Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the 110th Congress.

[JeremyWestenn]

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is probably the bill that I am looking the most forward to in the 110th Congress. The lady that managed to overturn our incumbenent Republican did not necessarily announce her support for it but said that she would repeal the policy that this bill was made to do itself.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is the Congressional repeal of the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The Republicans have essentially killed it everytime it was submitted, drowning it in subcommitte and whatnot. Last session it wasn't even brought to the floor. I'm curious as to what the rest of the DU'ers here think will come of this bill. We've never had a chance to overturn it before but now I think we can get some real progress on it. Barney Frank I believe even said that would finally be able to hold hearings on this again and subsequently that would get some massive traction going.

My question to you people is if you think the Democratically controlled Congress will and can pass this bill? I should also mention that polls show that about 70% of the nation, I can't think of them now but if you go to sldn.org you should be able to find sources, disagree with banning gays in the military. Essentially, most people think you should be able to serve in the armed forces and still be able to have a love life.

As a gay person this clearly means a lot to me, as a young man who is more then likely going to enlist in the Navy it means a lot more to me. I want a normal life. I'm 19 years old, I've never really been kissed (I've been kissed twice, once when I was 10 and the other two times it was absolutely the most mortifying sexual experiences of my life), I've never been in love, and if this policy still stands it is probably most likely that I will not do any of those things for a very long time. Which I can deal with, it's apart of the package. I'm just hoping and praying the package get's changed.

I'd post this in the GLBT forum but not that many people really frequent there, and I really want every DU'ers perspective, not just my community. That'd give me a pretty slanted view.

Look forward to your responses.

[JeremyWestenn]

1. Shameless bump.

Gods forgive me.

[Bassic]

33. You mean shameless kick right?

:P

[EFerrari]

2. "Don't ask, don't tell" is abusive and should be ditched yesterday.

Do you all understand that this policy means that if you are gay and are raped, you can't report it?

And so on.

Dumping this policy should be a priority for any Dem worth their affiliation.

[trogdor]

5. Why would you necessarily have to be gay?

Just asking. For the record, I believe the whole prohibition on gays in the military should be shitcanned altogether. Some troops will howl, but screw 'em. They'll get used to it, and as James Baker said, they don't vote for us anyway.

[EFerrari]

9. Because being gay very specifically means you can't report

fragging or abuse.

This policy is f#cking dangerous because it promotes secrecy and abuse. We have to know that. That's what gay members of our armed forces are living with TODAY.

[slackmaster]

10. There is no prohibition against gays per se

The UCMJ has a prohibition against "sodomy" - See Article 125. It (at least theoretically) applies to heterosexuals as well.

[Bassic]

34. Theoretically being the operative word,

and even then, it's none of their fucking business what the soldiers do in their own homes, in their own bedrooms, gay or straight.

[EFerrari]

3. kick

[oasis]

4. It won't be the first order of business. There will be no ads stating that

it was the first bill the Democrats passed after taking back congress.

[JeremyWestenn]

6. Not completely answering my question friends.

Do you think this Congress has the desire, can and or will to actually pass the legislation to over turn it? This isn't so much a discussion about DADT but more so a discussion about their willingness to act on overturning it and cast the needed amounds of vote in the House and Senate?

[JeremyWestenn]

7. We have to have more perspective then what was given. No one actually answered the real question. :\

[JeremyWestenn]

8. Doesn't anyone here have any opinion as to whether or not the Democrats will change it?

[Big Sky Boy]

11. I'm skeptical

I don't believe Dems will be brave enough to push the issue--unless they can get a significant number of Republicans to sign on, which is not likely.

Dems will to be too afraid the Republicans will use it against them to rally their bigoted base in 2008.

Howard Dean shut down the LGBT outreach program of the DNC only a month or two after taking the chair position. Many of the "new" Democrats were elected with an anti-gay marriage position. The message is clear. Moving the party to the center means de-emphasizing or ignoring the more "liberal" fringe.

I will be very happy if I'm proven wrong on this one.

[JeremyWestenn]

14. I feel you.

I hear you there and also hope that your proven wrong. We'll see what happens once and if we can get hearings on it held. This is a different time then 1994 and like I said polls show the Americans do favor allowing gays to serve with decency.

[slackmaster]

12. Rolling back DA/DT wouldn't fix the underlying problem

Which is Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

See http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm#925.%20ART.%20125.%20SODOMY

[JeremyWestenn]

13. Woops, I wasn't aware of that but I'm positive that that code will be overturned also.

I'm positive that that code will be included in the overturning of this bill. Presenting it and voting on it otherwise would be pointless. This went to the house floor once but clearly didn't go past it.

[slackmaster]

15. Here's a link to the bill

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr1059.html

It does not address UCMJ Article 125.

It would fix the problem of a declaration of homosexual orientation being gounds for discharge, but gay and lesbian members of the armed services would still be subject to a form of discrimination - Only heterosexual couples would be able to actually have sex.

[JeremyWestenn]

16. How so?

Doesn't Lawrence VS. Texas somehow nullify that? Or does the Supreme Court not apply to the military but only to states? If you can't legally arrest people for consensual sex how can the military charge them for doing so?

This puzzles me. I think I'm going to call the representatives office tomorrow to try and find an answer.

[JeremyWestenn]

17. I think I found it how it overturns it.

First off, Congress has essentially complete control over the military. Second, this bill institutes a policy of non-discrimination regarding orientation. So that right off the bat covers the article you're refering to, does it not? Isn't it like a state law banning conceal and carry but a federal law that says it's legal and lays out the guidelines how?

[slackmaster]

18. I'm not a lawyer and could not possibly give a meaningful answer

Any civil rights attorneys in the house?

Did Lawrence VS. Texas invalidate Article 125 of the UCMJ?

ETA it appears they are still charging soldiers with sodomy, at least as of February 2006.

http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2006/02/24/4

And they've even convicted people of heterosexual sodomy after Lawrence:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/military/milnews068.htm

[stevekatz]

26. No

Civilian Law and Military Law are seperate and don't cross each other

As an example,
Miranda isn't used for military members under arrest, we have our own version.


Congress has the power to change article 125, they're the only ones who do.

[slackmaster]

29. Thanks, that's what I was thinking

Here is a link to Cornell University's excellent Web presentation of that part of the Code so people can view it in context:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_II_30_47.html

[Morgana LaFey]

19. Can they? Will they?

Wish I felt more optimistic about the answer. IF our Congress gets enough confidence in itself, yes. But even where polls show Americans in favor of impeachment, for intance, our stunningly brave and curageous Congress can't be bothered. So I'm not optimistic.

I would also say that currently the top brass in the military are probably extremely homophobic, so that any attempts would create a firestorm -- an unnecessary one, but a firestorm nonetheless.

The ban on gays in the military is obscene. It's always been obscene and the current "don't ask, don't tell" rule is something else I'll probably never forgive Clinton for.

[JeremyWestenn]

20. Hmmm...

To be honest the majority of Americans do not favor impeaching Bush. And doing so would be a clear way to make sure that we loose our majority status and more then likely the White House in 08. It's a compromise, one we don't like, but bare it. Not to mention the Senate wouldn't vote for impeachment either, it's a mute issue.

I'm interested to see the impact of hearings though. Our government, according to the government accountability office, has spent 200 million dollars retraining people to replace the ones that we've discharged. I think the top brass at the Pentagon will be hard pressed to be able to defend that much tax payer money being spent when the only legitimate concern is showering with gays.

And trust me, you all aren't that irresistable. :\

[JeremyWestenn]

21. Can anyone find this out.

One thing I've been trying to find for awhile, and even called Marty Meehans office(Bills author) with no luck, is the actual vote roster from the last time the Act came forward. Does anyone know where I can find that or if you can find it can you post the vote count? Maybe even a link to the Representatives that voted for and against it to. I wasn't able to find anything on Library of Congress but maybe some other people here got more luck.

[Morgana LaFey]

31. Nope. Wrong.

First, you're wrong re the public and impeachment. Zogby polls in March showed 52% of Americans favored impeachment over the NSA spying scandal. Zogby polls also showed later (date?) that the majority of Americans favored impeachment IF Bush lied us into war -- and he definitely lied us into war, tho I'm not sure that could be "proven" sufficiently. It's one of those things we all know is true, though.

AND, the Senate certainly would vote for impeachment if the public demanded it. It was Republicans who moved against Nixon, and he wasn't half as bad as this jerk. Bush has been guilty of one impeachable offense after another. It only needs to be exposed, and the GOP would have no ability to do anything OTHER than impeach him. For that matter, the Republicans are already trying to find ways to win back public confidence and trust. You think voting against impeachment would be a good idea when "corruption" was the no. 1 stated reason (in exit polls) they lost and lost so big? They'd have no CHOICE but to vote FOR impeachment.

Oh, and it's moot. Moot point.

[JeffR]

22. Please don't enlist until this madman and his cronies are out of office!

I think the Democrats may finally be able to put a stop to this don't-ask'don't-tell crap, but I hate to think of any young American - gay, straight, whatever - signing up at a time when he or she could be used as cannon-fodder for the PNAC agenda.

[JeremyWestenn]

23. I appreciate the concern.

But I doubt being in the Navy will lead me to the middle east. I'm thinking of doing some journalism like things in it, or... Well, I still gotta talk to the recruiter and see what you'd actually do. <_^ I suppose nothing is finale but I am leaning towards this.

And even though we can't stand Bush, let's try and have a little faith. :)

[JeffR]

24. Bush is less to be feared than the interests he represents

and I doubt if the Navy is a sinecure to be counted on these days.

Whatever you do, stay safe if you can.

[JeremyWestenn]

25. Absolutely! ^_^

Will do. <3

[question everything]

27. I think that it will be repealed, or, at least, weakened

For two reasons: first like the nation as a whole, the military now has younger people who are more tolerant of people who are different.

Two, there have been many reports about the military urgent need of translators and how many were discharged once they were found to be gay. So you have military people who have been working closely with gay people, appreciated their contributions and realized the loss after their departure.

The opposition to gays in the military stemmed from basic training and from the old style of military when men had to huddle for days and weeks in fox holes. These macho homophobes could not envision being that close, physically, to gay men.

I can see the act being weakened to be limited to, say, individuals in combat but not for staff positions.

[JeremyWestenn]

28. Crossing my fingers.

Well, in the end I suppose all we can do is hope for whats right and just to come to.

[sampsonblk]

30. Many points for you

I admire your courage. I am not the only vet on the board, but here are some things that jumped out at me:

Serving in the Navy is not a "normal" life. It will probably be the most exciting and adventurous time of your life. Enjoy it.

I would never ever serve under G W Bush. There isn't enough money in the Treasury for me to put that uniform on while he is in office.

DA/DT is probably the most you are going to get now. The issue is a social one, and the military does not exist to create social change. During the times when the military has been the leader in social change, it has always been about the mission - about readiness or force capacity.

So looking at this from a military point of view, which is the only point of view that's relevant, how does removing the DA/DT policy affect the military capabilities of the United States? It will create increased dissent in the ranks. Even the top officers won't support it.

One option, which has been used twice before is to create homogeneous units. That is to have all-gay battalions, for example, and see how they perform. In time, they will gain the trust of the other 99% of the military. The more I think about it, that option is unpalatable but I honestly don't see another feasible way. Immediate, blanket integration of openly gay soldiers and sailors is not an option, considering the current climate both in the American society and in the military. Even if its the right thing to do.

Removing the DA/DT policy without addressing the capability issue, in my opinion, is dangerous.

Good luck to you.

[slackmaster]

32. I think DA/DT is worse than nothing

It's not homosexual orientation per se that can get you kicked out of the military, it's homosexual conduct.

DA/DT puts needless restrictions on speech.

[sampsonblk]

37. There is no freedom of speech in the military

Never has been. Never will be. This isn't a corporation we're talking about. Not when certain speech can get people killed.

I don't quite get your point about conduct vs orientation. There isn't any other way to judge whether someone is of a particular sexual orientation or not. Conduct is the only way.

[slackmaster]

38. A person can be attracted to MOTSS and abstinent

Such a person has a homosexual orientation, but does not engage in homosexual conduct.

It's the conduct part that violates UCMJ Punitive Article 125, not the orientation.

[sampsonblk]

39. We are saying the same thing

Can't (and shouldn't) do anything about the orientation. So what's there to deal with except conduct?

Can you imagine what the military would be like if soldiers were discipled based on what they were thinking about doing?

[slackmaster]

40. My point is that DA/DT stigmatizes behavior that the UCMJ does not

Taken at face value, there is no article under which a soldier could be charged for merely stating that he or she is homosexual.

DA/DT places a restriction on conduct (i.e. certain speech) that is not prohibited under the letter of the law.

In a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the UCMJ, openly gay and lesbian people are not banned from the military. They are only prohibited from having sex. DA/DT adds the restriction of forcing them to keep quiet about their orientation.

[sampsonblk]

41. Maybe true, but that's cheating

DA/DT is a compromise. What you suggest is basically cheating on the agreement.

If someone is gay/bi or is having gay sex it is not permitted and will get you booted out of the military immediately. What the gov't is doing is turning a blind eye to illegal conduct, so long as the soldier keeps it to himself. I have never seen a compromise like this before.

To suggest 10 years later that the behavior or orientation isn't literally banned is to re-open a can of very unwelcome worms. The alternative to DA/DT is not to allow openly gay people to serve in the military. The alternative is to have the GOP snooping in soldiers' private lives trying to determine who is sleeping where, and to punish them accordingly. NOT good, in my opinion.

[let us vote]

35. I read that the gays lost out in this election.

I don't recall where I read it. However, what I read is that the new Democratic members are not from the pro-gay-rights community and that the gay rights community lost out in the primary. I don't know about the source and won't vouch for a source I can't even remember. Does anyone have any actual data?

[AnnieBW]

36. Don't Ask, Don't Tell Makes No Sense During a War

It makes no sense that we're kicking people out because of their sexual orientation while we're scrambling to make recruitment quotas. Especially those men and women that were trained as Arabic linguists! After hearing about sexual harassment of female soldiers, sexual abuse of prisoners in Abu Gharaib, and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl, straight men have NO RIGHT to complain about serving next to a gay man or lesbian. What are they so afraid of - being treated by gays the same way that they treat women?

[JeremyWestenn]

42. Going to call them Monday.

I'll call Marty Meehans office Monday and see if I can find that voting roster. If they take to action and hold hearings on it, and I'll ask Marty Meehan's office if he is going to actively pursue hearings, then maybe we can get some real traction on it. When people start seeing how much the policy has cost, etc. it may change a lot of minds. Plus, the opinion polls of the American people will do wonders in regards to their representatives and senators votes.