Finally, a bill to repeal DADT

[ProSense]

Finally, a bill to repeal DADT

by Mark Udall

Finally, we have a bill.

Just minutes ago, I stood with Senators Lieberman, Levin, Gillibrand, and Burris at a press conference and announced that we would be introducing the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2010 in the Senate to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

In a time of two wars, any policy that leads to the discharge of talented and capable troops threatens our national security and wastes resources. That's exactly what "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been doing for 17 years. And that's why, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and original cosponsor of this bill, I'm proud to be leading the charge to finally -- and fully -- repeal this unfair and outmoded law.

Just last year, over 400 otherwise qualified troops, from Arabic translators to fighter pilots, were discharged for no reason other than their sexual orientation. That harms our national security, and it's why we need to make sure this bill passes.

This legislation accomplishes several key goals:

1. Full repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." It will allow the Department of Defense to continue its study to determine the best way to implement the repeal, but ensures that the study remains dedicated to implementing repeal, not considering whether to repeal.
   
   
2. Ends discharges for gay and lesbian servicemembers immediately. While the study period for implementation goes forward, no members of the Armed Forces will be discharged solely for their sexual orientation.

In other words, this bill ensures that we stop harming our military's effectiveness, but still takes a reasonable approach to ensure that the repeal is done in a responsible way. It's an excellent piece of legislation, but some opponents still claim it will spell disaster for our military.

more

[DevonRex]

1. Excellent news! Thanks for posting this. K&R. nt

[zipplewrath]

2. Devils in the details

There are many features this bill must have to ensure that the military truly stops the persecution. Merely ending this feature is not enough. They have to be prevented from making homosexuals illegal in everything but fact. They have to protect them against statements and ommission made DURING DADT. The also have to prevent the military from FORCING people to declare orientation.

And no, I don't trust either the military or this White House to do this correctly.

[ProSense]

3. Not only is this comment nonsensical, it takes

goal post moving to an absurd level.

When the law is repealed, it's repealed.

[zipplewrath]

5. Not even close

If I can be shown to have lied, or made important ommissions in my SF-86 because I was hiding my homosexuality while DADT was effective, that won't be a DADT violation. It will be a basis for revoking my clearance, and for prosecution for basically fraud.

If they form regulations stating that individuals may request separate quarters based upon orientation, they could also require a soldier to declare orientation when challenged. If they don't answer truthfully, they could be accused of lying.

The military could charge gay men with "sexual assault" if they get into a fight with a straight soldier. "You shoulda seen where he was hitting me!!!".

They could require one to declare their orientation while enlisting, right there under "gender".

They could limit their deployment from certain units (submarines, combat units, etc.)

[ProSense]

7. Ridiculous. n/t

[zipplewrath]

8. How so?

Just ask women how they have been treated by the military. See if it is "equal" to how men get treated.

[jenmito]

4. GREAT news! I just wish they wouldn't "do a study." I think that's just a stall tactic since

I'm sure everyone serving in t the military right now knows the people serving with them and couldn't care less whether they're straight or gay. But this bill would be wonderful for those now serving, knowing they won't get discharged in the meantime.

[denimgirly]

6. Shouldnt have too much trouble passing -- doesnt involve Money

I notice if there is big money involved then a bill has less of a chance in passing (or at least an effective version of it). Since this bill doesnt involve that i dont expect it will have much trouble passing or be changed all too much.

[Cha]

9. Yes, "Finally", but it's here now.

Thanks to all those who worked so hard on getting this Done.