Report: Gay troops okay to come out

Repeal 'don't ask,' Pentagon says

Gay troops can serve openly in the armed forces without harming the military's ability to fight, the Pentagon's top leaders said yesterday, declaring the 17-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" law should be scrapped and pointing to a new survey to show most troops won't mind.

President Obama, citing the troop poll, urged the Senate to repeal the ban before adjourning in the next few weeks. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, supports a repeal and appeared with other senators last week at a press conference devoted to decrying the policy. A spokesperson for Republican Judd Gregg, New Hampshire's other senator, said Gregg would not have a statement on the matter last night.

There is still no indication GOP objections can be overcome with just a few weeks left in the post-election lame-duck session. Still, the survey did put new pressure on Republican opponents, led by Sen. John McCain, who say efforts to repeal the law are politically motivated and dangerous at a time of two wars.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the ban on openly gay military service "requires people to lie," and he called for quick Senate action.

"We spend a lot of time in the military talking about integrity and honor and values. Telling the truth is a pretty important value in that scale," Gates said as he released the Pentagon study showing that most people currently in uniform don't care about the ban.

Senate Democrats plan to force a vote in December. Senate Republicans were generally silent following release of the Pentagon recommendations for repealing the ban.

Although historic, yesterday's recommendation that the military for the first time allow openly gay people came with a caveat that also frustrates many supporters of repeal. Gates wants an indefinite grace period while the Pentagon prepares for the policy change and phases it in.

"It would be unwise to push ahead with full implementation of repeal before more can be done to prepare the force, in particular those ground combat specialties and units, for what could be a disruptive and disorienting change," Gates said.

Critics led by McCain say the Pentagon's report doesn't address risks to morale and fighting mettle. Gates countered: "I obviously have a lot of admiration and respect for Senator McCain, but in this respect I think that he's mistaken."

Obama has called it a top priority to repeal the 1993 law that bans openly gay service. But gay rights groups have complained that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have done too little to see it through, focusing their postelection efforts instead on tax cuts and a nuclear arms treaty with Russia before Republicans gain congressional strength when lawmakers return in January.

In the report, the study's co-chairmen, Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and Army Gen. Carter Ham, wrote, "We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war."

Gates said he didn't think the Pentagon would have to rewrite its regulations on housing, benefits or fraternization to accommodate gays if they were allowed to serve openly.

A defense policy bill that would overturn the law - pending certification by the Pentagon and the president that doing so wouldn't hurt the military's ability to fight - has languished in the Senate since it passed the House this spring.

In the meantime, a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop enforcing the law because it was unconstitutional. The Obama administration is appealing that decision.

"Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts," Gates said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said repealing the ban was discussed during a two-hour meeting yesterday between Obama and lawmakers and was the sole focus of a session Monday with the military service chiefs. He declined to provide more details. (next page »)

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The survey sent to a few selected troops is flawed as it never actually asked the troops if they favored overturning DADT. There is not the support for any overturn that homosexuals would like you to believe.

And we have one angry homosexual, Pfc. Bradley Manning who is the suspect behind the sharing of the secret documents with WikiLeaks, putting soldiers in further danger and embarrassing many top country leaders.

4Liberty's picture

what an ironic name you have since you clearly seem to believe in oppressing those who don't hold your own views.

Budd123's picture

From where?

How?

Do heterosexuals "come out" about their sexuality. What about asexual people, do they "come out" about their sexuality?

What is the purpose besides saying: "there I did it and now you know". Throwing up agenda and personal lifestyle in another persons face is really not necessary.

What will be next? Holding hands in battle?

Originalist's picture

Are heterosexuals harrassed and vilified bcause of their sexual orientation? Are heterosexuals asked to lie about their true identity to family, friends, et al? Are heterosexuals denied housing or employment because of who they are?

Your ignorance on this issue is truly astounding.

URSUS's picture

Growl!

I have been harassed a lesbian women at work and was discriminated against by a lesbian boss, so yes, homosexuals like anyone else can be discriminatory.

I don't tell my family anything about my relationships or sexual preferences or sexual practices-they don't want to know and it is private.

I believe that heterosexuals have been denied employment by homosexual HR people. I know one company which hires an inordinate number of homosexual employees, more than most companies and the hiring manager is a homosexual. So yes there are unfair practices everywhere out there perpetuated by both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

And another thing about discrimination. I find affirmative action to be discriminatory; in fact, it is reverse discrimination and yes I have been the victim of preferences being told that they really wanted a _______________ in that position. So, please don't lecture me or anyone about discrimination.

Your ignorance of the fact that it happens on both sides of the coin is truly expected and astounding!

Originalist's picture

good comeback....NOT. You take one or two ISOLATED cases and try to equate that to State approved discrimination......pathetic.

URSUS's picture

Discrimination is out there in all aspects of the workplace. There are companies with a large homosexual workforce and it is very hostile to be employed there. There are companies which are boys clubs and there are companies which are female centric.

There is also affirmative action where you are discriminated against as a white Anglo Saxon male. It is commonplace. If you apply for jobs on sites like Careerbuilder, companies ask your ethnicity. Is that not a way to discriminate against one more populous group over another? Yes.

So listen buddy, don't say that people don't understand about discrimination. It is all over the place and generally companies are sensitive to gays and lesbians because they do not want any trouble in the workplace. HR makes sure of that anyway. You are over blowing a perception to make your point.

As for gay marriage being a civil right. Well the jury is still out on that one. Polls show that it is not in the mainstream as far as acceptance is concerned.

Pathetic, huh? Don't think so pal.

Originalist's picture

Sorry Ori, you just don't get it. You try obfuscation and misdirection, but it is painfully obvious that you just don't have a clue as to the discrimination to which homosexuals are subjected. It is currently legal in 27 States to fire someone because they are gay.

and yes, Pathetic, very much so.

ps. I am not your buddy, nor your pal.

URSUS's picture

choosing your own mate, as a consenting adult, IS a civil right. And if you're judging what to allow the minority to do based on what the majority thinks then Thomas Jefferson would be very disappointed in you. The whole point of a republic with a constitution is to guarantee that individuals will not have to worry about the majority, or anyone else, oppressing them. Otherwise we could simply get a majority of Americans to vote and say that slavery is reinstated and it would be so. If the majority ruled there is no end to what could be done just as long as we had a majority vote. One good example would be Germany electing a certain leader that caused a lot of trouble back in the 30's and 40's.

Budd123's picture

Do we need to know if they prefer boxers or briefs? Do we need to know a soldiers preference in food or dental habits? I don't think so. To my way of thinking this is a personal life and not for coast to coast broadcast during military service hours.

Originalist's picture

I bet they'd be happy not to have to keep challenging the world about their personal life but people just won't let them do that will they? If they kept silent then, of course, all the rights they are fighting for would just magically appear.

Budd123's picture

Hey Big Dog,

chat with you later!

ArmyVet_72's picture

...taken over the world. C'mon over to the Darkside. We have better parties!!

FearlessLdr's picture

....our parties are virus and worm free!!

Nhdriver's picture

That's why I use Fire Fox :)

cblodg's picture

".... should we assume that no American soldiers would ever stoop to that level no matter how long they've gone without sex or how pent up they might feel?"

Well, "jezzmund", same question for you as for so many other comenters today - have you ever served in the military? Do you know what you're talking about?

I suppose there are always a few exceptions but the vast majority of straight soldiers and sailors don't "walk on the wild side" when they're deployed for a long time and get "testy". I believe the overwhelming majority, well, "pleasure themselves" instead. When I was delpoyed to the Middle East for a year, I didn't find myself bunking down with a comrade when I neded relief.

Jirdex77's picture

The point is that being gay is not necessarily all or nothing. There are some men who will take what they can get, even if it involves another man. In many cultures it's not even considered gay if you are the man on "top". So where do we draw the line on who is gay and who is not? But I guess my lack of military experience invalidates my opinion, so feel free to ignore it.

jezzmund's picture

Your opinion is valid, but it is based on your limited experience. I spent nearly 23 years in the military. From what I experienced, military people generally have no problem serving side by side with gays. But they don't want to live in close quarters with them looking at it almost as an invasion of privacy.
If you have one, would you want to send your daughter to college, and have her be forced to share a dorm room with a male? Would she feel comfortable undressing and showering in front of him?

DZ's picture

not necessarily invalidated. But military combat experience is different from any other "normal" real-world job. It's not just a matter of having a certain skill set. Those who haven't actually served under these conditions just don't really understand. There must be absolute confidence and trust between all members of a squad, platoon, whatever. I'm just saying, changing a law overnihght and saying - presto! live with it - may not be a good thing to do in this situation. I was being a little sarcastic before but, honestly, I think phasing this in with plenty of advance preparation ("counseling"?) would be a safer way to go.

BTW, I don't oppose gays in the military. It's the "change management" proces in a highly unique situation requiring the levels of trust and confiedence I mentioned that concerns me. Too many good ideas are introduced poorly.

Jirdex77's picture

I understand what you say about phasing in, but isn't that what 17 years of DADT was about? When Clinton first proposed allowing gays to serve openly it was opposed for exactly the reason you state--that it would be jarring to switch overnight. DADT was a compromise which was intended to let gays serve without fear of discharge as long as they didn't announce their sexuality. So everyone knew they were there. Again, is it really better not to know for sure (especially when you mention the trust factor)?

jezzmund's picture

It's telling the strongest opposition comes from the front-line combat troops, the Army and the Marines. Since these are THE front-line guys, this should be considered before acting too swiftly.

Jirdex77's picture

I am a proud member of a very Marine family. Most of the men in my family are Marines including my grandfathers, uncles, nephews, and father, who I learned later in life was gay. He was a decorated drill sergent who fought in two wars. None of the Marines in my family are against serving with openly gay men/women. My son's best-friend is now back in Afganistan for a second tour. He also has no problem serving with gay men and women and told us he already does and has, even at Camp Leatherneck and has had no problem with it whatsoever. I think it's really the ultra-Christian Marines and soldiers who have the issue and it's purely religious.

newworldrepublican's picture

when, and in which branch of the service, did you perform your military service, devilsAdvocate. Do you know anything about the front line? Cowardice. Yuck yuck - tell that directly to a Marine!

Stick with watching "The View" instead of shooting your mouth off.

Jirdex77's picture

The few, the proud, the brainwashed.

Stinkin' jarheads.

BIODTL's picture

It's telling the strongest opposition comes from the front-line combat troops, the Army and the Marines. Since these are THE front-line guys, this should be considered before acting too swiftly.

Jirdex77's picture

I would rather have homosexuals fighting wars for Israel. Straight White men and women should be at home making more White babies and raising their families.

Ryan Joseph Murdough's picture

:-)

Fly Characteristics:

The maggot grows to be about 1/2 inch (12.5 mm) long and is a Disease Carrier. The fly is often a carrier of diseases, such as typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and anthrax. The fly transmits diseases by carrying disease organisms onto food. It picks up disease organisms on its leg hairs or eats them and then regurgitates them onto food (in the process of liquefying solid food).

ArmyVet_72's picture
Don't miss this
Customer service: