Now, the movement to repeal the ban on gay men and women from serving openly in the military has gained even more momentum. Three former military chaplains are announcing today that they support a full repeal of the DADT. In a Q&A released by VoteVets, the three men, Charles D. Camp, Chaplain (Colonel), USA (Ret.), John F. Gundlach, CAPT, CHC, USN (Ret.), and Jerry Rhyne, Chaplain (Colonel), USAF (Ret.), also addressed implementation concerns regarding a repeal:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on unit cohesion and morale?

The 2009 Joint Forces Quarterly article states clearly, “After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.” A 1993 RAND Corp. report concludes the same, as do several other military-commissioned reports. In addition, 68 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan troops said, according to a 2006 Zogby poll, they either knew for certain (23%) or suspected (45%) there were gays in their own unit. That means there are tens of thousands of known gay service members currently working and fighting alongside their straight peers, and there is no demonstrable negative impact on unit morale, cohesion or combat readiness. In fact, 73% of troops in the poll said they were “comfortable” in the presence of gay peers. [...]

Polling data from current U.S. troops combined with the experience of our foreign military allies demonstrate that known gays in a unit do not degrade morale, cohesion or operational readiness.

Disputing the claims often made by supporters of DADT, Camp, Gundlach, and Rhyne argue that repealing the policy would actually help the military’s recruitment and retention:

What would be the impact of changing the current law on recruiting and retention?

Repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would help recruiting and retention. The recent issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, an article—reportedly signed off on by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen–convincingly makes the case that current law has been “costly both in personnel and treasure,’’ referring to the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills. Approximately two service members are discharged each day under DADT. This number includes linguists, physicians, pilots and others highly trained personnel in mission critical specialties. Costs for the training of replacements are in the hundreds of millions. According to the UCLA’s Williams Institute, an estimated 2500-3000 service members either leave the service, or choose not to re-enlist, because of the law. When the number of involuntary discharges under “don’t ask, don’t tell” is combined with the voluntary attrition because of this law, the result is an annual loss of 4000 trained, experienced and often combat tested troops. Replacing these veterans with recent graduates of recruit training or newly commissioned officers would naturally reduce unit readiness.

VoteVets is “gathering names of veterans to give to the White House and Congress to let them know now is the time to overturn this discriminatory policy.” Veterans can sign the petition here and civilians can sign a petition of support here.

Access the full release and Q & A here (pdf).

HOST: Do you have an opinion about whether it’s time?

MYERS: Well, I take some exception with what Senator Levin said because gays can serve in the military; they just can’t serve openly. And they do. And there’s lots of them. And we’re the beneficiary of all that.

Levin rolled his eyes after hearing Myers’ remark. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said “there’s no question it’s time to change the policy.” Asked for his thoughts, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) avoided making any clear statements. Watch it:

According to Myers, silent discrimination is totally acceptable in the military. He’s happy to be the “beneficiary” of the sacrifices of soldiers who have to hide their sexual orientation. As the Pentagon’s own journal — Joint Force Quarterly — explains, the current policy damages unit cohesion:

The law as it currently stands does not prohibit homosexuals from serving in the military as long as they keep it secret. This has led to an uncomfortable value disconnect as homosexuals serving, estimated to be over 65,000, must compromise personal integrity. Given the growing gap between social mores and the law, DADT may do damage to the very unit cohesion that it seeks to protect. Finally, it has placed commanders in a position where they are expected to know everything about their troops except this one aspect.

This current status quo of quiet discrimination is responsible for the dismissal of many qualified soldiers with critical skills. “By not allowing gay Americans to serve openly, we are imposing an artificial limit on the number of loyal Americans that our military can draw upon to fill its ranks,” writes Stephen Walt.

After Myers left his post in 2005, he was replaced by his deputy, Peter Pace, who opposed repealing DADT because he said homosexuality is “immoral.” The current Joint Chiefs chairman, Admiral Mike Mullen, has taken a different view, stating that the military is prepared to accept a change in policy.

OBAMA: This story, this fight, continues, now, and I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (APPLAUSE)

For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. (APPLAUSE) Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.

Obama also addressed right-wing criticisms being hurled at his LGBT nominees and staffers, such as EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum and Department of Education official Kevin Jennings. Both have been the subjects of extremely homophobic slurs. WorldNetDaily editor and CEO Joseph Farrah said that Obama must find “people” like Feldblum on “Perverts.gov,” and the Traditional Values Coalition wrote that she wanted “the gay agenda to trump the First Amendment and religious freedom.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has claimed that Jennings wants to push a “homosexual agenda” in U.S. schools.

While Obama didn’t specifically point to any of his nominees, he strongly reiterated his support for them and condemned homophobic slurs:

OBAMA: For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair, it’s not right, we’re going to put a stop to it. (APPLAUSE)

And it’s for this reason if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (APPLAUSE)

Watch it:

Transcript:

OBAMA: This story, this fight, continues, now, and I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (APPLAUSE)

For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot and we will not put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe that progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that. (APPLAUSE) Because it’s important to be honest amongst friends.

Now, I said this before, I’ll repeat it again. It’s not for me to tell you to be patient, anymore than it was for others to counsel patience to African-Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (APPLAUSE) But I will say this: We have made progress, and we will make more, and I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. [...]

For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair, it’s not right, we’re going to put a stop to it. (APPLAUSE)

And it’s for this reason if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (APPLAUSE)

GOHMERT: If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930’s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.

Watch it:

Several times in the speech, Gohmert credited the conservative Christian “C Street” leader Chuck Colson for inspiration. Oddly, Gohmert also meandered into a self-defensive monologue about how he is not racist because he once voted for Alan Keyes, the birther leader who has said that President Obama is “a radical communist” who “is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

JONES: The President has an awful lot on his desk. I know this is an issue that he intends to take on at the appropriate time. He has already signaled that to the Defense Department. The Defense Department is doing the things it has to do to prepare, but at the right time, I’m sure the President will take it on.

KING: No idea when the right time is?

JONES: Um, I don’t think it’s going to be — it’s not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately.

Watch it:

A prominent Pentagon journal reported the results of a study this week which found “that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.” Taking issue with Jones’ statement this morning, John Aravosis writes:

What could Jones have said? How about, there’s a new analysis from a Department of Defense-related publication that…the ban can be lifted without hurting morale and cohesion. Or how about saying that the President just wrote to Senator Reid, agreeing to work together to lift the ban? Nope. None of that. All we got was another reason why the president may never be able to keep his promise.”

DOMINICK: Couldn’t one just simply say that we’re compromising our national security without allowing experts to serve in our military – Arabic linguists and weapons experts – just because of their sexual orientation?

BOLTON: I don’t have any trouble with anyone having any sexual orientation that they want. How that specifically relates to military personnel policy, I have not thought specifically about, and I like to think about things before I opine on the subject.

Listen here:

Bolton generally doesn’t spend much time deliberating whether to send troops into conflicts (such as Iran, North Korea, and Somalia), but when it comes to the sexual orientation of those soldiers, he needs time to think about it.

About 20 minutes into his speech, however, Clinton was interrupted by blogger Lane Hudson, who asked about the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that Clinton implemented. “Hey, you ought to go to one of those congressional health care meetings,” Clinton joked before defending his actions as president and claiming that “nobody regrets how this was implemented anymore than I do”:

CLINTON: I hated what happened. I regret it but I didn’t have, I didn’t think at the time, any choice if I wanted any progress to be made at all. Look, I think it’s ridiculous. Can you believe they spent, whatever they spent, $150,000 to get rid of a valued Arabic speaker recently? You know, the thing that changed me forever on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was when I learned that 130 gay service people were allowed to serve and risk their lives in the first Gulf War and all their commanders knew they were gay, but they let them go out there and risk their lives because they needed them. Then as soon as the first Gulf War was over, they kicked them out. That’s all I needed to know. That’s all anybody needs to know that this policy should be changed.

Watch it:

At the Huffington Post, Hudson wrote that he interrupted the speech because “it became clear there would be no questions,” so when President Clinton said that “We need an honest, principled debate,” he stood and asked his question. Hudson said he was satisfied with Clinton’s answer on DADT, writing that “he made the strongest objection to DADT he has ever made to the best of my knowledge.”

The Obama White House has committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but is waiting to see “congressional action” first. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) and Sen. Kristian Gillibrand (D-NY) are taking the lead on repealing the provision in Congress.

HASTINGS: If something is bigoted and if your intent is to see to it that it does not continue, then I did not understand the leadership of Congress or the White House in saying that the time is not right. My position is: The president has said he wishes that this matter be repealed. My colleague, Patrick Murphy, now has more than 170 co-sponsors on a measure to repeal it. Secretary Gates has said, I`m glad he is now saying when we change our policy. Last year, he would have been saying “if.” But my view is, that the time is now to eliminate this bigoted law once and for all.

Watch it:

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that, until the law is repealed, he is looking at ways to make the application of it more “humane.”

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.

MURPHY: I think, you know, sometimes, it’s frankly disheartening. I’ve only been here for 2 1/2 years, but sometimes they give the excuse of, “I can’t do it in my district. I’m in a tough district.” And that’s Republicans and Democrats. They’d be like, “Murph, I would love to be with you.”

“There are members on both sides of the aisle that say, ‘Patrick, I’ll vote for it. I just can’t cosponsor it,’” Murphy later said. Watch it:

The Navy would not comment on whether Provost’s orientation had anything to do with the death.

“While ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ is in place, anybody in the military who is a homosexual has no place to go to get assistance or counseling,” said Ben Gomez of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group for gays in the military.

(HT: Raw Story)

Yesterday, the president hosted a meeting commemorating the 40th anniversary of the gay rights movement where he reiterated his desire to end the policy, saying it “doesn’t contribute to our national security.” Appearing again on MSNBC last night, Fehrenbach, who attended the White House meeting yesterday, said that Obama told him privately that a “generational gap” is the biggest obstacle standing in the way of overturning DADT:

FEHRENBACH: I told him the situation for me was urgent and I needed his help. [...] He looked me right in the eye and he said, “We’re going to get this done.” And then he continued to say, you know, everyone seems to be onboard. We’ve got about 75 percent of the public that supports this. He said, but we have a generational issue. And so, there is some convincing to do, that there is a generational gap it seems and some of the senior leadership.

Fehrenbach called it a “reasonable answer,” adding that “the young officers and the young enlisted corps” he works with find this to be a “a non-issue.” “I sort of suspected that maybe the people that were a little bit disconnected were some of the senior leadership,” he said. Watch it:

Fehrenbach said that he “didn’t get the impression” that Obama was just trying to placate the gay community by offering a photo-op with the president for not acting on gay rights issues thus far. “He likened these efforts to the efforts 40, 50 years ago for the African-American community,” he said. “So…this discrimination is something he’s felt his whole life. So, this sounded like it was a personal issue for him, that he really did believe in these causes and wanted, you know, equal rights for all Americans.”

DOMINICK: You’re a 31 year veteran of the military, Army, like I’ve said, you served in Vietnam. What’s your opinion of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy currently in place? Should it be repealed or should it remain in place?

WILKERSON: Let me say just right off the bat, it should be repealed. Gays should be able to serve – gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the American armed forces just like anyone else does. [...]

DOMINICK: It should be repealed immediately.

WILKERSON: Yep.

Listen here:

At a meeting commemorating the 40th anniversary of the gay rights movement at the White House today with more than 250 leaders of the gay community, President Obama defended his administration’s lack of action thus far in his presidency in repealing the policy. But according to the Boston Globe, Obama added the delay “does not diminish his pledge to eventually overturn it.” Read the Center for American Progress’s report on how Obama can repeal the ban here.

Transcript:

DOMINICK: You’re a 31-year veteran of the military, Army, like I’ve said, you served in Vietnam. What’s your opinion of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy currently in place? Should it be repealed or should it remain in place?

WILKERSON: Let me say just right off the bat, it should be repealed. Gays should be able to serve – gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the American armed forces just like anyone else does. And let me say that the way that policy came about, was we still need someone to write the book or the article or whatever because the real cruncher there was the Congress of the United States. It wasn’t the military, it wasn’t the joint staff, it certainly wasn’t Colin Powell. I was there; I was in the middle of it. It was the Congress of the United States. The Congress turned and members of the Congress of Clinton’s own party said to him, “Over our dead bodies.” And Clinton turned to Powell and said, “Oh work me out a compromise.” And Powell worked out the compromise, well the joint staff and the chairman and the chiefs worked out a compromise and it was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I’m not sure any of them liked it very much but that’s what we’ve got. But I gave you a direct answer.

DOMINICK: It should be repealed immediately.

WILKERSON: Yep.

1. Signing an Executive Order banning further military separations based on DADT and sending a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress

2. Forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal

3. Repealing DADT in Congress and changing the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, or UCMS

4. Changing other necessary military guidelines to conform to the new policy

5. Following-up to ensure that the armed forces implement the policy changes

In today’s press briefing, David Corn of Mother Jones asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the report and whether the Obama administration thinks this is “the way to go.” Gibbs largely dismissed CAP’s recommendations, saying that the White House is not interested in signing an executive order to temporarily halt DADT:

GIBBS: Well, the President has had meetings about this, has talked with members of Congress. His staff has talked with members of Congress. All of them have talked to Pentagon officials and the administration believes that this requires a durable, legislative solution, and is pursing that in Congress.

Q: I understand that for the long-term solution, but what do you take issue with about signing an executive order that will suspend the separations before an endurable solution is reached through the slow legislative process?

GIBBS: I mean, I think there could be differences on strategy. I think our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a durable, comprehensive legislative process.

Watch it:

ThinkProgress spoke with CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb, one of the authors of the report, who reiterated that it’s essential for Obama to suspend the dismissals of gay men and women while working on a long-term solution with Congress:

We agree on the need for a durable legislative solution. But a presidential suspension on further dismissals on the basis of DADT is not only within the authority of the president but is necessary to begin the process of repealing this counterproductive, costly, and unnecessary law.

Read the full report here.

Transcript:

Q: Center for American Progress this week put out a report on how to undo “don’t ask, don’t tell” — five steps. The first step is, the President signing an executive order banning further military separations based on “don’t ask, don’t tell” and sending a legislative proposal for the repeal to Congress, and then forming a presidential panel on how to implement the repeal. Can you tell me why the White House doesn’t believe that seems to be the way to go?

GIBBS: Well, the President has had meetings about this, has talked with members of Congress. His staff has talked with members of Congress. All of them have talked to Pentagon officials and the administration believes that this requires a durable, legislative solution, and is pursing that in Congress.

Q: I understand that for the long-term solution, but what do you take issue with about signing an executive order that will suspend the separations before an endurable solution is reached through the slow legislative process?

GIBBS: I mean, I think there could be differences on strategy. I think our belief is that the only and best way to do this is through a durable, comprehensive legislative process.

A blanket hold placed late last week by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on all State Department nominees appears to have been lifted on Saturday, administration sources tell The Cable. Kyl’s only remaining hold, The Cable was told, is on Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), President Obama’s nominee to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security.

Kyl’s office confirmed his remaining hold on Tauscher’s nomination. “He honestly has made no guise of his hold on her nomination,” spokesman Ryan Patmintra told The Cable Monday.

When asked why Kyl is placing a hold on Tauscher, a spokesperson said, “He expressed privately to the administration his concerns. He has chosen not to discuss them publicly.” Indeed, Kyl’s office did not respond to an inquiry from ThinkProgress.

But last week, Rozen reported that Capitol Hill sources said Kyl “is not satisified with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia”:

“Kyl’s beef and the general Republican argument now emerging against the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policy is that they are rushing to conclude a new agreement with Russia on strategic arms levels before their Nuclear Posture Review [NPR] is complete,” a Democratic congressional source said.

However, the Obama administration has to move quickly because the arms control agreement with Russia — the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a verification regime signed in 1991 — expires on Dec. 5. The Obama administration has made no secret of wanting warmer relations with Russia. In recent negotiations, both nations have expressed interest in “much deeper cuts in strategic arsenals than those achieved by START when it came into force.”

Nuclear non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione told ThinkProgress, “Senator Kyl wants to delay any arms reductions until the Nuclear Posture Review, then work the process so the NPR makes only minor changes to the existing nuclear arsenal.”

Indeed, if Obama makes a deal with Russian President Medvedev to drastically reduce nuclear stockpiles, Kyl — who is against reducing America’s nuclear weapons — won’t have much of an opportunity to challenge it. Kyl would rather play domestic politics with the NPR and have a chance at limiting nuclear reductions before any U.S.-Russia binding agreement. Thus, it appears Kyl is using the NPR as an excuse to block U.S. negotiations with Russia, and is holding up Tauscher’s nomination as blackmail.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speaking at a press conference Monday said he has no plans to introduce a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the Senate.

“I haven’t identified any sponsors,” he said. “My hope is that it can be done administratively.“

The Obama administration has repeatedly resisted calls to suspend DADT by executive order. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs last month said that President Obama is looking for a “durable legislative solution,” and Obama himself has written that repeal of the policy “needs Congressional action.”

Many LGBT bloggers immediately criticized Reid’s comments, saying that Obama and Congress were “playing hot potato over DADT.”

Today in a statement to ThinkProgress, Reid’s office clarified the senator’s remarks, saying that what he is looking for is a “legislative proposal” from the White House. Additionally, while the Senate does not currently have a bill introduced, “a number” of senators are working on one:

While we do not have a Don’t Ask Don’t Tell bill introduced in the Senate yet, a number of Senators are working on an approach to get it repealed. We would welcome a legislative proposal from the White House on repeal so as to provide clear guidance on what the President would like to see and when. Working together, I believe we can find the time to get repeal done in this Congress.

One of the major obstacles to introducing a bill in the Senate has been finding a willing Republican co-sponsor. The House already has a bill to repeal DADT. “If the House moves on this,” said Reid, “I would be happy to take it up.”

“I have no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve,” McHugh told Roll Call.

He noted that the Armed Services Committee has not considered the policy “in any formal way” since 1993. In the meantime, “certainly, the recruiting-age population’s views have changed on that whole matter,” he said.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that McHugh shared Obama’s commitment to repealing the ban.

It’s obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the president are in agreement on changing the policy they both don’t think is working for this country right now. And it’s a priority of the president’s.

It’s not clear to which statements Gibbs is referring. McHugh has kept his personal views on the issue rather quiet, though he criticized the military and the Defense Department for refusing to testify on the issue. Watch it:

Notably, neither Obama nor McHugh mentioned the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, an issue McHugh will surely have to address. His congressional record provides few clues as to his position. McHugh has not signed on to co-sponsor to a House bill that would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military, and last year earned only a 15 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

However, in opening and closing remarks during a hearing last year on the DADT, McHugh seemed open to changing the ban on gay servicemembers, asking for further hearings on the issue and chastising the military for having “refused to step forward” and testify on the matter:

[O]ur challenge is to examine and determine whether that conclusion of 1993 remains valid here in 2008. … I share the Chairlady’s disappointment that thus far the services have refused to step forward. I don’t see as an individual member how I fully and fairly consider this question and more importantly the issue of changing this question without the input of those in the active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding our forces in time of war. [...]

Again, to underscore my opening comments about my disappointment in the military services because we have to at some point I would assume, come to a decision as to whose opinion prevails…And with all due deference, and respect, and appreciation to this panel and the five individuals who have appeared here, that kind of weighty decisions from my perspective ought to be based on a much broader foundation of input.

During the hearing, McHugh studiously avoided revealing his own views about the military’s discriminatory policies. With the Obama administration moving slowly on repealing the ban, it remains to be seen whether McHugh can help nudge the Army toward taking that “step forward” toward greater equality.