Gates: I’m looking at ways to ensure gays are not kicked out of military based on personal vendettas.
Gates: I’m looking at ways to ensure gays are not kicked out of military based on personal vendettas.
Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was considering a temporary solution that would allow gays to serve in the military until the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is changed by Congress. Gates said he was looking for “a more humane way to comply with the law until the law gets changed.” Last night, Gates delivered an address at the Economic Club of Chicago, where he fleshed out his views in greater detail. “This is a difficult challenge for us, and there’s no reason to soft-pedal it,” Gates said. He went on to explain examples of “humane” applications of the law that he’s looking at:
One example of that might be — what if we did not take into account third parties trying to harm somebody who may be gay in the service. Somebody who may have a vendetta, or hatred toward somebody, and therefore out them as a way to wreck their career. Is there a way we can not focus on those kinds of reports.
Watch it:
“Before we can change what we do,” Gates said, “the Congress has to change the law.” In fact, the Center for American Progress recently released a report explaining that, while the administration waits for Congress to repeal the law, the president has the authority under the “stop-loss” provision to issue an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Yeah , how about simply telling Obama to say NO ONE can be kicked out of the military for their sexual orientation ; he’s the Commander-In-Chief , isn’t he , for Christ’s sake ?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:03 pm.
So the policy to kick gay service members out isn’t about personal vendettas?
Oh, I see…
… It’s a unit cohesion problem.
R E M E M B E R:
“Tomorrow is zero hour” was translated a day too late due to Unit Cohesion issues.
.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pmHow about starting by not kicking people of the military for simply being gay?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:09 pmThe president is playing politics with this. He has the power to change this but wants it to come from congress. The decision to let this simmer instead of addressing head on shows me they are willing to lose more good soldiers and translators to cover their own political butts.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pmO.T.
Yoo gets PWND
July 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0d25QydCU
I’m confused. If someone is “outed” by another, how is the fact that the service person may or may not be homosexual determined? Wouldn’t that involve “asking” and isn’t that already against the policy?
I respect what Gates is trying to do, but the most reasonable thing to do right now is to put an end to all dismissals based on sexuality.
And President Obama, do the right thing! Jesus, there’re two fcuking wars going on right now, and trained soldiers, linguists, engineers, specialists, etc. are being shown the door simply because of sexual orientation!
PEACE
July 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pmTalk is cheap. Repeal DADT. It is about time gays and lesbians received the same consideration as anyone else. This has gone on long enough.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm.
DADT is a personal vendetta against the gay community.
.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:27 pmWhen I entered the Navy 36 years ago, I quickly learned that the two worst things a member of the Armed Forces could be were a communist or a homosexual. Either was grounds for immediate dismissal with a less than honorable discharge.
And it didn’t take much to convict you of either offense — all it took was an accusation from somebody with a personal vendetta against you. Sort of like how to get on the Hollywood Blacklist in the 1950’s.
This created a culture so fraught with paranoia that whenever someone in my basic training company was overcome with homesickness (and since we were there over Christmas, this was fairly common), nobody dared so much as put a comforting arm around her, for fear of being accused of “homosexual behavior”.
We were later told the reason why gays weren’t permitted in the military was because they can be targets of blackmail. It seemed to me at the time that the solution should be obvious. Quit forcing people to hide what they are and there will be nothing to blackmail.
It’s 36 years later. I know there are a lot of people ready to see this ban abolished. Can we just do it, already?
July 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pmI’m gay. I’m a veteran. I’m a Democrat who voted for Obama. I don’t like this law, but let’s look at it this way:
We didn’t like it when GWB ignored the law and issued signing statements to circumvent legal process, why should we allow this president to do the same thing?
Like I said, I don’t like this law it should be overturned, but it’s a law, not a military policy and it needs to work it’s way through Congress and be signed into law. I bet President Obama will be thrilled to sign that bill into law.
So instead of attacking the President, lets target our Representatives… that is where a bill begins. Someone needs to introduce a bill to repeal DADT and get as many other Reps on board as they can… move it over to the Senate then President Obama can sign the damn thing!
July 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pmAre we to infer that unit cohesion doesn’t suffer from the presence of white supremacists, hardened criminals, druggies and illiterates in the military?
It’s laughable that all these he-man warriors are frightened to death of a few gay people.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pmGates asks if there is a way DoD can NOT focus on “outings” that may come from a person who has a personal vendetta.
Seems like a simple solution: The “outing” has to come directly from the mouth of the person alleged to be “gay” and to someone in their direct chain-of-command — their First Sergeant, Company XO or Company CO.
Don’t know WHY THAT wouldn’t work.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pmDADT is nothing but legal homophobia, and it is a phobia – an irrational fear. There are still too many people out there who know nothing about gay people. During the hearings from which we got this horrendous policy, someone suggested to Sen John Warner that if homosexual conduct was the problem, a gay person could just remain celibate for his or her four-year term. Warner said that he didn’t think that was possible. (Surprising to hear such ignorance from a man who must have known a lot of gay people while he was married to Elizabeth Taylor.)
These ignorant men falsely believe if they bend over in front of a gay man, especially in the communal showers, that they will raped. IMHO, this is the real reason that some people don’t want gay people (especially men) to serve in the military. Like I said, Ignorance.
July 17th, 2009 at 4:40 pmRowdy says:
July 17th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Excellent comment, Rowdy. Let’s get on it, House of Reps!
July 17th, 2009 at 4:43 pmWe need to make a poll for only people currently enlisted in the military that asks if they agree with gays in the military.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pmKind of a bad spot everyone is in..
We got angry when Bush would bypass laws by exec. order. But now we are asking Obama to do the same thing. Espically when Obama ran on the platform of equal branches of goverment..
This needs to be done right. Otherwise you have every republican just saying, “see we told you he is just as bad”.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:23 pmDoh.. just saw Rowdy’s comment.. sorry about the repeat.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:25 pmI’m sorry, but I don’t understand how Gates and others in the military can make it so complicated.
Among the 19 NATO member countries, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Turkey and the United States are the only six that do not allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly. Foreign militaries that have lifted their bans include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/4882.htm
So, Mr. Gates, why is it so complicated in the USA. Is it because we are a more homophobic nation than all the others or is it because people like you are making it complicated when it is in fact very simple. JUST STOP KICKING GAYS OUT OF THE MILITARY.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pmlibertarianism says:
We need to make a poll for only people currently enlisted in the military that asks if they agree with gays in the military.
They already did a poll. It asked people in the military if letting gays serve openly would cause them to not re-up or would cause them to leave the military and most of the young people said it wouldn’t matter to them. The only ones it mattered to were the older officers. I say good riddance to them. Most other industrialized nations have gays serving openly, why is it that they can do it without problems but we can’t?
July 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pmYou will all be glad to see this….
Jason Linkins jason@huffingtonpost.com
Patrick Murphy Defends Obama, Vows DADT Repeal
?First Posted: 07-16-09 10:37 AM | Updated: 07-16-09 11:35 AM
Last week, we noted that Pennsylvania Representative and Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy had assumed the role of chief sponsor for the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which is the bill that would repeal the longstanding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. At the time, Murphy told his constituents, “I have been speaking out against for many years against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — first as an ROTC cadet, then as a professor at West Point, and later as a candidate and a congressman. To now take the lead on such an important piece of legislation is an honor and a privilege beyond words.” Yesterday, in a live comment chat on AMERICAblog, Murphy answered questions, and spoke on the matter in greater detail.
Murphy came ready to outline his approach to getting the MREA passed:
“I’m a very aggressive person and we have a multi-tiered plan of attack on this. First, I’m meeting one-on-one with all my colleagues in Congress (especially conservative Democrats and reps in tough districts) on both sides of the aisle. Secondly, we’re doing the Voices of Honor Tour going around to hit strategic congressional districts where we can most effect change. If you have an idea for additional places we should visit email me at letthemserve.com. Obviously, I’m working closely with the White House and have been having discussions with the Department of Defense.
”It’s hard to nail down a firm timeline at the moment, but it’s something I want to happen as soon as possible. The key is making sure we have the votes — 218 — to pass it. We’re getting closer every day. Today we’re at 162 and we’re not going to quit until we get it done.”
Asked why President Barack Obama hadn’t done more with his executive authority to repeal the law (for example such as using his stop-loss powers), Murphy defended the president’s approach:
“I think that this is a really tough issue and there have been a lot of calls for the President to do this. I know I mentioned it before, but the President — to his credit — seems not to want to ignore standing law that was passed by the Congress.
“We had a saying at West Point “Take the harder right over the easier wrong.” The President doesn’t want to clearly contradict US law, even though I feel that this law is fundamentally wrong and discriminatory. It shows why Congress needs to change it. We’ve gotten 16 congressmen and women in the first week to come on board, but we’re not stopping until we get the job done. In fact, we just got an additional cosponsor today — so we’re up to 162.”
Frankly, as much as I admire the fight in Murphy’s belly, I think that when it comes to the elocution of first-order principles for elected officials, Murphy hits this on squarely on the head:
“A lot of folks are asking me if this is in the best interests of my political future, especially considering I only won my first election by 0.6%. But too often in Washington people worry about keeping their own seats safe as compared to doing the right thing and bringing about the change our country needs. So in this matter specifically, national security and equality trump political expediency.”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:54 pm@#6 and others:
In case you don’t remember, the actual nickname for this act is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” But the “Don’t Pursue” part is almost totally forgotten. The so-called humane way to comply with the law is already an option under the law. Service members cannot Tell, their Superiors cannot Ask and unfounded accusations from third parties cannot be Pursued. They can’t even humanely follow their own freaking law.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:16 pmWait. Wait. Before the laws gets repealed let’s get caught up with expelling all the “askers” first. I haven’t heard of one person being kicked out for asking if a serviceperson is gay so there MUST be a backlog somewhere . . .
July 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pmIn my second unit, my fellow boy-crazy buddy and I were frozen out for six weeks based upon the rumor that we were lesbians. Some hick in the chow line saw that I was reading a book on the history of feminism, and asked me if I were a lesbian. I said, “No. Are you?” Took six weeks for me to trace it back to that incident. My room-mate and I showed up to work the next day and no one would talk to us. People turned their backs on us. I was standing in the middle of the floor in operations shouting, “What is this?!”, and no one would answer. This went on for six weeks.
Two weeks later, the dorm snitch ratted me out for having a Dutch soldier in my room. Then people got sophisticated and decided that we were bisexual. Men started making us offers for threesomes.
It was too much for my friend. I moved off base. We never recovered our friendship. The day after I moved off base, people started talking to me as if nothing ever happened. I told them not to start talking to me now, and to go phuck themselves.
What was so odd about it was that we were both ridiculously heterosexual and dating madly—including men in our unit. We loved to travel and to read. Most of the women in our unit sat in the dorm all weekend, watching Stars and Stripes on television, and wondering where their boyfriends were—two years in Europe and they never went anywhere the unit wasn’t assigned to go.
We knew where they were—downtown, in any nearby city, in the red light district.
July 17th, 2009 at 6:32 pmYeah you know you have to be careful of those gays. I once I brushed up against a gay while in the army and caught the gay cootie bug for a week. It was awful,
July 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pmI started talking with a lisp and started listening to the Village People hanging out in public toilet stalls and then I became a Republican. Go figure!
It needs to be repealed now. Send your messages to the House Speaker (not her 8th dist page) and tell her not only to support HR 1283, but to make sure it gets a quick placement in the Congress.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:15 pmRep Patrick Murphy (D-PA) is the lead on this bill and he is a fmr Iraq vet in Congress who knows how wrong this policy is.
My partner was asked and discharged for telling the truth when his denial would have presented him with court martial since they had already followed him on ’shore leave.’ His only reason to be asked and discharged was that one of his buddies had been caught 5 times on base involved in flagrante dilecto sexual practice…guilt b y association. This was after that buffoon Bill Clinton let it become part of the law and didn’t veto it so Congress would strip it. He was sticking cigars up Monica and selling us gay Americans out…
What cowards Democrats are to speak of equality and civil rights to gay people and capitulate so much in practice.
Remember to flood Pelosi with the need to get the bill heard and passed. She is holding the keys since ‘Status Quo O’ says he isn’t doing ‘too much’ in office but can’t make the time to let us serve.
Nearly 300 service men and women have been discharged under DADT since Jan 20, 2009.
Don’t ask don’t tell is a policy mandated by federal law. The President is not entitled to rewrite the law.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:34 pmsome much needed background information left off by this excuse for a blog:
homosexual conduct is banned by the uniform code of military conduct. its grounds for dishonorable discharge. the uniform code can only be changed by an act of congress. the president, even as command in chief, cannot change the uniform code.
lets also remember that homosexuality is condemned by various religious texts which, unfortunately, a significant population of retrogade protofascists take very seriously. those same people also happen to make up a disproportionate segment of the military, including the highest chains of command. so dont act like its really that shocking for them to condemn it.
but that doesnt mean the president doesnt have the authority to effectively suspend DADT. Title 10 USC 12305 grants the Executive the authority to “suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.”
if that sounds familiar its because its the same law that has been used to extent the enlistment contracts of soliders deploys in the war on terror (they made a movie about it with ryan phillipe!).
July 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pmStrum1 and Rowdy- you are spot on with your analysis. Issues this big have to be done right, through the proper channels. Patience is important and I trust our POTUS to do the right thing.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:32 pmThose 3rd party outings are one of the most common means for soldiers getting dismissed by the military under DADT.
My former brother-in-law was a lawyer then a judge in the military. One Christmas he told the story of this Airforce Captain that was discharged. I was astounded by how this worked in the military. Not that a lovers spat resulted in a 3rd party outing but how the military went after the Captain. The military police went to the Captain’s apartment while he was at work and found evidence of a gay lifestyle. I’m guessing that the former lover let the MP in to gather the evidence rather than them breaking in. There was no search warrant. The Captain was promptly dismissed.
My former brother-in-law’s role was as a character witness for the Captain. He defended a soldier under the Captain’s command and testified that the Captain had fully complied with military procedures in the case and that they had a good working relationship as a result. Goodbye Captain.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:30 pmSesli Sohbet
July 18th, 2009 at 5:13 amSesli Chat
Chat
Sohbet
Diyet
Makyaj
Güzellik
Egzersiz
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Chat
Sohbet
Güzel Sözler
Video izle
a?k ?iirleri
Msn Nickleri
Msn Nickleri
Radyo Dinle
oyun
Güvenlik Sistemleri
Kamelya
Wushu
?iir
a?k resimleri
Günayd?n Mesajlar?
A?k sözleri
Haz?r Sözler
A?k mesajlar?
A?k sözleri
A?k mesajlar?
Espirili Sözler
Since the Bush (oops, Obama) Administration came to office on January 20, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has cost our nation the equivalent of the entire crew of a destroyer like the USS John S. McCain, or of two Seawolf-class nuclear submarines. Totally unnecessarily.
Maybe I’m missing something, because NO ONE else, anywhere, seems to have noticed that DADT itself provides for waivers:
Section (e) of 10 USC 654 (DADT) states explicitly:
(e) Rule of Construction. – Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that -
… (2) separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.
Obviously, repeal would be best, but unless I am very much mistaken, given this built-in waiver provision, until that happens there is no technical need for any additional legal authority to stop the loss.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am#15 – libertarianism says:
———————————————————–
“We need to make a poll for only people currently enlisted in the military that asks if they agree with gays in the military.”
July 17th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Just like they polled the active duty military before they eliminated racial segregation?
How about how they polled the military to allow women to be pilots and allow them on navy vessels?
The military followes rules. Simple change the rules, just like they did on racial segregation and women in combat situations, and the military will follow. Our military is much more competent and professional than most anti-gay people assume.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am#27 – jewpiter says:
———————————————————-
“some much needed background information left off by this excuse for a blog:”
July 17th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Some much needed background information left off by this excuse of a poster:
The military is full of people who atttend church/temple/mosque, but that DON’T follow the mores and dictates of their pastor/preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/other. There are just as many, if not more, “Sunday christians” in the military as there are in civilian life.
When I was in the Army, there where 4 people in my unit who attended church on a regular basis. There were 10 others who attended on religious holidays.
Claiming the Bible as your justification for banning gay people is about as logical as complaining about the mess-hall serving bacon, which clearly voilates the Bible’s dietary restrictions.
July 18th, 2009 at 9:34 amThe military should not be a social experiment for you idiots. “If they are queer…they shouldn’t be here”…in the military!
July 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pmslurp the pole…got to go!!!!
July 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm#34 – RealityCheck says:
———————————————————
“The military should not be a social experiment for you idiots. “If they are queer…they shouldn’t be here”…in the military!”
July 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
So, you’re saying you are against the “social experiment” of racially integrating the military back in the 50’s?
#35 – RealityCheck says:
———————————————————
“slurp the pole…got to go!!!!”
July 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Wow, I’ve never heard of a self-avowed heterosexual male wanting to “slurp the pole”. Looks like you’re against your own self being allowed to join the military.
Then again, I’m not all that surprised. It’s common for people to hate gays when they feel some form of same-sex attraction, but are afraid to admit it to anyone, much less themselves.
July 19th, 2009 at 9:42 amWe can’t process these queers out fast enough. They all should be giving a Bad Conduct Discharge so they NEVER get to use our benefits for their AIDS.
July 19th, 2009 at 11:33 am#37 – RealityCheck says:
Well, RC, if you could control your urge to “slurp the pole” (as you so elegantly stated in your Post #35), you wouldn’t have to worry about STD’s.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:13 am