This afternoon, during an eQualityThinking Panel titled, “The Truth Behind The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal,” former Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) tried to explain why advocates of DADT repeal ultimately bargained away the requirement that the Pentagon implement a new nondiscrimination policy after lifting the ban against open-service. The provision — which would specifically prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation — was part of Murphy’s initial amendment but was later removed to improve the chances of passage, as the former Congressman described it. Gay rights leaders are now pressuring President Obama to issue an executive order instituting a nondiscrimination policy to ensure that gay troops have the same rights and protections as straight servicemembers.

“[E]veryone played a vital role in passing this major piece of civil rights legislation all being it’s not perfect. The 1964 civil rights legislation was not perfect, but it was a huge step on the way forward,” Murphy said on the call. “We need to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they don’t try to revoke this over in the Congress.”

Aubrey Sarvis, Executive Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), who was also on the call, reiterated Murphy’s explanation saying, “a decision was made by the leaders of the legislation on the Hill that those provisions would have to be dropped in order to insure more votes, not only in the House Armed Services Committee, but also on the House floor. So, it was a matter of practical necessity and politics.” In May, Murphy had suggested that he received assurances that the government would implement a nondiscrimination policy once DADT is repealed. “I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place,” he told me. He did not, however, reiterate this commitment on today’s call or address why Obama dodged the question twice during a recent interview with Kerry Eleveld.

Murphy also added that the certification language — which was also not part of the original repeal amendment — was added to give the Pentagon “buy in” and build support for the measure among more conservative members in Congress. “Putting that language in the bill that was finally passed it gave them buy in, it wasn’t like we were shoving it down their necks,” he said, before adding, “I don’t think this is a gradual phase out, it’s going to be a light switch — it’s just a procedure that needs to be agreed on.”

Editor’s note: A version of this post was prematurely published yesterday afternoon. We apologize for the confusion.

At a pen-pad briefing this morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) announced that Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) will introduce a stand-alone DADT repeal bill that he will co-sponsor and bring to the House floor in short order. The legislation will be identical to the measure offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) after the Senate failed to proceed to the National Defense Authorization Act last week and will include the same repeal language contained in the NDAA, which passed the House in May.

While the exact process is still unclear, Politico’s Josh Gerstein reported yesterday that Democrats may be exploring different avenues for expediting the repeal process by moving the measure from one chamber to another. Other Democrats are suggesting that the House and Senate will still pass separate repeal bills. Last week, Washington Post’s Greg Sargent speculated on the following tactic:

Here’s yet another way DADT repeal could still happen: A Senate aide says one scenario being mulled would be to ask the House to pass repeal again and send the Senate a so-called “message” asking for a vote. That would circumvent various procedural hurdles. No idea if it will happen, but it’s a possibility.

However the Democrats decide to proceed, bringing up the measure in the House presents a real possibility for having a clear up or down vote on lifting the ban in the lame duck session. Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sounded very optimistic about the bills’ chances in the lower chamber, saying “[a]n army of allies stands ready in the House to pass a standalone repeal of the discriminatory policy once the Senate acts.” In the Senate, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Scott Brown (R-MA) also hinted they could support a stand-alone measure.

[/update