Administration lays groundwork for DADT repeal
On Thursday, considering what the president said in the State of the Union Address about repealing the ban on gays in the military, I wrote:
We have yet to see whether his Administration has, in private meetings with the Pentagon brass, laid the groundwork for repeal and whether its legislative liaison has been working with congressional leaders to set a timeline for moving the appropriate legislation forward.
Well, it appears that the Administration has indeed laid the groundwork for repeal:
The Defense Department starts the clock next week on what is expected to be a several-year process in lifting its ban on gays from serving openly in the military.
A special investigation into how the ban can be repealed without hurting the morale or readiness of the troops was expected to be announced Tuesday by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
While it seems like such a process shouldn’t take so long, I do trust the military for taking charge of such matters. It is important that this be done in a manner which does not impact in an adverse way the effectiveness of our armed forces. The AP article quoted above also reports something of which I had previously been unaware: “the 1948 executive order for racial integration took five years to implement.”
The President also will be meeting next week with Gates to discuss repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. But, while the Administration is working with the military to lay the groundwork for repeal, progress on the legislative front is much slower with “Democrats in Congress . . . unlikely to press the issue until after this fall’smidterm elections.”
Given the initiative the Administration has taken in working with military leaders on this matter, right now it seems those congressional Democrats more greatly merit the scorn of the gay left than does the president.
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think this is a policy that needs to go, and I am not bothered by the fact that the might take their time to have all i’s dotted and t’s crossed, as long as they aren’t using the “take it slow to make sure we get it right” route to put off making the change.
I would like to see congress take a more active role.
Comment by just me — January 31, 2010 @ 3:25 pm - January 31, 2010
They’re just starting? Tardo would have us believe they’ve been doing it all along.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2010 @ 4:03 pm - January 31, 2010
Indeed. This is bold leadership?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — January 31, 2010 @ 5:54 pm - January 31, 2010
This looks more like the Administration and Pentagon brass putting on a good show while punting on the issue as much as possible. The Administration wants to appear like they are doing something without actually having to do anything, joined by the Dems in Congress, while the Pentagon brass which is always averse to change of just about any kind is probably hoping to kick the can until 2012 with the hope that Obama proves to be a one-termer. The irony is that while I want to see the ban repealed I also want Obama to be sent packing in 2012 so at least the brass and I share one goal…
As for the questions raised in the article, they do not require a long period to “study”, except perhaps the first I could see taking some time:
“Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex?”
Unless other reasonable arrangements can be made, yes. However, not until a policy is in place holding such openly gay servicemembers to the same standards regarding fraternization, sexual harassment, etc. as straight servicemembers are held to.
“Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member’s partner?”
While I would love to say “yes” and hope to see it happen one day, no. Until DOMA is resolved the military answers to the Federal Government and right now the Feds do not recognize same-sex marriage. That could change is lawsuits are successful in striking down the Feds refusal to recognize all marriages performed by the States. I doubt such will happen soon so this isn’t a pressing issue for the military, more like one to study for the future.
“Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren’t passed over for promotions?”
Absolutely NOT. Openly gay servicemembers will have to take their chances without a policy imposing something like this that WOULD be detrimental to the military. Some will no doubt face discrimination, others will not.
Comment by John — January 31, 2010 @ 5:58 pm - January 31, 2010
“Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren’t passed over for promotions?”
</i?
The military doesn't even do this with minorities. Promotions at least among the enlisted ranks are completely dependent on rating and performance on tests.
I do think the DOD needs to make sure they have UCMJ standards adapted to cover the service of gays (fraternization policies etc) as well as any other regulations that would need adapting/changing to reflect the change.
Comment by just me — January 31, 2010 @ 7:29 pm - January 31, 2010
This has nothing to do with racial integration. My father along with the majority of Black men were DRAFTED into the service. They didn’t volunteer. They knew the score.
Homosexuals are volunteering. Get your facts straight.
Comment by crystal.glass — January 31, 2010 @ 8:07 pm - January 31, 2010
…also, I served in the Navy Honorably and had a lesbian put in the room with me. It doesn’t work. Nobody should be forced to live like that.
Comment by crystal.glass — January 31, 2010 @ 8:09 pm - January 31, 2010
crystal.glass:
Yes, I think people are aware of the differences between the 1940s and today.
You poor thing. You had to bunk with someone from the island of Lesbos! My god, what is this world coming to!
But seriously, we can’t make any judgments about your experience with so little detail. Did the “lesbian” fail to enjoy your company or was it the other way around?
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 1, 2010 @ 3:57 pm - February 1, 2010
Average Gay Joe @ 4:
Hmmm. That doesn’t make sense, John. With or without DOMA, the military answers to the Federal Government.
It is possible for the government to offer spousal benefits without worrying about civil unions, marriage, etc. Parts of the government other than the military already do so. As far as dealing with DADT is concerned, the matters of civil unions and spousal benefits are tangents.
Given the history of our judiciary, one can never be certain what they will do. However, I can see no constitutional grounds for the assertion that the federal government must recognize and and all marriages that are recognized by any state. The U.S. government has no obligation to recognize any legal entity simply because a state does. Under such logic, the Dred Scott ruling would have been correct.
Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — February 1, 2010 @ 4:10 pm - February 1, 2010