President Obama's National Security Advisor "doesn't know" when or if DADT will be repealed

[hulklogan]

From Towleroad:

On This Week, George Stephanopoulos discussed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with National Security Adviser General James Jones.

Said Jones: "It has to be a uniform policy for all members of the military in order to function as a military has to function. We will have long discussions about this. It will be thoughtful. It will be deliberative. The president I know will reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision. I don't know . We'll have to - the president has said that he is in favor of that. We'll just wait - we'll have to wait and see - as a result of the deliberations and as a result of the - in the months and weeks ahead. We have a lot on our plate right now. It has to be teed up at the right time so - to do this the right way."

Link to video

Who do we believe anymore? The President writes notes to discharged LGBT heroes telling them that he is committed to repealing DADT, but both the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor continue to make these half-hearted "wait and see" statements.

Will it be repealed or not? When? Why hasn't the President made any effort to at least give us a timeline?

I am now completely convinced that "wait and see" and "do it the right way" means "after 2012."

[polichick]

1. I think it might mean "after we get the healthcare and energy bills through."

[hulklogan]

2. Maybe it means "after we do all the Statue of Liberty photo ops and Greek Independence Day events"

:shrug:

[mitchtv]

4. Or,, after the Swine Flu

(when pigs fly)

[No Elephants]

135. OMG, you're funny!

[polichick]

5. Events like that don't give the other side ammo that could derail healthcare & energy...

I'm frustrated about this too ~ but believe Obama intends to get it done.

[hulklogan]

7. More people support repealing DADT than healthcare reform.

So which is derailing the other?

:patriot:

[polichick]

8. I was talking about Congress - the people are way ahead of their reps.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

137. A supermajority of Americans support repealing DADT

It's a non-issue (except for a few who wouldn't support anything Obama did anyway).

[polichick]

147. Please see #8 :)

[WillParkinson]

3. I think it just means....

Get your disappointment glasses on because gays ain't getting nothing.

[msongs]

6. when actions & words don't match. the ACTIONS are the truth nt

[Jeep789]

11. I'm sorry, I must have missed the "words" where Obama

promised to accomplish this on a set time-line.

[hulklogan]

12. He's set a timeline for everything else, why not DADT?

:shrug:

[Jeep789]

13. Everything else? That is an exaggeration. nt

[hulklogan]

15. Which of his other campaign promises have no timeline or have seen no action?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Timeline.
Stimulus package? Action.
Credit Card reform? Timeline.
Health care reform? Timeline.
Close Guantanamo? Timeline.
Surge in Afghanistan? Timeline.
Troops out of Iraq? Timeline.
Ethics and accountability? Action and timeline.
Energy? Some action, though not enough.

[Jeep789]

16. There is action:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_military_gays_1

As far as time-lines,Obama has many issues he wants to work on without them, education, regulation, environmental polices etc. It is called prioritizing.

[Creideiki]

54. Who in the Pentagon is working on

education, business/banking/economic regulation, environmental policies, etc.?

Is there more than one committee in Congress? Why would that be? Oh, yeah--so that Congress can move forward on different priorities in parallel.

I'm not suggesting that something that would have to move through the judiciary committee of the Senate (like, say, preparing for a Supreme Court nomination) should wait. However, with the military committees pretty much settled on continuing occupation of Iraq until the end of time and escalation of the war in Afghanistan set until the end of time, what else do the military committees have to do?

[Jeep789]

9. At least they are discussing it

and Obama wants it. Give them a bit of time. I believe it will get done.

[mitchtv]

14. this guy has got tobe pushd and shoved to the finish

He has made it clear that gays are only necessary before an election, and we are foolish to expect any kind of leadership on our issues. I will give him time, a little, but I won't tolerate interference or foot dragging. It is up to us, Obam whould just love to never mention Gays again and concentrate on the holy poly voters he is so fond of. We have gotten no sympathy or congrats re ME. IA. VT

[Jeep789]

17. Sometimes you have to have some patience

Obama has already accomplished a lot and I am thankful for what he has already accomplished.

[mitchtv]

25. he's done nothing for me

I've heard that patience crap for a lot longer than I care too. I 'v just had my marriage attempted to be disolved by a bunch of bigoted strait people at the ballot box, this year. He has until 2010; My patirnce is over. I geta reason to vote Dem by next year, or I stay home. I will only vote for Dems who support marriage equality, and I expect to see action on DADT by this summer and I expect leadership by Obama on DOMA (Promised repeal)Patience has worn thin, the time is NOW

[Jeep789]

40. Really? None of this means anything to you?

Here is what he has done:

Ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and established a task force to review the cases of the more than 200 detainees held there.

Closed CIA interrogation facilities around the world.

Stopped torture.

Set a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

Lifted the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Lifted the Bush restrictions on federal aid to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information.

Lifed restrictions for Cuban Americans seeking to travel more frequently to Cuba.

Included college affordability in the stimulus bill and signed an expansion of national service into law.

Increased the Pell Grant program by 8.5 billion (a 50% increase).

Expanded Americorps from 75,000 to 250,000 annual slots and created a new "clean energy corps".

Sucessfully rescued US captain from Somali pirates

With his bi-partisan approach has effectively made the Republican party, the party of no.

Shut the revolving door between the lobbying world and the federal government.

Changed the law to make it easier for those suing employers because of alleged pay discrimination.

Signed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), keeping a campaign pledge but breaking another one at the same time.

Stopped raids of state Medical Marijuana dispensiaries.

Slowed if not halted the downward economic spiral.

Courted Specter and got him to change parties.

Stopped TARP recipients from issuing outrageous bonuses.

And he is currently working on:

Health care reform

Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090510/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_military_gays_1

Credit card legislation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090509/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_credit_cards_10

[mitchtv]

77. not yet ...those are for first class citizens

they meean nothing to a second classer. Oh they're nice and all but none affect me. allowing gays to serve openly? since when? MY retirement fund is gutted and no one is bailing me and I don't owe the credit cos anything. Health care reform eould be nice , but as of today like gays in the military, a dream. as of now I know of one marijuana raid since the pronouncement from the AG. Oh I like having a sentient being in the office and all but sorry my patience has been tried to the limit I won.t wait another election cycle I will not wait my turn, it has passed. If you are waiting for leadership on Gays issues you will be disappointed, he has shown clearly his disdain for my community. We have had some very big news in IA, VT, ME, NH etc what do we hear from the WH? crickets

[Jeep789]

105. I forgot, he also gave most of us tax cuts.

I am sorry that stopping torture and the rest of of the "niceties" don't affect you personally. Will allowing gays to serve openly in the military actually affect you either? Are you planning to enlist? If so, I suggest that simply having a reasonable military policy will probably increase your odds of surviving. I think that alone might be something to thank Obama for.

[No Elephants]

141. Deciding the best or safest way for others to live their lives is not your job.

Some people want to serve and/or need the job. some people have put in years already, and don't know whether that investment is going to end any minute.

[No Elephants]

138. Sorry, but that yahoo link does NOT support your statement about working on gaysin the military.

it's pure bs. Discussions MA. "Early" discussions. ROFL

After all these centuries, what's to discuss about gays in the military? They're there. They've ALWAYS been there.

What's there to discuss about the stupidest military policy conceived by man? We loves us some gays in the military, as long as they lie and live a lie? Yet, "integrity" is one of the seven values of the military? What on earth is there for intelligent people to discuss about that particular piece on inanity?

If you want to come with a more stupid policy, sure, that might take some time.

If you simply wanted to end this stupid policy, though, Obama could have signed an executive order in the Capitol Building after he finished lunch on Inaguration Day, suspending all discharges solely for violations of DADT. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

This is what Jimmy Carter did with amnesty. And Harry Truman ended racial segregation in the military with an executive order when his plate was damned full too.

If no one in Obama's transition had time to write it for his signature, I am sure any number of lawyers and law professors across the nation would have been thrilled to prepare one.

Too busy for equal rights? Oh, please. Get real. Too political for it? Yes. This is no Profile in Courage.

[No Elephants]

136. How long have you been able to get married, if you choose? How long have you been able

to have a military career, if you choose, and still maintain your integrity?

If you had neither of those abilities and were eager to marry or to serve, which timetable would you choose?

[hulklogan]

19. Early discussions is not action, sorry.

Early discussions means somebody brought it up over lunch one afternoon.

:patriot:

[Jeep789]

20. Umm, Obama is a careful and deliberate man

He has discussions on all of the issues and he actually listens to all sides before making a decision. I think that is a good policy. He is also having "discussions" on health care. You included that as action in another post.

[hulklogan]

21. I never said he had made any action on health care, only that he has set a general timeline.

[ThomCat]

134. No, They are not discussing it. They are saying they are discussing it.

They are actually only responding to us insisting that they need to discuss it. If we don't keep up the pressure they won't feel the need to discuss it at all.

All the pressure and motivation from this is coming from below, clearly.

It's a shame that we're still seeing all of the promises broken, and that we still need to keep pushing our own party to think about maybe someday considering the idea of possibly doing something to move us one step closer to equal rights.

[bluedawg12]

10. This is an old argument: "It has to be studied more." it's been studied!

It's not a worthy answer in the face of studies that show that DADT is bad for military readiness.

What is clear that there is a halt on this.

Why didn't Speaker Pellosi allow the House bill to repeal DADT to even come to the floor for a vote?

[No Elephants]

142. Why didn't Obama exercise his authority under the Constitution and under

10 USC 12305 to suspend discharges on account of DADT? http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Its not an issue for the Nat Security Advisor

Look at the job description. It has no authority over DoD staffing.

DADT will be dealt with. Don't blame Jones for the timing, one way or the other.

[bluedawg12]

24. I don't think folks were blaming him, it was the message that was the problem.

There is a delay, there is a favorable public sentiment and there are experts saying it is a bad law for the sake of the military and not just gay people.

What is missing is a cogent explanation as to why there is a delay. I don't accept more studies are needed.
The studieshave been done and they support repeal.

What we need is transparency and then we can stop reading tea leaves because we are in the dark.

[sandnsea]

22. The military has rules about male-female relationships

They'll have to go through everything and rewrite for same sex relationships. They may want to decide about living arrangements, transgender, a whole host of issues. Women have a difficult time getting harrassment rules enforced. It'll be even more difficult with harrassment of homosexuals, along with the array of complaints against homosexual "passes". They do have things that will have to be worked out before they repeal DADT. It's the military, there are two wars on, we can't just make it up as we go.

[hulklogan]

26. You write that as if there aren't LGBT Americans serving in the armed forces already.

They won't be making things up because the situation already exists.

[sandnsea]

27. They're discharged if "they tell"

Clearly there are NO regulations in place regarding anything related to homosexuals in service because they get investigated and discharged.

What's the protocol for discrimination against gays? How is it defined? What's the protocol for legitimate sexual harrassment complaints? Rape? False rape claims? Transgender?

Give me the military codes that address all of this.

[dsc]

28. that is baldly false

just this year there was a very famous rape case (male on male) in the military and males do get arrested for rape of other males in the armed forces.

[sandnsea]

32. What about the rest?

And what about when it's not rape, but someone claims it is? What about false claims? Retributions? All of this stuff is going to happen. You act as if racial transition and the entry of women into the service went smoothly. It didnt', still doesn't. It isn't a matter of "studying" it, it's a matter of sitting down with the code and analyzing what needs to be updated and how.

[hulklogan]

36. This is all addressed in the UCMJ, but it says nothing about the gender of the victim or perpetrator

Why can't the same laws be used for everyone, including LGBT Americans?

[sandnsea]

42. Good. Those that are, can be

But there will still need to be policies and procedures on implementing the laws and regulations. That is just the way it works. And there will be issues that come up that are not gender neutral, although it is good the military has written many of its laws in that manner.

[hulklogan]

44. We can come up with a system to give away $700 billion dollars in less than three months

but we can't write a handful of policies based on existing codes without doing years of study first?

[sandnsea]

47. Years of study??? Where does it say that?

What did I say that?

[hulklogan]

52. I didn't say you said that, but it is what I'm getting from the Obama administration.

Nobody in the administration can say when or if the policy is being repealed, or even if they're doing anything to accomplish this goal beyond "early discussions."

And there have been bills introduced in Congress for years now with no progress being made. History has proven that the timeline is likely to be years.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

57. Again, who said years?

"Early discussions" does not mean years. And as you have pointed out, many questions that come up in these "early discussions" may not end up being as complicated as first thought. So why not start focusing on the issues of concern in those "early discussions" so that people begin to understand there isn't as much to change as they might think.

[hulklogan]

64. We'll see which of us has the better grasp on the DADT repeal timeline

when it is finally repealed.

[bluedawg12]

39. None of the transitions went smoothely, you act as if it we shouldn't try

No one said it would be smooth. But that didn't stop other civil rights changes in the military did it?

[sandnsea]

45. What is it about "it will take time" that you can't hear?

That's what I said. I agree that it will take time and cannot be done over night. That's all I said. That's all I've heard Obama or this NSA guy or any other current military leader say. It's a bigger task than most realize, and it will take some time.

How do you twist that into not trying? How?? I am so fucking sick of that.

[bluedawg12]

50. Who are you talking to in this hysterical uncivil manner?

How do I twist what? And this: "I am so fucking sick of that." From you?

Calm down and talk civil and do NOT swear at me.

[bluedawg12]

51. Do NOT ever swear at me again. Do YOU understand?

I am not here to take your verbal abuse. If you can't take the heat get out of the topic.

[sandnsea]

55. lol, YOU misrepresent my words

and then get indignant about it. So FUCKING typical.

If YOU don't like the word FUCK - don't talk to me.

Saying that *I* am fucking sick of having MY words twisted - is not verbally abusing YOU.

[bluedawg12]

29. There are 64,000 gays serving, living and dying side by side with str8's

it is not currently an issue unles one fantasizes a sudden outburst of gay advances, as if gay soldiers couldn't get along with military demeanor and discipline as they have done?

Shockingly gays also work side by side with people in the civillian world.

You seem awfully worried about the str8 vicitms of gay soldiers:

"What's the protocol for legitimate sexual harrassment complaints? Rape?"

This has been studied and discussed here on GLBT and the expert studies are in favor of repeal of DADT, whether individuals here have their biases or not, the experts agree it's a bad law.

[sandnsea]

31. The point is, now, it's immediate discharge

There isn't any necessity to differentiate between "acceptable" gay overtures and harrassment. There's no necessity to consider discrimination against homosexuals.

When gays can openly serve, all of these issues will have to be addressed and codes written accordingly.

It's common sense. It will take time.

Even repealing a bad law has consequences that have to be addressed.

[bluedawg12]

34. No that's not the point. Gays serve now and they exhibit discipline

because of a law.

All it would take are some guidlines about how same rank military members may relate to one another.

It simply takes some guidelines, rules and regs, the military has many of them, a few more are not beyond their ability to create.

Maybe that IS the point. Gays are not a problem now and serve with honor. We will be able to serve under any guidlines as long as we are allowed to stop living a lie.

[sandnsea]

38. Right, they need to create the rules and regs

That's what I just said. It will take some time to do that.

Not living a lie means you don't have to hide the way you do now. That's inevitably going to lead to misunderstandings and real problems. That old 3% rule, 3% of any given population will fuck it up for the whole works. It has to be dealt with.

Maybe a better approach would be to go through the UMCJ and rewrite it so the generals have nothing else to complain about.

[bluedawg12]

41. Change the unfair law and mandate a rewrite of the regs.

There has been a law before Congress now for about four years, to drop DADT and ensure civil rights.

This didn't start this week.

[hulklogan]

49. There is nothing in the UCMJ that needs to be rewritten because it is all gender neutral.

The policy on homosexuality isn't in the UCMJ, it is in the personnel code under "General Service Requirements"

Link to that section of Title 10, US Code

[hulklogan]

33. The codes you point to will not have to be rewritten because they are gender neutral

Specifically, the portion of the UCMJ dealing with rape does not indicate gender in any of its definitions or clauses

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

§ 920. Art. 120. Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct

Does there need to be a different set of codes to address harassment or threats against LGBT servicepeople? My reading of the UCMJ indicates that it is probably sufficient and gender-neutral enough to be applied equally. § 920a. Art. 120a. Stalking deals with repeated threats including bodily harm or sexual assault. § 917. Art. 117. Provoking speeches or gestures could be used to protect servicepeople from anti-gay slurs. § 893. Art. 93. Cruelty and maltreatment is the code that is used for sexual harrassment claims, and is again gender neutral.

Which of these statutes will have to be rewritten to make them apply to LGBT servicepeople?

You may be right in saying that regulations might need to be rewritten, but the process should be as easy as a simple find and replace.

edited to clarify the difference between codes and regulations

[bluedawg12]

30. There are rules about fraternization in place, not about male:female relationships.

Those rules are not written about males and females they are written to protect enlisted from officer misuse of power and authority.

Those rules would not need to be changed.

[sandnsea]

37. Homosexuality is currently forbidden

And adultery is as well. Fraternization is just one part of the UCMJ.

Considering homosexuals can't marry in every state, how do they apply all the marital codes to gay couples? What about health benefits? Health care? If homosexuals can claim partnership for benefits or housing, can straights?

And again, what about transgender?

There are a lot of issues to be addressed. It really isn't as easy as a stroke of a pen to fix the whole thing. I do agree they should stop doing the investigations and discharges, but that doesn't solve the whole problem.

[hulklogan]

43. Please quote the relevant regulations to adultery, fraternization, housing, and health benefits.

Show how they specifically do not apply to same-sex couples.

[hulklogan]

53. Okay, I'll go first. Health benefits statutes in Title 10, US Code use the word "dependents"

Not spouse or husband or wife or any other word that can be construed to deny those benefits to LGBT Americans and their families.

[sandnsea]

56. That is excellent

Is that word intended to mean spouses, or children? Just asking.

[hulklogan]

58. From the language I have read, it seems to refer primarily to children.

Now it's your turn. Please list a regulation, code, or policy dealing with the subjects you named that will have to be rewritten.

[sandnsea]

59. Well that one then

If it refers to children, then there isn't a regulation regarding partner benefits. If gay partners get benefits, why not straight, and what are the criteria.

On the subject, how will partners be defined in regards to adultery, or will adultery just be removed.

Article 134, paragraph 62.

Adultery in the Military:

(1) That the accused wrongfully had sexual intercourse with a certain person;

(2) That, at the time, the accused or the other person was married to someone else; and

(3) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

[hulklogan]

60. Unmarried heterosexual couples aren't subject to this code, are they?

So unmarried LGBT couples wouldn't be either. Once equal marriage is recognized on the federal level, those couples would be subject to that law.

I don't see that this particular statute needs to be rewritten at all.

[sandnsea]

62. What about gay couples from Oregon?

Benefits are extended to gay partners in many states, regardless of civil union or marriage law. Will they be in the military? Will they recognize gay marriage? From gay marriage states only, or all states?

If they extend benefits to gay partners, will they need to implement that in a gender neutral fashion?

There are decisions to be made and questions to be answered. That is really all there is to it.

Get busy and organize and start getting the answers into the public debate, and you'll cut your years to months in no time.

[hulklogan]

63. You're imagining complications that do not exist.

The federal government does not recognize same sex marriages, so there is no point in worrying about whether state-sanctioned marriages will be recognized by the military. Current military laws that center around marriage will not apply to military personnel who are in same sex marriages because as far as the federal government is concerned these marriages do not exist.

Until the federal government recognizes same sex marriages, I'm sure the military will deal with same sex couples in the same way they deal with opposite couples who aren't married. No regulations will need to be rewritten with regard to these benefits beyond taking any gender references out.

When the federal government recognizes same sex marriages, those people in such marriages would then qualify for any marriage-related benefits under the existing regulations and codes. Again, these regulations do not need to be rewritten for LGBT people to qualify under them once the federal government recognizes same sex marriages.

I think you're imagining complications to the repeal of DADT that do not exist. You have yet to show any regulations that will have to be rewritten with a repeal of DADT. Is it possible that such regulations don't really exist in the numbers that you believe they do?

And by the way, there is no need to patronize the LGBT community when we are already well-organized on this issue and speaking out about it at every opportunity. The answers are already in the public debate. The problem is the people in our government who pretend not to hear them.

[sandnsea]

66. You think a married couple from Mass

is going to go in the military and not expect to have their marriage recognized? There will be law suits. You know there will be. If the military can circumvent these issues before they occur, then they have a responsibility to do that. At the very least, they have a responsibility to recognize that these are questions that will need answers.

I am not patronizing anybody, or saying there is no organization or that there hasn't been gallant fighting on this issue for years.

I am saying that I think the fight has moved to a new stage and that because of the very near and very real likelihood of full equality, the military is having to start asking these questions they never considered before and it's reasonable for them to ask.

So why not just be helpful and put out some booklets or something, 101 Things That Won't Change With Gays In The Military.

[hulklogan]

68. Of course there are going to be lawsuits, but that doesn't change the immediate reality.

The current regulations, as far as I can see and as you've failed to show anything to the contrary, are perfectly well-suited to accommodating LGBT Americans in open service whether they are single or unmarried couples or married in Iowa.

I don't think you realize the amount of work that has already been done on this issue by the military and by organizations by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. In fact, they've already published pamphlets like the one you're suggesting.

Top 10 Reasons to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Foreign Militaries Which Allow Open Service

Section by Section Analysis of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283)

And these are just a handful of the examples on the SLDN website. I wouldn't be surprised if the military has a significant number of documents preparing for the day when DADT is repealed as well. If any organization is prepared for every eventuality it is the United States military.

I suggest you check out the information that is out there before you tell me or the LGBT community as a whole what we should do about working for a DADT repeal.

[bluedawg12]

69. Here's a Booklet on Gay's In the Military, for ya' sandnsea!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283:

Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 1283 IH


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1283
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2009
Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SESTAK, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:

(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.

(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation

`(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces.

`(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--

`(1) in the case of a member of the Armed Forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and

`(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces, denial of accession into the Armed Forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the Armed Forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.

`(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the Armed Forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the Armed Forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the Armed Forces on the sole basis of such separation.

`(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended--

(A) by striking the item relating to section 654; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new item:

`656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the Armed Forces.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments- Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 481 is amended--

(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting `, including sexual orientation discrimination,' after `discrimination' in subparagraphs (C) and (D); and

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting `and sexual orientation-based' after `gender-based' both places it appears.

(2) Section 983(a)(1) is amended by striking `(in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws)'.

(3) Section 1034(i)(3) is amended by inserting `sexual orientation,' after `sex,'.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a). The Secretary of Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each military department to revise regulations of that military department in accordance with section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall include the following:

(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.

(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims' advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance.

(b) Regulation of Conduct- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces shall be written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.

(c) Definition- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' has the meaning given that term in section 656(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a).

[hulklogan]

70. This bill seems very clear about the revisions that will need to be made to code and regulations.

It specifically defines discrimination in the code. It references the recognition of same-sex marriages by referring to DOMA, and it provides guidance for the revision of existing regulations and policies.

Or do the 130 cosponsors need to do more deliberative thinking?

[bluedawg12]

71. This has been before Congress Multiple times and it was a campaign promise

this needs the support of our elected officials and not pamphlets and childish questions and silly hurdles for Teh Gays to answer.

The studies are out there and the experts say that DADT is bad for the military.

The American people agree.

It's time for a change of that bad law, unless They can explain to US why not.

Not the other way around.

[hulklogan]

72. Which is why I'm through quoting US Code and the SLDN for people

who can't be bothered to do the research themselves. :patriot:

[bluedawg12]

74. There's a name for that, placing obstacles in front of gays and making us prove our worth.

But rather than sink to that level, here is some information you might find useful.

http://www.palmcenter.org/node/998
Retired Senior Officers Report Urges Repeal of DADT
Source: Windy City Times
Author(s): Bob Roehr


A study by four senior retired officers, each with more than 30 years of service from all four branches of the military, is urging repeal of the antigay military policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ( DADT ) . The Report of the General/Flag Officers' Study Group was commissioned by the Palm Center research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara and released on July 7.


"The law locks the military's position into stasis and does not accord trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances â"" < it > is not working; rather, it is the flexibility of military leaders, often ignoring or violating the policy, who are making the system work," were among the ten findings in the report.


It believes the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ) and other regulations "provide sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct."

"DADT has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and preserving the cohesion of their units." A heterosexual officer told the group that one of his best non-commissioned officers in Iraq probably was a lesbian. If he had been officially told that, he likely would have violated the law rather than conduct an investigation that would have adversely affected existing unit cohesion.


The group was surprised to learn that gays lack confidentiality in their conversations with doctors, chaplains, and counselors on matters of sexual orientation, and that leads some to not seek appropriate care.

>>Inhumane!<< Removing further basic human rights from gay service members!

Rhonda Davis, discharged from the Navy for being a lesbian, told the group, she once advised a gay subordinate to seek counseling about a relationship problem with another woman, but then realized that might constitute a violation of DADT and compound the problem. "No matter what I those these troops, nothing was the right answer and I felt like a hypocrite."


The report said, "Not only are service members prevented from seeking healthcare, but also health professionals are prohibited from doing their job."


It went into great depth on how the policy "has caused the military to lose some talented service members." A corollary has been a lowering of overall standards and an increase in "moral waivers" to felons who would otherwise be barred from enlisting.


Some gays and lesbians are serving in the military, are relatively open about their sexual orientation and are accepted by their colleagues. Ironically, often it is the ones who seek to conceal their orientation, in compliance with DADT, who are the threat to unit cohesion. As one witness said, the problem is that those people are seen as liars and cowards by their peers.


The report noted that when DADT was adopted in 1993, only 40% of the American public supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Depending on how the question is asked, recent polls show that support has risen to between 58% and 79%.The military reflects the general society and attitudes have changed there as well.


The Study Group made four recommendations. Congress should repeal DADT "and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense."


"The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter." The UCMJ should be updated to become neutral in terms of sexual orientation and enforce uniform standards of behavior.


Finally, there should be immediate implementation of "safeguards for the confidentially of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals."

The group consisted of Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, US Army ( ret ) and Brig. Gen Hugh Aitkin, US Marine Corp ( ret ) , both of whom have endorsed Democratic presidential nominees since leaving the service; and Lt. Gen. Minter Alexander, US Air Force ( ret ) , and Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, US Navy ( ret ) who are registered as Republicans.

[bluedawg12]

73. Teh Gay don't need to do anything except ask why didn't this come to a vote?

It was up again for vote this past March it never got to the floor.

[bluedawg12]

75. Here's another little gay booklet about Gays in the Military- that "brand new topic."

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/Battling+the+Military+Ban

Battling the Military Ban
In a bracing new account, historian Nathaniel Frank shows how “don’t ask, don’t tell” has utterly failed.
Source: The Advocate at advocate.com
Author(s): Sean Kennedy

In July 1993, when President Bill Clinton unveiled his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in a speech at Washington D.C.’s National Defense University, Nathaniel Frank was in a tent in Wyoming. He’d graduated from Northwestern University that spring and was spending the summer road-tripping through the West in his parents’ minivan, camping by night, and current events weren’t at the top of his mind. He was also still wrestling with his sexual orientation. As the speech ended months of speculation about whether Clinton would end the military’s ban on gay soldiers, Frank was blissfully unaware.

That would soon change. As Frank started to come out, personally experiencing the same act of self-disclosure that could cost a soldier his job under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he became fascinated with the policy’s politics of knowledge. “We all know it’s tough to express yourself in a homophobic society, and here comes a law that bans it and punishes us for telling the truth,” says the 38-year-old Frank. “All serious people admitted that there were gays in the military. Why couldn’t we say it?”

It’s this question that animates his new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, released by St. Martin’s Press in March, just over 15 years after “don’t ask, don’t tell” went into effect. In it, Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a think tank based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, shows how the policy was destined to fail from the outset, since it was created out of prejudice, not cause. Although he pays heed to other factors, such as the gamesmanship of players like then–Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn (whom Clinton passed over for Defense secretary), Frank persuasively argues that military leaders were acutely afraid that open service by gays would tarnish their masculine ideals. And because of that fear, they battled to silence the voices of a minority.

“Self-expression is a natural instinct and it’s stifled at great cost,” Frank says. “ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t just repress gays and lesbians, it represses everyone. It perpetuates the idea that in order to be a stable society, we have to lie to ourselves.”

Framed in that way, Unfriendly Fire is not your typical dispassionate history. As a work of scholarship (Frank is also an adjunct professor of history at New York University), the book is a definitive addition to Allan Bérubé’s Coming Out Under Fire and Randy Shilts’s Conduct Unbecoming, which each focused on eras before “don’t ask, don’t tell,” when gay soldiers were simply banned without any epistemological baggage. But Frank differs from his predecessors with his insistently critical tone and laser-like attention to the policy’s shortcomings, from its formulation to its implementation -- and its present incoherent state, when some gay soldiers serve openly in Iraq and Afghanistan, while others, like high-value language specialists, are discharged. (An occasional journalist, Frank broke the latter story in The New Republic in 2002, when the Army discharged seven gay Arabic linguists who had been studying at the Defense Language Institute.)

This polemical approach is nowhere more evident than in Frank’s resurrection of the one-year period from November 1992, when Clinton first endeavored to make good on his campaign promise to end the military’s ban, to November 1993, when the president signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law. It’s all here, in gripping detail: the fraught political maneuvering between Clinton, pressured by gay donors and activists, and the military brass, who refused to negotiate with their new commander-in-chief; the assiduous lobbying by the religious right, foreshadowing their subsequent efforts against marriage equality; the dramatic congressional hearings and press conferences held by Nunn, culminating deep inside the USS Baton Rouge submarine to show just how tight the quarters were. But the most amazing revelation? Even as they ignored a 500-page RAND Corp. report commissioned by the Pentagon showing that open service wouldn’t affect military readiness, generals watched a video circulated by a Christian producer that graphically described gay sexual practices.

“I like to think of it as a level-headed polemic,” Frank says of the book, kicking back in his restored 19th-century row house in Brooklyn. And while Unfriendly Fire is carefully rooted in research and evidence, it’s this constant calling out of the policy’s flaws that’s likely to have the greatest effect. “There’s a part of me that believes in the old Enlightenment ideal that if you continue to insist on uttering the truth, that’s what it takes to make a more just society,” Frank says.

Frank’s book could certainly help achieve that, at a time when both public and political support for “don’t ask, don’t tell” has never been lower and when more leading military figures than ever are disavowing the policy. Now it’s up to President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to repeal the law.

“There’s a very good chance the ban could end in this Congress,” Frank says. “Obama has to approach this issue with the confidence that the research is on his side. It’s time to have a 21st-century military.”

[sandnsea]

79. Who said this was a "brand new topic"?

Please find the place where I, or anybody else, said anything like that.

And I didn't say people should write more books or do more studies.

I said you should create a booklet - short pamphlet that directly addresses the questions the generals are raising in quick 3 sentence quips.

[bluedawg12]

128. It's not always about you, it really isn't. *yawn"

[sandnsea]

78. So it denies benefits

and you think anybody believes that will be legal? It won't be legal. You can't make one set of rules for straight married couples from Massachusetts and a separate set of rules for gay married couples from Massachusetts.

Thank you for making my point for me.

[hulklogan]

81. You can as long as DOMA stands as the law of the land.

And besides, that's a really lame excuse to not push forward with DADT repeal immediately.

edited to add more reply

[sandnsea]

83. Aaah, so there ARE other issues here

Just as I've said all along. This is just not as simple as snapping the fingers.

[hulklogan]

84. It IS as simple as snapping the fingers.

DADT repeal can work within the existing framework of codes and regulations, which unfortunately includes DOMA.

Are you being deliberately contrary?

[sandnsea]

89. But it won't work within the existing framework

But rather than recognize the problems that will have to be addressed - you prefer to malign me and be deliberately contrary to the idea that you've got more work to do.

For six years I've said you would get civil unions a lot faster than marriage. In states like CA, if you'd went ahead with the civil unions six years ago, people would probably be ready to accept marriage now. But nooooooooo, incremental steps are completely unacceptable.

And anybody who suggests an alternative path is your enemy.

Well good luck with that.

[hulklogan]

91. I'm sick of people blaming the gays for their own opression.

You included.

[sandnsea]

96. Oh good god, you guys cannot HEAR

When MLK suggested a march on Washington, was he gathering black folks together to blame them for not having rights?

[hulklogan]

98. You're no MLK.

[Two Americas]

133. right

But you are no Martin Luther King. You are not even sympathetic to the cause.

When whites tried to tell Dr. King and others how "they" should best go about advancing "their" cause, they were met with the same reaction that you are getting here, and for the same reasons.

You might want to more listening and less lecturing, especially since you see this as "their" cause and not yours.


...

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

139. OMFG -- you just compared yourself to MLK?

:spray:

BWAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Oh man, that's awesome.

Got any other jokes?

[dsc]

94. We did do civil unions about 6 years ago

and then got the legislature to pass marriage which was vetoed. Only after that veto did we do the court route. Fine lot of good that did us. Civil unions were used in the pro prop 8 campaign to paint us as asking for special rights to indoctrinate children.

[sandnsea]

97. California had civil unions?

I didn't think they did. Vermont did, right? And hasn't Vermont just implemented marriage??

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

140. California had domestic partnerships

How's the crow taste?

[bluedawg12]

100. OH! Noooes! Your incrementalism was not heeded about our rights. Look what happened.

States passed marriage equality.

It's seems your opinions are not credible.

[sandnsea]

107. After civil unions

There wouldn't have been any gay marriage today without civil unions first.

[Two Americas]

123. enough!

If you do not see this as OUR cause then you are no ally or supporter, and you have absolutely no business lecturing others as to what they are doing wrong, or how "they" should best advance "their" cause.

This maligning of people here, saying that "incremental steps are completely unacceptable" to them (and apparently to all in the community) is completely false and out of line. You are calling out and smearing the entire GLBTQ community.

You are using the exact same arguments that were used against the Abolitionists, the exact same arguments that were used against the early Labor organizers and "their" causes.

Rights are not something that people "get," incrementally or otherwise, they are presumed to already exist. The battle is against those who would deny that - under whatever guise or on whatever pretext.

How dare you lecture the entire GLBTQ community, as well as supporters such as myself, but telling all of us that we don't "recognize the problems that will have to be addressed." Have you lost your mind? The victims of persecution do not know what they face, but you do???

Incremental step number one: confront and refute ideas such as those you are expressing.

First problem to recognize: the danger of being wounded in the house of your friends, being betrayed by your supposed allies.


...

[bluedawg12]

127. "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a gay ."

"Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay ." -wikipedia
............
DADT was based on homphobia. On of the tactics used by many of the now self confessed bigots was that they "kept calling for more study to have more time."

"Frank spoke to key military and political architects of the policy, many of whom acknowledge in the book that it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”-Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Creators+ ...

........
"This polemical approach is nowhere more evident than in Frank’s resurrection of the one-year period from November 1992, when Clinton first endeavored to make good on his campaign promise to end the military’s ban, to November 1993, when the president signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law. It’s all here, in gripping detail: the fraught political maneuvering between Clinton, pressured by gay donors and activists, and the military brass, who refused to negotiate with their new commander-in-chief; the assiduous lobbying by the religious right, foreshadowing their subsequent efforts against marriage equality; the dramatic congressional hearings and press conferences held by Nunn, culminating deep inside the USS Baton Rouge submarine to show just how tight the quarters were. But the most amazing revelation? Even as they ignored a 500-page RAND Corp. report commissioned by the Pentagon showing that open service wouldn’t affect military readiness, generals watched a video circulated by a Christian producer that graphically described gay sexual practices." -http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/Battling+the+Military+Ban

............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don\'t_ask,_don\'t_tell

In 2000, Northwestern University Professor Charles Moskos, the principal author of DADT (which, as originally coined by Moskos, was "Don't Ask Don't Tell; Don't Seek Don't Flaunt"), told "Lingua Franca" that he felt that policy will be gone within five to ten years. Moskos also dismissed the unit cohesion argument, instead arguing that gay people should be banned due to "modesty rights", saying "Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that...I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay ." Moskos did not offer any alternative to his DADT policy.<11>


In 2005, member of Congress Marty Meehan (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the policyOn September 13, 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (on October 23, 2006 renamed the Michael D. Palm Center), a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 FORSCOM regulation (Regulation 500-3-3) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.

Public opinion
Polls have shown that a large majority of the American public favors allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the U.S. military. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants having nothing against openly gay people from serving in the military. In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.<15>

Military personnel opinion
A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% were in favor of gays and lesbians serving in the military, 37% opposed gays and lesbians serving, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. 72% of respondents who had experience with gays or lesbians in their unit said that the presence of gay or lesbian unit members had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 67% said as much for overall unit morale. Of those respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay or lesbian personnel, only 51% thought that such unit members would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 58% thought that they would have a negative effect on unit morale. 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.<16>

Statistics
In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced (1993), the military has discharged nearly 12,500 troops from the military due to homosexuality.<17> Statistics on the number of persons discharged per year:

.........

[Creideiki]

145. Wow. Do you do this on purpose to make our point?

California has had Domestic Partners for 10 years. So 4 years after your 6 year requirement, still no marriage.

There are tons of problems with Domestic Partners. For starters, it's not portable. You leave California with a Domestic Partner and arrive in Colorado on a ski vacation with a fuck buddy. You leave NJ with a Civil Union and enter Florida with a piece of paper that's worthless. You leave Colorado with a Designated Beneficiary and, well, there's no place in the world quite fucked up enough to call a romantic partner a "designated beneficiary", is there?

That's just the beginning. Maybe if you were paying attention, you'd realize this. Instead, you show up here periodically to tell the silly homos that they have no rights to having the same recognition that you get because you, apparently, are so drunk on your heterosexual privilege that you couldn't care less about anyone else.

That's a classic sign of conservatism. I hear there are messageboards for Freepi like you. Go join them and complain about how awful it is that gay people want to be treated like normal people.

[bluedawg12]

87. No one said it was snappng fingers - it takes political leadership.

That's the job of the politicians to pass laws and to repeal bad laws.

You understand...bad...l..a...w...s?

:rofl:

[dsc]

92. then why aren't you complaining about the tax code?

straight married couples are treated as married on federal tax returns while gay married couples aren't. If the IRS can manage to get away with it, I fail to see why the Armed Forces can't.

[sandnsea]

102. *I* am not complaining about anything

I am suggesting that there are hurdles that the military needs to consider because the military is not the IRS and creates its own set of rules. I bet it wouldn't take a year for somebody to challenge the inequality. I'm surprised gay couples in Mass haven't sued for federal tax benefits already.

[Creideiki]

76. So you're okay with gay people being in the military

as long as those undeserving gay married couples don't expect the same rights that you would get just because you're straight. Wow. Talk about heterosexual privilege.

[sandnsea]

80. Where did I say that?

The DADT repeal law says gays will not be given the same rights or benefits as straight couples.

Since you're obviously not okay with that, you prove my point as well. There are questions to be answered.

You believe partners and married couples should get benefits. Go answer post #69 which clearly states that won't be the case.

And then get back to me about how fast and easy this will be to implement.

[Creideiki]

88. I forgot

You're not okay with gay people being in the military because they're gay.

I personally think there should be a prohibition against people who post on messageboards with the screen name "sandnsea" being in the military. Furthermore, I don't want anyone that shares your damaged genetic material in the military. Let's say if anyone is closer than a 3rd cousin, they're banned.

[bluedawg12]

93. I think we ought to spit her red herring out and not jump through these hoops

[bluedawg12]

90. it's not hard to repeal a bad law and it's not up to the citizens to write the laws

nor is it the duty of the gay community to solve all of your little headaches and conundrums.

[sandnsea]

99. Well gosh, yes the citizens are accountable

for their government and the laws their government passes. I am not asking you to solve *my* headaches. They're YOUR headaches and *I'm* trying to help you solve them, and being constantly beat up in the process.

[bluedawg12]

101. Gee, by golly we are holding our government accountable.

"They're YOUR headaches {b]and *I'm* trying to help you solve them, and being constantly beat up in the process."-sandnsea

Gosh, sandnsea, you might want to look at that a little closer.

[sandnsea]

103. So do citizens help write laws - or not?

Make up your mind. YOU are the one who needs to look a little closer.

[bluedawg12]

108. We elect representatives. Is that a hard concept? n/t

[sandnsea]

111. Who let lobbyists write laws

Reality. So why don't gay groups write a realistic and comprehensive law, rework the policies, etc. Do a survey and figure out the top 20 misconceptions and get them answered. Realistic ones, not bigoted ones.

What do you think those representatives do when they run for office or want to get support for a law?

[bluedawg12]

115. Red herring. So why didn't Speaker Pelosi put the bill up for vote? n/t

[hulklogan]

104. You're not helping to solve anything.

You're throwing up hurdles left and right, asking for quotes, claiming that a number of regulations will need to be rewritten when you can't give any examples of such, falsely using marriage equality as a reason why DADT repeal can't be accomplished immediately, and suggesting that all it will take is the printing of some kind of pamphlet.

You are no martyr, though I believe your heart is in the right place. Some people are just questioning your argument because it is full of holes and seems insincere.

Playing devil's advocate in the LGBT forum isn't helping to solve anyone's headaches.

[bluedawg12]

109. The assertion is that Teh Gay want this "overnight." That is false.

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Creators+ ...

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"
Definitive Book on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Out Tuesday; Speaking Tour Begins Today

SANTA BARBARA, CA, March 2, 2009 – Military officials exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion and ignored research and data when formulating the current policy on gay troops, according to the much-anticipated new book, “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” out tomorrow.

The book, based on a a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, was written by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, and one of the nation’s most widely recognized authorities on gays in the military. Dr. Frank is appearing with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher today at the Center for American Progress to discuss her proposed legislation to repeal the ban.

Publication of the book by St. Martin’s Press falls on the 15th anniversary of "don't ask, don't tell." Frank spoke to key military and political architects of the policy, many of whom acknowledge in the book that it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tops the list of prominent leaders who have endorsed the "Unfriendly Fire," saying it “should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military.” Congressman Patrick J. Murphy, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the only Iraq War veteran in Congress, said Frank’s “timely book should put to rest any lingering doubt about whether ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is working—it's been a failure from day one and should finally be put behind us.”

The Palm Center has launched "Send UNFRIENDLY FIRE to Congress!" which is an online campaign to put a book into the hands of every member of Congress by this spring.

[sandnsea]

110. I've given examples

Some of them are already written well - YEAH!!!

Others aren't, marriage and partnership benefits being one. Transgender issues another. And even though there are many gender neutral harrassment and discrimination laws, it doesn't address the means of implementing them. Things as simple as developing diversity training.

There are things that have to be resolved. It seems logical to me that helping to resolve outstanding issues is a more useful route than just demeanding repeal.

I am not playing devil's advocate. I wouldn't waste my time. I am attempting to point people in the direction of a path they might not have seen before.

[hulklogan]

112. All things that are addressed by HR 1283.

These "outstanding issues" have already been resolved in the proposed legislation.

[bluedawg12]

114. Gays serving openly in the military has been studied for at least 16 years.

Let's not forget that DADT was passed in 1993 and there were studies prior to it being signed into law.

Red herrings...meh...no one likes 'em.

[bluedawg12]

113. Are you a published expert in the field of military readiness or military justice?

If you are please point me to some of your learned publications, I will be happy to review them and give you credit if it is due.

In the meantime, I prefer and advise that we do seek to educate ourselves in the gay community about this issue that appears to have stalled, but for snippets of news here and there.

So no offense to the well meaning so-called self identified allies here, but, I prefer to read what experts have to say on this topic and not play red herring debate 101 games.

Here is a Rand corp. Monograph from 1993. It hardly seems that there is an expectation to find an overnight answer, nor has there been paucity of study on the topic of gays serving openly.

There has however been ample politics surrounding gays in the military. Aftet 16 years it's hardly fair to say we, as a minority, are impatient.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index.html
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy

By: Bernard D. Rostker, Scott A. Harris, James P. Kahan, Erik J. Frinking, C. Neil Fulcher, Lawrence M. Hanser, Paul Koegel, John D. Winkler, Brent A. Boultinghouse, Joanna Heilbrunn, Janet Lever, Robert MacCoun, Peter Tiemeyer, Gail L. Zellman, Sandra H. Berry, Jennifer Hawes-Dawson, Samantha Ravich, Steven L. Schlossman, Timothy Haggarty, Tanjam Jacobson, Ancella Livers, Sherie Mershon, Andrew Cornell, Mark A. Schuster, David E. Kanouse, Raynard Kington, Mark Litwin, Conrad Peter Schmidt, Carl H. Builder, Peter Jacobson, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Roger Allen Brown, William Fedorochko, Bubbles Fisher, John F. Peterson, James A. Dewar

This report presents the RAND study that resulted from a request to assist the Secretary of Defense in drafting an Executive Order to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, a team of RAND researchers visited seven foreign countries and the police and fire departments in six American cities, seeking insights and lessons from analogous experiences there. The team considered the integration of blacks and the development of the current policy that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. It reviewed public opinion, including the views of current active-duty military personnel, and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexuality, and related health issues. It examined a number of legal and enforcement issues, as well as the literature that deals with implementing change in large organizations.

Based on the research findings, the study group found that the most promising policy option for achieving the President’s objectives focuses on conduct and considers sexual orientation, by itself, as not germane in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces.

As part of the study an illustrative “Standard of Professional Conduct” was also designed with the overarching objective of maintaining the order and discipline essential for an effective military organization.

The report also notes that if sexual orientation is regarded as not germane in determining who may serve in the military, it is equally not relevant to decisions on assignment, pay, military sociality, and benefits. The manner in which such a policy change is implemented could have a decisive impact on the acceptance of the new policy by the military.

Based upon the research conducted in this study, key elements of an implementation strategy were identified: (1) the message of policy change must be clear and must be consistently communicated from the top;
(2) the option selected should be implemented immediately;
(3) emphasis should be placed on behavior and conduct, not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity;
(4) leadership must send messages of reassurance to the force;
(5) leaders at all levels should be empowered to implement the policy, with special training provided if necessary; and
(6) a monitoring process should be established to identify problems early in the process and to address them immediately.

The option presented in this report appears to meet the President’s criteria, and is consistent with the empirical research and historical experience. By following the implementation strategy, the Department of Defense should be able to increase the probability that a policy that ends discrimination based on sexual orientation can be implemented in a practical and realistic manner.

Here is a table of contents

Contents
Preface PDF

Figures PDF

Tables PDF

Executive Summary PDF

Chapter One:
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Policy Options and Assessment — Study Overview PDF

Chapter Two:
Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior PDF

Chapter Three:
Analogous Experience of Foreign Military Services PDF

Chapter Four:
Analogous Experience of Domestic Police and Fire Departments PDF

Chapter Five:
Potential Insights from Analogous Situations: Integrating Blacks into the U.S. Military PDF

Chapter Six:
Relevant Public Opinion PDF

Chapter Seven:
Relevant Military Opinion PDF

Chapter Eight:
Issues of Concern: Effect of Allowing Homosexuals to Serve in the Military on the Prevalence of HIV/AIDS PDF

Chapter Nine:
Issues of Concern: Anti-Homosexual Violence PDF

Chapter Ten:
What Is Known About Unit Cohesion and Military Performance PDF

Chapter Eleven:
Sexual Orientation and the Military: Some Legal Considerations PDF

Chapter Twelve:
Implementing Policy Change in Large Organizations PDF

Chapter Thirteen:
Potential Effects on Military Recruitment and Retention PDF

Appendix A:
Illustrative Standard of Professional Conduct PDF

Appendix B:
Living and Privacy Conditions in the Military Service PDF

Appendix C:
Legal Provisions Concerning Sodomy PDF

Appendix D:
Attitudes About Homosexuality and Military Service in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States PDF

Appendix E:
Relevant Canadian Regulations

Appendix F:
Relevant Data from Surveys PDF

Appendix G:
Los Angeles Times Poll PDF

Appendix H:
1992 Sociological Survey of the Army PDF

Appendix I:
State Restrictions on Sodomy PDF

Bibliography

The monograph/report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1993 to 2003. RAND monograph/reports presented major research findings that addressed the challenges facing the public and private sectors. They included executive summaries, technical documentation, and synthesis pieces.

[sandnsea]

116. Oh excellent, look right here

Based upon the research conducted in this study, key elements of an implementation strategy were identified:
(1) the message of policy change must be clear and must be consistently communicated from the top; How?
(2) the option selected should be implemented immediately; Tomorrow? Next week? Next month?
(3) emphasis should be placed on behavior and conduct, not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity; No diversity training?
(4) leadership must send messages of reassurance to the force; What message? How? Goals? Measurements?
(5) leaders at all levels should be empowered to implement the policy, with special training provided if necessary; and Yes training? No training? Huh??
(6) a monitoring process should be established to identify problems early in the process and to address them immediately.

This validates everything I've been saying. EVERYTHING. There will be issues and they will need to be discussed in order to create and implement the policies and procedures and these are just a few questions that need to be answered.

[bluedawg12]

117. Uh yeah, they wrote that in 1993. Pass a law repealing DADT there are many frameworks out there.

See. No need to reinvent the wheel with more "early deliberations." No need to panic.

Please let me know if you want more do more of your research work for you, it does take some effort. :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

118. Then post a framework

You keep posting items that identify the problems, nothing that identifies any solutions. You can post all the snark you want, doesn't change the facts.

*I* don't need to do any of the research to support my claims because you did it all for me.

*You* need to post something to support *your* claim that all the issues in implementing gay equality in the military have been resolved.

[hulklogan]

119. Why do we need to study these things before the law is passed when HR 1283 specifically addresses

most of the implementation suggestions presented by that 1993 study, and gives the DoD a specific timeframe to accomplish those tasks?

Federal law doesn't work in the way you're suggesting. When most laws are passed, they are fairly vague. It is up to the Executive Branch to figure out how to implement those laws. The government doesn't figure out all of the policies and procedures and regulations before the bill is passed, usually.

Pretending like there are all these issues that need to be worked out before DADT is repealed is, as I have said before, just an excuse for inaction.

[bluedawg12]

124. Let's look at our claims, shall we?

"*You* need to post something to support *your* claim that all the issues in implementing gay equality in the military have been resolved.-sandsea"

Here is what I said, just prior to your reply.

Odd how you misread the words, it must be an honest mistake on your part.

"*your* claim that all the issues in implementing gay equality in the military have been resolved."-sns

Do you see what it actually says in my reply?

"Pass a law repealing DADT there are many frameworks out there.-bd12"

No where does it say, as you misquoted me, "that all the issues in implementing gay equality in the military have been resolved."

bluedawg12 (1000+ posts) Mon May-11-09 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. Uh yeah, they wrote that in 1993. Pass a law repealing DADT there are many frameworks out there.
See. No need to reinvent the wheel with more "early deliberations." No need to panic.
Please let me know if you want more do more of your research work for you, it does take some effort.

Perhaps it's the fact that 1993 seems like yesterday to you, or is 1993 "overnight" in Gay Years?
Thus, you equate it with wanting change "overnight?"

Because overnight is your phrase. :)

sandnsea (1000+ posts) Sun May-10-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. What is it about "it will take time" that you can't hear?
That's what I said. I agree that it will take time and cannot be done over night.

Now, here are a few of the questions you claimed early in this thread that needed to be answered.

I pointed out that this issue has been studied for over a decade and a half and continues to be studied.

As an example I posted a monograph, yours for a few dollars and it will provide you with many of the details that early in this thread you were so anxious to point out needed to be examined.

Support RAND Research — Buy This Product!
Paperback Cover Price: $95.00

Discounted Web Price: $85.50

Pages: 546

ISBN/EAN: 0-8330-1441-2

sandnsea

The military has rules about male-female relationships
They'll have to go through everything and rewrite for same sex relationships.
They may want to decide about living arrangements, transgender, a whole host of issues.

Women have a difficult time getting harrassment rules enforced.

It'll be even more difficult with harrassment of homosexuals, along with the array of complaints against homosexual "passes".

They do have things that will have to be worked out before they repeal DADT.

It's the military, there are two wars on, we can't just make it up as we go.

Clearly there are NO regulations in place regarding anything related to homosexuals in service because they get investigated and discharged.

What's the protocol for discrimination against gays?
How is it defined?
What's the protocol for legitimate sexual harrassment complaints?
Rape?
False rape claims?
Transgender?
And what about when it's not rape, but someone claims it is?
What about false claims?
Retributions?
All of this stuff is going to happen.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index....
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy
1993

Chapter One:
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Policy Options and Assessment — Study Overview PDF

Chapter Two:
Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior PDF

Chapter Three:
Analogous Experience of Foreign Military Services PDF

Chapter Four:
Analogous Experience of Domestic Police and Fire Departments PDF

Chapter Five:
Potential Insights from Analogous Situations: Integrating Blacks into the U.S. Military PDF

Chapter Six:
Relevant Public Opinion PDF

Chapter Seven:
Relevant Military Opinion PDF

Chapter Eight:
Issues of Concern: Effect of Allowing Homosexuals to Serve in the Military on the Prevalence of HIV/AIDS PDF

Chapter Nine:
Issues of Concern: Anti-Homosexual Violence PDF

Chapter Ten:
What Is Known About Unit Cohesion and Military Performance PDF

Chapter Eleven:
Sexual Orientation and the Military: Some Legal Considerations PDF

Chapter Twelve:
Implementing Policy Change in Large Organizations PDF

Chapter Thirteen:
Potential Effects on Military Recruitment and Retention PDF

Appendix A:
Illustrative Standard of Professional Conduct PDF

Appendix B:
Living and Privacy Conditions in the Military Service PDF

Appendix C:
Legal Provisions Concerning Sodomy PDF

Appendix D:
Attitudes About Homosexuality and Military Service in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States PDF

Appendix E:
Relevant Canadian Regulations

Appendix F:
Relevant Data from Surveys PDF

Appendix G:
Los Angeles Times Poll PDF

Appendix H:
1992 Sociological Survey of the Army PDF

Appendix I:
State Restrictions on Sodomy PDF

Bibliography

*I* don't need to do any of the research to support my claims because you did it all for me.-sandnsea

Final thought, don't kid yourself, I am not doing your research for you. I only note that I cannot seem to recall any research or facts in the threads posted by you, that I have read thus far.

I am doing research because it is of interest to me and it is hoped that it is of some value to friends and allies in and surrounding the GLBTQ community.

However, it is striking that one who claims to have the interest of the gay community at heart and is offering their advice so "liberally", that you appear to post only your opinions and a rather large amount of misinformation, such as your claim that this issue is in it's early stages of discovery. This goes to your credibility here.

But enough about you.

Keep watching I may do some more of your homework. :hi:

[sandnsea]

131. There you go, twisting my words again

Where did I say this issue is "in it's early stages of discovery"? I repeated a quote in the OP about "early discussions". That does not mean the same thing as "early stages of discovery". It means the actual policies and rules and regulations, the issues that YOU posted yourself are the ones that are in "early discussions". They're discussing all of those "stages of discovery" that have been going on for decades.

And once again, everything that's been posted in this thread has made my point for me. The proposed law is very brief and has, at the very least, benefits issues in it.

Your reports add more questions than answers.

Why is it such a horrible thing to recognize that there might be more concrete things that can be done to get this repealed?

[hulklogan]

120. I know of a framework! HR 1283! Plus, it has 140 cosponsors.

Problem solved.

[sandnsea]

122. So no equal benefits?

Is that what you're saying? No housing, child care for partner's kids, health care, insurance benefits, nothing?

[bluedawg12]

125. That's why we voted for a Harvard Law Grad and Law Professor!

Those questions are best left to the experts that work for the POTUS.

[sandnsea]

129. Leave equal rights issues to the experts?

How come you duck out when we start getting down to brass tacks?

[bluedawg12]

130. good night. it's a work day in the AM. n/t

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluedawg12]

126. This is what a true gay rights ally looks like and how they write.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090508_on_gays_ob...

On Gays, Obama’s Turn
Posted on May 8, 2009

By Eugene Robinson

<snip>

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” Now, with the gay marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy ripe for repeal, it’s time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

<snip>
Politicians in Washington who want to avoid what they see as a dangerous controversy have a convenient escape: They can say that the marriage issue should be left to the states
<snip>

But that’s a dodge, not a stance. It certainly can’t be confused with leadership.

Favoring “civil unions” that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage—but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society’s approval—amounts to another dodge.

<snip>

Obama took the “civil unions” route during last year’s campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation—that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates—I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, then why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what might they be?

<snip>

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments—it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage re-enlistment—are often the same, word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. That was bigotry then, and it’s bigotry now.

<snip>

What the president shouldn’t do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it’s not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he’s on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

<snip>

I’m not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically—more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

[bluedawg12]

67. Gays organize? LMAO. Repeal DADT Before Congress Since 2005!

The latest,2009, version did not pass through Speaker Pelosi.

Gays organize LMFAO! :rofl: Our elected officials need to do their job.

“The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 109th and 110th Congress by Marty Meehan and the 111th Congress by Ellen Tauscher.

The stated purpose of the bill is "to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as "Don't ask, don't tell", with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

The 2005 bill had 122 cosponsors and the 2007 bill had 149 cosponsors. They were both referred to the House Committee on Armed Services and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel but failed to advance. The 2009 bill has 140 cosponsors as of May 2009, and was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.”

[sandnsea]

82. Why did they fail to advance?

Because there were questions that weren't answered and nobody organized to get them answered. That's why.

Answer Creideiki. Do gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals - or not.

[bluedawg12]

86. You have a link for that analysis or just blowing it

my way ad hoc?

Nobody organized? It was a law written by Congress did they forget to PM you with their answers to your probing questions? :rofl:

Of course there are questions not being answered and they are not the questions being asked by you, at all.

The question is where is the political will power to pass this law in 2009 with our party in charge?

[sandnsea]

95. It's in the OP

Clearly "early discussions" means there are issues to be discussed.

I raised several, but specifically the issue of marriage, civil unions and benefits. It's easy to pretend it's been addressed, but laws are challenged in the Supreme Court every day. Why shouldn't the military take a look at all the laws and get it right the first time?

Certainly it's a question of political will, but it's also a question of getting answers to the public before the right has a chance to poison the well. The answers are not out there.

[bluedawg12]

106. "doesn't know" when or if DADT will be repealed- The OP n/t

[bluedawg12]

46. I expect the issues were reviewed when the campaign promise to repeal DADT was made.

[snowdays]

61. nope, its like closing Gitmo. He made a promise and only now

they are wondering how to do it.

[bluedawg12]

65. Just like closing Gitmo, a campaign promise made and upheld an order signed.

The Prseident can write and sign an executive order or Congress can pass a law, you don't re-write the UCMJ prior to any laws being encated as some have suggested.

Just like Gitmo, no one expected he would have every detail worked out on the campaign trail only that he had the broad idea and a political philosophical point of view.

Just like Gitmo, have a law and sign it and build in mandates and a time frame and a "how to" execute.

Just like Gitmo!

See my reply #38.

This is a good model. Thanks for the idea!

Just like Gitmo:

Thu January 22, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.

1 of 2 During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."

[xchrom]

23. 1st recommend

[bluedawg12]

35. I am Lt. Dan Choi, West Point Grad and I am gay. I am done ASKING.

Three poweful words: I am gay. His career ended, service no longer required.

Bigotry alive and well.

>>My name is Dan Choi. I am a West Point graduate. I am a Lieutenant in the United States Army.

I am gay.

I serve my country. I serve my country because I heard a leader say: “ASK NOT what your country can do for you… ASK what you can do for your country.” But when I step up to serve our country, to put my life on the line to protect my community, to protect my neighbors, to protect my family, to protect America, I am ordered… DON’T ASK. I am ordered… DON’T TELL.

I serve with 65,000 selfless gay and lesbian Americans; we are ordered to deny who we are. We’re ordered to HIDE. But I am not hiding anymore. I am not asking permission anymore. I am done ASKING. I am TELLING. I am gay.<<

[LostinVA]

48. I think it means,"After a supermajority of Americans wants it repealed."

Oh wait... THEY ALREADY DO!!!!!

[NMMNG]

132. "The majority has spoken"

Only matters when "the majority" is in favor of the straights. Duh.

[NMMNG]

85. Screw it

If the phobes in the military and elsewhere don't think we're worthy of serving with them why should we fight them? Let all the straight people go to war and die. Why should LGBT people go and fight, maybe even die, for a nation that doesn't even consider them worthy to serve in the military, let alone have equal rights?

[No Elephants]

143. In his capacitty as Commander in Chief, Obama has ample power

under the Constitution to suspend discharges made on account of DADT, given we are still in Iraq, "surging" in Afghanistan, expecting God knows what in Pakistan, stretched too thin to do much in Darfur, etc., etc. etc. AND having trouble recruiting. If there were any doubt of that (I have NONE), there is specific statute that applies as well.

Check it out. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

That troop to whom he wrote lost her career on his watch. So have others. He wrote a troop whose career he easily could have saves a totally dishonest letter. It doesn't "need" Congress, for any reason other than Obama's lack of political will and unwillingness to lead on this as Truman did with racial segregation and Carter did with amnesty.

People need to deal with that.

[bluedawg12]

144. Exactly right, we should be supporting the President in keeping his pledge

not offering up excuses for why DADT is sooooo hard.

So many support him on everything else, odd how they don't have his back in regards to this change just chorus of "tsk, tsk...it's so hard to make a change."

New slogan:

I support President Obama on his pledge to end DADT.

[Captain Hilts]

146. This policy is not his responsibility. nt

[No Elephants]

148. Why not? He is POTUS; he is CIC; he made a campaign promise to end DADT;

he is responsible for our safety.

He did not originate the policy. Clinton did. However, not originating something is not the same as not being responsible for it. Truman did not start racial segregation in the military, but he took responsiblity and did something about it. Carter had less than nothing to do with so-called "draft dodging," but he took responsibility for it by granting amnesty before even walking Pennsylvania Avenue on his Inauguration Day.

Obama became responsible for the DADT policy the day he became a Senator and did nothing to overturn it. He certainly after he became POTUS and CIC, whether or not he campaigned on it. And he is certainly responsible for his campaign promise.

Article II, Section 2 of the COTUS and 10 USC 1230 both give him ample power to suspend DADT discharges.

We are having trouble recruiting; our troops have been stop lossed so many times they are going nuts; we arestill in Iraq; we are "surging" in Afghanistan; Pakistan is crazy; we are without adequate numbers to be effective in intervening in genocides, etc. And those are only the things we know about. Who knows what may happen tomorrow somewhere else in the world.

How much more justification does he need to use his power under the Constitution and under 10 USC sign an executive order saying suspending DADT discharges is necessary for national security?

Given the above, whether you consider him "responsible" for DADT as a policy or not, he is certainly responsible for every single discharge and indignity resulting from DADT since his Inauguration Day. These are real people having to live a lie and real people having their careers ended because of a kiss at Walmart or because they take the Army value of integrity seriously.

Obama is certainly responsible for being dishonest about his power to do anything at all about DADT discharges unless and until Congress acts. He is also responsible for being disingenous about his inability to ask Congress to act on this.