What are Kerry's views on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and possibly overturning it?

[beachmom]

This is ridiculous:

http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=2&record=4922

Openly Gay Army Sergeant Discharged Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Decorated Army Sergeant Darren Manzella has been discharged under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans from military service, effective June 10. The Iraq war veteran was one of the first openly gay active duty service members to speak with the media while serving inside a war zone. In December 2007, Manzella was profiled by the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes. He told correspondent Lesley Stahl that he served openly during much of his time in the Army, with the full support of his colleagues and command.

...

Manzella, 30, enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2002 and was twice deployed to the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While under fire on the streets of Baghdad, he provided medical care to his fellow soldiers, Iraqi National Guardsmen and civilians. He was awarded the Combat Medical Badge, and also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.

[TayTay]

1. Sigh! Long history on that.

I can't repost this, cuz I can't. But damn it, give this website a look for some history.
http://georgeindenver.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/dont-ask-dont-tell-general-peter-pace-comfortable-in-the-shadow-of-strom-thurmond/

(Mothah ra Gawd!)

This is what Sen. Kerry said on the floor of the Senate back in 1993, when this issue was debated.

GAYS IN THE MILITARY (Senate - January 27, 1993)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the last 24 hours, there has been a fair amount of discussion in the national media and here on the floor on the issue of the President's possible Executive order lifting the ban on gays in the military .

I am sure that there is unanimity in the U.S. Senate that the first order of priority for the Senate right now and for the country is to be talking about the economic priorities of the Nation. I am confident that every one of us would agree that there are a multitude of issues facing our country that are more urgent than the question of whether or not gays and lesbians ought to be allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces of the United States. But the issue is here. It is being debated in households across the country. It is certainly of paramount interest within the military itself, and we are going to have to confront this issue over the course of the next months.

I was pleased that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn, has pledged to hold hearings and to go through a process where we can educate and analyze, and do so, hopefully, without the sense of panic or hysteria that seems to be attaching itself to much of the debate. But whether we delay for the hearings or whether the President decides to go ahead now with an Executive order, the issue is here and I do not think any of us should shrink from debating the issue and ultimately from voting on it.

I do hope, though, that we are going to do so in all of our discussions without losing sight of one of the great goals of the campaign, expressed on all sides, which was to heal the country, to get over the divisions that have kept us from really moving forward and addressing some of the most seriously felt needs of our Nation. I hope that this debate will, in fact, seek to heal and not exacerbate the divisions of the country.

I approach this issue with considerable sensitivity to both sides of the argument, having served in the Armed Forces for 4 years on active duty and having seen combat and having tried to give fair consideration and thought both to the objections and reservations as well as to the strong arguments we have heard about why we ought to move forward.

So let me begin with as clear an articulation as I can make of what I think is the issue.

The issue of discrimination against gays in the military is not before us and is not important because the President made a pledge during the election campaign. It is not important because of who promised to consult whom prior to taking action, although clearly, consultation and education are needed. It is not important because of what it says or does not say about a particular lifestyle. It is important because it involves a fundamental question of right versus wrong.

The President is not seeking to endorse a lifestyle or to embrace an agenda of social change with which many in the country might disagree. The President is seeking to lead, as he ought to lead, in ending discrimination, in keeping full faith in this country between the American people, its elected leadership, and the constitutional promises of this Nation. That is what this issue is.

Mr. President, when you stop and analyze this issue, after you say, all right, I concede there may be problems, there are perceptions that we have to get over, there are years and years of inculcated tradition and of belief around which the current military is built. We all know that. That is true. That does present us with a certain set of problems.

But against that you have to measure what those problems really represent once you have acknowledged them: Why is there a problem? There is a problem because many people view gays with scorn or derision or fear. There is a problem because when people look at gays or lesbians, they find a lifestyle which they may abhor, cannot understand, do not want to understand, and believe they should not have to understand, and so do not.

The result is that we find ourselves put in the position of either embracing or rejecting what is a fundamental form of discrimination--a dislike of someone or something else because it does not conform to our sense of how we want to be or how we think everybody ought to be.

That is not what this country is supposed to be about. Whether it is a matter of skin color or religion, that is not who we are. And it is also not who we are with respect to matters of sexual preference.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time going into or discussing why someone is or is not gay . I am no expert on that. I can only suggest that the vast majority of people to whom I have talked who are gay do not view it as a matter of choice. They are born with that choice already part of their constitution. And for many, there is a lifetime of agony in trying to face up to the realities of who they are as a human being, as a person. And those agonies can drive some to suicide. They drive some to live a life of lies and running away. Others embrace it more readily and more capably.

We are supposed to be a society that does not drive people to run away from themselves or from their history or who they are. We are supposed to be a society which allows human beings to live to the fullest capacity of who they may want to be or who they are, defined by themselves, as long as they do not break the law, break the rules, intrude on other people.

Now, that is conduct, and conduct is what should matter in making judgments about what should or should not be allowed within the military . Status, the actual fact of being gay , and only being gay without attendant conduct that might offend somebody, cannot be sufficient in the United States of America to disallow somebody the choice, if they are qualified in every other regard, of serving their Nation.

Now, if we were to adopt a policy in this country that were to codify discrimination of this form, I think we would turn our backs on a number of different things, Mr. President, not the least of which is reality. Is there anyone in the Senate, or in this country, or in the Pentagon particularly, who believes that none of the 58,000 heroes listed on the wall in front of the Lincoln Memorial was gay ? I have never heard anybody, nor do I believe anybody could, make that assertion. Is there anyone who believes that there are not hundreds, perhaps even thousands of individuals who were gay who are buried beneath the white crosses at Arlington?

Is there anyone who does not believe that there are thousands of gays and lesbians in the military at this minute? Eleven thousand of them over the last few years have admitted it, voluntarily or not and they were drummed out.

We can be assured that there are surely thousands more who are scared to admit, who are forced by our policy to live a lie. They go about their business. They defend their country. They defend our freedoms. They defend the Constitution because they believe in what we, as a nation, stand for.

The question is not whether we should have gays in the military , because we have gays in the military . Gays have fought in the Revolution, in the Civil War, in both World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Persian Gulf, and they fought, Mr. President, and they died not as gays or lesbians, but as Americans.

So the question is whether we as a country should continue to treat a whole group of people as second-class citizens? Is it appropriate to codify a lie, to pretend that there are no gays in the military ? Is it right to continue a policy that says to this group of Americans you are somehow not part of America, not entitled to help defend America, not someone whom we are willing to openly associate with in the military , even though every day in the workplace, every day in schools and colleges across America, we have learned to live and work together?

Mr. President, to codify discrimination in the military alone is

not worthy of America. These are people who want to serve our country. They want to risk their lives and we respond instead by treating them like criminals, requiring them to hide from the fundamental part of their own identities not asked for but God given, forcing them into lives of secrecy and needless and senseless fear.

It is this simple, Mr. President. Lifting the ban on gays in the military is simply one of those things that we have to do if we are going to continue to make progress toward becoming a more just and honorable society, not because we embrace or like the life style, but because that is the right thing to do in a diverse, pluralistic society. To do less would be to institutionalize and legitimize homophobia. It would be to separate our Armed Forces in an artificial and false way from the very Nation that they are charged with defending. To do less would be to abandon tolerance, and to ratify intolerance as a guiding principle of national policy. It would be to be forever unfaithful, literally semper infidelis, to what this country is all about.

Lifting the ban on gays , I will admit, is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable. I think we have to be honest about this. There is not any question, based on my military experience, from the entire psychology of the military experience itself, to the training, to the culture, that there are going to be difficulties. And, therefore, the President and all of us ought to listen carefully and he sensitive to how we educate and how we deal with getting over those difficulties.

There are folks inside and outside the military who, as I said earlier, view gay people, men and women, with either scorn, pity, fear, or bewilderment. There are legitimate issues of privacy and cohesiveness that need to be though out and need to be talked about. Change is difficult. There will have to be adjustments and willingness to give and to take on all sides. There may even be, I would suggest, some kinds of special duty or missions that may require exceptions to general rules.

We must remember that, in many ways, the military is already an institution that discriminates in ways that we allow because of the nature of missions, either by height, weight, size, or dexterity. There are countless different things that people can or cannot do within the context of the military . But it seems to me that the fundamental principle is clear. There is a place somewhere within the Armed Forces for every qualified American, and no American should be disqualified on the basis of race, creed, sex, orientation, or other things that we protect under the antidiscrimination laws of the Nation.

I think we should also not forget that the very same arguments that we are hearing with respect to someone who is gay are the arguments that we heard with respect to the military during the time of desegregation. We heard them for decades previously. The same rationales we used to bar African-Americans from full participation in the armed services until President Harry Truman summoned the courage and withstood the political heat, are the same arguments we hear today.

At that time, blacks within the military were segregated, given lousy duty, put in separate units, given separate assignments, and left to fight, die, and sacrifice alone. Serious arguments were made at that time that desegregating the military would destroy morale and reduce military effectiveness. We were told that people did not want to share barracks with black soldiers, they did not want to share the showers with black soldiers, they did not want to share a foxhole with a black soldier. We were told that forced integration might destroy the military .

Guess what? The military today, perhaps more than any other institution in our country, is a demonstration of what Americans from diverse backgrounds can accomplish precisely when they forget skin color and religious and ethnic differences and concentrate on getting an important job done. That same kind of healing process could occur with the proper leadership and the proper effort if we let it, with all others in the military , too.

I understand and I agree that it does matter that people are uncomfortable with the idea of gays in the military . But I say idea because the reality already exists. And it is the idea of individuals who have admitted their sexual orientation that gives people trouble. We cannot ignore that.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have a right to be concerned about how to implement it. But I submit for the remedy we should turn not to capitulation; we should turn to education. We should turn to the same kind of effort that we employed when we desegregated the military .

The discomfort underscores that we have to go forward with care. It means that President Clinton is right to be sitting down with the Joint Chiefs, and he is right to be discussing this issue with General Powell and others. It means that we may have to go somewhat slowly in implementing the policy. But the bottom line is, we cannot run a military by catering to the insecurities and fears of some of its personnel.

We need to demonstrate from the Commander in Chief on down that we are willing to make a commitment to what is right, to explain clearly why it is right, and to stand by that decision no matter what the short-term political consequences may be. That is how we win respect as people, and that is how we win respect as a nation, and that is how we accomplish change. That is how we can move this country forward, and ultimately how we will bring all of us closer together and end the fear and threat of discrimination in this country.

Mr. President, we have to remember that when it comes to military discipline what counts is what people do, not who people are. Some of the arguments in favor of the current policy imply that the day the ban is lifted all restraints on behavior will somehow go out the window. I submit that that is nonsense. Lifting the ban does not give anyone, and should not give anyone--I hope the process of articulation as we go through these next months will make it clear--it gives no one the license to act in a way that would either be unprofessional or disruptive. And clearly sexual misconduct, harassment, or other disruptive behavior, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual would not be tolerated. All rules would and should be enforced.

I listened to my colleague from Georgia ask a lot of questions about how these relationships would play out. They are legitimate questions. But I would submit there are also legitimate answers to these questions. No one is seeking to force upon the military a special code of social change that is somehow a part of the larger agenda of social change in the country. No one is saying that there should be a life-style transition as a consequence of this. This is merely an effort to enable people to not be discriminated against because of who they are.

But those people would be required to adhere to the same code of conduct, same standards of behavior, and indeed, might even help strengthen some of those standards and understandings with respect to the rest of the military service. Whatever standards of military discipline are in place today, they can remain. Only the double standards would go. Conduct, not status, would determine eligibility for military service.

Now some say, well, we cannot have an effective military service if we allow gay people to serve openly in the Armed Forces. I ask, why not? Other countries have proven that they can do it. Israel is renowned for the strength and effectiveness of its Armed Forces but does not discriminate. Most of the European armies do not discriminate. Americans train with NATO forces from countries that do not discriminate. I wonder whether we are so timid or so driven by insecurity and intolerance, and even so immature as a society that we cannot function in the presence of individuals different in some respect from ourselves.

Mr. President, the General Accounting Office reported last year that the Defense Department spends $27 million a year training, discharging, and replacing gay and lesbian service members. Who are these people that we have so blithely cast aside? I am told some of them are individuals who told the military before the Persian Gulf war that they were gay , but they were nevertheless ordered to the gulf to help fight the war, and then subjected to discharge proceedings only upon their return, suggesting that they were good enough to serve in time of war, but not good enough to serve in time of peace.

Many of the 11,000 men and women who have been cashiered from the military for being gay have long since proven their value to service and country. Many won medals for bravery. Many were well-regarded officers and highly skilled pilots. Nobody has been able to make the case that they are, as a class or group of people less courageous, less loyal, less patriotic, less worthy to serve our Nation. I think that the discharge of these people has been an immense waste of our talent, resources, and our time.

Mr. President, there was a political cartoon not long ago that showed a starving Somali woman clutching her two stick-thin babies, being approached by an American marine bearing a gift of food. In the cartoon, the woman tells the marine: `Hold it right there. Before you take another step, tell me, are you gay ?'

Mr. President, we must not allow the exaggerated fears that this issue has generated to divert our attention from the need to maintain a strong and a versatile military force, nor from the long list of domestic priorities which have to be addressed, and I might add addressed soon.

The fact is that there has been a lot more commotion about this controversy than the substance of it truly warrants. Trust me, if the ban on gays were lifted tomorrow, and it will not necessary be, I suspect, but if it were, the Sun is still going to come up, our aircraft carriers will remain afloat, and we will continue to have the force and presence that we now have around the world. The difference is that we would be conducting ourselves in a way that does not defy the very principles that we try to put into place in a host of other walks of our society, and that is at the center of our Constitution, and at the center of the service of so many who have preceded us, who have died in uniform so that others will not be discriminated against.

I hope that over the course of the next months we will think carefully and quietly and sensibly about this issue. That we will examine the realities of it and we will not allow ourselves to be stampeded, not allow ourselves to be cowed, not allow ourselves to be pushed away from what is right.

The President of the United States is showing what I think the American people have asked for. It is called leadership. It is not always popular. It is hard to be ahead of some of the country with respect to perceptions or feelings, but that does not mean he is wrong. On this issue, I believe the President is trying to do what Presidents before him have tried to do. What our Constitution tries to do, what our forefathers tried to do: Create a country in which people can live without being cast aside because of who they might be or how they were born.

That hearing though must have been an event to remember. Geesh!