Gay Rights Activists Chagrined at Obama Administration Foot-Dragging on Overturning Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell
EmailGay and lesbian rights advocates expressed chagrin Sunday at the lack of urgency President Obama seems to be giving his campaign promise to overturn the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged on Fox News Sunday that funds have been allocated for the 2010 budget to enforce the "Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell" policy.
"It continues to be the law," Gates said, "and any change in the policy would require a change in the law. We will follow the law, whatever it is."
Earlier this month, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement claiming that President Obama supports changing the law. "As part of a long-standing pledge, he has also begun consulting closely with Secretary Gates and [Joint Chiefs] Chairman [Admiral Mike] Mullen so that this change is done in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security."
But Gates said the "dialogue" about overturning the ban "has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration. I think the president and I feel like we’ve got a lot on our plates right now, and let’s push that one down the road a little bit."
Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network — which supports the overturning of the ban — issued a statement saying that "Gates hardly gave a sound reason for kicking ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ down the road — or essentially back tracking on a campaign promise made by his commander in chief. I trust the secretary was not speaking for President Obama, who, hopefully, will issue the call for repeal when he sends his Defense Department budget to Congress in a few weeks. This is about timely leadership."
Sarvis continued: "It’s also called multitasking. Right now is the time — while we’re engaged in two wars — we need the most qualified men and women serving. This is not the time to keep firing linguists and intelligence analysts because of their sexual orientation. The longer the president and Pentagon delay the issue, the fewer linguists and intelligence analysts the Pentagon will have to call on to fight terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Conversely, a 2008 report for the Center for Military Readiness, which opposes overturning the ban, warns that such an action would cause "unprecedented harm to discipline, morale, recruiting and readiness. …T his would be tantamount to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with men at all times, regardless of the impact on discipline and morale. Stated in gender-neutral terms, in conditions of ‘forced intimacy,’ a phrase used in current law, persons will be exposed to persons who may be sexually attracted to them."
Almost 13,000 total service members have been discharged since "Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell" became law under President Bill Clinton in 1993.
A 2004 study by the Government Accountability Office found that of the then-9,488 service members discharged from the military for gay and lesbian conduct, approximately 757 — or 8 percent — "held critical occupations," meaning the kinds of jobs for which the Pentagon offers selective re-enlistment bonuses. That number included 322 with "skills in an important language such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean."
In 2006, we told you the story of one of these service members, Arabic speaker and former member of military intelligence Bleu Copas.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought more attention to the ban than previously existed. In 2005, I told you about Iraq War veteran and Purple heart recipient Sgt. Robert Stout of Utica, who was patrolling an area about an hour southeast of Samarra when he was injured by a grenade blast. In 2007, Jon Karl and I told the story of Petty Officer 2nd Class Jason Knight, who said the U.S. Navy knew he was gay, discharged him after he admitted his sexuality, and then recalled him to serve in the Middle East.
In January, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "there are many challenges facing our nation now and the president-elect is focused first and foremost on jump-starting this economy. So not everything will get done in the beginning but he’s committed to following through" with ending Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
Eighty-one percent of the public, according to a December CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, believes openly gay and lesbian Americans should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Don’t ask, don’t tell seems like a good policy for the military. Why the need to broadcast sexual preference, especially if it affects morale and discipline?
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 8:39 am 8:39 am
Sigmond:”Why the need to broadcast sexual preference,”
You don’t see why someone may want to be picked up from their tour by their partner? Or not get discharged for keeping a picture of their loved one in their pocket? Or not have to feign interest in a skin mag? The military already has strict policies regarding behavior – this isn’t about some guy wanting to dress in heels or wolf whistle at bunk mates. This is about a badly needed language specialist getting fired because he was seen leaving a gay bar on leave, or because an anonymous email to his commander suggested someone in the Division was gay.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 30, 2009, 8:55 am 8:55 am
My Father, a WWII veteran, said that many actively gay sailors manned the Naval fleet. He was neither gay nor bothered by the fact.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | March 30, 2009, 9:01 am 9:01 am
“You don’t see why someone may want to be picked up from their tour by their partner?”
I don’t care what a person’s sexual preference is and have no objection to gays and lesbians serving in the military. The policy is don’t ask, don’t tell which seems like a reasonable policy weighed against morale and discipline factors. As Obama says “play by the rules”. Or change the rules.
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 9:16 am 9:16 am
Saying somebody can not serve the country because of their sexualality is like saying ALL americans do not have a right to fight for THEIR country. Does this country not belong to everyone? I, personally, am not gay, but both my husband and I served proudly in the Navy, and IF I had happen to fallin in love with someone of the same sex, it sickens me to know, my country would not have wanted my help to serve and protect her.
Posted by: Melody | March 30, 2009, 9:19 am 9:19 am
“Saying somebody can not serve the country because of their sexualality ”
No one is prevented from serving because of their sexual preference. If they violate the policy they are released.
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 9:22 am 9:22 am
DADT is an insult to the US Constitution and to the Military personnel. It denies Freedom of Speech to a segment of the military. Braodcasting one’s sexuality is not the issue, it is merely permitting a person to be secure in their person.
Posted by: Rev JD Spears | March 30, 2009, 9:40 am 9:40 am
“Braodcasting one’s sexuality is not the issue, it is merely permitting a person to be secure in their person.”
People secure in their person shouldn’t have the need to broadcast their sexual preference.
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Sigmond:”"You don’t see why someone may want to be picked up from their tour by their partner?”
I don’t care what a person’s sexual preference is and have no objection to gays and lesbians serving in the military. The policy is don’t ask, don’t tell which seems like a reasonable policy weighed against morale and discipline factors.”
Don’t ask don’t tell means you could be discharged if your same-sex partner always picks you up for leave and upon returning from tour. Or dying without their committed partner of many years not being allowed in to see them, or even visit them outside of non-family hours during a tough rehab. That is the policy. You are stating you think that is reasonable.
Personally, I think it is an unreasonable policy but I also think there are bigger policy priorities now so this one needs to wait in line a bit longer. And to be a bit crass, what the policy is doing is making the Army more welcoming to vehement homophobes, who are probably better off in Iraq – and more comfortable with their stringent moral law – than exercising their ignorance in US civil society.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 30, 2009, 10:41 am 10:41 am
Sigmond:”People secure in their person shouldn’t have the need to broadcast their sexual preference.”
Please define “broadcast their sexual preference.” Seeing as how people have been discharged solely for what they do in their own private time, off base and outside of their unit, I don’t think you have an accurate picture of how this policy has been used. If they never breathe a single word of their orientation while in uniform, on base, or while out with fellow soldiers, it is documented as not being good enough under this policy.
Posted by: jhw539 | March 30, 2009, 10:53 am 10:53 am
“Please define “broadcast their sexual preference.”
Speaking publicly about your sexual preference or acting out publicly with a homosexual act. Don’t sign up for military service if you can’t abide by the policy. Change the policy, then there shouldn’t be a problem.
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 11:15 am 11:15 am
“what the policy is doing is making the Army more welcoming to vehement homophobes, who are probably better off in Iraq”
I have served in the military and don’t recall any personnel who joined because they were “vehement homophobes”. People can have different opinions about homosexuality. Many think it is an abnormal behavior and can affect morale and discipline in the military. Some think homosexuality is normal behavior. What do you think?
Posted by: Sigmond | March 30, 2009, 11:26 am 11:26 am
AS in every democrat administration, the gays will be a political football tossed around repeatedly but never acted on. And if it will help him the President will be happy to enact another DOMA piece of legislation. At some point the gays will wake up and realize that their worst nightmares have always been democrat presidents.
“Don’t ask don’t tell means you could be discharged if your same-sex partner always picks you up for leave and upon returning from tour. ”
That is simply ridiculous. Clearly you know no gays serving in the military.
Posted by: Plumber | March 30, 2009, 11:41 am 11:41 am
Thanks for the excellent and very thorough article Jake.
Posted by: @marcslove | March 30, 2009, 11:57 am 11:57 am
Time for an “I TOLD YOU SO”.
Is everyone in this country unable to tell hte difference between campaign panders for votes and the truth?
Did anyone believe for a second obama would really do it? NO – he just wanted the LGBT votes.
Posted by: Indie | March 30, 2009, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
It’s not a question of “broadcasting” one’s sexual orientation and “making” people feel uncomfortable, it’s a question of the military supporting ignorant bigotry rather than equality. ….. If you are uncomfortable around gays, YOU have a problem. If you were secure in your own person and sexuality, you wouldn’t be bothered by gays.
Posted by: fuzzy | March 30, 2009, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm
“AS in every democrat administration, the gays will be a political football tossed around repeatedly but never acted on. And if it will help him the President will be happy to enact another DOMA piece of legislation. At some point the gays will wake up and realize that their worst nightmares have always been democrat presidents.”
Because Republicans want to ensure that LGBT can serve in the military and marry who they wish?
How about hate crime protection, is that also a Republican goal?
Posted by: Ryan C | March 30, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
Disappointing but not surprising. When you look at Obama’s track record on gay rights, it doesn’t give much reason for hope:
1. Asked “ex-gay” singer Donnie McClurkin to perform at a campaign event in South Carolina.
2. Refused to have his picture taken with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 after Newsome allowed marriage licenses to be issued to gay couples.
3. Repeatedly volunteered that he opposes gay marriage while ostensibly opposing California’s Prop 8.
4. Invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.
Gay people will only see progress from this administration when it costs zero political capital.
Posted by: Ralph | March 30, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Why can’t the “gay rights” crowd just keep their sexuality to themselves it rather than expect the policians to remove the policy at the cost of morale and discipline? They care more about making everybody know they are gay than the effectiveness of our military. For the sake of national security one does not have the same rights while in uniform as they do as a civilian. This includes the right for gays to “express themselves”.
The “gay pride” nutjobs believe the courts should step in and change the definition of marriage for them, they believe that Obama should sign an executive order changing this policy. They believe they should go make public spectacles of themselves rather than generally keep it in private. They will call anybody who believes homosexuality is immoral a “homophobe”, ignorant, or other nonsense. If they ever wanted to turn the average guy against them they are doing a great job.
Posted by: Recon-Team | March 31, 2009, 11:10 am 11:10 am