Serious question: Why does dropping DADT require planning and study?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The policy does not do anything necessary.

What on Earth would need to be done differently? Just drop the policy and nothing changes except the policy isn't there anymore.

It's not like a complicated change-over to new software or a new generation of tank or something.

Just drop it.

What am I missing? Does the DADT regime perform some needed/worthwhile peripheral function that has to be retained?

It's puzzling to me.

[Deep13]

1. Biden addressed that on his interview with Maddow.

It doesn't.

[rainy]

2. Obama wants the glory for ending it and the ruling

stole his thunder. That is all.

[Angry Dragon]

3. When idiots gather they run around in circles

[Chipper Chat]

4. Because John McCain threw a tantrum.

And continues to press the 'unit cohesion' thingie.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. segregated barracks will insure unit cohesion, I guess

[awoke_in_2003]

64. he is the last person...

to speak of unit cohesion- he sang like a canary, according to a lot of people who were locked up with him.

[uppityperson]

5. k&r for a good question

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. It requires some training

The military will have to make crystal what this new way of life means. It might also require (it does in fact) the full rewrite of art. 135. If this is not rewritten it goes back to the ante, which meant jail time for gay troops before discharge. That is what it means when they say planning.

You asked an honest question, this is the cliff notes of what they need to do regardless how it is repealed. Read the filing, DOJ is saying we want to get rid of this, and yes they're already working on that rewrite, so to me it looks motions and yes preparation.

Honest question have you ever served in a military or para-military organization? If you have think back to all those rules and regulations that don't apply on the outside.

[msanthrope]

12. Jeebus, I'd forgotten art. 135 (or 125?)...

Does Phillips' order mean that DADT is over, but article 135 applies?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Bingo

[TheWraith]

35. It's 125, & it depends on whether you interpret Article 125 as being affected by Lawrence vs. Texas.

Lawrence vs. Texas ruled sodomy laws in the US unconstitutional in 2003. However, traditionally civilian courts have given the military broad leeway to enforce laws that would otherwise be unconstitutional for the sake of "discipline." Article 125 hasn't been tested yet in court following Lawrence vs. Texas as far as I'm aware, so it's an open question whether the court would hold that it had been overturned or that the military had the right to enforce it.

[msanthrope]

37. Well. if you look at Cook v Gates, which gave deference

Post-lawrence, I'm not sure what would happen. Perhaps the loss of liberty would cause the court to reject the article in its entirety. The article is clearly born of animus.

[jberryhill]

39. 125 is not specific to homosexuals /nt

[Touchdown]

56. What about bisexuals then?

Transgender?
Questioning?
Intersexed?

In other words... "Homosexual"? Are you from the early 60s?
Why type a 10 letter word when a 3 letter one does the job?
Do you have a special affinity for the 10 letter word we should know about?

[jberryhill]

65. It applies to heterosexual conduct as well

I don't understand the point of your questions.

Put bluntly, a blowjob is a blowjob whether it is a gay one or a straight one. There is no sexual orientation which has a monopoly on any particular sexual behavior.

Article 125 addresses conduct which is not specific to any sexual orientation.

[Touchdown]

68. The point...

Homosexual is a clinical term invented by the psychiatric profession when it was considered a mental disorder, and electroshocked any "sufferer".

Homosexual was used in the 50s and 60s in red baiting and immorality crusades. See the film "Perversion for Profit" on You Tube.

Homosexual is used as an epithet by the religious right almost exclusively to any other term to describe us... Phelps' nutbags excepted. It is usually used in the same sentence as Pedophile.

Homosexual is used in the Military still as a mental disorder and sexual predator.

In all cases it holds a negative connotation at least, and a pejorative usually. Gay, on the other hand only has a bunch of kids walking around saying it and not knowing what it means. No real negative connotations otherwise.

Personally, I bristle when I see someone use 'Homosexual', and wonder about their motives when they used it. Sounds paranoid, but it is a buzzword and a dog whistle to me.:hi:

[jberryhill]

73. Then you must really be upset with the court decision striking down DADT

Have you read the decision?

Here are some quotes:

"Accordingly, the Crittenden Report is not evidence that discharge of
homosexual servicemembers significantly furthers government interests in
military readiness or troop cohesion, or that discharge is necessary to those
interests. The Report, in fact, is silent on those interests.
It did conclude, however, that assumptions that homosexuals present
security risks and are unfit for military service are not well-supported by
evidence. The Report also generally found homosexuals to be no more or
less likely to be qualified to serve in the Armed Forces than heterosexuals
according to a number of measures."

"The PERSEREC Report generally dismisses traditional objections to
service by homosexuals in the military as abstract, intangible, and traditionbound.
The Report cites no evidence that homosexual servicemembers
adversely affect military readiness or unit cohesion. The Report discusses
unit cohesion, but only to state that empirical research on the effect of
homosexual servicemembers on unit cohesion is important and necessary in
the future; it points to no existing empirical data. In general, the Report
suggests the military begin a transition towards acceptance of homosexual
servicemembers."

"Thus, the evidence at trial demonstrated that the Act does not further
significantly the Government's important interests in military readiness or unit
cohesion, nor is it necessary to further those interests. Defendants'
discharge of homosexual servicemembers pursuant to the Act not only has
declined precipitously since the United States began combat in Afghanistan
in 2001, but Defendants also delay individual enforcement of the Act while a
servicemember is deployed in a combat zone. If the presence of a
homosexual soldier in the Armed Forces were a threat to military readiness
or unit cohesion, it surely follows that in times of war it would be more urgent,
not less, to discharge him or her, and to do so with dispatch."

And the Conclusion:

"The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act infringes the fundamental rights of United
States servicemembers in many ways, some described above. The Act
denies homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces the right to enjoy "intimate
conduct" in their personal relationships."



I guess that judge's decision was one giant dog whistle to you, since the word "homosexual" appears on dang near every page of it.

So, let me make sure I am clear. You are upset with the judge's decision overturning DADT, because the judge consistently uses the word "homosexual" to identify the persons against whom DADT is discriminatory.

Would that be a correct assessment at your disagreement with the judge's ruling?

[Touchdown]

74. Are you a judge? Are you an attorney?

Do you use US court system legal language when you post on message boards?

If yes, then I'll get over you using it.

[jberryhill]

77. Yes, I am an attorney

And yes I tend to use legally accurate language

[TheWraith]

60. True, but not really relevant for two reasons.

One, the Lawrence vs. Texas decision overturned laws that applied both just to gay men and laws applying to everyone.

Secondly, while 125 doesn't specifically talk about gay people, gay people can't have sex without violating it, whereas straight people can. So while chances are 99% of straight military personnel have also violated 125 in one or more ways, it's almost impossible to prove. Thus, it's disproportionately enforced on gay people.

[jberryhill]

66. That's a worthwhile point

However Lawrence v. Texas is not directly relevant to the UCMJ.

One cannot have a law requiring people to wear a uniform, either, but you certainly can have a UCMJ provision to that effect.

Whether a person is gay or straight on the one hand; and whether that gay or straight person is engaging in sexual conduct of any kind, on the other hand; are not directly related questions.

In order to end the ban on being openly gay in the military, it is not a precedent necessity to do anything about Article 125. Yes, Article 125 will remain a problem to be addressed, but under the current circumstances the ban is on having a person in the military who says "I am gay." It does not logically follow from saying either "I am gay" or "I am straight" that such person is having sex of any kind with anybody.

[TheWraith]

76. Hence the uncertainty.

However, the fact is that I don't think those two things are disassociated. In fact, I suspect that allowing gay troops to serve but not allowing them to have sex would present an even more clear cut target for the courts, since there is no "discipline" value associated with celibacy.

[jberryhill]

78. Yes, but...

Maybe it's just me, but I do not automatically assume that someone who says "I am gay" or "I am straight" is necessarily engaging in sex with anyone at all.

If you think about what would be required to prove it, then while a problem, it is not an immediate problem to phasing out DADT.

Again, my perhaps uninformed assumption is that sex of any kind, gay or straight, is not permitted in barracks, ships and other facilities.

[TheWraith]

79. Sex most definitely occurs on US military bases.

There's no way to stop that even if anyone was foolish enough to seriously try. They sell condoms and birth control pills in the PX these days. While people caught screwing in barracks or on board ship could technically be subject to non-judicial punishment (loss of pay, cleanup duty, barracks restriction etcetera), that doesn't appear to stop anyone.

Nevertheless, whether it's permitted on base isn't really relevant, as Article 125 applies off-base as well. Having a military law that requires gay people to be celibate everywhere without requiring the same of straight people would constitute a pretty straightforward violation of the Equal Protection Clause. And since celibacy is clearly not a requirement of military service, as shown by the straight people, I see no real reason for a court to defer on ruling it as such.

[jberryhill]

80. It is still not a pre-requisite for ending DADT

The point above is that revising 125 is somehow a necessary pre-requisite to ending DADT.

I agree that 125 needs revision. I do not agree that it must be revised prior to ending DADT. There is no reason why anyone's CO is going to know, in the ordinary course, who is having sex with whom off base. Even cohabitation, for example, is not conclusive evidence that sex is going on.

[TheWraith]

83. I believe 125 and DADT are inextricably linked.

You don't need to prove sex. You simply need to prove that there's differentiated standards for gay versus straight troops, which is self evident. If DADT gets removed without 125 also being repealed or annulled as part of the same action, then a court case specifically against 125 on equal protection grounds will be hot on it's heels.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. I appreciate that

What strikes me as odd here is that the rules and cultural/educational changes are not nessecary to *non-enforcement*

There is no apparant down-side to stopping enforcement first, rather than last.

That's where it hangs me up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Find that article

The military went back to the joy times of 1992.

It meant jail time.

They're rewriting and again read the filing. Translate it, we really want to get rid of this dog, but... It is that pesky article.

[dionysus]

48. if they stopped enforcing it, and people were out, then started enforcing it again, it could screw

pretty bad, perhaps.

[jberryhill]

81. To what extent, if any, is it used against heterosexuals?

I can't believe there are no heterosexuals in the military engaging in oral sex.

[Radical Activist]

18. There will need to be new rules that protect LGBT service members

from undue harassment and discrimination. I don't think that should take two years, but it's important.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. That it will

First step... Rewrite that pesky article.

[TheWraith]

36. That's particularly an issue when dealing with mid and upper level career officers.

Who are the most likely to be a problem, being that on average they skew older, more conservative, and more traditionalist than the younger front-line grunts. If a lance corporal in the Marines goes off and starts verbally abusing a gay soldier, their CO comes by and gives the offender KP duty. You can't do that with a Colonel or a General, so there needs to be a more effective enforcement chain available.

[emulatorloo]

23. Interesting - thnks for writing that. n/t

[joeybee12]

46. They're working on that rewrite!!?

Stop, that's just too funny...the bending over backwards and stupidity!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. So you rather have gay service members

Go to an article 32, that is a court martial, serve time in jail and receive a dishonorable.

I'd rather they rewrite the article at hand.

[msanthrope]

8. There's a very good legal reason for planning and study--specifically, the surveys.

Within the DADT statute, you have a 'finding' of Congress, that gays are inimical to unit cohesion.

Thus, you have a 'legitimate' purpose to the law. This 'legitimacy' invokes judicial deference.*** Congress, under Article 1 Section 8, can and does decide the terms of service.

This finding came after hearings, studies, and the testimony of many military men as to the 'truth' that gays would be bad for morale and unit cohesion.

So you have this presumption, enshrined in law.

What do you do to get rid of it AND survive judicial scrutiny?

You overturn those 'findings.' And when you do that--when you can match the evidence of the DADT finding, thus proving the animus of the original law, and proving that gays are NOT bad for unit cohesion....then you can repeal, and gain judicial deference.

this is a very logical and well-thought out legal strategy that is not quick, and is frustrating. But it is one that has the best shot of surviving SCOTUS.


***See Cook v. Gates

[damntexdem]

9. Because 'planning and study' is an old, reliable tactic for those who know they're losing.

Stall and stall, and maybe they won't lose; but even if they do, they keep the old policy alive as long as they can.

[Chipper Chat]

10. Because Madverick John McCain threw a hissy-fit

and continues to press that 'unit cohesion' thingie.
(He has butt-buddies at the Pentagon)

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Well, there are 1.3 million Americans on active duty...

1.1 million in the National Guard and Reserve Forces.

New regulations considering sexual harassment must be written and promulgated to all units.

All commands must be informed of and trained on how they will deal with UCMJ Article 125 until the Congress gets around to changing that Article. That means contacting and training every military legal department and legal officer. DADT was written to circumvent that military law.

Then they have to educate and train 2.4 million people on the new regulations, and hold sensitivity training.

The military doesn't stop on a dime.

That is why time is needed. Because it is a monstrous bureaucracy with enormous inertia and changing direction is difficult.

The question is, should that matter? Different people will have different opinions.

[Love Bug]

28. As a woman who was in the Navy in the mid-70s

I don't understand why the regulations have to be changed first. Women were serving in the Armed forces long before anti-discrimination regs were written and anyone knew what sensitivity training was. That all came years later in the 70s when more and more women started enlisting. Yet we were there since the early part of the 20th Century. I agree that the steps you've listed have to happen, but I think it's just stalling for the military to claim for the first time I know of that it all has to be carefully thought out and planned FIRST, as if there are no gays currently serving. I remember the sentitivity training I had 35 years ago for understanding and working with minorities -- can't they just add the term "gay" to the list for a start?

I'll tell you what the real problem is: it's getting the male officers and senior non-coms on board. They don't want to be nice to, command, or God forbid, report to someone they know is gay, just as they used to resist (and some probably still do) working alongside women. Their "manhood" is threatened by not being able to freely set themselves above 'dames' and 'queers.'

[Ozymanithrax]

33. Being a woman was not an offense that could get your courtmartialed.

I was in the navy from 70-95, I remember the race riots on the Kitty Hawk and the Constellation. Most people think that Truman desegregated the U.S. Military in 1948 with Executive Order 9981. The military remained segregated fully until 1953, when deaths in the Korean War was so high that the Army and Marines had no choice but to fully integrate blacks into combat units. But Segregation remained in the services until the Congress banned it after the race riots I mentioned above. Now, it wasn't against the law for blacks to serve in the military, they were just limited on what they could do, as they were outside the military. Desegregating the military really took 25 years and riots were necessary.

And I remember the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal">Tailhook Scandal, which shows that in spite of sensitivity training and regulations, women were not equal in the Navy or the military. Only in this decade have women moved onto Naval ships, into some combat units, and into fighter planes. It took 50 years for women to be recognized as mostly equal in the branches of the service, and it was never against regulations to be a woman.

The military can look at history and see how difficult big changes like this are. The only way to reduce the problems that will arise is to spend a little time in preparation.

For isntance, if DADT is declared as unconstitutional, then commands could charge openly gay men and women under Article 125, which is what they did before DADT.

The question as I see it, is that enough reason to slow things down? People will have different opinions.

[jberryhill]

38. What does article 125 have to do with anything?

Art. 125 is not specific to homosexuals.

I continue to be amazed at the notion that there are sexual behaviors which are somehow unique to homosexuality.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. Any person...who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same sex.

Here is a link: read it (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm)

Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Copulation with a member of the same sex is illegal under the UCMJ. DADT, circumvented this law by setting up a system where, as long as gay members of the military did not admit being gay and violating article 125, they could serve. DADT also, stopped investigation into the bedroom activities of military members. They would not ask you, and you were not to tell them. It never changed Article 125, so if DADT is repealed or found unconstitutional, any command could charge members under Article 125 and send them to jail.

Among other things, this is what the military has to change and promulgate throughout the armed forces.

One Note: Lawrence v. Texas does not at this time apply Federal militar law, but it probably would be used by a court to rule that Article 125 is Unconstitutional. Until such a case goes to court, or Article 125 is changed, it remains on the books.

[jberryhill]

51. It says "same or opposite sex"

News flash - heterosexuals engage in oral and anal sex.

[Ozymanithrax]

52. Exactly, and those can and, occassionally, have be prosecuted

within the military justice system.

Until DADT was passed in 193, this article was used to convict and send gay military men to jail.

[jberryhill]

53. Right, but it can equally be used to prosecute straight military members

I am not, in particular, familiar with the general regulation of sexual conduct within the military.

Can you enlighten me as to the conditions under which military enlistees and officers may or may not engage in sexual conduct with other military enlistees and officers?

I had been under the impression, due to a dimly-remembered case of Pentagon sexual harassment, that it is improper for military personnel to engage in ANY sexual conduct with personnel of lower rank, for example.

However, the regulation of sexual conduct is a separate question from banning or discharging members on the basis of orientation.

It is the same question that always puzzled me in connection with gay Catholic priests. No priest, whether straight or gay, is supposed to be having sex with anyone in the first place, so if the objection is based on proscribed conduct, then there should be no objection to a gay priest otherwise in conformance with his vow of chastity.

[Ozymanithrax]

54. Article 125 is not about fraternizaiton...it is about sodomy

Article 125—Sodomy
Text.

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient
to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Before DADT, Article 125 was used to courtmartial gay members of the military. It can also be used against heterosexual members, and on rare occasions was used that way. They usually sent people to jail for some short period of time and then gave them a Dishonorable Discharge from the military. Before DADT, military men and women discovered to be gay were courtmatialed and sent to jail.

Article 134 - Fraternization is the article forbidding officers and enlisted being involved in sexual relations. But it has noting to do with DADT.

I'm not catholic, but I see no problem with gay or heterosexual priests, it is the pedophiles in the priesthood that were the real problem. What they should do is revoke the decision made at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139 where priests were required to be celibate. It won't get rid of the problem completely, because there will always be predators that seek positions of power from which to prey upon others.

[jberryhill]

67. I get that, but gay folks don't have a monopoly on sodomy /nt

[treestar]

70. You are on target

Anyone who has dealt with any government bureaucracy knows this. To anyone who hasn't, things look simple. The government, moreover, has the further drag of having to follow procedures and laws - the top just can't order everyone to do a thing - the rules and regulations are subjected to reviews and these procedures are all written out.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. The best explanation for the review- implied or explicit- that I've been able to figure out

is not whether DADT is necessary or desirable but rather trying to figure out how best to integrate (openly) gay and lesbian service members into the general population and, more importantly, ensure their protection from resistant (read: homophobic) service members. I think that the military has come to the inescapable conclusion that the days of DADT are numbered and the administration and the military are trying to be proactive in anticipating potential problems and addressing them before DADT is officially repealed. Seems to me to be a reasonable (and necessary) step in the process. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

21. Yep.

[EFerrari]

25. But the military already has regs for sexual harrassment, discrimination

and assault. :shrug:

/oops

[msanthrope]

29. True--but where are the regs about benefits, dependents, and housing for partners?

Where are the regs about what military chaplains are able to advocate?

And who is to say that the services won't need re-training about the regs you listed----

Yes, some soldiers will have to be trained not to call others 'fags,' or worse....

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. True

but gays and lesbians have never been able to serve openly at any point in time in our nation's history AFAIK. The concept may not seem strange or controversial to those of here at DU, however knowing as we do that many service members, including members of the military leadership, are conservative (if not FUNDAMENTALIST conservative), it would seem to me that allowing gay and lesbian service members to FINALLY be able to serve openly will require some revision to current regulations, as well as some re-training of the military "culture" for those individuals for whom this will be a significant change. I'm not saying that we (nor anybody else) should have to *respect* people's prejudices but it cannot be simply ignored either. It seems prudent for the administration have been doing some groundwork-laying here. Foisting a change on an institution with deeply ingrained prejudices and just telling them to "stuff it" is not only NOT a good idea in general but could prove dangerous for gay and lesbian service members.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. So military leadership are no longer able to give an order

and expect that it will be followed? Does this lack of discipline make us less safe in general? You claim the troops just do whatever they wish, orders and regulations don't really matter anymore?
I thought disobeying an order was in itself an offense in the military. I guess now they are able to pick and choose their commands?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. And a pesky article that mandates jail time

That needs a major rewrite.

[fifthoffive]

16. Study???

Why would getting rid of a serious violation of basic civil rights require study?

Planning???

The only planning required should be how to deal with the f-wits that can't handle the change.

[bemildred]

19. It's a stalling tactic.

If they stall, they don't want to do it, and don't want to admit that.
If they pass it in the middle of the night in a voice vote, that's what they really want.

[Jamastiene]

44. Yup.

That does seem to be how they do things. You can always tell what they were really planning when you wake up and there is a new law that happened overnight.

[gkhouston]

22. "Planning" and "study": two synonyms for D-E-L-A-Y. Justice delayed... n/t

[ladjf]

24. I don't think it does. My assumption is that the politicos feel that

somewhere in the political formula, they deem that delaying the DADT showdown is to their advantage.

[kenny blankenship]

26. Where do you expect Obama to get his next excuse for dragging his ass?

He's got to make it look like someone else's idea.

[Iggo]

31. It's 19-dimensional chess, kenny!!!!!

Jeez!

[MineralMan]

27. Because the military is a huge entity, scattered all over the

planet. Before any change can take place in how it operates, there's a huge process of creating new regulations to replace the old ones. Then, those new regulations must be disseminated and all parties instructed on exactly what the procedures are for implementation. The military is supposed to be uniform in its regulations and in adherence to those regulations.

This is a major change in personnel policy for the military. Current regulations must be rescinded and new ones created, disseminated, learned, and implemented.

Only those who do not understand the complexity of organizations of the size of our military would think that such a change can be done without a great whopping lot of work.

I was once stationed at a remote USAF installation. We'd read about some change in USAF regulations in the military newspaper, but those changes would not occur at our installation for months afterwards. Before even the smallest thing could change, the proper documents had to be delivered, the staff had to be instructed in what those changes actually meant, and new orders had to be written for dissemination within the unit. That the change had occurred was known. Implementing it was another matter.

Without that detailed and long process, things can get incredibly SNAFUed in a very short time. And that applied to even small changes. Imagine what a major change like this one will involve. Hundreds of regulations must be rewritten, disseminated, and training materials studied. It's the only way such an organization can avoid chaos. It's just too large and too decentralized to operate in any other way.

[TheWraith]

34. There is actually one huge problem for the military in dropping DADT: spousal benefits.

So long as DOMA remains in effect, the military as an entity of the federal government is prohibited from providing spousal benefits to gay, married service personnel. That would in turn be a violation of the 14th amendment since they would not be receiving equal protection of the law.

The only legal way around that for the military, absent a court case challenging DOMA on those grounds, would be to extend spousal benefits to all unmarried domestic partners. This is somewhat the same thing that has been proposed for some immigration reform bills, to allow unmarried partners to sponsor their significant other for US citizenship without having to be married.

That, however, requires a set of standards to be drafted as to how one defines a pair of unmarried domestic partners, which is tricky to elaborate on without creating criteria that either is unproveably vague or impractically strict.

Besides that that, the other delay I could foresee would be creating a framework to handle disciplinary issues: asking themselves what can they do to reduce any friction, how to deal with superior officers who may oppose having gay troops, define criteria for identifying incidences of bias and eliminating them, etcetera, particularly when dealing with mid and upper level career officers who they can't put on KP duty.

All that said, I'm pretty confident in saying that 95% of the reason for the "study period" is to undermine the complaints of McCain and the others who gripe that it's being rushed.

[jberryhill]

40. "what can they do to reduce any friction"

[TheWraith]

61. I should have known someone was going to make that joke. nt

[Touchdown]

58. How long did it take you to write that?

I bet about as long as it would take to write up benefits rules for military personel and their same sex mates. They're already done. Just add same sex partners or something to the effect of Boyfriend, Male, One Each, and run the presses.

Your confidence in the "study" period on substantiative issues like what you brought up was dashed when Obama endorsed "Just How Icky Are Those Homos Anyway?" survey that also went to spouses for some ridiculous reason. That gives McCain ammo. All it takes is a public "Hey John! Shut The Fuck Up!" from The Prez and the old grouch will shuffle off.

[TheWraith]

62. Not quite. How do you define a non-married partner?

Living together? Not if one is on deployment. Having sex? How do you prove that without a bedroom monitor? Committed? How do you measure that? More to the point, how do you get input from all levels of the military, in all branches, toward designing a definition that doesn't unfairly exclude people? Also, how do you define fraudulent use of those benefits? How do you weed out some guy who registers his best friend as a domestic partner for the benefits?

I'm sure I could write up a quick definition, but the certainty that it would be a GOOD definition would be lacking.

Just telling the Republicans to give up has worked wonders so far on healthcare, cap and trade, stimulus, etcetera though. :P

[Touchdown]

63. How does Vermont, Washington, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc. do it?

The wheel doesn't have to be reinvented.

John McCain is no ordinary Repug. He's not used to being challenged, especially by THAT ONE who stole his job. He'll be speechless.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Well someone on another thread

said it was because indies were more important that the tiny gay minority who vote. Sickening to even read that here, but it sounds like it came from central casting.

[Jamastiene]

43. It was studied to death back in 1993.

Of course, nobody bothered to read the Rand Report, or any of the other evidence, back then and they passed the law anyhow.

I have several guesses I could throw out there:

Maybe the studies are to make sure the mailman and pet goldfish of a soldier from Wyoming will not be offended if he or she is serving in the same armed forces with another soldier who is gay...and openly says they are gay.

Either that, or it is to put it out of the limelight for the upcoming elections because our party leaders seem to think homophobes have THAT short of an attention span when it comes to gay people.

Kicking the can down the road.

Stalling.

One theory/prediction I have is the possibility/probability that they will do away with DADT but at the same time, find some other way to still discriminate against gay people. I have had a sneaking suspicion of that for a while now. It just looks probable to me. Their track record really sucks that bad on this issue. I would not be the least bit surprised.

I'm not sure what their reasoning here is either. It makes no sense. If they need evidence that it is possible to have openly gay soldiers, they should ask any of several countries in the world who already have openly gay people serving with no problems. Obviously, it is possible, but apparently they need to do slow, meticulous studies and surveys first. Why? I don't know.

[ruggerson]

45. You're not homophobic, so it doesn't make sense to you

It doesn't make any sense to me, either.

But from an institutionally homophobic point of view, there needs to be some kind of rationale and reason to suddenly move the ship of state in the opposite direction from where it has been headed for decades.

It gives them cover. Stupid surveys, immoral delays give them cover to say that times have evolved and we are ready to evolve as well, instead of fully acknowledging the deep seated prejudice and bigotry that has long been the official policy of our government.

That will come retroactively in about fifty years. Around the time Harvey Milk day becomes a national holiday.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Maybe there's a department of Gay-sniffers in the Pentagon?

And they need to be re-assigned? It might take time to retrain them.

I heard they were working on a high-speed, DIGITAL version of Gaydar.

[GA_ArmyVet]

50. To play devils advocate here

First, Please don't flame me, I agree with allowing all people the opportunity to serve if they want. But viewing the history of this policy I see some problems that have to be worked out.

1. It was illegal to be homosexual and serve prior to the implementation. In fact, the UCMJ, which is a part of US Criminal code makes it illegal to engage in sodomy which is defined as anything other than vaginal/penile intercourse. Oral and anal are criminal, and this applies to all sexual orientations.

2. Implementation of DADT was a work around that was designed to bypass the law since only congress can change the UCMJ.

3. DADT forbid criminal investigators (and recruiters and anyone else) from asking about a person sexual orientation as well as forbidding criminal investigations into consensual adult sexual misconduct (the DOD term for any sexual act that was illegal in the UCMJ.

4. Removal of DADT takes away the one safe guard and thus could potentially allow commanders to charge and investigate the Consensual Sexual Misconduct again.

So the reason I can see for a delay in implementation is how does the military deal with the contradiction. As investigators, if it is in the law as a crime and it is reported they have an obligation to investigate unless sort of exception or exemption is passed. It is in fact illegal for DOD personnel to ignore the our orders and laws passed by congress or we can be prosecuted as well for dereliction of duty. Now, I don't believe in this political goat-rope that aggressive pursuit of homosexuals is likely, it does not settle the contradiction of laws and policies which leads to uncertainty on how to proceed and worse it will lead to inequitable enforcement or implementation of policy.

The bottom line to me is that congress once again abdicated its responsibility to pass legislation to codify modern social mores which are tolerant of alternate sexual orientations.

Life would be much more simple if congress would actually do its job pass legislation to repeal laws that are no longer consistent with current values of the society.

For the record I do believe the military will accept homosexual soldiers, after all we all know for the most part anyway, I have had several lesbian soldiers who worked for me, and they were great. I know I probably had some men who were gay who worked for me as well but since I cant recall any that told me they were I can not be positive. The bottom line is the majority of soldiers don't care, but just like the rest of our american society, we have some rabid idiots who cant tolerate anyone who has different thoughts or believe than their own.

[Touchdown]

57. As a gay veteran, the issues you raised are not as sticky as you think.

The Pentagon has had ample time to address these issues. All it takes is to type them up and send them to Capital Hill.

1. Any soldier that hasn't gotten oral sex isn't a real soldier. This is never enforced. Having titty bars and cat houses right outside the front gates of every fort, port and camp just makes a mockery of it.

2. Right. The 80 year old ban will have to be repealed with it.

3. Again, sexual activity between men and women were never enforced. The puritanical code needs to be shitcanned none the less.

4. Not if the ban was repealed at the same time. Congress is smart enough that it was already in the bill the House passed and the Senate killed.

Now... All of these issues can be suspended immediately by executive order. Congress (at least the House) has not abdicated responsibility. The White House stepped in at the last minute and cut a deal so their wonderful DADT "Just How icky are those homos?" survey can go to the soldiers wives... and so Congress doesn't leave The Prez behind on the issue. He wants that credit, you know!

And it's gay. Homosexuals is a very military, clinical, right wing christian and staid term. The military's use of it is especially insulting to me, since I had to watch those films that told me I was a pervert who was going to corrupt young soldiers... when I was a young soldier. If you can learn to say "fuck" in every sentence, and call dress headgear "cu**caps", then you can say gay.

[GA_ArmyVet]

59. Thanks for the reply

1. I agree, the statute on Sodomy was not evenly enforced. However it was enforced on occasion when it suited the Commanders. If a straight soldier was unliked and there was proof of his "illicit activity" then he could be prosecuted. Several were prosecuted for sexual misconduct such as threesomes, and adultery, all of which were prohibited from investigation by DADT. It is rare but it did happen.

2. Right Agreed.

3. It was was, but usually to a lesser extent. I worked several of those investigations. A huge issues I had with investigating these cases (aside from thinking it was none of our business) was that they were selectively enforced. I have known gay soldiers (men and women) who were known to be gay by their command and were accepted, while others who were merely suspect but were not as well liked, were promptly run out of the army as some sort of sexual deviant. It was the DADT that subsequently prevented criminal investigators from even responding to allegations of "Adult consensual Sexual Misconduct". Without it,


4. Agreed and that what my point was, the law criminalizing certain adult consensual sexual acts needs to be repealed prior to removing DADT.

The problem with removing the ban via executive order is that it can be put right back in place with another order, and once you are out there is not putting that genie back in the bottle. So one a soldier is known to be gay, and the ban comes back by executive order, that soldier is screwed.

I purposefully used homosexual as it is the correct clinical term, akin to using the term cock and penis. It is easier if I am trying to encompass both Gays and Lesbians, which I was, since I am just too lazy to type both multiple times.

Thanks again for your polite reply.

[Touchdown]

55. It's necessary in order to make it a continuing carrot issue to GOTV.

Just like the Repugs and Abortion. If they ever ban abortion, their Xtian nutjobs will stop voting, so they never will (Jury is still out on teabaggers though). Obama is using that ruse on us. Then when The Repugs close in on the Seante ranks, he can blame them for stonewalling it's repeal, when he could've had it ended now before election day. But then he'd have to find some other issue that they gridlocked, which would be a small number... like into the thousands to choose from.

[MrScorpio]

69. Have you ever spent anytime being part of the World's Biggest Bureaucracy?

I have.

They plan and study EVERYTHING.

The Pentagon is full of over 20,000 people planning and studying all kinds of shit all night and day long.

It's like asking why the sky is blue.

[Touchdown]

71. Yes. I work for AT&T. What do you need to know.

Just keep in mind, I'm not the complaint Dept.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Make that Polling and Stalling and you have your answer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

75. Dealaying tactics.