Gay Patriot Header Image

End Soon For DADT?

Posted by ColoradoPatriot at 7:45 pm - May 24, 2010.
Filed under: DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell)

Following a story that the White House is in discussions today with Capitol Hill leaders discussing moving forward with a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Possible action by the end of the week.

Will Charles Djou get there in time to help lead Republicans in voting for repeal?

More details to come.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from a Secret Undisclosed Alternate HQ)

UPDATE: Reading a little more on the tactics, it looks as though Congress would pass, and likely President Obama would sign, within the Defense Authorization Bill for this year, a provision that repeals the ban, but it would be written so as to not take effect until 90 days after the Pentagon submits its report on the policy, due out sometime in December.

The confusing point here is that, in order to repeal the DADT policy, a repeal is required of a portion of Title 10 US Code. I’m not an expert in law or legislation, so I’m not sure if there’s a way to pass a law to change US Code, but make its implementation contingent on the Pentagon’s report. How do you write that?

The following law is repealed, you know, contingent on whether a report that’s coming out in December sometime says what we want it to say. But if it does look like we’re hoping, this is the change we want to make: …

I have every reason to believe the Pentagon’s report is going to be favorable to repeal. But I just don’t know how you can write legislation contingent on it.

Then again, this is a body that passes legislation without even reading it (and tried to pass laws without voting on them), so I wouldn’t put anything past them.

Share

70 Comments

  1. […] End Soon For DADT? […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Now, Optimistic about DADT repeal — May 25, 2010 @ 8:06 pm - May 25, 2010

  2. was and still am having a spunky kind of day.

    I’ll bet.

    I gotta go with Hunter on this one. They have an out and will most likely take it right after taking advantage of gays once again for political purposes.

    BTW, my senator (Nelson) is too busy making an ass of himself coming up with hair-brained schemes to fcuk up the oil spill even more.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 25, 2010 @ 8:17 pm - May 25, 2010

  3. Throbert – if you want the repeal to be more successful, I recommend taking a look at Punitive Articles 77, 78, 80. 81, 82, 92, 120, 133, and 134 – the last is a ‘Catch-all article.’ Military prosecutors ‘stack’ the charges in order to overwhelm the ability of the jury to sort through the evidence. It’s an effective tactic.

    Then there is the military’s un-legislated law: regulations. Thousands upon thousands, from DOD down to each subordinate branch, major command, post/base, and activity.

    We’re not talking one article, or a regulation. And, after changes are made to repeal DADT, there are the legal challenges. While all that’s going on, what happens to the military’s legal and administrative systems? That SecDef Gates has set a deadline for December means he either has hundred of attorneys and clerks researching the issue and developing true solutions, or he’s going to leave chaos heretofore unknown in America’s history.

    I have noticed an absence of a discussion on limits. What is the action, facet of sexuality, the ‘something’ that is the limit of advance? Gunny conducting dress blue inspection in a dress? Private Smith enlisted because his/her recruiter said the Army would pay for all the counseling, chemicals, and surgery that goes into one from one gender to another?

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 25, 2010 @ 8:42 pm - May 25, 2010

  4. Gunny conducting dress blue inspection in a dress?

    Unless Gunny is fondling the hypothetical Marine in question, this is a not an issue. Or are you saying that there aren’t standards in place right now for Gunnys of one sex inspecting the uniforms of Marines of another? Hardly.

    Private Smith enlisted because his/her recruiter said the Army would pay for all the counseling, chemicals, and surgery that goes into one from one gender to another?

    Private Smith would be sorely disappointed since no proposals for DADT repeal include transgenders and we’d have another case of a recruiter making false promises.

    Comment by John — May 25, 2010 @ 9:05 pm - May 25, 2010

  5. John – the Gunny, in this instance, would be male. It ties into my question of what is an acceptable limit? Are trangendered and transexuals to be thrown under the bus?

    What are the second and third order effects of repealing DADT?

    Mentioned are major changes to the law. Sweeping revisions of regulations from top to bottom. And what of the impacts of civilian “hate” crimes on the military justice system?

    What of Morale, Welfare, & Recreation facilities and activities? Medical care? Pastoral counseling? Marriage/civil unions?

    What will the cost in terms of dollars and in terms of time (another form of dollars) to do all of this?

    I sense that for most folks, just repealing DADT is enough – the clouds will part, the angels will sing hosannas, and all will be at peace. To me, I liken it to Utah Beach on June 6th, 1944. You’re on the beach. Great. That was the easy part. Now scale the cliffs under fire Ranger.

    Comment by DaveOnotinSF — May 25, 2010 @ 9:55 pm - May 25, 2010

  6. Or are you saying that there aren’t standards in place right now for Gunnys of one sex inspecting the uniforms of Marines of another? Hardly.

    There are also laws in California that explicitly forbid both public nudity and taking children to adult venues.

    In short, it’s not that the law exists, it’s that it’s enforced. And you are expecting us to believe that the Obama Party and the Obama administration, both of which explicitly refuse to enforce laws, and the gay community, which explicitly refuses to follow laws and states that anyone who disagrees with its behaviors like taking children to sex fairs is a homophobic bigot, are going to enforce these standards.

    You have been used, John. The Obama Party and gay-sex liberals are not interested in military readiness. They are out to destroy the one institution they loathe the most, and you are going right along with them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 25, 2010 @ 10:44 pm - May 25, 2010

  7. John – the Gunny, in this instance, would be male.

    I assumed as much.

    It ties into my question of what is an acceptable limit?

    As far as, what exactly? Uniform inspections? Why exactly what they are now, which to my knowledge do not include groping the privates in both senses of the word.

    Are trangendered and transexuals to be thrown under the bus?

    Well on the one hand why should they be any different from the rest of us? After all, Obama has thrown most Americans under the proverbial bus since those “chickens have come home to roost” dontcha know. Yet transgenders bring a different dimension to this that the military and the public have yet to even begin to come to terms with as well as potential medical concerns from the drugs they take in order to “transition”. Medical concerns are entirely legit reasons to discriminate regardless of race, religion, blah blah blah.

    Mentioned are major changes to the law. Sweeping revisions of regulations from top to bottom.

    Which will be accomplished.

    And what of the impacts of civilian “hate” crimes on the military justice system?

    Military personnel are already subject to prosecution under Federal, State and local hate crimes laws. Now if you are speaking of whether the UCMJ should incorporate such laws, I doubt such would be necessary. I’m not aware of any such military laws for any other categories. There’s plenty in the UCMJ to nail an errant servicemember to the wall when necessary, besides the favorite catch-all of Article 134.

    What of Morale, Welfare, & Recreation facilities and activities? Medical care? Pastoral counseling? Marriage/civil unions?

    What about them? MWR facilities would be open to gay servicemembers as single individuals just like they are for everbody else, ditto for medical care and pastoral counseling. Marriage/civil unions are not an issue nor will they be as long as DOMA remains the law of the land.

    What will the cost in terms of dollars and in terms of time (another form of dollars) to do all of this?

    Beats me but given the nature of government undoubtedly more expensive than what it should cost.

    I sense that for most folks, just repealing DADT is enough – the clouds will part, the angels will sing hosannas, and all will be at peace. To me, I liken it to Utah Beach on June 6th, 1944. You’re on the beach. Great. That was the easy part. Now scale the cliffs under fire Ranger.

    Nope, I view it as a necessary step forward and then the hard work begins. Yet I also view repeal as something the military can handle and has proven in the past can overcome such challenges while maintaining its capability and readiness.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 8:28 am - May 26, 2010

  8. Rusty,

    Thanks for the description of the shades of the flower named heliotrope. You failed to mention its characteristic of facing the sun, from which it draws its name. It fixes on the source of light. Get it? It doesn’t dawdle in the shadows.

    As to my comment about gays in the military being locked up together with a stern monitor, Livewire (as always) understood it as satire.

    Here is the issue in with the source of light full in the face:

    1) Dropping DA/DT does not solve the conundrum of whether gays out of the closet enhance the military mission.

    2) What is the UCMJ to do about gays trolling?

    3) Why are liberal gays who likely oppose the military so darned eager to drop DA/DT?

    4) Are gays really going to relax if DA/DT is dropped, but a long list of banned sexual activities in the UCMJ prohibit them from exercising their sexual desires?

    5) The privacy of your bedroom in the civilian world is not possible in many military situations where soldiers are forced by conditions to live cheek by jowl.

    6) I believe that lib gays are full of manure on this whole issue. They are blathering away about “gay rights” and have little, if any, concern about the military mission.

    7) Your attempt to paint me as a voyeur is typical of liberals. Name calling is one of the first tactics when you don’t have the stuff to make a logical argument.

    Therefore: Rusty probably wonders why Heliotrope (the little pink and blue flower) keeps coming to a gay site. Why, he might be a closet gay! But, Rusty, you should notice that Heliotrope is always arguing from the position of whether the gay “agenda” improves society as a whole. Either you have a case to make or you are stomping your feet.

    Man up.

    Comment by heliotrope — May 26, 2010 @ 8:29 am - May 26, 2010

  9. There are also laws in California that explicitly forbid both public nudity and taking children to adult venues.

    Indeed, as there are laws on their books quite similiar to Arizona’s new law on illegal immigration. Yet California’s inability to enforce its own laws, let alone get a clue on proper budgeting, is its own problem to solve. I wish California well and hope it eventually does the right thing, but ultimately I don’t care as I’m not a Californian but a Virginian. Federalism means some states will be basket-cases like California and will reap what they sow. I have far more confidence in the military which has a proven track record and resolve when faced with such challenges.

    You have been used, John. The Obama Party and gay-sex liberals are not interested in military readiness. They are out to destroy the one institution they loathe the most, and you are going right along with them.

    And they will fail miserably. The military has endured administrations far worse than Obama’s. Besides, it may take the Dems to repeal DADT but the Repubs will get a large say in implementing it after November.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 8:35 am - May 26, 2010

  10. John,

    Just curious which you’d prefer. The UCMJ codes on fraternization/sexual contact being enforced across the board, or the standards being relaxed across the board?

    Disclaimer: When I was younger and a bit more rural, I used the UCMJ against a guy dating my sister. I cheerfully pointed out that he’d been through basic training already and was covered under the UCMJ, so anything under 18 was statuatory. I felt confident with him dating my sister, as if he did anything inappropriate he’d end up getting to know the military legal system intimately. He stopped dating my sister soon after.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 8:49 am - May 26, 2010

  11. Helitrope,

    If I might address your points.

    1) I believe that is what the military comission’s report is to say.

    2) The same thing about straights trolling. In both cases, I’d also point out the rank and file have been known to resolve the issue. (google ‘blanket party

    3) Those who oppose the military, yes they likely want to destabalize it. This would be countered by a stronger enforcement of the UCMJ, as well as number 2, above. “What happened to Private Pyle?” “Dunno sir, dude kept breaking ranks and falling down.”

    4) “Sure beats ‘alternate means of recreation'” – Under the Hammer, David Drake. This is one of the things to consider.

    5) There’s no ‘hang the sock on the door’ for straight soldiers either. In both cases, doing your boyfriend/girlfriend in the barracks would be tasteless.

    6) I think this fits a large number, maybe a plurality of the gay liberals. Certainly a number of them appear to post on the site. However, I don’t think most of them would make it through basic, let alone through AIT. And if they did, and were disruptive, well in peacetime they would be coersed to conform (which is what the military is about) and in wartime, they’d remove themselves from the gene pool right quick.

    7) I’ll let rusty speak to this. In his defense, text does strip emotional context and he does seem to have missed the sarcasm intended in your post. At the same time, yes, rusty, appologize to the nice flower guy.

    It’s a fact that we do have gay men and women serving now. And have in the past, all the way back to von Steuben. The question is, as we deal with threats of the 21st century (brought to us by the 8th and the 19th) do we allow them to serve openly, or do we deny the resources they do bring because of the problems they may bring.

    This does need to be addressed. We ignore the ‘problems’ brought by Muslims in the military. Even with the actions of Asan Akbar and Nidal Malik Hasan, we ignore the threat of radicalized Muslims and assume most all of the Muslims in the service are serving their country.

    We should re-evaluate that, as well as gays in the military. The end result might be “hey, DADT is a good idea after all.” But at least we have the discussion.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:17 am - May 26, 2010

  12. My two C-bills on the CD/TG issue.

    Cross Dressers. Tough. I couldn’t have my beard in the army, or my long hair. I also couldn’t be fat. you wear the uniform that matches your plumbing, deal with it.

    Trangendered. Well the military doesn’t take folks who are on anti-depressants, or ritallin. So with the hormones and other things that a TG needs, it makes sense (logistically) to exclude them.

    Not fair you say? Life’s tough, get a helmet.

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:21 am - May 26, 2010

  13. Just curious which you’d prefer. The UCMJ codes on fraternization/sexual contact being enforced across the board, or the standards being relaxed across the board?

    Enforced equally across the board regardless of sexual orientation, with the notable exception of Article 125 that should either be re-written to exclude instances where consent is given or be removed entirely.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 9:27 am - May 26, 2010

  14. So a little of both (considering changing an article as ‘relaxing’ same). Thank you. Any of our vets know how the UMCJ is altered? Is it done by the executive or by the congress?

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 10:29 am - May 26, 2010

  15. So a little of both (considering changing an article as ‘relaxing’ same). Thank you.

    Just to be clear, even without the repeal of DADT I believe Article 125 should be re-written or removed. It serves no legitimate purpose and makes even married heterosexual servicemembers engaging in oral or anal sex with their spouses in the privacy of their homes subject to prosecution. This kind of rule that most people disagree with and routinely ignore erodes respect for the law.

    Any of our vets know how the UMCJ is altered? Is it done by the executive or by the congress?

    The UCMJ itself is law so only Congress can alter it. Implementation of any changes would be by the Executive branch.

    Comment by John — May 26, 2010 @ 11:38 am - May 26, 2010

  16. danke LW. . . my apologies to heliotrope

    and now for a little ‘man up’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgA4JQQhZD4

    Comment by rusty — May 26, 2010 @ 11:51 am - May 26, 2010

  17. It’s a fact that we do have gay men and women serving now.

    Indeed we do, and apparently doing a very good job of it — under a set of rules that make it clear that if you put your sexual orientation first and behave in the promiscuous and irresponsible manner that is mainstream in the gay community, you are gone.

    DADT requires gay and lesbian people to focus on the military mission, rather than on their own sexual orientation. It also explicitly precludes people receiving special treatment on the basis of their sexual orientation.

    Both of which are why liberals hate it.

    DADT is an excellent policy. If you put gay sex first, you don’t belong in the military. If you are willing to make personal sacrifices and obey orders just like heterosexuals do, you are welcome therein. Lieutenant Dan Choi, for example, is clearly unfit to serve because of his sexual orientation and the fact that it makes him act like an idiot. The policy removes him and gets him away from the people he will hurt because his sexual orientation prevents him from functioning as a normal person.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2010 @ 4:18 pm - May 26, 2010

  18. This does need to be addressed. We ignore the ‘problems’ brought by Muslims in the military. Even with the actions of Asan Akbar and Nidal Malik Hasan, we ignore the threat of radicalized Muslims and assume most all of the Muslims in the service are serving their country.

    And why, Livewire?

    Because we have an administration and an Obama Party in power now that puts pandering to minorities ahead of protecting our soldiers.

    If you needed any better argument as to why DADT should stay put, that is it. It is insane to expect an Obama Party that openly states that it would rather soldiers be murdered than upset radical Islamists to decide that it will put the welfare of our soldiers ahead of pandering to gay-sex liberals.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 26, 2010 @ 4:21 pm - May 26, 2010

  19. That may be true for our fuzzy Muslim terrorists, but it distracts from my point in that context.

    While there are folks who want to play GI Meat Market, we have several others who just want to serve, and there would be less pressure if they could openly say “I was out with my BF/GF and catching a film.” Or “Whee! A care package from the partner! Anyone want homemade cookies?”

    That’s the discussion I’m talking about NDT, the ones who go flaming will have that beat out of them, if not by the drill seargent, then by the unit in the barracks.

    We NEED to discuss if radicalized Muslims are a security risk, and what signs there are. We should have the discussion if people like my mom’s ex should have had to hide their orientation. It is possible to be gay and serve, w/o asking for special rights.

    MY little brother said it best, “I don’t care WHO they’re sleeping with as long as they’re doing their job and I can trust them.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 26, 2010 @ 9:20 pm - May 26, 2010

  20. That’s the discussion I’m talking about NDT, the ones who go flaming will have that beat out of them, if not by the drill seargent, then by the unit in the barracks.

    Right. The community that turns purple, shrieks “hate crime”, and files fifteen lawsuits when you dare to write a letter critical of gay peoples’ behavior is going to allow that?

    It is possible to be gay and serve, w/o asking for special rights.

    Possible? Yes.

    Probable? You are asking me to believe that a community that has fought any criticism of its behavior, that screams “homophobe” whenever it is asked to follow any semblance of rules or guidelines, and which has demanded special rights for literal decades is suddenly going to drop that and decide they can play ball with the other kids.

    Not bloody likely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 27, 2010 @ 2:07 am - May 27, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.