President Obama's National Security Advisor "doesn't know" when or if DADT will be repealed

On This Week, George Stephanopoulos discussed the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with National Security Adviser General James Jones.

Said Jones: "It has to be a uniform policy for all members of the military in order to function as a military has to function. We will have long discussions about this. It will be thoughtful. It will be deliberative. The president I know will reach out to fully understand both sides or all sides of the issue before he makes a decision. I don't know . We'll have to - the president has said that he is in favor of that. We'll just wait - we'll have to wait and see - as a result of the deliberations and as a result of the - in the months and weeks ahead. We have a lot on our plate right now. It has to be teed up at the right time so - to do this the right way."

(a) Rape.— Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by—
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnaping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1283:

Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 1283 IH


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1283
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 3, 2009
Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SESTAK, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

The following provisions of law are repealed:

(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.

(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation

`(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces.

`(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--

`(1) in the case of a member of the Armed Forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and

`(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces, denial of accession into the Armed Forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

`(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the Armed Forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.

`(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the Armed Forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the Armed Forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the Armed Forces on the sole basis of such separation.

`(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended--

(A) by striking the item relating to section 654; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new item:

`656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the Armed Forces.'.

(b) Conforming Amendments- Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Section 481 is amended--

(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting `, including sexual orientation discrimination,' after `discrimination' in subparagraphs (C) and (D); and

(B) in subsection (c), by inserting `and sexual orientation-based' after `gender-based' both places it appears.

(2) Section 983(a)(1) is amended by striking `(in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws)'.

(3) Section 1034(i)(3) is amended by inserting `sexual orientation,' after `sex,'.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.

(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a). The Secretary of Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each military department to revise regulations of that military department in accordance with section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall include the following:

(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.

(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.

(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims' advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance.

(b) Regulation of Conduct- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces shall be written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.

(c) Definition- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' has the meaning given that term in section 656(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a).

http://www.palmcenter.org/node/998
Retired Senior Officers Report Urges Repeal of DADT
Source: Windy City Times
Author(s): Bob Roehr


A study by four senior retired officers, each with more than 30 years of service from all four branches of the military, is urging repeal of the antigay military policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ( DADT ) . The Report of the General/Flag Officers' Study Group was commissioned by the Palm Center research institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara and released on July 7.


"The law locks the military's position into stasis and does not accord trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances â"" < it > is not working; rather, it is the flexibility of military leaders, often ignoring or violating the policy, who are making the system work," were among the ten findings in the report.


It believes the Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ ) and other regulations "provide sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct."

"DADT has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and preserving the cohesion of their units." A heterosexual officer told the group that one of his best non-commissioned officers in Iraq probably was a lesbian. If he had been officially told that, he likely would have violated the law rather than conduct an investigation that would have adversely affected existing unit cohesion.


The group was surprised to learn that gays lack confidentiality in their conversations with doctors, chaplains, and counselors on matters of sexual orientation, and that leads some to not seek appropriate care.

>>Inhumane!<< Removing further basic human rights from gay service members!

Rhonda Davis, discharged from the Navy for being a lesbian, told the group, she once advised a gay subordinate to seek counseling about a relationship problem with another woman, but then realized that might constitute a violation of DADT and compound the problem. "No matter what I those these troops, nothing was the right answer and I felt like a hypocrite."


The report said, "Not only are service members prevented from seeking healthcare, but also health professionals are prohibited from doing their job."


It went into great depth on how the policy "has caused the military to lose some talented service members." A corollary has been a lowering of overall standards and an increase in "moral waivers" to felons who would otherwise be barred from enlisting.


Some gays and lesbians are serving in the military, are relatively open about their sexual orientation and are accepted by their colleagues. Ironically, often it is the ones who seek to conceal their orientation, in compliance with DADT, who are the threat to unit cohesion. As one witness said, the problem is that those people are seen as liars and cowards by their peers.


The report noted that when DADT was adopted in 1993, only 40% of the American public supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Depending on how the question is asked, recent polls show that support has risen to between 58% and 79%.The military reflects the general society and attitudes have changed there as well.


The Study Group made four recommendations. Congress should repeal DADT "and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense."


"The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter." The UCMJ should be updated to become neutral in terms of sexual orientation and enforce uniform standards of behavior.


Finally, there should be immediate implementation of "safeguards for the confidentially of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals."

The group consisted of Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, US Army ( ret ) and Brig. Gen Hugh Aitkin, US Marine Corp ( ret ) , both of whom have endorsed Democratic presidential nominees since leaving the service; and Lt. Gen. Minter Alexander, US Air Force ( ret ) , and Vice Adm. Jack Shanahan, US Navy ( ret ) who are registered as Republicans.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/Battling+the+Military+Ban

Battling the Military Ban
In a bracing new account, historian Nathaniel Frank shows how “don’t ask, don’t tell” has utterly failed.
Source: The Advocate at advocate.com
Author(s): Sean Kennedy

In July 1993, when President Bill Clinton unveiled his “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in a speech at Washington D.C.’s National Defense University, Nathaniel Frank was in a tent in Wyoming. He’d graduated from Northwestern University that spring and was spending the summer road-tripping through the West in his parents’ minivan, camping by night, and current events weren’t at the top of his mind. He was also still wrestling with his sexual orientation. As the speech ended months of speculation about whether Clinton would end the military’s ban on gay soldiers, Frank was blissfully unaware.

That would soon change. As Frank started to come out, personally experiencing the same act of self-disclosure that could cost a soldier his job under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” he became fascinated with the policy’s politics of knowledge. “We all know it’s tough to express yourself in a homophobic society, and here comes a law that bans it and punishes us for telling the truth,” says the 38-year-old Frank. “All serious people admitted that there were gays in the military. Why couldn’t we say it?”

It’s this question that animates his new book, Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America, released by St. Martin’s Press in March, just over 15 years after “don’t ask, don’t tell” went into effect. In it, Frank, a senior research fellow at the Palm Center, a think tank based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, shows how the policy was destined to fail from the outset, since it was created out of prejudice, not cause. Although he pays heed to other factors, such as the gamesmanship of players like then–Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Sam Nunn (whom Clinton passed over for Defense secretary), Frank persuasively argues that military leaders were acutely afraid that open service by gays would tarnish their masculine ideals. And because of that fear, they battled to silence the voices of a minority.

“Self-expression is a natural instinct and it’s stifled at great cost,” Frank says. “ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ doesn’t just repress gays and lesbians, it represses everyone. It perpetuates the idea that in order to be a stable society, we have to lie to ourselves.”

Framed in that way, Unfriendly Fire is not your typical dispassionate history. As a work of scholarship (Frank is also an adjunct professor of history at New York University), the book is a definitive addition to Allan Bérubé’s Coming Out Under Fire and Randy Shilts’s Conduct Unbecoming, which each focused on eras before “don’t ask, don’t tell,” when gay soldiers were simply banned without any epistemological baggage. But Frank differs from his predecessors with his insistently critical tone and laser-like attention to the policy’s shortcomings, from its formulation to its implementation -- and its present incoherent state, when some gay soldiers serve openly in Iraq and Afghanistan, while others, like high-value language specialists, are discharged. (An occasional journalist, Frank broke the latter story in The New Republic in 2002, when the Army discharged seven gay Arabic linguists who had been studying at the Defense Language Institute.)

This polemical approach is nowhere more evident than in Frank’s resurrection of the one-year period from November 1992, when Clinton first endeavored to make good on his campaign promise to end the military’s ban, to November 1993, when the president signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law. It’s all here, in gripping detail: the fraught political maneuvering between Clinton, pressured by gay donors and activists, and the military brass, who refused to negotiate with their new commander-in-chief; the assiduous lobbying by the religious right, foreshadowing their subsequent efforts against marriage equality; the dramatic congressional hearings and press conferences held by Nunn, culminating deep inside the USS Baton Rouge submarine to show just how tight the quarters were. But the most amazing revelation? Even as they ignored a 500-page RAND Corp. report commissioned by the Pentagon showing that open service wouldn’t affect military readiness, generals watched a video circulated by a Christian producer that graphically described gay sexual practices.

“I like to think of it as a level-headed polemic,” Frank says of the book, kicking back in his restored 19th-century row house in Brooklyn. And while Unfriendly Fire is carefully rooted in research and evidence, it’s this constant calling out of the policy’s flaws that’s likely to have the greatest effect. “There’s a part of me that believes in the old Enlightenment ideal that if you continue to insist on uttering the truth, that’s what it takes to make a more just society,” Frank says.

Frank’s book could certainly help achieve that, at a time when both public and political support for “don’t ask, don’t tell” has never been lower and when more leading military figures than ever are disavowing the policy. Now it’s up to President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to repeal the law.

“There’s a very good chance the ban could end in this Congress,” Frank says. “Obama has to approach this issue with the confidence that the research is on his side. It’s time to have a 21st-century military.”

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Creators+ ...

Creators of Military Gay Ban Tell Author It Was "Based on Nothing"
Definitive Book on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Out Tuesday; Speaking Tour Begins Today

SANTA BARBARA, CA, March 2, 2009 – Military officials exaggerated the threat to unit cohesion and ignored research and data when formulating the current policy on gay troops, according to the much-anticipated new book, “Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America,” out tomorrow.

The book, based on a a decade of research and hundreds of interviews, was written by Dr. Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the Palm Center, and one of the nation’s most widely recognized authorities on gays in the military. Dr. Frank is appearing with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher today at the Center for American Progress to discuss her proposed legislation to repeal the ban.

Publication of the book by St. Martin’s Press falls on the 15th anniversary of "don't ask, don't tell." Frank spoke to key military and political architects of the policy, many of whom acknowledge in the book that it was “based on nothing” but “our own prejudices and our own fears.”

General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, tops the list of prominent leaders who have endorsed the "Unfriendly Fire," saying it “should be mandatory reading for anyone with an interest in the state of our society or the readiness of our military.” Congressman Patrick J. Murphy, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the only Iraq War veteran in Congress, said Frank’s “timely book should put to rest any lingering doubt about whether ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is working—it's been a failure from day one and should finally be put behind us.”

The Palm Center has launched "Send UNFRIENDLY FIRE to Congress!" which is an online campaign to put a book into the hands of every member of Congress by this spring.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index.html
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy

By: Bernard D. Rostker, Scott A. Harris, James P. Kahan, Erik J. Frinking, C. Neil Fulcher, Lawrence M. Hanser, Paul Koegel, John D. Winkler, Brent A. Boultinghouse, Joanna Heilbrunn, Janet Lever, Robert MacCoun, Peter Tiemeyer, Gail L. Zellman, Sandra H. Berry, Jennifer Hawes-Dawson, Samantha Ravich, Steven L. Schlossman, Timothy Haggarty, Tanjam Jacobson, Ancella Livers, Sherie Mershon, Andrew Cornell, Mark A. Schuster, David E. Kanouse, Raynard Kington, Mark Litwin, Conrad Peter Schmidt, Carl H. Builder, Peter Jacobson, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Roger Allen Brown, William Fedorochko, Bubbles Fisher, John F. Peterson, James A. Dewar

This report presents the RAND study that resulted from a request to assist the Secretary of Defense in drafting an Executive Order to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the U.S. Armed Forces. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, a team of RAND researchers visited seven foreign countries and the police and fire departments in six American cities, seeking insights and lessons from analogous experiences there. The team considered the integration of blacks and the development of the current policy that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the military. It reviewed public opinion, including the views of current active-duty military personnel, and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexuality, and related health issues. It examined a number of legal and enforcement issues, as well as the literature that deals with implementing change in large organizations.

Based on the research findings, the study group found that the most promising policy option for achieving the President’s objectives focuses on conduct and considers sexual orientation, by itself, as not germane in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces.

As part of the study an illustrative “Standard of Professional Conduct” was also designed with the overarching objective of maintaining the order and discipline essential for an effective military organization.

The report also notes that if sexual orientation is regarded as not germane in determining who may serve in the military, it is equally not relevant to decisions on assignment, pay, military sociality, and benefits. The manner in which such a policy change is implemented could have a decisive impact on the acceptance of the new policy by the military.

Based upon the research conducted in this study, key elements of an implementation strategy were identified: (1) the message of policy change must be clear and must be consistently communicated from the top;
(2) the option selected should be implemented immediately;
(3) emphasis should be placed on behavior and conduct, not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity;
(4) leadership must send messages of reassurance to the force;
(5) leaders at all levels should be empowered to implement the policy, with special training provided if necessary; and
(6) a monitoring process should be established to identify problems early in the process and to address them immediately.

The option presented in this report appears to meet the President’s criteria, and is consistent with the empirical research and historical experience. By following the implementation strategy, the Department of Defense should be able to increase the probability that a policy that ends discrimination based on sexual orientation can be implemented in a practical and realistic manner.

Here is a table of contents

Contents
Preface PDF

Figures PDF

Tables PDF

Executive Summary PDF

Chapter One:
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Policy Options and Assessment — Study Overview PDF

Chapter Two:
Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior PDF

Chapter Three:
Analogous Experience of Foreign Military Services PDF

Chapter Four:
Analogous Experience of Domestic Police and Fire Departments PDF

Chapter Five:
Potential Insights from Analogous Situations: Integrating Blacks into the U.S. Military PDF

Chapter Six:
Relevant Public Opinion PDF

Chapter Seven:
Relevant Military Opinion PDF

Chapter Eight:
Issues of Concern: Effect of Allowing Homosexuals to Serve in the Military on the Prevalence of HIV/AIDS PDF

Chapter Nine:
Issues of Concern: Anti-Homosexual Violence PDF

Chapter Ten:
What Is Known About Unit Cohesion and Military Performance PDF

Chapter Eleven:
Sexual Orientation and the Military: Some Legal Considerations PDF

Chapter Twelve:
Implementing Policy Change in Large Organizations PDF

Chapter Thirteen:
Potential Effects on Military Recruitment and Retention PDF

Appendix A:
Illustrative Standard of Professional Conduct PDF

Appendix B:
Living and Privacy Conditions in the Military Service PDF

Appendix C:
Legal Provisions Concerning Sodomy PDF

Appendix D:
Attitudes About Homosexuality and Military Service in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States PDF

Appendix E:
Relevant Canadian Regulations

Appendix F:
Relevant Data from Surveys PDF

Appendix G:
Los Angeles Times Poll PDF

Appendix H:
1992 Sociological Survey of the Army PDF

Appendix I:
State Restrictions on Sodomy PDF

Bibliography

Support RAND Research — Buy This Product!
Paperback Cover Price: $95.00

Discounted Web Price: $85.50

Pages: 546

ISBN/EAN: 0-8330-1441-2

sandnsea

The military has rules about male-female relationships
They'll have to go through everything and rewrite for same sex relationships.
They may want to decide about living arrangements, transgender, a whole host of issues.

Women have a difficult time getting harrassment rules enforced.

It'll be even more difficult with harrassment of homosexuals, along with the array of complaints against homosexual "passes".

They do have things that will have to be worked out before they repeal DADT.

It's the military, there are two wars on, we can't just make it up as we go.

Clearly there are NO regulations in place regarding anything related to homosexuals in service because they get investigated and discharged.

What's the protocol for discrimination against gays?
How is it defined?
What's the protocol for legitimate sexual harrassment complaints?
Rape?
False rape claims?
Transgender?
And what about when it's not rape, but someone claims it is?
What about false claims?
Retributions?
All of this stuff is going to happen.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR323/index....
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy
1993

Chapter One:
Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Policy Options and Assessment — Study Overview PDF

Chapter Two:
Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior PDF

Chapter Three:
Analogous Experience of Foreign Military Services PDF

Chapter Four:
Analogous Experience of Domestic Police and Fire Departments PDF

Chapter Five:
Potential Insights from Analogous Situations: Integrating Blacks into the U.S. Military PDF

Chapter Six:
Relevant Public Opinion PDF

Chapter Seven:
Relevant Military Opinion PDF

Chapter Eight:
Issues of Concern: Effect of Allowing Homosexuals to Serve in the Military on the Prevalence of HIV/AIDS PDF

Chapter Nine:
Issues of Concern: Anti-Homosexual Violence PDF

Chapter Ten:
What Is Known About Unit Cohesion and Military Performance PDF

Chapter Eleven:
Sexual Orientation and the Military: Some Legal Considerations PDF

Chapter Twelve:
Implementing Policy Change in Large Organizations PDF

Chapter Thirteen:
Potential Effects on Military Recruitment and Retention PDF

Appendix A:
Illustrative Standard of Professional Conduct PDF

Appendix B:
Living and Privacy Conditions in the Military Service PDF

Appendix C:
Legal Provisions Concerning Sodomy PDF

Appendix D:
Attitudes About Homosexuality and Military Service in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States PDF

Appendix E:
Relevant Canadian Regulations

Appendix F:
Relevant Data from Surveys PDF

Appendix G:
Los Angeles Times Poll PDF

Appendix H:
1992 Sociological Survey of the Army PDF

Appendix I:
State Restrictions on Sodomy PDF

Bibliography

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090508_on_gays_ob...

On Gays, Obama’s Turn
Posted on May 8, 2009

By Eugene Robinson

<snip>

Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a “fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.” Now, with the gay marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy ripe for repeal, it’s time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.

<snip>
Politicians in Washington who want to avoid what they see as a dangerous controversy have a convenient escape: They can say that the marriage issue should be left to the states
<snip>

But that’s a dodge, not a stance. It certainly can’t be confused with leadership.

Favoring “civil unions” that accord all the rights and benefits of marriage—but that withhold the word marriage, and with it, I guess, society’s approval—amounts to another dodge.

<snip>

Obama took the “civil unions” route during last year’s campaign and has stuck with it. While I see the political calculation—that was basically the position of all the major Democratic candidates—I never understood the logic. If semantics are the only difference between a civil union and a marriage, then why go to the trouble of drawing a distinction? If there are genuine differences that the law should recognize, what might they be?

<snip>

Obama sensibly advocates the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He should press the case by publicly reminding opponents of letting gays serve openly in the military that their arguments—it would hurt morale, damage cohesion and readiness, discourage re-enlistment—are often the same, word for word, as the arguments made 60 years ago against racial integration in the armed forces. That was bigotry then, and it’s bigotry now.

<snip>

What the president shouldn’t do is stay away from the marriage debate on the grounds that it’s not a matter for the federal government. For one thing, he’s on record as favoring repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a law that blocked federal recognition of same-sex marriages and relieved states of any obligation to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.

<snip>

I’m not being unrealistic. I know that public acceptance of homosexuality in this country is still far from universal. But attitudes have changed dramatically—more than enough for a popular, progressive president to speak loudly and clearly about a matter of fundamental human and civil rights.

Thu January 22, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/guantanamo.order/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year.

President Obama signs the order requiring that the Guantanamo Bay facility be closed within a year.

1 of 2 During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."