I have got a question about the DADT repeal

[dsc]

Since it apparently isn't being replaced by language permitting gays to serve, what is to stop a future President or Pentagon from instituting an outright ban again? I am asking this since I really don't know, this isn't a blame Obama thread it is a real, actual, question.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. Good question.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Just as DADT repeal would have to go through Congress

Any language explicitly barring discrimination against gays in the Armed Services would similarly have to go through Congress. Standing law is not the whim of the executive branch, for either barring or allowing.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I think that's true for taking rights away. Less so for expanding them. But the military

was integrated without any reference to law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. Segregation of the military was not standing law passed by Congress, as DADT is

It was customary practice established by internal Executive Branch procedure.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Nothing. FDR started integrating blacks into the military then Truman announced it. Like that.

And it can work both ways.

[boppers]

6. Uhm, it was a little more complex than that.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

Lots of time, pressure, committees, etc.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Yes, it was more complicated. But FDR just started without telling anyone.

There are, for example, a series of memoranda where the Sec. of the Navy - sadly, THE most racially segregated of the services - telling FDR of the progress of including black sailors in replacement and relief crews along with white sailors. No problem. My dad's boot camp photograph from June '45 has black and white sailors.

But FDR knew no one wanted a Northerner to do it, so they just didn't announce it.

[ruggerson]

7. Once the statute is repealed, Obama could issue an executive order

But, in general, you're correct. In the absence of an explicit statute banning discrimination, a future CIC could reinstitute a policy banning gays from service yet again.

[boppers]

8. Per wikipedia:

"The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation<1>. At the time, per Reagan's Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.<1><2> The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual service members.<3>" http://tinyurl.com/82p8c

(Gee, thanks Truman.)

Repealing DADT isn't enough by itself, the UCMJ needs revising, and defense directives still could, conceivably, be issued by future presidents.

[dsc]

12. I am pretty sure they banned gays before 1950

as in from WW2. But that said, I know the UMCJ would have to be changed to eliminate the sodomy ban if nothing else.

[boppers]

13. Good book on the topic:

"Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two"
http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Out-Under-Fire-History/dp/0029031001

They weren't banned outright for being gay, however, they were considered "mentally ill" if they were outed... much to the disagreement of military doctors.

[Unvanguard]

9. Does anyone have a link to the full text of the amendment under discussion?

I know the Military Readiness Enhancement Act was very explicit about banning discrimination.

[FreeState]

18. Here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31900842/dadtlanguage

according to the Advocate the language that would end descrimination was stripped as part of the Whitehouse "compromise"

http://www.advocate.com/printArticle.aspx?id=114445

"Discussions around what that repeal measure would include were ongoing as Levin continued to lobby his colleagues. But a couple concessions designed to pacify Gates were being considered: allowing the Pentagon to complete its study before implementation proceeded and potentially requiring a stamp of approval (e.g. a certification letter) from military leadership and/or the president.

But by the time repeal advocates were invited to the White House on Monday morning to be briefed on a new compromise, a third concession had been added. There would be no nondiscrimination mandate. In other words, even after the law is repealed, it will not be replaced at any point with a policy that explicitly states gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military.

It’s not clear exactly when or why that provision was added, but now that all three concessions are included in the compromise, in my eyes, it’s the most problematic. Some activists are understandably concerned that the first two concessions give the Pentagon virtually unfettered control over timing that could lead to a lot of foot-dragging. But at the very least, a nondiscrimination mandate would have guaranteed the outcome. With the current proposal, we not only have no idea when we’ll arrive, we don’t even know what the destination is...."

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Nothing, but it would have to be an incredibly ractionary President to do that

Assuming Obama gets a second term gays will have been serving openly for 6 years and it will be commonplace in the military. The President would then have to discharge every gay person from the military in order to re-institute the policy and at that point the Pentagon won't want to lose the personnel and it will become a national security issue.

[grantcart]

14. An official repeal would take effect after the military has finalized its study on

implementation.

Until then a suspension of prosecutions.


Atleast that is what I understand.

[ruggerson]

17. I think the OP's point is that the pending legislation merely repeals DADT

so we're back to square one. In the absence of further legislation specifically banning discrimination (which looks unlikely to occur), gays serving in the military would then be at the discretion of whomever happens to be CIC.

[Clio the Leo]

15. Wouldn't the proverbial genie be out of the bottle then?

I cant imagine a Republican purposefully SHRINKING an already under-manned force because of a social issue.

But stranger things have happened.

[KingFlorez]

16. Legally, there is nothing that would stop that, but it's not at all likely to happen

Once the issue is settled, it has to stay like that, the military cannot be thrown towards potential instability by kicking people out.