Calls for Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” -When Will the President Act?
From Sunlen Miller and Teddy Davis:
Amid reinvigorated calls to repeal "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" this week, the White House says that President Obama is speaking to the Defense Department so that changes that can be made to the controversial policy.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D- California) again today announced her proposal to repeal "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" – the ban on gay soldiers serving openly in the military.
In a speech at the Center for American Progress Tauscher called on the Defense Department to review the policy – which she says hasn’t worked and has impended military readiness -and introduced her own bill, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act.
"This bill will once and for all end the discriminatory practices of the Department of Defense and men and women who have been administratively discharged would be allowed to have the opportunity to serve again if they want," Tauscher said, "There is no evidence to support a continued ban on open service, and every reason to allow lesbian and gay Americans to serve our country."
President Obama, while campaigning in the presidential election, said that "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" was something that needs repealing. Today, the White House said that this is still something that Obama supports "changing"– although gave no timetable for when they would take up the legislation.
"The President supports changing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a paper statement, "As part of a long standing pledge, he has also begun consulting closely with Secretary Gates and Chairman Mullen so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."
Advocates of repealing "Don’t ask, Don’t tell" are hoping to get rid of the policy when Congress takes up next year’s defense authorization bill in April – and pushing for President Obama to act quickly.
"If the president supports repeal, he needs to be out there pretty soon, framing the issue and not letting the opposition frame the issue," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund, which represents gay military personnel discharged under the current policy.
-Sunlen Miller and Teddy Davis

Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Ellen is messing up the timeline….
Posted by: ji9h | March 2, 2009, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm
The sooner the better. The Israeli army allows gays and lesbians to serve openly since 1993.
Posted by: Willem van Oranje | March 2, 2009, 8:32 pm 8:32 pm
I’m not holding my breath on this one. Obama has a big enough fight on with the Fillerbuster’n Republicans in the Senate to roll back the worst of the Bush era policies, I don’t see him attacking this one for a while.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 2, 2009, 8:45 pm 8:45 pm
Obama won’t touch this with a ten foot pole.
He will say he will let the Defense take a look at it.
Posted by: Sara | March 2, 2009, 8:59 pm 8:59 pm
I’d have bet money before the economic downturn that the military, strapped for new recruits, would find a way to welcome gay people into the ranks. Now that the economy is tanking, military recruitment will be up, and gays in the military will probably have to await better economic times.
Posted by: Bridget | March 2, 2009, 10:25 pm 10:25 pm
It is so easy to be the champion of the ‘oppressed’ middle class. I bet Obama wont touch a real injustice like Dont Ask, Dont Tell. That would be too much like a profile in courage.
Posted by: Michael O'Neal | March 2, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm
First of all, Obama seems to be more worried about Rush Limbaugh than anything else. Second, he is on thin ice with alot the military as it is, now might *not* be a good time to try a social experiment with it. I think the fiscal collapse of our nation should be a higher priority anyway.
Posted by: Ken | March 3, 2009, 12:48 am 12:48 am
Who cares?
Posted by: Thinking | March 3, 2009, 5:49 am 5:49 am
When we’re over the economic crisis. Do journalists get some sort of award for quantity over quality?
Posted by: Common Sense | March 3, 2009, 6:37 am 6:37 am
Gays and Lesbians have been serving for years, they just can’t tell anyone that they are. They have given their lives for this country just the same as straight people. I don’t see anything wrong with repealing the policy.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:04 am 8:04 am
I’ve been in the Navy 12 years. I have no prejudice against gays. However, I do have issues with them serving in certain areas of the military.
For example, on ships special berthings (sleeping rooms) are made for men and women, as well as bathrooms. The berthings have upwards of 200 people in them, as well as communal showers. There are some people who would feel very uncomfortable undressing or showering, or sleeping in the same area’s as homosexuals. There is also a policy of no intercourse on the ships. How do you handle this? You can’t have special berthings or special bathrooms made for them, that congregates them together, like putting men and women in the same showers or berthings.
Look, they serve in the military now. Having them open about their sexual disposition is just not necessary. What they do in their home can stay in their home, it doesn’t belong in a military environment.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 8:10 am 8:10 am
Look, they serve in the military now. Having them open about their sexual disposition is just not necessary. What they do in their home can stay in their home, it doesn’t belong in a military environment.
Posted by: KR | Mar 3, 2009 8:10:48 AM
That is sort of a double standard. How about the ‘straights’ that rape women in the military and the affairs that go on. I know a bit about the military because my dad was in the Air Force and I saw what goes on with the straight folks. That does not belong in a military environment either but it’s still rampant.
I am sure that most gays and lesbians would still not broadcast it due to some of the attitudes of the testorone filled he-men.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:21 am 8:21 am
There are some people who would feel very uncomfortable undressing or showering, or sleeping in the same area’s as homosexuals.
what are you afraid of KR?
If you’re on a sinking ship & that naked homosexual sailor reaches out to save you. do you grab his hand or die?
Posted by: homophobic | March 3, 2009, 8:27 am 8:27 am
what are you afraid of KR?
If you’re on a sinking ship & that naked homosexual sailor reaches out to save you. do you grab his hand or die?
Posted by: homophobic | Mar 3, 2009 8:27:35 AM
Exactly!
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:31 am 8:31 am
You know what I find amusing? That most people who aren’t fond of gays and lesbians think that all gays and lesbians think about is sex. They are no different than straight people, except for who they love. They have families, they work, they have children and they serve in the military.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:35 am 8:35 am
The left is going to be very disappointed. Repealing DADT does nothing to consolidate O’s power. His goal is to convince the gays he can screw them because they have no place to go.
Posted by: Plumber | March 3, 2009, 8:35 am 8:35 am
The left is going to be very disappointed. Repealing DADT does nothing to consolidate O’s power. His goal is to convince the gays he can screw them because they have no place to go.
Posted by: Plumber | Mar 3, 2009 8:35:54 AM
How would this screw them? It would mean those ousted for the main reason they were gay or lesbian could rejoin. That would help our military out. How is that not a good thing?
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:39 am 8:39 am
“what are you afraid of KR?
If you’re on a sinking ship & that naked homosexual sailor reaches out to save you. do you grab his hand or die?”
There are over 300,000 in the Navy. They come from every walk of life in the United States and other nations. Many from other countries serve in the Navy to get their citizenship.
Don’t talk to me like it’s ME who is afraid of that. But don’t be so stupid to think there aren’t people who would take offense to it. For the left who seem so concerned about offending people, you have no concern at all for anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of society. Fact is there are people who have no issue working with gays, they just don’t care to know. Because if they know, they will inevitably act differently towards them in situations of nudity. If you are so naive not to think that won’t happen, then you haven’t had to live on a ship.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 8:40 am 8:40 am
Don’t talk to me like it’s ME who is afraid of that. But don’t be so stupid to think there aren’t people who would take offense to it. For the left who seem so concerned about offending people, you have no concern at all for anyone who doesn’t agree with your view of society. Fact is there are people who have no issue working with gays, they just don’t care to know. Because if they know, they will inevitably act differently towards them in situations of nudity. If you are so naive not to think that won’t happen, then you haven’t had to live on a ship.
Posted by: KR | Mar 3, 2009 8:40:45 AM
Most people like that are not comfortable with their own sexuality. People are afraid of what they don’t understand and most won’t take the time to learn about other people. Attitudes are changing about homosexuals but there is still a long way to go in regards to that.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:48 am 8:48 am
“That most people who aren’t fond of gays and lesbians think that all gays and lesbians think about is sex. They are no different than straight people, except for who they love.”
Ever hear of the “Love boat” cruise? The first carrier to have women aboard. I forget the actual numbers, but out of like 18 women on board, around 10 or so were pregnant before the end of the cruise. A prostitution ring was on a carrier, found and convicted those involved. Even gays have been found engaging in sex on the carrier.
I think people fail to picture what this really is. This isn’t about gays serving in the military. They are already there. This is about them being able to be openly gay. What is the real difference in the long run? Straight people aren’t openly straight in the military, what does it matter?
By the way, in all my years I have never seen anyone booted for being gay. Even some who have accidentally been discovered as gay, are not booted. Sometimes they are relocated to a different command, but seldom are they ever booted just for being gay. When they are, you usually hear about it on the news. It’s not many at all.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 8:50 am 8:50 am
0bama is no frind of the gay/lesbian crowd. He talks a good game, but his record is clear. He will alienate the group that really turned out the vote. And we all know who they are … the 98 percent crowd.
Posted by: beebop | March 3, 2009, 8:57 am 8:57 am
“Most people like that are not comfortable with their own sexuality. People are afraid of what they don’t understand and most won’t take the time to learn about other people. Attitudes are changing about homosexuals but there is still a long way to go in regards to that.”
I think this is where we have issue. You think the government should force people to modify their behavior. I would disagree. This is still a free nation, well for the time being anyway. When the government starts telling people how they should think, we run into very dangerous ground.
Look, personally with me I don’t have any problems with it. But let me share with you some history. When women were first allowed in the military, and began going into area’s usually just for men, it became big PR campaigns. The first female F14 pilot, who was pushed into flying the F14 even when she didn’t feel comfortable flying it, killed herself and her back seat RIO. I have also witnessed abuses by certain women, who have gotten pregnant just before a deployment for the sole reason not to go on deployment. I have also worked with some great female officers and sailors who I had just as much, if not more confidence in then some of my male fellow sailors.
But it doesn’t change the fact that the military has had to go to great lengths to modify itself for female presence in certain area’s of the military. On the whole, it was good thing for females in the military, but it is also constant struggle to accommodate.
Openly gay will open up another complexity for the military to deal with. It injects politics and activism into an environment where it has no place. They can serve, they do serve, why is that not enough?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 8:58 am 8:58 am
KR,
How many people have not enlisted due this policy? Why would they want to take the chance of getting booted out?
I don’t see what the problem is.
As secretive as the military can be how do you know how many people have gotten booted out because of this?
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 8:59 am 8:59 am
Posted by: KR | Mar 3, 2009 8:58:45 AM
Why do they have to be treated as second class citizens like women used to be? There are a lot of women that have died for this country as well as gays and lesbians.
So basically what you are saying is it should be men and straight only so that we don’t have to “accomodate” the others.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
I give him credit for going to the Defense Department first and asking them to come up with a plan. There will be repercussions on both sides when this gets repealed and it makes sense to try and anticipate what will happen and be prepared than be continually reacting. It has been less that 40 days in office. If he get everything done today what will he do tomorrow?
Posted by: jb | March 3, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
If he get everything done today what will he do tomorrow?
Posted by: jb | Mar 3, 2009 9:04:38 AM
I think he will continually work to get this country back to what it once was, whether it is 4 or 8 years that he is in for. There is plenty for him to keep busy for more than 8 years.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 9:09 am 9:09 am
“How many people have not enlisted due this policy? Why would they want to take the chance of getting booted out?
I don’t see what the problem is.”
You bring up something absolutely mythological, how many people pray to the sun get sunburned? No one can possibly say how many it is, and should have nothing to do with why they join. Our military is an all volunteer force. We want people to join to serve their nation, not for a paycheck or to prove some point. And there is nothing to say that gay’s cannot join. What the policy says is that if you join, keep your private sexual activities PRIVATE.
Being in the military, there are many things you have to keep private. You cannot openly campaign in politics or openly support political nominees is one (though some do, and they are not held accountable).
“As secretive as the military can be how do you know how many people have gotten booted out because of this?”
I gave you my 12 years of experience, working with commands that had several thousand people in them. I have no idea what the total number is. I told you I have never seen it myself, only the occasional newspaper article, usually someone on an activist campaign actively challenging the policy in public. Those guys get the boot and probably should. They have no business in the military on an activist crusade.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:12 am 9:12 am
How many people have not enlisted due this policy? Why would they want to take the chance of getting booted out?
I don’t see what the problem is.”
You bring up something absolutely mythological, how many people pray to the sun get sunburned? No one can possibly say how many it is, and should have nothing to do with why they join. Our military is an all volunteer force. We want people to join to serve their nation, not for a paycheck or to prove some point. And there is nothing to say that gay’s cannot join. What the policy says is that if you join, keep your private sexual activities PRIVATE.
Posted by: KR | Mar 3, 2009 9:12:08 AM
You missed my point. How many able bodied people have they lost in recruiting due to this policy. No it doesn’t have anything to do with a paycheck, but why would somebody subject themselves to getting booted if they were found to be gay or lesbian or put up with harassment.
Do you really think these people chose that lifestyle? I don’t and that is where some people just don’t get it.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am
“Why do they have to be treated as second class citizens like women used to be? There are a lot of women that have died for this country as well as gays and lesbians.”
They are not treated like anything right now. I can guarantee you this though, if they are openly gay in the military THEY WILL be treated differently. Not everyone in the US is gay friendly, and definitely not everyone in the military is gay friendly. To think that suddenly people will drop their prejudice is naive. Put that in a dangerous environment and you have potential problems.
“So basically what you are saying is it should be men and straight only so that we don’t have to “accomodate” the others.”
Sigh, I guess I just can’t get you to understand. It’s the divides that society expects that causes it. The military will accommodate gays because it will have no choice. Doesn’t make it right, or even necessary because someone wants to be able to say he’s gay in public. To me, it just isn’t necessary. We all have to make sacrifices to serve in the military. Is this really too much to ask?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
” but why would somebody subject themselves to getting booted if they were found to be gay or lesbian or put up with harassment.”
There is no task force out there looking to find gays. I knew of several sailors who were gay, found by accident typically, but there was no action taken against them. They still serve today because they don’t display it at work or in uniform. If they go participate in a gay parade in uniform, you bet action will be taken. But if I wore a uniform in just about any demonstration or parade (not designed to honor the military), I’d probably get kicked too.
“Do you really think these people chose that lifestyle? I don’t and that is where some people just don’t get it. ”
In some cases yes, in some cases I think its biological or psychological. But that’s just my opinion. I don’t by the “born that way” crap in most cases. Again, that’s just my opinion. Why should I force my opinion on morality issues on you through government policy? That’s what the president is asking the military to do with this issue.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
KR – reading your post, I think this applies to you.
“Intellects – Because if you don’t agree with us, you must be stupid.”
Sound Familiar?
Posted by: KR's Conscience | March 3, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
“Intellects – Because if you don’t agree with us, you must be stupid.”
Sound Familiar?”
and I called someone stupid or not an intelligent person… where?
That post where you got that was directed at someone who seems to claim only intellects exist in the democratic party. I have not used that anywhere here, so not sure what connection you are trying to draw.
I am trying to give people a broader perspective, something they will not see in the news, from someone who has gay family members and served in the military. Is my experience not relevant?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:32 am 9:32 am
My only hope is that people treat each other with respect no matter who they are. One by one we need to change how we look at others because we are one people with one common purpose.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 9:32 am 9:32 am
“Intellects – Because if you don’t agree with us, you must be stupid.”
Sound Familiar?”
and I called someone stupid or not an intelligent person… where?
That post where you got that was directed at someone who seems to claim only intellects exist in the democratic party. I have not used that anywhere here, so not sure what connection you are trying to draw.
I am trying to give people a broader perspective, something they will not see in the news, from someone who has gay family members and served in the military. Is my experience not relevant?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am
I sincerely hope this is NOT one of his priorities. I have a problem with the US Rep who has made it one of hers. They don’t have any more important issues in her California district?
Posted by: indaATL | March 3, 2009, 9:37 am 9:37 am
“My only hope is that people treat each other with respect no matter who they are. One by one we need to change how we look at others because we are one people with one common purpose.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. However, that unfortunately just isn’t the world we live in. We have to admit that if we are to make sensible decisions on issues like this.
I served overseas, I’ve seen the worst and best in people. Military experience has been a blessing and a curse. There is one thing that will always be true though, the world is an ugly place and our nation, as powerful and good as it is, cannot change the fundamental flaws of mankind. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to try, quite the contrary we should stay vigilant to what our fellow man can be. But we should also be realistic that changing the flaws of human nature is unachievable, and always be prepared for the worst in people.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
In some cases yes, in some cases I think its biological or psychological. But that’s just my opinion. I don’t by the “born that way” crap in most cases. Again, that’s just my opinion. Why should
Posted by: KR | Mar 3, 2009 9:27:21 AM
That is where you are wrong and need to educate yourself.
Posted by: Jwench | March 3, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
“Sigh, I guess I just can’t get you to understand” my point KR
In addition, your post was not addressed to one person – it was one of many divisive statements about the “Democratic party”.
Yes, your experience is very relevant. It would hold more weight if you maintained the same amount of respect you demanded.
Posted by: KR's Conscience | March 3, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
“That is where you are wrong and need to educate yourself.”
I have 3 close family members who are gay. An Aunt who was molested by her father-in-law, then raped as a teenager. She’s now 60 and in talking with her, she openly admits that those events in her life influenced her into a lesbian lifestyle. She also admits that the late 60′s cultural sexual influences also contributed.
I have a nephew who, from a very young age, was in sports with 90% women. All of his life, his friends were girls from his sports team. He had very few male friends. Now much older, he admits that this had influence over his sexual orientation.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by “i need to educate myself”?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am
“”Sigh, I guess I just can’t get you to understand” my point KR
Understand my perspective, I did not put anyone up to intellectual measure with that statement, as I am guessing you were trying to connect?
“In addition, your post was not addressed to one person – it was one of many divisive statements about the “Democratic party”.”
Ok so if someone says the democratic party is the party of intellectuals, and I point out by saying that you infer that there are no intellectuals who disagree with democrats, therefore they must be stupid, is a divisive statement?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:52 am 9:52 am
The military has a large amount of gay and lesbian personnel who serve their country with honor and dignity. Many of them have risen in the ranks and serve in mission critical positions. A lot of the folks that work around them know about their sexuality but don’t care because people are people. So why should these gay and lesbian have to live in constant fear that some repressed homophobe is going to come along and destroy their career and life?
Posted by: DaveM | March 3, 2009, 9:53 am 9:53 am
“So why should these gay and lesbian have to live in constant fear that some repressed homophobe is going to come along and destroy their career and life?”
Do they live in constant fear? You say thousands serve, which I agree, but you say they all live in fear? I think I would disagree. How hard is it to keep your sexual life private? Is it really that difficult?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 9:57 am 9:57 am
Yeah, Tauscher is mainstream. Where does CA find these nuts.
Posted by: Sluggo | March 3, 2009, 9:58 am 9:58 am
Yes, KR, they do fear. Even if they keep everything private, all it takes is one grudge to begin an investigation which would lead to a discharge.
Posted by: DaveM | March 3, 2009, 10:04 am 10:04 am
“Even if they keep everything private, all it takes is one grudge to begin an investigation which would lead to a discharge.”
That’s not true. There is the don’t tell part, but there is also the don’t ask part. I guess if you served you would know how the policy works in practice. Any vendettas or grudges to try and expose someone as gay is not valid grounds for expulsion.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
If we want a job, why don’t we all join the military? We will have 3 squares a day and a warm bed to sleep; until we are called to do the job we were hired to do then we can all scream and yell and figure a way to get discharged.
Maybe this is obama’s solution to our economic problem…hummmm maybe something to think about. Is this his next step??
Posted by: Roland | March 3, 2009, 10:50 am 10:50 am
“If we want a job, why don’t we all join the military?”
Unfortunately, there are caps on the number of people that can join. Congress would have to expand that requirement, as well as fund it.
Somehow though, the administration plans to expand that cap AND cut funding. Not sure how that’s going to work. Hard to understand why defense is on the chopping block when the education budget is near twice that of the defense budget. At least with defense we are getting what we are paying for.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 11:02 am 11:02 am
I am a moderate-leaning-conservative lesbian living in Alaska. Had I felt my sexuality could have been kept quite I would have joined up – however, in civilian life it’s difficult enough.
remember, “don’t tell” includes not talking about your partner, faking interest in the opposite sex, inventing stories of past relationships, not “acting gay”, etc. . .if you’re not gay then you haven’t been there, and you don’t understant.
how would you feel as a straight person if you were afraid to wear a wedding band, couldn’t talk about your husband or wife, or had feign same-sex attraction? the shame and the fear are misery enough.
I know several people who would choose to serve if the ban were lifted, and none who’d walk away.
additionally – I was born a lesbian. My partner and her sister were both born lesbians. two of my guy friends were born gay. my bisexual buddies, on the other hand, are just sluts. take it as you will.
Posted by: would have been in the navy | March 3, 2009, 11:03 am 11:03 am
“remember, “don’t tell” includes not talking about your partner, faking interest in the opposite sex, inventing stories of past relationships, not “acting gay”, etc. . .if you’re not gay then you haven’t been there, and you don’t understand.”
I actually agree with you here. This is just my opinion, but I think the policy needs to be updated to give the commander the authority to determine if the individual is a disruption to the command. I think the vast majority of gays in the military are reasonable people like yourself, who wouldn’t use their gay lifestyle as some attention getting crusade in the military environment. But I ask you this, what could the military do with people who do just that? Don’t say it wouldn’t happen because that simply isn’t true. But if the commander doesn’t have the ability to remove that disruption without being dragged to court charged with discrimination, what can we do?
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 11:10 am 11:10 am
“Hamas is a fundamentalist Islamic organization intent on the eradication of the state of Israel and all its citizens; a violent fascist regime that allows honour killings and the execution of homosexuals”
A potential secondary effect of open homosexuality in the military if captured. The rest of the world, and many of our enemies, aren’t as tolerant of homosexuality as the west is. Typical procedure when an american military service-person is captured is they google their name, check out their myspace, etc. So they would find out, probably can now.
Note: I’m not supplying this as a reason not to change the policy, just pointing out a potential ramification of that policy change.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 11:22 am 11:22 am
I served quietly and silently as an officer for 13 years, always keeping my private life separate from my professional life. While in Iraq the military searched my private emails to dredge whatever damaging information they could find. I was fired from my job leading 200 men and women, lost my security clearance and endured a 16 month legal battle. Ultimately I was discharged, despite NEVER making a statement to the military. In my case it was the military who violated the policy by “asking” with their search of my private emails, without ever first consulting with a lawyer. I never told. And yes, it was my constant fear that despite being excrutiatingly careful with my private life that I would be “found out” and lose my job, just for being who I am. And in the end, my fear proved justified. I find it odd that the same excuses for DADT today, are one’s the military has used against African Americans and women.
Posted by: a former officer | March 3, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm
” Ultimately I was discharged, despite NEVER making a statement to the military.”
First off, they read all the emails out of Iraq. You would know that having a clearance and being an officer. Second, I would say you have a sound legal case. Whats stopping you? As an officer also for 12 years, I’d support you.
Posted by: KR | March 3, 2009, 2:58 pm 2:58 pm
I’ve been for six years, and am about to re-enlist. I keep my private life private, and have a pretty good file on me. I love serving my country and take pride working with the fellow soldier I have been honored to call brothers and sisters.
What does DADT do for me? I want to be able to file for benefits for my partner that i have supported for four years. I want to be able to hug her and kiss her good bye when i’m about to go on another deployment at our ship off point. I want our children to be cared for through my benefits as my straight counter parts have the ability of receiving. I am okay with leaving my personal life at home, but is it not reasonable to ask for the same benefits straight people receive for their families?
Posted by: Merrick | March 17, 2009, 6:40 pm 6:40 pm
Oh, by the way… despite the DADT policy, I have witnessed at least 14 gays pursued, investigated, and booted due to ‘homosexual conduct.’ Also, yes they can start with a simple grudge.
I was almost booted because I was attempting to collect rent from a fellow soldier who hadn’t paid his half in four months. He went to the command and said “she’s gay.” The only reason I did not get an investigation was because I had some very good upper chain that let my work speak for me, not accusations.
I fear about loosing my job if i cross the wrong people, but most understand the team concept, and know who i am beyond my uniform. I’m not fighting for gay rights per say, i just want to be albe to support my family and get the same benefits for them as straight families do.
Posted by: Merrick | March 17, 2009, 7:00 pm 7:00 pm
The military won’t be missing out on anything if homosexuals decide not to join the military because of DADT. No service has had trouble making numbers, and that won’t change. If you want to support your country and fight for freedom, there are more ways to do that than serving in the military.
Posted by: RHAM | July 20, 2009, 8:05 pm 8:05 pm