declare their sexuality? Do engineers? Do interior decorators?”
They don’t get fired for being gay.
2. Howiem:
“Keep it in the closet unless the troops themselves say they can live with it.”
And if you polled the people on the bus that Rosa Parks boarded that day?
8. Vindico Libertas:
“There will be insubordination, assaults, decreased morale and a host of legal issues that have no place in fighting wars.”
Thank god those things aren’t happening now.
“Will we charge gays with adultery when they cheat on each other?”
How can you when you won’t allow them to marry?
14. Joe:
“I agree with the person who said all active duty military should be polled. They are the ones out doing the dirty work for the rest of us and they are the ones who count!”
Let’s poll them and ask if they should get free weed, if we should ship in hookers on the weekends, if they should get a 1000% pay raise. Wonder what they’d say?
15. RWE:
“And there IS NO RIGHT to serve in the US military. It is a volunteer force but also one that requires competitve entry.”
If there is no right to serve, then there should be no compelled service, as was the case with the draft.
19. jw:
“perhaps someone could explain to me what “openly gay” means. i have no interest in being forced to witness any excessive public displays of affection”
It means the same as openly heterosexual, which by your definition suggests being forced to witness excessive public displays of affection
21. ActorProf:
“most religions prohibit homosexal practice and actively oppose it. Are we going to require religious members of our military to violate their consciences?”
Violate them how? By engaging in homosexual conduct? Or is it a violation to merely be near a gay person? This is problem not with homosexuality but with religion, as clearly evidenced by the homosexuality so common in the church – any church.
29. noreen:
“Colin Powell has no real credibility. He is a weak man of even weaker convictions.”
Born to poor immigrant parents in the South Bronx. Earned an MBA after his second tour in ‘Nam. Went on to serve as National Security Advisor, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Army Forces Command, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the first black Secretary of State. I know, flimsy.
30. Sailor2:
“So take the “military” folks who are commenting on this article here and other places with a grain of salt.”
Your saltiness is noted.
31. Diggs:
“any soldier who was close to being discharged with an “other than honorable” or “dishonorable” discharge could easily and legally ensure they got an honorable discharge (with all the accompanying benefits) by claiming that they were gay.”
Kind of like gay people who claim they’re straight so they can honorably serve. I guess it DOES matter which kind of lie you tell.
35. Salt5792:
“I’ve always understood that military men will kill known homosexuals when they get the opportunity. As soon as they get in combat.”
Ugh.
37. inspectorudy:
“I was a Marine . . .”
No you weren’t, not according to Sailor 2 and Diggs. You’re an impostor. Sorry.
38. Bilgeman:
“That might have come about much more quickly had this chap been less discreet about his deviancy.”
Deviancy? So gay is a choice and not a state of birth? When did you decide to become straight? (Or did you?)
39. paul_unalaska:
” . . one of the reasons Barney Frank is not in an 8×6 jail cell for being aware and encouraging the housing bubble.”
I didn’t know Scooter libby was gay. Then again, his name is Scooter.
43. Jim Rockford:
“War in Afghanistan? Chinese and Russians building a fighter equal to or better than our F-22 Raptor, all 187 of them? Not enough money to maintain the few ships that we have?”
Sounds like we need fewer brave and patriotic people willing to serve.
This is actually a step in the right direction. No one should be prohibited from serving their country because of their sexual orientation.
Or of their religious ones Adfter all why stop at Fort Hood, why a militant Muslim should be banned frm access to nukes?
I also agree with the methodology. The mission of the military is very different from civilian missions. If ending DADT compromises military readiness or effectiveness, then they need to figure out a work around. But I think the US is very different in 2010 than it was in 1992.
How about _you_ putting your a.. in teh line of fire so in cases of it detracts military efficiency and people get killed _you_ are one of the killed instead of some poor bas..d from Alabama?
Figuring a work around? The military doesn’t have to find a work around, the military h
I don’t think there is any intrinsic reason why homosexuals can’t serve in the military.
Let’s see a few ones
1) Promiscuity. Military personnel has often to live in barracks, sleep under the same tent, take showers at the same time. All of this leads to awkward situations with gays around. It can lead to staright peole (that is most of potential candidates) leaving the military or no longer volunteering.
2) Promiscuity (bis): Some people with gay tendencies joining the military not for serving teh country but for the sexual opportunities. Let now think about retention rate between straigths after afew cases of molestation
3) Banging when on duty. It happenned in Bosnia between mixed sexes personnel. Against an agressive opponennte it could have led to scores of body bags.
4) Favoritism Officer X is promoted despite being notoriously incomptente but because he sleeps with his superior. Later, many die due to his incompetency
5) Vengeance for a rebuke. Let’s suppose that captain X wants to sleep with one of his subordinates but the other refuses. Let’s suppose that he sends him on a suicide mission to get him killed. Too bad for the guys who were in the unit.
6) Discipline problems. I ahev worked in a place where number 2 and number 3 were lovers (male and female respctively). Because number 2 wanted to become number 1′s job number 2and 3 they closed ranks against her and she was unable to get anything done. She ended resigining.
Now h
(Followup)
The mission of the military is very different from civilian missions. If ending DADT compromises military readiness or effectiveness, then they need to figure out a work around>/i>
TYhe military doesn’t have to find a work around. The military does have a mission to fulfill. Anything who detracts from its effectiveness translates sooner or later in casualties. Are you willing to enlist so you risk being one of these casualties? Are you willing to pay the bill for separate quarters for gay people? No? Just what I thought.
I work in probably the “gayest” military community in the military. I am a prior enlisted Arabic linguist. I was in charge of two gay linguists, both of who left/were kicked out of the Navy. One went to 60 Minutes to plead his case. Hands down, he was one of the top 5 linguists I have ever worked with. He understood the language to an amazing extent. But he was also was a nightmare as a Sailor. He showed up late all the time, his uniform looked like c**p, etc. I sincerely hope he is working as a civilian for us. The other one was an average linguist. The average linguist went on both the Colbert Report and NPR, making out like he was some big loss to the military. Many times he had mouthed off to the us, folks of equal rank, but placed in positions of situational leadership.
Now, 5-7 years later, I work with a Chief who is gay. (He actually was dating the first gay dude above.) I am not sure if others at my current Command know it. I don’t talk about it. He is highly mission-focused and competent.
My point is this, the individual that simply does his job gets ahead. I am sorry that he can’t talk about his “family” but his fellow gay comrades ruined it for him in my eyes. I have a gay family member, so I am not heartless. But the young militant types soured me to his plight.
Also, several of the “Arabic linguists” released by the military at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) were not gay as they claimed. They got an honorable discharge after trying on the military and deciding it was not for them. And we get the joy of paying for their college through our taxes. And the militants get more numbers to swell their ranks. As far as I heard, these gay confessions were never questioned by the leadership.
I agree with #23. zsingerb. I’ve also read the figure of some 12,000+ being discharged since DADT was instituted some 16 years ago, with the latest figures being about 400 in 2008. Given the number in miltary and how no one disputes that there are gays in the services – it doesn’t seem like there is wholesale drumming out of gay servicemen. I also never been able to find out how many of those discharged were members who wanted to get out and might have used the DADT to avoid a dishonorable discharge for other issues.
Am I to believe that all those people were just going along, minding their business, doing a great job, bothering no one and then BAM out of the blue – someone found out they were gay and railroaded them out of the service?
55. Employment may not be a civil right, but tossing out competent people for no reason is detrimental to the armed forces. To be clear, I find illicit sexual relations to be a discipline problem and completely fair game for discharge from the military under other than honorable conditions. I am saying that people who want to serve ought to be given a chance to prove themselves, unless there is some obvious reason why they shouldn’t (felony convictions, life threatening medical condition, doesn’t meet physical fitness standards, lacks high school diploma or equivalent).
I’m a combat vet and just like most of the other posters I served with guys who I knew were gay. If someone has the will and the courage to sign that blank check to this country then let them serve openly. There’s no justice in telling someone that you don’t have a problem with who they are, as long as they lie about it. And hiding their sexuality every single day is going to require them to lie, make no mistake about it. Every argument against repealing DADT was used against racial integration. Racial integration caused morale problems and accusations of favoritism, but we got over it. The country changes and the military needs to change with it, it’s 2010 for god’s sake.
Also to #50 John from Cincinnati, I don’t know what a “gay unit” would be but if a unit in the US military makes contact with the enemy and another unit commander decides not to support them then that commander will be tried for treason, found guilty and hopefully executed.
Paul,
My comments above notwithstanding, I actually agree with the majority of what you said. My issue will come with the politicizing of the issue.
I am the graduate of a politically liberal university. I voted for Clinton and then Gore. And considered myself left-center too, until 9/11. My experience at college was that the gay lobby was very aggressive and angry. While I knew, and know, gay people who are quiet about their lifestyle, the act-out thing was in our face quite a lot. And it was meant for shock value.
I don’t want my Navy turning into a spectacle. I don’t want Gay month and Gay GMTs. Or diversity meetings. My Navy, our Navy, must not be used as a tool for outside activists to have their way with an institution that externally protects us and internally helps keep the fabric of society together.
Are you kidding me. This is a horrible thought, not because I’m homophobic but because I serve. I’ve deployed to Kosovo, Bosnia and Iraq and unless you serve in our great Armed Forces you don’t know the conditions that they’re asked to live in. Gays in the civilian sector are different than gays in the military. The Soldiers are forced to shower together, sleep in close proximity and are kept close do to training and force readiness. Nothing comes close to the friends you make under these conditions and the service likes it that way. You fight for the friends next you when all else seems to fade. IT IS NOT A PROTECTED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SERVE IN THE MILITARY. Stop trying to change what works because you want to pronounce your sexuality.
35. Salt5792:
“I’ve always understood that military men will kill known homosexuals when they get the opportunity. As soon as they get in combat.”
I think that statement is BS. But if true its a good reason not to do away with DADT.
HERE are 7 points that seek to clarify some of the nonsense written in these talk-backs:
1) Reading the talk backs here from people who ACTUALLY SERVED in the Military (recently- not grandad Vets from bygone era)- they all say there is NOTHING wrong with Gay people serving in the military and that they already know people who are Gay in the military- and it is NO big deal! learn from them!
2) This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, there are Dems and Repubs that are pro and con DADT – so don’t use partisanship to blur the discussion.
3) The hateful rhetoric against fellow American citizens, who happen to be Gay and want to serve in the military, is despicable – PERIOD! NO need for that kind of disrespect in our country!
4)It is NOT up for the military to decide on this issue, but the US Congress and the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (Yes, even if he is OBAMA)! The American army is a CIVILIAN controlled army that takes orders from the government- PERIOD. The day the Military makes decisions on our society will be the last day of democracy in our country!
5) NO Current soldier will quit the military because DADT is repealed- just like NO one left the US because Bush was re-elected- it’s all just public rhetoric for scare tactics!
6) The DADT debate is not without precedent and is similar the debate over Blacks being integrated with whites int he US military- there were MANY against it, but it was decided from above to integrate the military and for the betterment of the institution as whole – i think NO one will say otherwise today because we have evolved as a society/culture and understand the concepts of equality and human rights. The same with Gays in the military- some people see it as wrong without any logical reason, much like the ones Whites used to prevent integration of Blacks.
6) The so-called “Christians” & “Conservatives” on these talk backs are probably old folks from a generation that no one cares to listen to anymore! The “Leave it to Beaver” generation had its time, get over it and let the us- Gen X & Gen Yers – decide with whom we want to serve in the military- keep your Medieval, uneducated hatred to yourselves!
7) What’s all the fuss about exactly? All that “Openly” Gay means that the soldier will NOT be discharged from the military if they find out- GASP!- he has a boyfriend! WHY should he be discharged for this, it is stupid?!! “Openly” does not mean flaunting (whatever that is); no Gay guy is suddenly going to come out and start harassing other soldiers- anyone with half a brain knows that will not happen!
8) I know many Gay and Lesbian Israelis who served in the military there where there is no DADT and it has only benefited the military and society as a whole.
Bottom line:
America is changing in culture and society and the extremist Christians and their paleo-conservative allies know they are loosing the culture war to us Neoconservatives and Libertarians, who correctly believe that America stands for personal freedom and the equal Rights of Man, as our Founding Fathers intended it to be.
DADT is a obsolete policy from a bygone era that needs to be abolished asap and it doesn’t matter how or who will do- the ends justify the means- Period!
56. skeeziks:
“Deviancy? So gay is a choice and not a state of birth? When did you decide to become straight? (Or did you?)”
Yes, skeeziks, deviancy is the right word for it. Deviancy means deviating, especially from an accepted norm. See Webster’s Dictionary. Heterosexuality is, without question, the accepted norm, socially and evolutionary. Whether homosexuality is by choice or by birth is irrelevant to the issue of deviancy.
56:Nadav
Your points 1 and 2 are off. I am in the service so please take it from me. There are other important factors that go in to making this decision. 1) Openly gay males don’t change their persuasion once they are in the shower with other males so there are two options a. separate shower stalls or b. universal or co-habitated facilities. Either way this is a real problem a. costs money and precious space and b. would upset some spouses. So you tell me what’s the answer is and please don’t say that it’s fine to shower within gender loving confines, it doesn’t work.
As far as 4 and 5. goes, you are not a military Soldier and have no idea what we are sworn to protect so please stop with the civilian in charge assertion. Soldiers serve to uphold the Constitution and the freedom it provides. And yes that means quiting is not the answer.
On 6. you lost me, the gays in the military issue is nowhere close to the racial debate.
And as a side note, you need to pick up a pen and sign your name on a line, deploy and fight then come back and talk about how you want to interject social issues into an institution that has no place for them.
SINOs . . . soldiers in name only, those who would leave the military if DADT is repealed.
Many of the supporters for allowing gays to openly serve in the military have echoed Colin Powell’s statement.
“Attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said. “It’s been a whole generation” since the legislation was adopted, and there is increased “acceptance of gays and lesbians in society,” he said. “Society is always reflected in the military. It’s where we get our soldiers from.”
The statement itself is not only false but seriously lacking in intellectual depth. The armed forces do not and should not reflect society at large. Individuals who join the military are not the same as civilians. They are held to a different standard of conduct and standard of performance. The very purpose of basic training is to take these raw civilian and transform them into soldiers. Hence they do not reflect the society from which they are drawn.
Do we really want a military that reflects larger societal trends? Obesity has become more accepted in our society – as shown by the increased number of obese people. Should we lower the fitness requirements so that obese individuals can serve? Why should obese people be denied the right to serve their country if they so desire? What about the uneducated? Educational standards in this country have declined. Should the military reduce its educational standards so that more uneducated people can serve? Why should the uneducated be denied the right to serve their country? Surely we can spare them from their current jobs as liberal talkshow hosts.
If we want a military that reflects the society that it serves, should we not introduce a quota system to make sure it does? If so, we will need racial quotas, economic quotas, educational quotas, gender quotas, and now sexual preference quotas. If we cannot fill these quotas with volunteers, should we begin to draft people to fill the slots.
Yes, Mr. Powell, society is where we get our soldiers from but the military is not a reflection of that society.
69. What do you know about a soldier’s honor?
Anyone who says that the military is good with gays serving openly, is either not in the military, is gay or just has no clue. All these experts on here who no nothing of what it is to serve in close quarters in a infantry battalion. Spoke to my Marines the other day and the either wanted no part of it and would leave the Corps as soon as they could. Others said they had no problem with gays until the issue of having to room with one came up. To a man they would refuse to room or shower with a homosexual. See, right there we have a break down in good order and dicipline. Stop bringing up the merits of the Isreali’s. In 2006 a rag-tag terrorist army Hizballah fought them to a draw in southern Lebanon. The Brits, Canadians, Italians? Please they are not even close to the size of the U.S. Armed Forces nor do they have the global commitment we have. Oh, lets not forget the world of Islam. Homosexuality is strictly taboo in their culture. So the minute we go openly gay, Al Quieda and the Taliban will have a propaganda field day with that. All the trust from the local nationals in Afghanistan will be right out the door. Have I known gays in the Marines, yes, two. One was court martialed for sexually assaulting one of HIS Marines why he was passed out drunk. The other served with me in a joint command and we were ridiculed and made fun of by the other service members because no one had ever seen such a flamboyant Marine who was cleary over the top in his conduct. Our CO could do nothing about it. Last item, to those who say gay servicemen and women are force to live a lie. How is that? Remeber, the first part of the policy is “Don’t Ask….
I am a US Army major, and am currently attending the Army’s Command and General Staff College at Ft. Gordon, GA. All person feelings aside on repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the issues and challenges with implementing such a change would be colossal.
Billeting could turn into a major issue. Just as females and males are billeted separately, it might be necessary to separate heterosexuals and homosexuals. Would it be fair to a heterosexual Soldier to house him or her with a homosexual roommate if they are uncomfortable with the arrangement? Or what if the gay or lesbian Soldier were to make an unwanted advance? Would it then be unfair to force the heterosexual Soldier to remain as the roommate? On the flip side, would it be fair to force a homosexual Soldier to remain as a roommate with a Soldier they perceive as hostile because of their sexual orientation?
Another major issue could arise when gays and lesbians chose to become career military. More than 50% of service members are married, and they and their family members receive benefits from the Military. The United States government does not recognize same-sex marriage, so partners of homosexual service members would not be entitled benefits. For that matter, they would not even be entitled base access. So what then? Should the military then extend benefits to same-sex couples? If so, at what point in their relationship would they be considered “life partners”, rather than just dating, making them eligible for benefits? Now taking this to the next logical level, if homosexual partners are entitled benefits, will unmarried heterosexual partners also be eligible for benefits?
It’s very easy for Congress and other interest groups to say that they want the DADT policy repealed. The very difficult part, however, would be in the full implementation of such a decision. This herculean effort would be shouldered solely by the Armed Forces. All the above questions, and many others, would have to be decided upon by senior military leaders and translated into Department of Defense policy. That’s only the first step. Then every service member and leader would have to receive training on the new policy to ensure they fully understand all the details. Then the hardest part – implementing the changes. This may, based on the new DoD regulations, include structural modifications to barracks and ship’s berthing.
Outside the DoD, major changes would also need to be implemented in the Department of Veterans Affairs to coincide with a repeal of the DADT policy. The VA does not fall under the control of DoD; Congress would have to pass separate legislation, and provide additional funding, for any such change to occur.
I’ve only touched the surface of what would be required by the US Armed Forces by repealing the DADT policy. The bottom line is that it would create a plethora of distracters for our military to deal with, at a time when the Services are fully engaged with fighting conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Is this the right time to implement a change of this magnitude? Looking back a few generations, even President Truman waited until after hostilities had ended following WWII before he began the process of ending segregation in the Armed Forces.
The Secretary of Defense has already ordered a study to look into the affects of repealing the DADT policy. Might it be prudent for Congress to suspend legislative action on the issue until after the study is complete and findings are provided?
It is ironic how the import agenda items for gay republicans, will never be brought about by republicans. That would be ending the DADT and gay marriage issues. gay republicans need democrats.
We are a group of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community. Your website offered us with valuable information to paintings on. You have performed an impressive activity and our whole neighborhood will likely be thankful to you.