Myths and facts about DADT

I think it is beyond time for us to have a real discussion about DADT both in 1993 and today.

First about 1993. In 1992, Bill Clinton was asked, at an MTV forum, if he favored the lifting of the ban on gays in the military. This was an issue due to gays coming out and getting thrown out of the military and other gays getting investigated by Ken Starr wannabes, and thrown out of the military. There was even a group of Arabic translators thrown out for being gay at the height of the Iraq war. Gays have always been in the military. Before 1981, gays were silently tolerated in the military if they weren't attempting to get out. In VietNam several people used homosexuality to not be drafted (Chevy Chase to name one). In the meantime other gays, even out ones, were signed up several times. Sgt Watkins served from 1968 until 1986 until he was thrown out due to answering yes to being gay on his reinlistment forms. He later sued and won the right to his pension but not the right to serve. By 1993, people who were serving in the lower ranks of the military were of the post Stonewall generation. They were much more likely to be out, than similarly aged people even 10 years before. Combined with the Reagan era witch hunts there was a mess. That is what lead to Clinton saying yes.

Fast forward to January of 1993. Clinton was asked almost immediately about this promise and reiterated that he intended to keep it. In response, there were competing hearings in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees due to the fact that Clinton couldn't eliminate the ban on sodomy in the UMCJ. Ron Dellums was in favor of gays serving while Sam Nunn was against. Ron Dellums was the brand new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and was considered a radical. Sam Nunn was also new as chair but considered a moderate Democrat and the media wound up favoring his hearings. In an era when gays were still considered exotic it was not a pretty sight. It became clear that Congress wasn't going to end the ban on sodomy and in fact would out right ban gays if Clinton tried to let them in. Thus DADT was born. It passed the Senate by a margin of 77 to 22 with nearly all the no votes being GOP not Democratic. Where Clinton does deserve blame was not waiting until Powell was gone to try to change the rules and by not enforcing DADT when it was being blatently broken by a few bases.

Fast foward to now. The 16 years since 1993 have seen a sea change in attitudes toward gays. Gay teachers, doctors, lawyers, politicians, and atheletes have shown their out proud faces to a nation. There were no states with marriage rights for gays, no states with civil unions for gays, 14 states with sodomy laws, and gays could be fired from any government job back in 1993 when Clinton came into office. Now there are 20 states with ENDA laws, 6 with same sex marriage, another 4 with civil unions or domestic partnerships which are at least close to marriage, and gays are able to serve our government in all but the Armed Forces. In 1993 a very slight majority of Americans favored gays seving in the military and the military itself was opposed. Now about 75% of Americans favor gays serving and the military is largly apathetic. We are also at war. Under stop loss Obama could end DADT by ending discharges.

Here is where the modern myths take over.

Myth one, There has to be a law. For now, there actually doesn't. As long as we are at war, and we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, then stop loss is in effect and in point of fact is still being used albeit on much rarer occassion. If it is being used at all, it should be used to prevent the forced seperation of military personel who both want to serve and whose units want them to serve.

Myth two, The sexual harassment codes would have to be rewritten. No genders are mentioned in the fraternization or harassment codes of the military (which date in many cases to before there were women in the military). The current codes would cover same gender issues rather well.

Myth three, The government has to remove DOMA due to unequal benefits. That is absurd. We currently treat married straight couples differently in every other federal department under DOMA. While I think it is wrong, immoral, and against the plain words of the 14th Amendment, no court anywhere has seen fit to agree with that. Until one does, letting openly gay personel in the military wouldn't change anything in regards to the government's treatment of gay married couples. Even if the rest of the government were to be required to give equal benefits I am not entirely sure that courts would order the military to do so. In point of fact, I am not even sure that the military's sodomy law didn't survive Lawerence. The military is given wide deference when it comes to the rights of its personel and that issue hasn't been litigated yet.

The fact is Obama does have the power, albeit temporary, to end DADT and doing so wouldn't change other aspects of the government's treatment of gays. I will say that ending DADT by executive order might cause a lack of nerve in Congress toward a legislative solution. I think pointing out the war time nature of the executive order would mitigate that. The fact is gays have ever right to expect that this issue be taken care of in a timely manner. We have 59 seats in the Senate with a 60th arriving in June when Minnesota SCOTUS rules for Franken. If we can't get this legislation passed now, then we likely never will under Obama.

The military has a long history of slightly different courts systems, which is why I ask...

but the courts grant immense deference to them so they are very rarely ruled against.

The UCMJ is written (and changed) by Congress, and signed by the President. It's law of the land, that applies to personnel in uniform. It can't be changed by SECDEF or Obama, it's gotta go through the whole HASC and SASC drill and then be sent to the floors for a vote from both chambers.

the USSC sides with the military almost every time

It's not something Obama can "pen and ink." http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/UCMJ_LHP.html

The UCMJ is a federal law enacted by Congress; it may be cited as United States Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47.

where they are largely self-referencing the same attitudes as of 1993 in one of their inane, endless loops.

The only people remaining who as a group find this objectionable are some of the military brass.

EVen the rank and file soldier now favors ending DADT by a healthy majority.

Thanks for posting this, dsc.

it isn't even close.

Marian Anderson, A.Phillip Randolph, the war, the way blacks were treated in the military - often poorly, sometimes great, etc.

"Are you an African-American?"

"No, sir."

There is a distinction about DADT that needs to be explored and that is how many, if any, gays and lesbians have been asked the question?

Are they being outed or are they merely coming out? The policy is neither is to occur.

Fraternization is another matter of course. Is there a different policy for heterosexuals and homosexuals?

Of course then you get back to the matter of not asking and not telling.

The law stinks. There have always been homosexuals in the military. There have been problems. But primarily in terms of fraternization and off-base behavior. And there have been problems with both with heterosexuals as well. The law doesn't really address the problem. If you can't ask and don't have to answer. There are circumstances where no one has to ask and an answer isn't necessary.

"Are you an African-American?"

A very stupid question if posed to an African-American.

"Are you a homosexual?"

A very stupid question if posed to a homosexual caught with another man or woman. It doesn't need to be asked in either case. Everyone knows the answer. But of course an African-American wasn't discharged for being an African-American. But a homosexual is.

The policy is, really, don't out and don't come out. And that policy, of course, has an obvious and inherent problem.

The policy stinks. And Obama could at least temporarily end the policy with a stroke of a pen. And won't.

With the stroke of a pen, he might force the issue with Congress. But won't.

BTW I am not sure how rare stop losses are. Yesterday I got a call from one of my clients that he was being recalled after being seperated 2 years from the Army.

It may be that the pool of people that can conveniently sent overseas is so small that they are having to reach back for more stop losses.

Have him look at the remarks section of his DD214. It will probably say "Subject to recall by the service secretary" or something along those lines. If he only did four years or so active, and got out two years ago, he still owes them time and they can demand it. That an an RE1 code and he's off to the races. Refer him to his contract as well as his discharge documentation.

Stop Loss, to be accurate, is when someone is prevented from leaving on their discharge date, and/or prevented from executing PCS orders. It's done when they're short handed, and also when they're broke--you save all that PCS (permanent change of station) expenditure if you just leave everyone in place for a bit.

I just kind of lumped them all into the same bag.

He knows that he has to go back and is resigned to it.

I hope that this has factored in to his deliberation regarding how to respond to what is clearly a blatently unfair policy (to put it mildly).

rec'd.

Doesn't repetition make them true? :sarcasm:

be a challenge to it the first time the spouse of a gay person is denied a federal ID card, federal base housing, federally funded MWR and family services, federally issued transportation to the husband/wife's duty station, federally (state department) authorized command sponsorship at overseas stations, etc., etc...

DOMA does deny federal benefits to gay people, and all of those things are federal benefits. Under existing law, they'd be denied. And I don't want to even get into the difficulty a servicemember would have if he or she wanted to marry a foreigner.

Finally, you don't understand DADT. It has to be formally tossed out the window, otherwise it remains as a force-shaping sword of Damocles to be trotted out at any time. Why? DADT requires the gay person to remain CELIBATE. Oh yeah. That's why it sucks. The gay person is not permitted to, to quote the regulation, "ACT ON" on his or her orientation. Nor is the gay person allowed to "tell"--as in Don't Ask, Don't Tell--and the act of marrying is "telling."

It's horrible, but the way it is now, gay and straight people sign, as part of their contract, an agreement to abide by DADT. In essence, they sign their rights away. They agree to exist in a discriminatory environment as a consequence of their contract.

The question of Obama "having the power" to end DADT is a separate issue. I don't think he does. Why? Because Obama cannot unilaterally change the UCMJ, and Article 125 (which applies to all members) is problematic in this regard. You'd still be in DADT territory, only the asking/telling would be off the table, but there would still be no "acting" on orientation. I wouldn't gripe if he tried it, or at least advocated a "look the other way" attitude for the near term while the whole DOMA/DADT mess is dismantled.

I do think there would be a hideous, horrible pushback from certain bigots in Congress if Obama tried to act unilaterally. I honestly don't think he's motivated to do that. I think he'll act if there's "consensus" on the matter, and not much before there is.

I'd love to be wrong.

FWIW, most of the sexual harrassment instructions and notices were written well after women became a large percentage of the force. They are gender-neutral, but they're newer than you seem to think they are. In fact, the DOD-mandated training modules on this subject was only crafted after the ABERDEEN scandal in the later nineties where a bunch of Army instructors were getting jiggy AND coercive with students and the environment was unprofessional, repressive, onerous and just "not good." When the military was mostly male, there weren't any credible Equal Opportunity billets that oversaw these issues. There are now, and above the unit level, many of them are full-time.

I've missed something apparently.

Prior to DADT, which came right out and said "no acting on orientation," ART 125 of the UCMJ controlled.

This article (which discusses Peter Pace's idiotic comments awhile back) provides in brief the essential features of the HCP (Homosexual Conduct Policy): http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=3356

Congress enacted the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” law in March 1994. It provides that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for discharge from the military. The law also says that service by those who have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct creates an unacceptable risk to morale, good order, discipline and unit cohesion.

But the law also says, “sexual orientation is a personal and private matter that is not a bar to military service unless manifested by homosexual conduct.”

Under don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue:

-- Servicemembers are not to ask about others’ sexual orientation;

-- Servicemembers should not reveal their sexual orientation; and

-- Commanders could not engage in investigations with the sole purpose of finding out a servicemember’s sexual orientation.

It's an idiotic, onerous, and schizophrenic construct, but there it is. That's the law of the land right now. Sanctioned discrimination.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

Gay couples can't insure each other at the federal level, until Hillary took over at state the State dept didn't help married gays travel to their embassy jobs. I fail to see why the Dept of Defense couldn't do the exact same thing.

DOMA and DADT are in the house. DOMA doesn't permit it. Are you suggesting that the gay servicemembers pay, out of pocket, for what hetero servicemembers are given solely as a consequence of their marital status? The average junior enlisted can't afford several round trip tickets to Pusan Korea, Iwakuni, Japan, or even Sigonella, Sicily for his or her overseas tour, assuming the CO allows them to live off base so the spouse can join them, and doesn't require that they live in the barracks (that's not a problem for a hetero married couple).

Overseas, there's the issue of command sponsorship. No ID card, no FOUO passport (for official business travel), no command sponsorship, no ability to even enter and leave the military base to shop at the commissary or exchange, go to the movies, swim in the pool, go golfing or play sports at the gym, and the spouse is on a tourist visa and would have to leave and come back during the tour. If security isn't horrible at the facility, the military member may be able to sign in the spouse each time, but that's an onerous drill if it's even allowed without petitioning the CO first.

Also, so long as ART 125 is in the UCMJ (and Congress, not Obama, has to change that), that's problematic as well. You're back to that DADT "celibacy" thing.

It doesn't need patching and fiddling with, it needs fixing. And by fixing, I mean dump DOMA, rewrite ART 125 of the UCMJ (both of which will, like it or not, take an act of Congress), and dump DADT.

would be a total or permanent solution. It would be neither, but it would stop seperations while Congress gets around to changing the law. He could halt the sodomy under the possibililty that the law is unconstitutional as it hasn't been litigated and all other sodomy laws have been overturned.

As I have said ART 125 isn't the "gay" article, though people point to it that way. They could just as easily call it "the Monica Article" or the "Leave the farm animals alone" article. It is broad enough in that regard, it applies to everyone, from that married heterosexual couple in base housing to that drunken sergeant trying to screw a mule (see the quote I've provided). The sodomy law business isn't controlling, I don't think. 125 mandates a standard of behavior for all personnel (an unrealistic one, to be sure, in this day and age), and the military has the right to demand standards of behavior above and beyond those of average US citizens. For example, you can be fat and unfit, and still be an American citizen, but being fat and unfit is grounds for discharge from the Armed Forces.

Also, he can't really "stop loss" just gays--that's discriminatory. Stop loss means, in essence, hold in place. You don't leave your current duty station (you can stay with your unit if they deploy, though), and you can't be discharged even if your contract is up. The best he can do, to my mind, is adopt a "go VERY slow" policy on investigations. However, that's not going to stop people like LT Choi, who are, in effect, challenging the system and who want their circumstances writ large in the public eye. See, they WANT there to be a showdown on this matter. They're willing to be the sacrificial lambs to keep the argument in the public eye. It's a courageous stand, but it's one that will require that a few people get chewed up before success happens. Each person who puts themselves in that meat grinder knows that the odds are good that they'll be out on the sidewalk with a worst-case, general, that can be upgraded on petition to honorable, depending on the circumstances of their discharge--what they're doing is putting a face on the foolishness of the discrimination.

And the longer enforcement is suspended, and the longer gay service personnel serve in the armed forces without any of the crazy mythology about "morale deterioration" or "negative force cohesion" bullshit... the weaker those arguments become. Congress WILL act. That is certain. Either sooner or later but it's coming. Obama can hasten the process by suspending enforcement, watching the scene, and pushing for Congress to change the law. If Obama suspends DADT now, he's got 3 plus years to push the legislation through and no more gay service personnel lose their jobs.

I hate being the bearer of bad tidings, but the information being passed around here just is terribly inaccurate. People are ascribing to Obama power he does not possess. I am not talking about the weakness of arguments. I agree with you that the arguments are weak. However, you get nowhere unless you change the LAW. And the law of the land is DADT, DOMA and ART 125--that's the trifecta that must be overcome. Please do not shoot the messenger.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101071006

...Obama can't simply sign an executive order to overturn the law — he has to persuade Congress to change it.

And Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, says he does not expect the issue to be an early priority for lawmakers.

"I'm going to be working with colleagues to see how much support there is for it," Levin says. "And where along the process we can take that issue up. I just don't think we can give that a high priority, given the situation that we face," like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the economic meltdown.

Even the staunchest supporters of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" concede they may have to wait....Another question is whether military leaders are ready to see the law repealed.

Since it was passed in 1993, more than two dozen retired admirals and generals have come forward to say it should be repealed, including John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Colin Powell, also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argues that attitudes have evolved since his days on active duty. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates says there's no question the armed forces will follow the lead of Congress and their commander in chief.

" 'Don't ask, don't tell' is law — it is a political decision," Gates says. "And if the law changes, we will comply with the law."

He only has the temporary power to suspend it now.

Congress must undo the law, I agree, for the long haul. For good.

But he could stop the discrimination instantly if he wanted to. And the longer US gay service personnel serve, now, the weaker the opposition arguments become.

The GOP would pitch a fit--"How DARE Obama try to tell the Department of Defense to ignore the law! A law that CONGRESS PASSED in 1994!!!" I can hear them already. They'd fire up that wedge issue faster than you could say "Don't Ask, Don't Tell!" Obama wouldn't sign any executive order saying "Ignore the law" (with him a former constitutional law professor, too) because he knows that is what would happen.

I served during the Great Bloodbath of the early nineties, and saw many good friends get the axe during a multi-year force shaping exercise (The Cheney Drawdown). The way it was done back then? Physical readiness tests. Selection boards would check out the picture that would flash up on the screen during a promotion board of a person up for promotion, the board president would say "Looks a little chunky" and the poor bastard would get the thumbs down straight across the board. People who flunked the PT test would be shown the door. For the enlisted, they made the promotion exams impossibly hard on top of being very precise with the PT regs.

One of the things that many people who got that axe expressed to me was the sense of deep betrayal that they felt. They did everything that was asked of them, had the great fitness reports, the right assignments, the correct number of collateral duties...and still, it wasn't enough. The anger, too, came from realizing that people half as talented as they were got promoted just a few years prior--it was all a matter of timing. I was incredibly lucky. I got a fresh promotion right as the shit hit the fan, and I was "inoculated" from that shitstorm. But that was luck and timing, not any particular skill on my part.

When it comes time to draw down the services in the postwar era, I really do not want to see a gay witch hunt. But that IS what will happen--NCIS and OSI will be able to exercise those rusty, "root out the gays" skills they've not been able to exercise for so long. They won't admit that they're doing it, but I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised at all to see an uptick in investigations because gay people will be accused of breaking the DADT law and "telling."

All you'd be doing, you see, is DELAYING the discrimination. See, when they draw down the forces, if the people don't leave fast enough on their own, they go out of their way to pick off the low-hanging fruit (no snark intended). And gays would be highly vulnerable, along with the people who can't answer eighty five to ninety percent of the advancement questions right, who haven't checked the right career blocks or got a single "less than perfect" mark on their annual evaluations or fitness reports, as well as the fat people and the unfit people (they've been gundecking the PT tests lately, too). It's a "No Mercy" exercise. The Services get their numbers--they've got to axe "X" number of assets in this paygrade, that paygrade, and so forth between 1 Oct and 30 Sep of the following year (the federal government's fiscal year) and there's no exceptions. No waivers. No grace. It's brutal.

I want this thing fixed, as I said. Not papered over. I don't know what's the best way to make Congress move on this. I don't know what would convince them. Maybe movie stars could register as lobbyists and go charm them, I dunno. You know how they say politics is like being a movie star, only for ugly people? Those politicians do seem to be impressed with those folks, maybe they could swing them around.

I am experienced in "corporate culture", and sometimes (!) if a thing just goes on long enough without challenge, it CAN become fact.

Obama has the power to suspend DADT. No question. The DOD can squeal all they like but there it is. And I honestly believe that even 6 months of gays serving openly in the US military will change things. Gay service personnel already know they face potential "deep betrayal" from the official military heirarchy so that argument doesn't really faze me. Gays know they walk a perilous rope now. If they had a chance to prove themselves out with a chance towards full rights? I think they'd grab that chance knowing full well that they faced potential future problems - hell you're describing descrimination against fat people! Gay service personnel know what they are up against!

As Lt. Choi demonstrates, there's an element of bravado now as well. They know the time to push for suspension (and full repeal) of DADT is now. They also know that they risk jeopardy for themselves but also understand that they are perhaps laying the groundwork for future gay military.

Bob Gates is a pragmatic guy and he knows full well that we're losing people who have tremendous talent for bullshit reasons (LT Choi, e.g.). When you suffer an unprogrammed loss like that, and not even due to casualty, it's a bad hit to take.

It's not DOD that worries me so much, anymore. Many of the fundie generals have taken their retirement--they know the gravy train is over. The ones who are still in place are keeping a lower profile.

The ones who will gripe are the minority REPUBLICANS in Congress. They'll screech that Obama is ignoring--no, violating-- rule of law, they'll play the "co-equal branch" card, they'll raise hell and get the teabaggers going. That's why I don't see him doing it. Sure, he could do it, but the grief he would take (and the divisiveness that the effort would cause) would kick the whole Equality can way down the road.

The thing is, gays CAN serve now. They just can't serve OPENLY. That's the perversity of the situation. They have to live a celibate life, if they do it according to the letter of the law, and not "tell" anyone about their orientation.

I honestly think the best thing Obama could do, without raising the ire of the GOP and making the situation a pissing contest, is to issue a "go slow" approach to "tell" discharges--I'm guessing if there were a two year lag between "telling" and discharge, fewer people might bother to tell, and even if they did, more paperwork would likely get lost.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thank you.

Please see my posts on this thread.

It's important that we're accurate about what we are up against. Obama may not be speaking out enough to suit some, but he lacks the power to do what the OP suggests.

DOMA, DADT and ART 125 of the UCMJ cannot be wiped away by Obama. These are laws that were passed by Congress. I've provided links upthread.

Congress passed them, Congress has to repeal them, or, in the case of the UCMJ, do a little rewording at the very least.

ART 125 of the UCMJ does not have to be reworded unless you consider that homosexuality = anal sex and anal sex only.

Can a lesbian be found in violation of ART 125?

Male OR female. It's a bit more "general" with the fiddly bits than you apparently imagine. It ignores what likely goes on in bedrooms in base housing and in the barracks on a regular basis.

This isn't a direct link, but it's accurate, I'm pretty sure, and it was readily available. I can hunt around and find you a DOD one if you doubt this source: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

The salient bit:

It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.



I know. It sounds....almost biblical. And not in a good way.

That's what I wonder at times in this argument - why does anyone want to serve in this military and fight an unjust war. A war that simply is defending the war machine. The miltary-industrial complex of the Bushes.

The one Eisenhower warned us about. The one that overthrew our government.

It is a career path. It means money and training. There isn't always a war. Not everyone can afford to go on to college.

It is true that Obama could eliminate DADT without anyone's permission, but the question in my mind is: Would this have the desired effect? Let me elaborate. When the President initiates something, particularly if he does something unilaterally, he is setting up a dynamic in which it is likely he will be pushed back with equal force. In other words, he is, by the very act of taking a strong stance, hardening the stance of his political opposites.

On the other hand, if he can be a lightning rod to provoke public opinion, he can help to herald in new change in a true, democratic grass-roots way. If you agree that we have come a long way in 16 years, why are you not confident that we will arrive at the correct place? Don't you see the dynamic in which Obama would actually have the opposite effect.

Equal rights for all people should NOT be a partisan political issue and I think Obama is helping to avoid it becoming that -same with torture.

You will see. It may not have the flash and zing that you want, but Obama's reasoned, deliberate approach has its own undeniable logic and wisdom.

I agree with all of your points but I may disagree with the level of trouble that executive suspension would cause to an eventual repeal. While Obama could suspend execution of the DADT, the initial uproar would be strong enough to cause waves that would allow the opposition to build momentum(read saddleback/westboro types.) I do think the DADT and article 125 must be eventually dealt with by congress but would be better started IN congress. This would insure that the proper voting blocks are prepared before the turmoil begins.

i personally feel that for this to be a permanent success, its needs to start in congress and end with Obama instead of vice verse.