Congress Preparing to Address 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

‘Beginning the Conversation’

Fifteen years after the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was enacted for the U.S. military, Congress is prepping to review the law.

By Jamie Reno | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 21, 2008 | Updated: 9:05 a.m. ET Jul 21, 2008

Rep. Susan Davis of San Diego has been pressing her colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee to review the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy that bans military service for people who are openly gay. On Wednesday, Davis gets her wish when the House Military Personnel Subcommittee she chairs holds the first formal congressional hearing on the controversial law since it was enacted in November 1993.

Crafted by Colin Powell, military sociologist Charles Moskos, and former senator Sam Nunn, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise between President Bill Clinton and the hard-liners in Congress who wanted to maintain the complete ban on gays in the military. In the 15 years since it passed, according to government statistics, 12,600 service members have been dismissed under the policy (most were honorably discharged), including nearly 800 with skills deemed "mission-critical" by the Pentagon: 322 were language experts, and of those 60 were proficient in Arabic.

Davis says subcommittee members will look at both the personal and operational aspects of the policy but will focus on the toll it takes on those who've been discharged and their families. Among those scheduled to testify is former Marine S/Sgt. Eric F. Alva, the first American wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Alva, who lost a leg when he stepped on a land mine, has since become a crusader for gay rights in the military. On Saturday, a new Washington Post-ABC poll revealed that 75 percent of Americans now think gays who are open about their sexuality should be allowed to serve in the armed forces.

Support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is split generally now along party lines. Of the two presumptive presidential nominees, John McCain supports it, while Barack Obama thinks it's counterproductive and says he'll work to repeal it if elected. Davis, whose husband served as a doctor in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, is cosponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1246), which would replace "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" with a policy of nondiscrimination in the military based on sexual orientation. Davis spoke with NEWSWEEK's Jamie Reno about the upcoming hearing and what she hopes and expects to happen as a result. Excerpts:

Follow this link for excerpts from the lengthy interview:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147961/page/1

I hope she does get a conversation going but unfortunately this probably won't get far.

At least the article pointed out that Powell and Nunn pushed this down Clinton's throat. President Clinton spent a lot of political capital early in his first term to try and allow gays to serve openly in the military. However, I am astounded by the number of young gay people I meet that actually think that prior to DADT gays were allowed to "serve openly" in the military. Talk about not knowing your history...

And from my experience, MOST LGBTers don't know their history. A good friend of mine told me years ago that the only way to get the attention of the boys was to make it illegal for them to have a Pottery Barn credit card. That'll make them take notice!

Wow, just wow.

Makes ya' cringe, doesn't it?

12,600 people took an oath to serve and all that could be seen was something that is no one else's business.

Shameful, really.

It's a bill to protect closeted Republicans from being exposed.

HR 1246 has nothing to do with them

and support DADT being overturned.

I'm not going to read it for you.

Do you really think anyone besides you thought my comment was serious? Geez.

I've got a wicked sense of humor. You're responding to a former bartender and "Strangers" fan here.

But it gets annoyingly redundant any time that an LGBT member on this board or one of our allies brings up something pro-gay, and another member decides to make an off-topic comment about a very small group of hypocritical Republicans, especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.

I realize you're one of those posters who thinks this is "your" thread, simply because you started it.

It's a conversation, among many people, and not every comment is intended to be about the specific subject the OP intends. Some posters get downright snippy when someone posts anything on "their" topic which the OP author does not like. It is duly noted you are such a person.

"Don't ask, don't tell," is a phrase that has much broader currency in our society than the military doctrine which created it. Among DUers and among Americans, it has become a tag line for making fun of the whole notion of "don't ask, don't tell."

Now, be glad I bumped your thread repeatedly, since almost no one else is doing so. Seven posts in this thread are yours, four are mine, and four are by two other posters.

I'm not interested in deconstructing for you or others how I tend to an OP. But without going too deep into it, I don't claim ownership when I post, my interest always is in the broader conversation. I try to respond to everyone who posts comments in either an OP that was started by me or a topic that I find interesting. Sometimes I don't have time to respond because I travel a lot for work. But like your post, I respond to those that I don't agree with. If you want to define that as "snippy", well I guess that's your cross weighing heavily on your shoulders.

If you look at this exchange, you began the personal attacks. I didn't. Anyone that participates in message boards knows that when you encounter a poster that gets personal, they were backed into a corner and had nothing more to contribute except for base comments.

And as far as bumping the (not mine) thread, look at the time stamps and consider the low view count when you posted your comment. This place crawls to a halt later in the evening. For me, this was breaking news, I was up, so I posted it. If barely anyone looked at it, so be it. Chances are someone else will post the same material the next day once the story grows some legs. The fact that you counted the responses and attributed them to the handful that contributed to this thread is hilarious, given that you didn't even consider the time the OP was posted or those that even clicked on the thread in the first place.

But why now, when the election is upon us? The rethugs are just looking frantically for a wedge issue, and this is like doing them a favor. Think how much easier it would be with a larger in either or both houses, and a Dem. in the WH.

...it depends on how it's presented and when.

When the GOP is calling for more troops, where are they going to come from? And can the GOP justify the firing of all those translators?

I know it's asking too much to have the GOP-controlled media do their jobs, but I always have hope.

Isn't that considerably less than favor gay marriage?


Seems a bit odd that the country is okay with gays as long as they're fighting and dying, but if they're loving...well that's another matter.

Still, it will be progress to eliminate this. It was the first disappointment of the Clinton years for me.