SLDN News

AFP: Being ‘Out’ Means Being Thrown Out for U.S. Soldiers

2009-11-03T17:39:34+00:00

Click here to watch former U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant David Hall share his experience of being discharged under DADT with Agence France-Presse.

SLDN Urges Secretary of Army to Clarify Recent DADT Remarks

2009-10-29T19:55:52+00:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: KEVIN NIX
OCT. 29, 2009 (202) 621-6502

SLDN Urges Secretary of Army to Clarify Recent DADT Remarks
Suggestion to Army Times of Piecemeal Repeal Strategy is ‘Absolute Nonstarter’

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Army Times newspaper recently discussed lifting the ban on openly gay service members with the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. Reporter Rick Maze interviewed the Secretary and wrote the following on October 25:

It’s possible…that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out. ‘I don’t want to prejudge the situation,’ he [McHugh] said. ‘I am saying if he [Obama] did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.’

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), responded to this report.

“We gather that Secretary McHugh was alluding in this interview to a hypothetical situation – if the President proposed some sort of phased-in approach to lifting the ban by Military Occupation Specialties (MSOs). But speaking in hypotheticals about separate billets or a gradual lifting of the ban does not advance the President’s stated goal of full legislative repeal. The ban must be lifted across all services, all occupations, and all units – all at the same time. Any kind of piecemeal approach to repeal, or even any discussion of such an approach, is an absolute nonstarter.”

SLDN respectfully asks Secretary McHugh to amend or clarify his comments by explicitly stating full repeal is the only way to go.

“We hope Secretary McHugh would quickly slam the door shut on any phase-in for repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’” said Sarvis, “and get squarely on the same page as the commander in chief, who said almost two weeks ago, ‘I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

McHugh’s comments come on the heels of a pro-repeal essay by Col. Om Prakash published in an official Pentagon publication. Prakash reviewed the scientific research on gays in the military and concluded that openly gay service members have no impact on unit cohesion or military readiness. A piece published on TheAtlantic.com also looked at historical research, finding that Department of Defense studies conducted in 1957, 1988, and 1993 agreed with Prakash’s conclusion.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”A Journalist’s Guide is available here.

Washington Post Editorial: A Civil Rights Advance

2009-10-28T13:46:23+00:00

A civil rights advance
A federal law targets violence based on sexual orientation.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA is scheduled to sign Wednesday what is being described as the nation's first significant pro-gay rights legislation. Attached to the defense authorization act, the measure would add sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability to the list of protected classes under the 1969 federal hate-crimes law.

Under the law, upon written certification by the U.S. attorney general or his designee, the Justice Department will be able to prosecute a crime that targets the victim based on his or her identity and that attempts to inflict or results in serious bodily harm or death using, among other things, a firearm or an incendiary or explosive device. A state can ask Justice to step in if it lacks a hate-crimes law but feels such charges are warranted. (Eighteen states do not have a law addressing hate crimes based on sexual orientation.) A state can also seek funds or expertise from the federal government to pursue such cases. The price tag is $15 million over three years, starting in 2010.

The law doesn't outlaw bigotry or "thought crimes." It applies only to "violent acts motivated by" the characteristics of the victim -- acts, not thoughts or speech. But crimes that target someone because of race or sexual orientation are more than offenses against that individual. They can terrorize whole communities.

While this is an advance, more important legislation awaits: banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, ending the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, and allowing same-sex marriage. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) must make it a priority to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has repeatedly said he'd sign those bills into law. It's time for Congress to follow through.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Honor All Who Want to Serve

2009-10-22T14:43:11+00:00

Boot 'don’t ask, don’t tell,’ honor all who want to serve

Posted Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2009

What if to keep your job, you were ordered never to reveal your gender, race or ethnicity?

While in some cases others might be able to guess about the traits that make you who you are, you would not have the right to tell them — plainly and simply — so they did not have to speculate.

That would be a silly employment policy, right?

With the "don’t ask, don’t tell" law in place, forbidding homosexuals in the military from disclosing their sexual orientation, the U.S. has a national policy that codifies discrimination.

It is a law that is out-of-step with the times and now with public opinion.

The Star-Telegram Editorial Board has said for years that those who wish to serve and are qualified should be allowed the honor of showing their loyalty and duty to country by joining the armed forces if they so desire.

They should be able to do that without regard to race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

President Barack Obama agrees, as he said on the campaign trail and again recently.

"I will end 'don’t ask, don’t tell,’ " Obama vowed once again in an Oct. 10 speech to a gay civil rights advocacy group.

Speaking on the eve oF a massive gay rights demonstration in Washington, D.C., the president said, "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the county. We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage . . . especially when we are fighting two wars."

Well said, and as many gay activists ask: "If not now, when?"

More than 13,500 service members have been kicked out of the military since the "don’t ask, don’t tell" law was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Last year alone, 619 people were discharged under the provision, one-third of them women.

Other western nations, including many of our NATO allies like Britain and France, have abolished such antiquated policies and have seen no decline in morale or undue disruption among their troops — the reasons most often given by those who oppose homosexuals in the military altogether or insist on keeping the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy intact.

This is one issue where the public has moved ahead of its elected leaders and many of its military brass.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll in 2008 showed that 75 percent of Americans support gays serving openly in the military. That figure is up from 44 percent in 1993.

Procrastination on this matter must come to an end. It is right that the president consult with his military leaders, but if he is serious about fulfilling his campaign promise and doing the right thing, he should be pressuring Congress on this issue even as he pushes on others on which he has called for change.

"Don’t ask, don’t tell" is a bad law, and every day it is allowed to stand is another day injustice prevails.

The Atlantic.com: 50 Years Of Pentagon Studies

2009-10-21T15:48:15+00:00

Oct 20 2009, 4:00 pm by Shauna Miller

50 Years Of Pentagon Studies Support Gay Soldiers

In a new paper on the efficacy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" published in this month's Joint Force Quarterly, Col. Om Prakash boils down half a century of Pentagon-commissioned studies on gays in the military into seven short pages. Reviewing the research, he finds that the facts of gay servicemembers' fitness to serve have changed little over 50 years. But the reports themselves reveal something more: The Defense Department's own criticisms of military policies toward gay soldiers have remained consistent, too.

The DoD has funded studies on the impact of gay servicemembers as far back as 1957, when the Navy's Crittenden Report found "no factual data" to support the idea that they posed a greater security risk than heterosexual personnel. Straight officers boasting secrets due to "feelings of inadequacy" were a realer threat, it found. Despite these findings, the report recommended no changes to dismissal policies, for a reason that would define the department's stance on open service into the 21st century: "The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders."

In 1988, the Defense Personnel Security Research Center -- a DoD agency -- conducted its own study on gay soldiers to determine whether their service under current policies created security risks, for instance in terms of blackmail. It also discussed, based on the military and wider social data available, whether the military's policies were sustainable. The study returned again and again to the facts of conduct: "Studies of homosexual veterans make clear that having a same gender or an opposite-gender orientation is unrelated to job performance in the same way as is being left or right-handed."

The study also owned the lessons of racial integration: "The intensity of prejudice against homosexuals may be of the same order as the prejudice against blacks in 1948, when the military was ordered to integrate," it found. "The order to integrate blacks was first met with stout resistance by traditionalists in the military establishment. Dire consequences were predicted for maintaining discipline, building group morale, and achieving military organizational goals. None of these predictions of doom has come true."

The Pentagon rejected a draft of the report and its follow-up, claiming it exceeded its mandate. Excerpts from the unpublished studies were released in a 1992 General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) 10-year report on the Pentagon's policies toward gay servicemembers as Congress debated the guidelines that would become DADT.

The GAO report itself turned a harsh light on the DoD. It found that existing policy was "based solely upon concerns about homosexuality itself," and criticized the department for not conducting hard research to support its practices. "In addition," the report said, "professional psychiatric, psychological, sociological associations and other experts familiar with the research conducted on homosexuality in general disagree with the basic rationale behind DoD's policy."

The latest data Prakash cites comes from a 1993 RAND Corp. study commissioned under President Clinton to determine a "practical" strategy on gays in the military. It pulled together the broadest range of data, including opinion of active-duty officers and attitudes of foreign militaries with openly gay servicemembers. Its straightforward conclusion supported the previous 40 years of findings: Policy should set equal expectations of conduct for all servicemembers, and "emphasis should be placed on behavior ... not on teaching tolerance or sensitivity."

Civilian criticism of DADT has been largely couched in the language of gay rights as civil rights, but change in the military moves top-down. As Prakash's paper makes clear, the data are well-known; what remains is an ideological shift among military leadership.

That's something Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which provides legal support and advocacy to gay soldiers, says may be a matter of time. "The military doesn't exist in a vacuum from the rest of American culture," he says. "There is a generational divide. The newest generation and the next generation of military leadership are much more open and tolerant ... and that is helping the top-down process."

Charleston Gazette Editorial: Bring Equality to Military Service

2009-10-20T14:42:00+00:00

October 19, 2009

Evolve: Gays more accepted

For 16 years, America's military has operated on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis. Patriotic gays are allowed to serve as soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guards, etc. - but only if they keep their orientation secret. Those who are discovered are discharged.

The latest issue of the Pentagon's Joint Force Quarterly, a publication overseen by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says it's time to scrap this outmoded prejudice and openly welcome gays and lesbians into armed service.

Since "don't ask, don't tell" began in 1993, it says, more than 12,000 gay service members have been detected and dismissed. U.S. taxpayers lost $363 million spent on their training. Further indirect public loss is suffered because many patriotic young homosexuals might have enlisted, but refused to hide their sexual identity.

"The military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet," the report says. "...There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly. Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban."

In the past, conservative groups have warned that "straight" soldiers will be upset and resign if open gays enlist. But the article said Canada and Britain ended their prohibitions, and "the result was no-effect."

Last weekend, President Obama told a gay rights audience that the military's ban on gays will be ended. Hurrah. The Chicago Tribune commented: "The sooner the better." The paper said:

"Don't-ask, don't-tell was a reasonable compromise when it was adopted....But the social environment has changed a great deal since then. In 1993, only 44 percent of Americans thought the military should accept open homosexuals. Today, 75 percent do."

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell said: "A lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and law that should be reviewed." Gen. John Shalikashvili, who held the same post, called for outright repeal.

America constantly grows more tolerant and accepting. Hostility to gays has faded, except among hard-core fundamentalists. They mustn't dictate the whole nation's values. We hope the new administration in Washington brings true equality to military service.

Washington Post, Letter to the Editor: Standing Up for Gay Rights

2009-10-16T18:15:28+00:00

Standing Up for Gay Rights
Friday, October 16, 2009

In 1989, as commanding officer of a Navy carrier-based squadron, I used my authority to block attempts by my executive officer to demean and prosecute a man because he thought the sailor was gay. I would not allow such harassment.

The sailor in question had an outstanding performance record and was serving his country with honor. What possible difference did it make whom he loved?

It's time for the people of this country to show some courage in the face of the bigots who would shame, condemn, abuse or demean gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens.

As Americans, we are all pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly we are legally and morally bound to enact legislation that ensures the law shall be applied equally to all of us, regardless of our differences and especially if those differences incite prejudice in others.

Anything less is gay-bashing. I hope the citizens of this country do not continue to dishonor my military service by continuing to permit gay-bashing.

ROBERT J. McNAMARA
Hilliard, Ohio

Politicos Ben Smith: White House Fills Key Defense Slot

2009-10-16T14:17:21+00:00

October 15, 2009

White House fills key slot on 'Don't Ask'

The White House, I'm told, will today announce that it's filling the key Pentagon slot for the implementation -- or repeal -- of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which bars open gays and lesbians from serving in the military.

The appointment of retired Marine General Clifford Stanley as Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness is being hailed by a key group that represents gay soldiers as a major advance toward repeal -- suggesting the White House is moving closer to backing legislation that would reverse the measure.

Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network -- which follows the issue very closely -- welcomed the move in an email:

"There were indications of seriousness of purpose on DADT repeal today by this White House with its intent to nominate an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Dr. Stanley is likely to be the President’s key Pentagon player in the DADT debate and will be critical for the President in getting military uniform buy-in. Historically, the position of Under Secretary of Defense provides oversight of 'don’t ask, don’t tell.'"

Stanley most recently served as president of Scholarship America, a large non-profit scholarship organization.

There's also been discussion recently that Senator Joe Lieberman would carry the legislation repealing the measure; he reiterated his opposition to "Don't Ask" today.

Posted by Ben Smith 05:09 PM

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune: Obama Needs to Keep His Promise

2009-10-14T15:48:27+00:00

"Obama needs to keep this promise"
Clarence Page
October 14, 2009

As if he didn't have enough headaches. President Barack Obama has to decide whether to deploy more troops to the Afghanistan war and whether gays and lesbians will be allowed to serve openly in the military.

Although confidential surveys show thousands are serving, officially homosexuals still are banned from military service unless they are willing to comply with a hastily constructed "don't ask, don't tell" policy that Congress passed in 1993. In short: Your superiors won't ask whether you're a gay, lesbian or bisexual as long as you stay in the closet.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to be a fierce advocate for gays in the fight to overturn don't ask, don't tell. As president, he still is an advocate. But fierce? Not at all. And some in the gay rights community are getting mightily impatient.

Maverick conservative and openly gay blogger Andrew Sullivan eloquently endorsed Obama's candidacy, but you could not tell from Sullivan's review of Obama's Saturday speech to the Human Rights Campaign, the world's largest gay political group. "(The president) failed every test," Sullivan wrote on The Atlantic magazine's Web site, by offering no specifics on key issues. "This speech," Sullivan wrote, "was highfalutin bull (bleep)." Censorship mine.

I appreciate Sullivan's point. I used to think that allowing gays in the military would weaken national security. I have since discovered how much our national security would be weakened without them.

I was led to this view not so much by what military people have said but by what military commanders have done. The discharge numbers indicate that tolerance for gays and lesbians in the ranks actually rises sharply when the military is called upon to perform its primary mission, which is to fight wars.

Discharges under don't ask, don't tell doubled to 1,273 in 2001, from 617 in 1994, the Defense Department reports. But, despite assertions by the Pentagon that nothing has changed, discharges under the don't ask, don't tell law took a nose dive after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks led to new wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2007 such discharges dropped sharply to 627.

It even has become a challenge for some gay personnel to get themselves discharged after revealing their homosexuality on purpose. Some who came out of the closet on purpose, like Army Sgt. Darren Manzella, were told to get back in. Manzella, whose story was on "60 Minutes," served as an openly gay soldier for more than two years before he was honorably discharged in 2008.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group formed in response to don't ask, don't tell, estimated more than 500 gay troops are serving openly. For their commanders, don't ask, don't tell apparently has become "look the other way and keep marching."

Attitudes toward equal rights for gays appear to have evolved within the military as they have in the civilian world. A 2006 Zogby International poll found 73 percent of military personnel were comfortable with the idea of serving with gays and lesbians. About one in four U. S. troops who served in Afghanistan or Iraq told Zogby pollsters they knew a member of their unit who was gay.

Today's military and the reporters who cover them report a generation gap in the ranks on this issue. The older personnel are opposed to gays and lesbians serving openly. The younger ones tend not to think of the issue as a big deal. They have bigger issues to worry about. Or, as we used to say about racial integration when I was a Vietnam War Army draftee, there are no bigots in foxholes.

A group of 28 retired generals and admirals, including retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a letter in 2007 calling on Congress to repeal the don't ask, don't tell act. Yet the firings continue.

Obama owes his gay and lesbian supporters at least a timetable for action. Equal rights for gays and lesbians demand more than outreach to opposing views. They also demand leadership, commitment and the spending of some political capital.

As Obama's predecessor used to say, the president is "the decider."

Clarence Page is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/pagespage cpage@tribune.com

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

The Advocate: White House Talks to Lieberman

2009-10-13T14:32:43+00:00

|| News ||

Posted on Advocate.com October 12, 2009 04:46:58 PM

White House Talks DADT With Lieberman
The Obama administration is discussing introduction of a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal bill with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, among other senators.

By Kerry Eleveld

Shortly after President Barack Obama pledged Saturday to end “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the Administration’s highest-ranking LGBT official said the White House is speaking with certain senators about strategies for repealing the policy -- specifically Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“On ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ this administration is talking directly to the Hill -- we are in direct discussions with Senator Lieberman,” John Berry, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, told The Advocate.

A spokesman for Senator Lieberman confirmed that the senator had been speaking to the White House about the bill. “Senator Lieberman has had discussions with representatives of the Administration and others on the best way to reverse this policy, which he has opposed since it was first proposed in 1993,” said Marshall Wittmann, Lieberman’s press secretary. Wittmann gave no further information on the senator’s plans regarding the legislation.

A House repeal bill that was introduced in March is being carried by Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, and currently has 177 sponsors.

Berry said on Saturday that the goal was to introduce Senate legislation with bipartisan support -- the same goal the late Sen. Edward Kennedy had always hoped to achieve.

People familiar with the strategy around Senate introduction say the discussions generally involve two different tracks: the bipartisan track, with at least one of the cosponsors sitting on the SASC; and a second track, which would be a Democratic introduction by someone who sits on the SASC.

Some reports have mentioned Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, as a candidate to sponsor the bill, but a source familiar with discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity said Reed was not a prime target.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, has taken a strong interest in the issue, but the fact that she does not sit on the Armed Services Committee makes her a less likely candidate to carry the bill.

Colorado Democrat Mark Udall is generally considered to be in the running given his position on the committee. During Senate hearings on the Defense Department authorization bill, Udall asked Adm. Mike Mullen to draft recommendations for changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy before the Senate hearings on the matter this fall.

Lieberman is generally seen as a strong candidate for carrying the bill given his position on the Armed Services Committee and his strong engagement with the military. Insiders also say the senator could use the legislation to burnish his progressive credentials, which might be a consideration for him based on his support for Sen. John McCain during the 2008 election and the fact that he lost his 2006 Democratic primary to Ned Lamont.

Lieberman also has strong ties to Republican senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of whom might consider being his Republican counterpart on a repeal bill. Collins cosponsored Lieberman’s introduction this year of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would extend spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of federal government employees.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the repeal lobby group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said during a symposium two weeks ago that he believed a bill was only weeks from introduction.

Though Sarvis said he preferred a bipartisan track, he added, “A number of other Democrats are ready for bill introduction and I suspect we may soon have a Senate bill introduced.”

Contacted for comment Monday, Sarvis said, “SLDN is working with key senators on Senate Armed Services Committee and believes the White House is actively engaged to help facilitate a timely, bipartisan bill introduction and is also having critically needed repeal discussions within the Pentagon. SLDN is counting on getting repeal done in 2010.”

Wall Street Journal: Support Grows to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-10-12T15:09:17+00:00

By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON and NEIL KING JR.
October 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Congress could be receptive to President Barack Obama's pledge to end a 16-year-old policy banning gay people from serving openly in the military, a top Democratic lawmaker said. The Pentagon also signaled openness to a change.

Mr. Obama's comments could spark criticism from conservatives and some supporters who say the administration must set different priorities.

Speaking at a human-rights dinner in Washington Saturday, Mr. Obama pledged to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they don't disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. The president, who made a similar pledge during the campaign, didn't provide a timetable for reversing the policy.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said it was now possible "to get a buy-in from the military" to end a policy opposed by gays and many liberals since it was passed by Congress in 1993. But Mr. Levin, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, cautioned that the effort had to be handled "with thoughtfulness and with care."

Obama's Speech at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner Defense Department spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the agency was already looking at ways to change the policy, after Secretary Robert Gates asked the general counsel in July "to review the law to determine if there is any flexibility in how this law is applied."

Mr. Obama's speech was a gesture to a group that supported him heavily during his campaign. Some gay-rights activists say they are impatient with what they call the administration's failure to address their priorities.

On Sunday, thousands of gay-rights supporters, hoisting rainbow flags and homemade signs, marched from the White House to the Capitol, demanding that Mr. Obama keep his promises to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military and to work to end discrimination against gays.

President Baracl Obama vowed Saturday to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allows homosexuals to serve in the military only if they don't disclose their sexual orientation. Video courtesy of Fox News.
Kevin Nix, a spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian members of the military, said the president did little more than repeat his campaign pledge. "He missed an opportunity" to set a timetable, Mr. Nix said. "We'd like a bill in Congress in 2010."

Attempts to change government policy concerning gay people would require congressional action and could further divide already-polarized lawmakers. The administration also needs Congress's cooperation on efforts to overhaul health care and financial-industry regulations.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who also serves on the Armed Services Committee, said on "Meet the Press" that he was "open-minded to what the military may suggest" and said any revisions to the policy should "based not on politics, but on reason."

-Yochi Dreazen contributed to this article.

Write to Elizabeth Williamson at elizabeth.williamson@wsj.com and Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com

New York Times: SLDN Executive Director on the President’s Missed Opportunity

2009-10-11T03:37:22+00:00

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: October 10, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama on Saturday renewed his vow to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military, but failed to offer a timetable for doing so - an omission likely to inflame critics who say he is not fighting aggressively enough for gay rights.

The CaucusThe latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

"I will end ‘don't ask, don't tell,' " Mr. Obama told an audience of nearly 3,000 people at a fund-raising dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay advocacy group. "That is my commitment to you."

The president's emphatic declaration, on the eve of a major gay rights rally here, brought a huge roar from the crowd at the star-studded black-tie dinner, where tickets cost as much as $1,000 and entertainment was provided by the singer Lady Gaga and the cast of the new Fox comedy "Glee." But outside the room, the president's words met with a chillier reception.

Bil Browning, a blogger for Bilerico Project, a Web site aimed at a gay audience, said moments after the speech ended that the site was flooded with critical comments by people who said they had heard nothing new. "I could have watched one of his old campaign speeches and heard the same thing," one wrote.

Even inside the room, reaction was mixed. Terry Penrod, a real estate agent from Columbus, Ohio, said some gay rights advocates were being impatient with the president, while Raj Malthotra, 29, a management consultant from Washington, said he thought the speech was a rehash of Mr. Obama's past promises.

"For him, it's buy more time until he needs our votes again," Mr. Malthotra said.

Mr. Obama campaigned as a "fierce advocate" of equal rights for gays, he said, and he used Saturday's speech to lay out his vision of the day when, as he said, "we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women are just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman," and when "no one has to be afraid to be gay in America."

Yet the president's relationship with the gay community has been a conflicted one. He does not support gay marriage - as a matter of Christian principle, he has said - and he got off to a bad start with the gay community when he invited the Rev. Rick Warren, who opposes same-sex unions, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

In the nine months since, Mr. Obama has made only limited progress on the issues that are important to gays. He has pushed for hate crimes legislation, and a bill, approved in the House on Thursday, now appears headed for passage. He has put forth a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, but faced criticism that the effort did not include health benefits. He has said he would push to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states, but it remains on the books.

But of all the issues Mr. Obama has vowed to address, the Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy is perhaps the one that stirs the most emotion. Mr. Obama said Saturday night that he was working with the Pentagon and with House and Senate leaders to repeal the policy, but many gay rights supporters have accused him of dragging his feet.

In the days before the speech, many advocates for gay rights said they hoped he would lay out a timetable for overturning the policy or otherwise offer specifics on how he will achieve his goal.

"An opportunity was missed tonight," Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian soldiers, said in a statement afterward.

Mr. Obama spoke for about 20 minutes inside the packed Washington Convention Center; outside, a small band of protesters on the sidewalk carried banners urging the president to live up to his promises. Among them was Mark Katzenberger, a software trainer from San Francisco, who said that despite his disillusionment with Mr. Obama, he would probably vote for him again.

Capturing the feeling of many in the gay community, Mr. Katzenberger said, "Even our friends sometimes need a kick in the butt."

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.

McClatchy: Obama Vows Unqualified Support for Gay-Rights Agenda

2009-10-11T01:08:39+00:00

Posted on Saturday, October 10, 2009
By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama vowed his unwavering support for the full gay rights agenda Saturday night, saying that he'll push Congress to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

He also said that he'll work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage as solely between a man and a woman, to guarantee that gay and lesbian couples get the same benefits as straight couples, and to ban anti-gay discrimination in the workplace.

"There are still laws to change and hearts to open," he told the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "This fight continues. And ...I'm here with you in that fight," he said to applause and cheers.

It's not an easy fight, he said, because questions of equal rights for gays and lesbians still "raise a great deal of emotion in this country." But he said "these issues go to the heart of who we are as a people."

He acknowledged that he hasn't delivered as fast as gay rights activists want.

"I appreciate your support," he said. "I also appreciate that many of you don't think progress has come fast enough....It's not for me to ask you to be patient," he said, any more than it was right for anyone 50 years ago to ask African-Americans to be patient.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the group, introduced Obama with praise for his commitment to the gay rights agenda.

"We have never had a stronger ally in the White House - never," Salmonese said.

But he added that many gays and lesbians are eager to see quicker results from a president who's long been on their side, and he noted that many will march in the capital on Sunday to demand action.

"This is ... a time of great impatience," he said, "and thousands will take to the streets of Washington tomorrow to express just that."

Obama insisted that some progress has been made on the gay agenda, noting the Thursday vote in the House of Representatives to expand federal "hate" crimes laws to include additional penalties for crimes based on "sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability." The federal government now calls for tougher penalties in crimes motivated by a victim's race, color, religion or national origin.

"This bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law," Obama said.

On the question of gays serving openly in the military, he said that he's working to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy adopted in 1993 that allows gays to serve as long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.

"I will end don't ask, don't tell. That's my commitment to you," Obama said, to loud applause.

Last year, more than 600 people were forced out of the armed services under the policy.

"We are moving ahead on 'don't ask don't tell." Obama said. "We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who've stepped forward to serve America...especially at a time we're fighting two wars."

He said he's working with the Pentagon and congressional leaders to enact legislation repealing the policy, apparently referring to a bill introduced by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., that so far has 176 cosponsors.

Obama also put the White House squarely behind efforts to protect gays and lesbians from workplace discrimination. "Nobody in America should be fired because they're gay...we're going to put a stop to it," he said.

For gay and lesbian couples, he said he's already ordered the federal government to grant as many of the benefits offered married couples as possible under current law. And he said he's prodding Congress to do more.

"I've called on Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage act and pass the domestic partners benefits bill," he said.

Despite his vows, Obama did not spell out how much political capital he would, or could, use to push the gay rights agenda at a time he's reworking the war strategy in Afghanistan, pushing for a health care overhaul, and struggling to save a climate bill in the Senate.

"I understand the President has a crowded agenda, but I have been serving under this law for 16 years," said Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, before the speech. He's an Iraq war hero who is set to be discharged under the don't ask, dont tell policy, and went into the evening looking for a more solid commitment from the president.

"We have no doubt President Obama intends on correcting the mistake made in 1993 with the passage of DADT," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the group. "But we've seen no action and the clock is ticking. A clear timeline from this White House and Congress is urgently needed."

NPR: SLDN Executive Director Focuses on Timing of Repeal

2009-10-10T14:40:14+00:00

Click here to listen to Aubrey Sarvis of SLDN on Sunday's Weekend Edition.

Since Obama took office, more than 400 gay service members have been forced out of the military due to Don't Ask Don't Tell, but the president has yet to take action on his campaign promise to repeal the Pentagon policy. He'll address the annual dinner of the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign Saturday night, and he'll likely have some explaining to do.

CNN’s American Morning: SLDN Executive Director Discusses Urgency of Repeal

2009-10-09T14:36:14+00:00

Click here to watch Aubrey Sarvis of SLDN discuss DADT repeal as a priority for President Obama and the 111th Congress.

Jon Stewart: DADT and the “Full Plate”

2009-10-07T14:40:06+00:00

Click here to watch Jon Stewart discuss DADT on "The Daily Show" last night.

New York Times Editorial: The Damage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-10-05T18:29:29+00:00

New York Times
October 4, 2009
Editorial
The Damage of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Sixteen years after passage of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, there is reason to hope that the military is edging away from its destructive opposition to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. At the very least, a prize-winning essay in a prominent military journal suggests that the issue is open to debate and even dissent.

The essay, which won this year's Secretary of Defense essay contest and was reviewed in advance of publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was published in Joint Force Quarterly. It was written by an Air Force colonel who researched the impact of "don't ask, don't tell." The law was enacted in 1993 after President Bill Clinton tried to lift an existing policy against homosexuals serving in the military and met strong resistance from military and Congressional leaders.

By cementing homophobic military policy into law, Congress made a bad situation worse. It reached a so-called compromise by which homosexuals could serve - but only if they did not acknowledge their orientation or act on it. If they did, they could be discharged. About 12,500 service members have been forced out, including many with distinguished records or invaluable language and intelligence skills.

The author of the essay, Col. Om Prakash, effectively demolishes the primary, wrongheaded rationale for the law: that unit cohesion would be harmed if homosexuals served openly. Several other countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Britain, have lifted bans on homosexuals serving openly with no adverse effects on military performance or readiness.

Colonel Prakash argues that the law has undermined unit cohesion, in part by compromising the integrity of homosexuals who have to dissemble and by posing a moral quandary for commanders - look the other way or risk discharging a valuable service member. He judged the policy a "costly failure" because of the lost manpower and the administrative costs of recruiting and separating homosexuals. He urged the Obama administration to examine how to repeal the ban.

We agree strongly with Colonel Prakash, and urge the Pentagon to press ahead with changes in its regulations to make implementing the "don't ask" law more humane. Ultimately, Congress must repeal the 1993 statute. We are not confident that the Senate has enough enlightened members to overcome a filibuster. But if the military can show an open mind, surely lawmakers can summon the courage to end this sad chapter in history.

Virginian-Pilot Editorial: “Dont Ask, Dont Tell” Needs Re-Evaluation

2009-10-05T16:04:17+00:00

The Virginian-Pilot
© October 4, 2009

To put America's "don't ask, don't tell" law into perspective, consider this: Among the almost 13,000 people driven from the military since 1993 because they are gay, lesbian or bisexual, there were dozens - perhaps hundreds - who possess language skills desperately needed in our nation's fight against terrorism at home and abroad.

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office released a report showing that the men and women discharged in the first 10 years of "don't ask, don't tell" included 757 in occupations defined as critical, such as voice interceptor and translator. Of those, 322 were trained in what the military categorized "an important foreign language." Fifty-four of them were skilled in Arabic.

The percentage may seem small - until you ponder what the absence of just one skilled translator at a critical moment can mean to the safety of our troops or to the safety of Americans here at home.

As Marine Cpl. William Woodall, who works with translators in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press this summer, "Intelligence can save ... lives and give us the advantage in the battlefield."

The number of linguists discharged because of their sexual orientation has grown since the GAO's 2005 report. Among the latest dismissals was Lt. Daniel Choi, a West Point graduate and Iraq veteran who was forced out of the Army National Guard this spring after he publicly acknowledged he is gay.

Choi is fluent in Arabic, one of many languages the military needs in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To overcome a shortage of linguists, the armed forces have turned to private contractors to recruit civilian translators, often with disastrous results. "Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition - and some don't even speak the right language," the AP reported. Yet Choi was deemed unfit for service.

At a time when America cannot afford to squander expertise or valor, it does both daily - booting sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen solely because of sexual orientation.

It appears that the majority of dismissals involved enlisted personnel. In the first 10 years, the GAO found that roughly half of the individuals separated from the military under "don't ask, don't tell" were discharged within the first 2½ years of service. The losses since 1993 also have included officers like Choi, including some whose discharge was triggered when they spoke out against the law.

In addition to the drain of talent, the dismissals cost taxpayers. The GAO report estimated the military spends more than $30 million a year training replacements for individuals discharged under "don't ask, don't tell."

A later study, by a commission that included former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, said the cost of implementing and enforcing the policy was at least $368 million over its first 10 years.

An estimated 65,000 gay, lesbian or bisexuals remain in the military, ever mindful of their fate if they acknowledge their sexual orientation. And an incalculable number of young men and women has voluntarily left or avoided service because of the policy.

Last week, Joint Forces Quarterly - a journal for the Joint Chiefs of Staff - published an attention-getting piece by Air Force Col. Om Prakash, who works in the office of the Defense secretary.

Col. Prakash calls for an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Among the reasons he cites is that "don't ask, don't tell" undermines a core military value - integrity.

The colonel quotes Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan: "Everyone was living a big lie - the homosexuals were trying to hide their sexual orientation, and the commanders were looking the other way because they didn't want to disrupt operations by trying to enforce the law."

Last Sunday, The Pilot's Kate Wiltrout profiled three gay members of the military about the lengths to which they must go to serve America and preserve their careers. One young woman, who works on a Norfolk-based ship, asked a question that cuts to the heart of the policy's flaw: "What's worse? Having a terrorist attack? Or having a homo stop it?"

Many Americans - and many veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - already have answered that question.

Sixteen years ago, President Clinton's initial proposal to allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve openly in the military generated a vitriolic debate, one that resulted in the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" compromise.

Under the compromise, the military is forbidden to inquire about a person's sexual orientation, and service members face discharge if they disclose they are gay. Much has changed since then - notably public attitudes.

A Gallup Poll this summer indicated that 69 percent of Americans now favor allowing openly homosexual individuals to serve in the armed forces. Strikingly, substantial support was found among conservatives (58 percent), weekly churchgoers (60 percent) and Republicans (58 percent) - three groups that strongly opposed the idea in 1993.

In addition, almost three-quarters of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said they're comfortable serving with gay and lesbian colleagues, according to a 2006 Zogby poll. Paul Rieckhoff, a former Army platoon leader who is head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says there's been a generational shift in attitudes. "The average 18-year-old has been around gay people, has seen gay people in popular culture, and they're not this bogeyman in the same way they were" in the past, he said.

A matter of this significance can't be settled by opinion polls, of course. The fate of the ban should be based on the informed opinions of commanders and members of the armed forces, and on the basis of what is right.

Numerous leaders - including Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Defense Secretary William Cohen - have called for repealing "don't ask, don't tell" and a related statute that forbids homosexuals from serving.

More than 1,000 retired flag and general officers, meanwhile, argue that lifting the ban would disrupt unit cohesion. Their concerns warrant a full airing, and they should explain further why they feel the military's existing rules against fraternization would not be sufficient to maintain discipline and unit cohesion.

President Obama has said he would sign a bill lifting the restrictions. But, so far, he and Congress have been reluctant to address the subject. A bill is pending in the House, but no counterpart has been introduced in the Senate.

Certainly, the nation faces many challenges at the moment. But a thorough review of "don't ask, don't tell" - and a fresh accounting of the real and perceived effects on our armed forces - is unavoidable. In its silence, America has too much to lose.

SLDN Statement on Vandalized Billboard

2009-10-01T17:08:00+00:00

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network strongly condemns the vandalism of a Clear Channel billboard in Memphis, TN late last week that featured gay Marine and former SLDN client Tim Smith who was discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This destruction disrespects the service and sacrifice of all veterans, including the 65,000 gays and lesbians, who put their lives on the line every day to protect your freedom and ours. We especially thank Tim for his courage in standing up to openly advocate DADT repeal. We join Tim in continuing to fight every day on behalf of all service members to reverse this law in Washington and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination. There should be a full and thorough investigation into this destruction of property. SLDN supports this Marine and other equality advocates who invoke their freedom of speech to end discrimination.

-Emily Hecht & Aaron Tax, SLDN Co-Directors for Law

New York Times: Rare Source of Attack on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-10-01T16:28:30+00:00

October 1, 2009
Rare Source of Attack on ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON - In an unusual show of support for allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, an article in an official military journal argues forcefully for repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which requires homosexuals in the services to keep their sexual orientation secret.

The article, which appears in Joint Force Quarterly and was reviewed before publication by the office of Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that "after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly."

Although the article, by an Air Force colonel, Om Prakash, carries no weight as a matter of policy, it may well signal a shift in the official winds. It won the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition.

Colonel Prakash, who researched the issue while a student at the National Defense University, in Washington, and who now works in the Pentagon, concludes that "it is not time for the administration to re-examine the issue." Instead, he writes, "it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban."

The article, which was first reported Wednesday by The Boston Globe, also says the law has been costly - about 12,500 gay men and lesbians have been discharged from the service as a result of "don't ask, don't tell" since it took effect in 1993 - and argues that it undermines the unit cohesion it has sought to protect.

"In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,' places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve," Colonel Prakash writes.

The article says that in countries where bans on homosexuals' serving openly in the military were lifted, including Australia, Canada and Britain, there was no "mass exodus" of heterosexual service members and no impact on military performance.

The article does not necessarily reflect the views of Admiral Mullen or Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who have publicly said only that they are assessing the issue and that any change in the law is up to Congress. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Colonel Prakash worked in the Office of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and was "an individual writing in a personal capacity for an academic journal."

Still, the article may put more political pressure on President Obama, who promised during the 2008 campaign to overturn the ban but has so far moved slowly, much to the dismay of gay rights groups.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which represents some of those discharged from the military because of the ban, hailed the article as a "breakthrough development." In a statement, the group said it was time "to move out on the specifics of when and how to implement a new policy of nondiscrimination."

But an opponent of changing the law condemned the article. Elaine Donnelly, president of the conservative Center for Military Readiness, called the essay "one-sided" and said allowing homosexuals to serve openly would be similar to having women in the service cohabit with men.

"We don't have policies that require women in the military to live in close quarters with men, for good reason," said Ms. Donnelly, who was an organizer behind a letter, sent by more than 1,000 retired officers to Mr. Obama this year, saying they were "greatly concerned" about the effect that changing the law would have on recruitment, morale and unit cohesion.

Joint Force Quarterly is the official publication of Admiral Mullen and carries a column by him in each issue, but he had no comment on the article. "We did not encourage or discourage this story in any way," said his spokesman, Capt. John Kirby. "The chairman wants this magazine to be a place where officers of all ranks and services can discuss the key issues of the day."

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

BBC America: Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

2009-10-01T15:27:57+00:00

Click here to watch BBC America's story on Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is currently being discharged from the Air Force under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

HuffPo: Reid Appeals Directly to Obama: Help Us Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

2009-10-01T15:22:22+00:00

Reid Appeals Directly to Obama: Help Us Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
HUFFINGTON POST
September 30, 2009

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ramped up the pressure on the White House and the military to repeal it's "don't ask, don't tell" policy with a direct appeal to President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week.

In letters to Gates and Obama dated Sept. 24th and obtained by HuffPost, the Nevada Democrat asks each to "bring to Congress your recommendations on DADT" -- the policy that allows gay or lesbian Americans to serve in the military as long as they don't mention that they are gay or lesbian.

The policy, which is not applied consistently, has nevertheless cost the military valuable soldiers, sailors, pilots and translators.

Reid called for the policy to be repealed earlier this year and former president Bill Clinton, who instituted it, has called it one of his chief regrets.

A legislative fix could be difficult; it is not at all clear that the Senate could find 60 votes to overcome a likely filibuster. Reid, therefore, is calling in Obama.

"As Congress considers future legislative action, we believe it would be helpful to hear your views on the policy," he writes. "Your leadership in this matter is greatly appreciated and needed at this time."

Reid, in the letters, also highlights the plight of two servicemen, one of whom he met when he was the keynote speaker at a recent Las Vegas Human Rights Campaign Gala Dinner. First Lieutenant Daniel Choi was a West Point grad, served in Iraq and was an Arab linguist. In April, he received a discharge letter from the Army after publicly revealing he was gay, Reid writes to Obama.

Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach is headed for a "similar fate," Reid tells Obama. He was an 18-year Air Force vet who has flown numerous missions against Taliban and al-Qaida targets, "including the longest combat mission in his squadron's history." The government, Reid notes, has invested $25 million on his training.

Freshman Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has been taking the lead in the Senate on the repeal of DADT. She considered attaching an amendment to undo it to the 2010 defense department appropriations bill, but without 60 sure votes and with Obama taking no clear stand, the effort devolved into a hearing instead.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs has said that the president wants to see the policy repealed, but has other legislative priorities that must be addressed first.

Boston Globe: Pentagon Airs Criticism of “Don’t Ask”

2009-09-30T21:11:55+00:00

Boston Globe
"Pentagon airs criticism of ‘don't ask': Journal article backs gay troops; May signal brass open to debate"
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | September 30, 2009

WASHINGTON - An article in the Pentagon's top scholarly journal calls in unambiguous terms for lifting the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, arguing that the military is essentially forcing thousands of gay men and women to lead dishonest lives in an organization that emphasizes integrity as a fundamental tenet.

The article in the upcoming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, which is published for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was written by an Air Force colonel who studied the issue for months while a student at the National Defense University in Washington and who concludes that having openly gay troops in the ranks will not hurt combat readiness.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of Pentagon leaders, but their appearance in a publication billed as the Joint Chiefs' "flagship'' security studies journal signals that the top brass now welcomes a debate in the military over repealing the 1993 law that requires gays to hide their sexual orientation, according to several longtime observers of the charged debate over gays in the military.

While decisions on which articles to publish are made by the journal's editorial board, located at the defense university, a senior military official said yesterday that the office of Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chairman who is the nation's top military officer, reviewed the article before it was published.

"After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,'' writes Colonel Om Prakash, who is now working in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. "Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.''

The article, an advance copy of which was provided to the Globe, is likely to increase pressure on President Obama to fulfill his campaign pledge to work with Congress to overturn the 1993 law commonly referred to as "don't ask, don't tell.''

The law stipulates that gays in the military must keep their sexual orientation secret. In the 16 years it has been in effect, more than 12,500 troops have been discharged because their sexual orientation was revealed, either by themselves or others.

But Obama has tread very carefully since taking office, declining to provide a timeline on when the White House will actively lobby Congress and repeatedly saying that he will consult his military advisers before taking any action. The White House did not respond yesterday to requests for comment. Gates's office reiterated that until Congress changes the law, the Pentagon will follow it.

Obama's reticence is based in part on the lessons of former president Bill Clinton, who sought to allow gays to serve openly early in his administration but was forced to agree to the 1993 compromise after a fierce backlash in Congress and the military.

Representative Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat and Iraq war veteran, is lobbying for a hearing - possibly later this year or early next year - on legislation that he has proposed that would repeal the ban. The bill has 176 cosponsors; there is no similar legislation pending in the Senate.

Arguing that the law "has been costly both in personnel and treasure'' - the cost of discharging service members and recruiting replacements, including those with language or other specialized skills - Prakash lays out a case in his article for why he believes the time has come for repeal.

While he acknowledges that allowing gays to serve openly would cause some disruptions in the ranks - including harassment and even violence - he asserts that the disruptions would be manageable and that the military would quickly accept the change. Moreover, he argues that a more equitable policy would actually strengthen unit cohesion.

"No doubt there will be cases where units will become dysfunctional, just as there are today among heterosexual leaders,'' Prakash writes. "Intervention will be required; such units must be dealt with just as they are today - in a prompt and constructive fashion.''

Ensuring a smooth transition will require education and leadership, he believes, but the record suggests that there will be no major fallout.

Prakash cites the examples of other militaries - including in Australia, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Canada - that allow gays to serve openly. "There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was no mass ‘coming out' of homosexuals,'' he said.

Prakash also points to recent examples of gay soldiers - including battlefield leaders such as a Marine Corps captain - whose sexual orientation has been known by others in their units, to no discernible effect.

But the crux of Prakash's argument is that the military is now forcing thousands of soldiers to live a lie, directly undercutting the very fabric of their profession.

"The law also forces unusual personal compromises wholly inconsistent with a core military value - integrity,'' he writes. "Several homosexuals interviewed were in tears as they described the enormous personal compromise in integrity they had been making, and the pain felt in serving in an organization they wholly believed in, yet that did not accept them.''

He continues: "In an attempt to allow homosexual service members to serve quietly, a law was created that forces a compromise in integrity, conflicts with the American creed of ‘equality for all,' places commanders in difficult moral dilemmas, and is ultimately more damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve.''

The article is likely to be applauded by gay rights groups that have been lobbying the Obama administration to take action to overturn the ban. But it is also likely to embolden supporters of the current law such as Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a Washington think tank.

She believes that allowing gays to serve openly in all ranks and units - as the Murphy bill stipulates - would severely damage unit cohesion. "It is tantamount to saying that men should share the same living spaces with women,'' she said. "Society may have changed but the need for good order and discipline has not changed.''

Donnelly also contends that the experiences of foreign militaries should not be a guide for the US armed forces, saying that some of them have conscript armies and do not allow gays to serve in elite combat units.

"These are not role models for the United States,'' she said. "Congress is being asked to impose a risky military social experiment that is duplicated nowhere in the world.''

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

SLDN Statement on Joint Force Quarterly Article

2009-09-30T15:27:43+00:00

Based on the September 30th Boston Globe story by Bryan Bender, the call for DADT repeal in the Pentagon's Joint Force Quarterly is a breakthrough development. The scholarly JFQ article-which was reviewed according to the Globe by the office of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, corroborates what other scientific, professional research has concluded, and what we've been saying for almost two decades: Openly gay people in the military will not adversely impact unit cohesion or readiness. What is particularly persuasive is the unequivocal direction given by the report's author, Colonel Om Prakash: "It is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban." Our translation: no more study of the issue is needed; it's been studied to death. Let's move out on the specifics of when and how to implement a new policy of nondiscrimination. President Obama and some members of Congress have been calling on the Department of Defense to provide its recommendations on repeal. Well, here's a roadmap.

Op Ed: The Desert Sun, Joe McCormack

2009-09-25T14:00:21+00:00

September 25, 2009

'Don't ask, don't tell' law must be rescinded now

Joe McCormack
Special to The Desert Sun

In 1968, I received my draft notice and immediately enlisted in the Navy, serving as a quartermaster, attending officer candidate school and reporting for duty at the Pentagon.

Years later, as the Vietnam War was coming to a close, I was offered the option of either a public affairs billet with a submarine command in South Carolina or an early release from active duty. I loved the Navy but didn't want to put my career in jeopardy by remaining in an institution that could fire me at any time because I was gay. So I left the Navy prematurely.

Today, an estimated 4,000 men and women each year are leaving or not enlisting in the first place for the same reason: they're gay. Under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, openly gay people are not welcome to serve their country. Our government is telling them, no thanks, we have no need for your critical language and intelligence-gathering skills to hunt down al-Qaida.

More than 13,000 gays have been booted out

The law is a deterrent to attracting and keeping skilled and talented service personnel. More than 13,000 have been kicked out under the law since 1994.

But here's the reality: The newest generation of service personnel - Iraq and Afghanistan veterans - do not equate sexual orientation to job performance, according to a 2006 Zogby survey. The corporate world learned this key lesson a long time ago, as did the CIA, State Department and the FBI. Gays and lesbians can be "out" at work if they so choose. What matters at the end of the work day is how well the job gets done.

In July, Gen. Colin Powell told CNN's Larry King, "When I came into the Army in 1958, we had only seen the last segregated unit four years earlier. The country was still a racist place, Jim Crow. But the Army said to me, ‘We're now integrated. Powell, listen, we don't care where you came from, we don't care about your color, we don't care where your parents came from. All we care about is performance.'" I couldn't agree more.

Powell, an original architect of the 1993 ban along with then-Rep. Sam Nunn, D-Georgia, has said the policy should now be reviewed. Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili supported "don't ask, don't tell" in the 1990s but now firmly believes it should go. Conservatives and Republicans - groups that opposed open service in the 1990s - now support full inclusion of gays in the military, according to Gallup Poll. The point here: Times have changed.

There is no evidence that gays reduce morale

Supporters of "don't ask, don't tell" cling to their own manufactured fear of gay people. They're never able to explain exactly how, either by pointing to a study or anecdotally, that openly gay people would destroy the military. Multiple studies, including the 1993 seminal report from the conservative-leaning RAND Corp., show unequivocally that gays and lesbians do not disrupt unit cohesion, morale or discipline. And the real-world experiences of the British and Israeli militaries - among the toughest in the world - have shown that integration of gays does work and works well.

Californians who care about national security or workplace fairness should contact their U.S. senators and representatives to support the bill in Congress, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, that would repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Constituents who live in Rep. Mary Bono Mack's district should schedule a meeting with her to explain why now is the time to overturn this law and to stand up for all service members, gay and straight, who are putting their lives on the line for your freedom and mine.

Joe McCormack and his partner have had a second home in Palm Springs for seven years and recently became full-time residents. He served in the Navy from 1968 to 1971 and is on the board of directors of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in Washington, D.C. E-mail him at joem@mccormackassociates.com.

CQ Researcher: Gays in the Military

2009-09-24T14:40:43+00:00

CQ Researcher News and Community...

Excerpt from the "Gays in the Military" report
Below is an excerpt from the "Current Situation" section of this week's CQ Researcher report on "Gays in the Military" by Peter Katel, September 18, 2009

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current Situation

Advocates of allowing gays to serve in the military may agree on the ultimate goal - but not on how to reach it. President Obama, for instance, wants Congress to repeal the 1993 law banning homosexuality in the armed forces. Congress passed the law, so Congress must undo it, he reasons.

But gay-ban opponents at the University of California's Palm Center say the congressional route is a dead end, at least for now.

"We don't think there is any chance of getting legislation through Congress any time soon," says Aaron Belkin, the center's director. "The issue in Congress is completely stalled."

Instead, he and five colleagues argued in a paper last May, the president should use authority granted him by the so-called "stop loss" law to halt sexuality-based discharges of military personnel. As the Palm Center team analyzes the law and related statutes, the president is authorized to prevent discharges during periods of national emergency if it is found that keeping personnel from leaving is essential to national security. [Footnote 59] The liberal Center for American Progress advocates the same strategy.

Such a move, Belkin says, would show opponents that allowing gays and lesbians to remain in the ranks does no harm. With that result established, he says, "Politically and operationally, it would be extremely difficult to get this toothpaste back in the tube."

Remaking military policy by executive fiat would eventually make congressional action easier, not harder, he argues, although repealing the law would be necessary eventually. "It doesn't take any political capital to sign an order because the issue is polling at 75 percent in favor," he says, citing recent surveys. [Footnote 60]

Ban supporter Donnelly at the Center on Military Readiness says bypassing the political process would be "outrageous," and an admission of desperation. "I don't think the president is politically unwise enough to do something like that."

The Palm Center also sees the proposed move as a way of short-circuiting Pentagon opposition, she notes. Indeed, a follow-up paper by the center said: "The legislative process would open a can of worms by allowing military leaders to testify at hearings and forge alliances with opponents on the Hill. A swift executive order would eliminate opportunities for them to resist."[Footnote 61]

The Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, however, views congressional action as the only practical approach - and one with excellent prospects. "We're looking at the next 12 months for repeal," says Kevin Nix, the network's communications director. That time frame would put the matter before the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, which runs through 2010.

Congressional-strategy advocates say hearings expected later this year will create new legislative momentum by providing a national forum for evidence of the practical and moral benefits of opening the armed forces to gays.

By early September, however, no dates had been set for the hearings. On the House side, an aide to Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said the panel is unlikely to take up the issue until a new under secretary for personnel and readiness has been allowed to settle into the position. The Senate Armed Services Committee hasn't set a date either. Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., has said he would hold a hearing in the fall.

"We firmly believe that repeal can get done in this Congress," Nix says.

Footnotes
[59] Aaron Belkin, et al., "How to End ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell': A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment," Palm Center, May, 2009, www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive-Order-on-Gay-Troops-final.pdf. For background on stop-loss, see Pamela M. Prah, "Draft Debates," CQ Researcher, Aug. 19, 2005, pp. 661-684. Lawrence J. Korb, et al., "Ending ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Practical Steps to Repeal the Ban on Openly Gay Men and Women in the U.S. Military," Center for American Progress, June 2009.

[60] Morales, op. cit.

[61] Aaron Belkin, " Self-Inflicted Wound: How and Why Gays Give the White House a Free Pass on ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Palm Center, July 27, 2009.
~~~~~~~~~~~

To view the entire report, login to CQ Researcher Online [subscription required], or purchase the CQ Researcher PDF

Posted by CQ Press on 9/23/2009 01:16:00 PM

Labels: family issues, gay and lesbian issues, military

Politico: Mullen Stalls on Gays in the Military

2009-09-16T17:26:15+00:00

Mullen stalls on gays in the military
By: Jen DiMascio
September 16, 2009

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, avoided specific answers Tuesday when asked by the Senate Armed Services Committee about allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military.

In a written response to a question asking how long it would take to phase in a new law governing the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Mullen demurred.

"The truth is that I just don't know, and I would need some time to study this before coming back to you with an answer," the chairman wrote.

His answer, coming nine months after the election of a president who pledged to overturn the law during his campaign, was met with impatience by gay-rights activists seeking quick change.

"There was no indication from the chairman that he is aligned with his commander in chief on repeal," the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement. "Apparently, the ‘let's kick repeal down the road' strategy is alive and well in the Pentagon."

The Senate committee plans to have a hearing on the issue this fall.

Statement on Adm. Mullens Testimony This Morning

2009-09-15T17:22:50+00:00

SLDN is very disappointed by Chairman Mullen's written responses (below) to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" questions he submitted today to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Unfortunately, Mullen did not come to the Senate today to give a ringing endorsement of Pres. Obama's stated mission to end DADT. There was no indication from the Chairman that he is aligned with his commander in chief on repeal. Apparently, the "let's kick repeal down the road" strategy is alive and well in the Pentagon.

We do, however, appreciate Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) raising DADT and hope Adm. Mullen will be far more responsive and comprehensive in his next response to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Hopefully, Sec. Gates and the Commander in Chief will have some active input into this process before the DADT Senate hearing.

*********

Advance Questions for Admiral Michael G. Mullen, USN Nominee for the Position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
(p.23)
Homosexual Conduct Policy http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2009/September/Mullen%2009-15-09.pdf

President Obama has made it clear that he intends to work with the military and with Congress to repeal the policy regarding homosexuality in the Armed Forces, commonly referred to as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." You have stated that you have begun discussions of this issue with other senior military leaders. What is your view on repealing or changing this policy?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is commonly referred to as a Department of Defense policy but it is Public Law 103-160 910 (USC 654). Therefore, my view is quite simple: DoD policy must comply with the public law and only the Congress and the President can change the law. My responsibility is to guide the Armed Forces of the United States consistent with the law. At the behest of Secretary Gates, Department of Defense legal counsel are currently examining whether the law allows a more flexible application of policy. I concur with the Secretary and fully support his efforts in that regard. In determining whether and how to change the policy, we must act in accordance with law and in a thoughtful and deliberate way, taking into account the health and integrity of the force.

What is your understanding of the views of the service chiefs and combatant commanders on this policy?
I cannot speak for the Service Chiefs or Combatant Commanders, but I am confident that they share my desire for a measured, deliberate approach to any change required by law.

In your view, would changing this policy have an adverse impact on good order and discipline in the military?
Any change to the law would require sound policy revision and leadership. And, like any significant overhaul of military personnel policy, we must carefully consider its impact on military readiness. Whatever the decision, we will follow the law and remain focused on the supporting our troops in--and preparing for--combat.

If the policy is changed by Congress, how lengthy a phase-in period would you recommend?
The truth is that I just don't know, and I would need some time to study this before coming back to you with an answer.

DADT on Tap for Mullen Hearing?

2009-09-10T20:43:55+00:00

DADT on Tap for Mullen Hearing?

Admiral Mike Mullen may face questioning on the military's gay ban during his upcoming senate confirmation hearing.

By Kerry Eleveld

Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen is scheduled to go before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 15 to be reconfirmed, according to a spokesperson in Sen. Carl Levin's office.

The hearing does not have a set agenda, but advocates for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" are anticipating some senators will ask Mullen about the policy in advance of the Senate hearings on the subject this fall.

"Our hope is that the committee fleshes him out more extensively on 'don't ask, don't tell' so that when we get to the actual hearings, we can make more progress," said a person close to the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In particular, the source said matters that could be discussed include how a change in the military's gay ban would be implemented, a timeline for accomplishing that change, what kind of communications the Pentagon is having with Congress on the subject, and what progress is being made on the proposal to relax implementation of the policy even before it is repealed.

Mullen recently talked about the gay ban in a podcast for the Pentagon Channel posted on August 14, in which he was asked how the agency is preparing for the possibility of making the policy change.

"Clearly, President Obama has made his strategic intent very clear -- he wants to see this law changed," Mullen said. "I've had discussions with all the service chiefs on several occasions. I've actually also spoken with the combatant commanders, who certainly represent military leadership throughout the world at my most recent conference. I've had internal discussions on my own staff. Secretary Gates is reviewing some procedures in the current policy to see if that can be in any way changed before the law changes. So there's a lot of focus with respect to this right now, and certainly when the law changes -- we get to that point -- we'll carry out the law."

Eleveld is Washington correspondent for The Advocate.

2008 Pentagon Data: Even During Two Wars, Gays Continue to be Discharged

2009-09-08T19:21:12+00:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2009

CONTACT: Kevin Nix
Director of Communications
(202) 621-5402, knix@sldn.org

Even During Two Wars, Gays Continue to Be Discharged from Military
When Needed Most, Critical Personnel Fired Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

WASHINGTON, DC--The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network today released new Pentagon data of service members discharged under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. The Pentagon confirms 633 gay and lesbian service members were discharged in FY 2008.

"The 633 men and women fired include troops with valuable skills," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "We hope the Obama administration and Congress realize this is wasted talent they could have access to-particularly now, today, as the Administration is reportedly considering increasing deployments to Afghanistan by another 10,000. If openly gay service members are ready, willing, and able to go hunt down and kill Al Qaeda, why are we stopping them?"

A service-specific breakdown of 2008 discharges is:

Air Force: 86
Army: 286
Coast Guard: 21
Marine Corps: 83
Navy: 157

The trend in DADT discharges remains unchanged since 1994 when the law was enacted. The number of gay discharges drops during times of war and increases during times of relative peace. (See chart here.)

"The trend continues to show that when the Pentagon needs skilled manpower, they retain gay and lesbian service members," said Sarvis. "When they don't need these gay patriots as much, they are more likely to get fired."

Every scientific study on the impact of openly gay people on unit cohesion, morale, and good order has the same conclusion: There is no negative impact. And twenty four other countries, including Great Britain and Israel, have lifted their bans on gays and lesbians, who now serve openly without incident.

Another staggering loss to this nation: the estimated 4,000 gay people who choose not to enlist or re-enlist because of DADT.

DADT hearings are tentatively scheduled in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate this fall. SLDN continues to urge Congress to begin debate in earnest this fall and to get a bill to the President's desk.

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) is a national, non-profit legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

SLDN News

AFP: Being ‘Out’ Means Being Thrown Out for U.S. Soldiers

SLDN Urges Secretary of Army to Clarify Recent DADT Remarks

Washington Post Editorial: A Civil Rights Advance

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: Honor All Who Want to Serve

The Atlantic.com: 50 Years Of Pentagon Studies

Charleston Gazette Editorial: Bring Equality to Military Service

Washington Post, Letter to the Editor: Standing Up for Gay Rights

Politicos Ben Smith: White House Fills Key Defense Slot

Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune: Obama Needs to Keep His Promise

The Advocate: White House Talks to Lieberman

Wall Street Journal: Support Grows to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

New York Times: SLDN Executive Director on the President’s Missed Opportunity

McClatchy: Obama Vows Unqualified Support for Gay-Rights Agenda

NPR: SLDN Executive Director Focuses on Timing of Repeal

CNN’s American Morning: SLDN Executive Director Discusses Urgency of Repeal

Jon Stewart: DADT and the “Full Plate”

New York Times Editorial: The Damage of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Virginian-Pilot Editorial: “Dont Ask, Dont Tell” Needs Re-Evaluation

SLDN Statement on Vandalized Billboard

New York Times: Rare Source of Attack on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

BBC America: Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach

HuffPo: Reid Appeals Directly to Obama: Help Us Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Boston Globe: Pentagon Airs Criticism of “Don’t Ask”

SLDN Statement on Joint Force Quarterly Article

Op Ed: The Desert Sun, Joe McCormack

CQ Researcher: Gays in the Military

Politico: Mullen Stalls on Gays in the Military

Statement on Adm. Mullens Testimony This Morning

DADT on Tap for Mullen Hearing?

2008 Pentagon Data: Even During Two Wars, Gays Continue to be Discharged

Politicos Ben Smith: White House Fills Key Defense Slot

Virginian-Pilot Editorial: “Dont Ask, Dont Tell” Needs Re-Evaluation

Statement on Adm. Mullens Testimony This Morning