The End of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at Hand?

[Homebrew]

from the Advocate

Republican lawmaker calls for end to military's gay ban

U.S. representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican Party standard-bearer, broke party ranks with a call for a change in the Pentagon's ban on openly gay members of the military. "We've tried the policy. I don't think it works. And we've spent a lot of money enforcing it," said the Miami Republican, a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations. "People who've signed up to serve our country, we should be thanking them."

Ros-Lehtinen is cosponsoring a bill, along with House Republicans Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Jim Kolbe of Arizona and 70 Democrats, to repeal the 12-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation. Ros-Lehtinen's district includes Key West, which has a large politically active gay population, and she has taken a leadership role on pro-gay legislation.

With three Republican co-sponsors, especially one as well-placed at Ros-Lehtinen, I think the time it might actually happen.

[rjung]

I'd put good odds on it ending. The military needs every warm body in Iraq it can find these days, and tossing out folks for not being heterosexual isn't enough reason otherwise.

[Malodorous]

Could be. As the article mentions, a gay Sergent with a purple star in the US army just came out, basically daring the military to fire him. I imagine that, unlike in the 90's when most of our soldiers hadn't seen combat, there will be several more cases in the near future where gay military men who have served in Iraq/Afganistan will come out. The bad PR from discharging a bunch of guys who have taken bullets for our country because of what they do in private is going to be increasingly intense.

Finally, the army is having a lot harder time retaining troops then it was in the 90's, so the fact that we're turning down people just based on sexual orientation is becoming impractical. There was a case a year or so ago where two arabic interpreters, an area where the army badly needs more people, were discharged due to being outed. Again, handicapping the war on terror because of unrelated sexual issues that people in this country are increasingly unconcerned with is providing terrible PR for the army and this adminstration.

[treis]

It allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation

Someone is gonna have to 'splain to me how this is different from don't ask don't tell.

[Homebrew]

That *is* don't ask, don't tell. The bill proposed will allow gay folks to serve openly.

[Sampiro]

There's no way lawmakers from conservative states can afford to endorse this. The "he wants gays in the army" ads are already being made before they ever vote. Plus with George W. "You know Bob, I don't know. I just don't know [if homosexuality is a choice]" Bullwinkle as Commander-in-Chief it'll probably be vetoed anyway. I'm not optimistic.

[Ravenman]

Yeah, three Republican House members can't override a veto. Zero chance that it'll happen until at least 2009, when there's someone else in the White House. If its a Republican, they can pull the "Nixon goes to China" maneuver, in which a Republican does what Democrats would be raked over the coals for doing. If it is a Dem in the White House in 2009, it could well be a repeat of the bungling that led to DADT in Clinton's first year.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

There's no way lawmakers from conservative states can afford to endorse this. The "he wants gays in the army" ads are already being made before they ever vote. Plus with George W. "You know Bob, I don't know. I just don't know [if homosexuality is a choice]" Bullwinkle as Commander-in-Chief it'll probably be vetoed anyway. I'm not optimistic.

I'd expect this to die in the Senate. And, Bush couldn't get re-elected if he signed this.

[2nd Law]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

I'd expect this to die in the Senate. And, Bush couldn't get re-elected if he signed this.

This is his second term. He can't get re-elected if he walks on water.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Homebrew

That *is* don't ask, don't tell. The bill proposed will allow gay folks to serve openly.

Ah thanks for the clear up.

*shakes fist at writer*

When you use "it" to begin a sentance it refers to the subject of the previous sentance damn it!

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by 2nd Law

This is his second term. He can't get re-elected if he walks on water.

Duh. Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Yeah, three Republican House members can't override a veto.

And Republican Senators and House members would get creamed in the next primaries if they voted for this.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Duh. Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.

You know, you really shouldn't scare me like that. Give a guy some warning if you're going to posit a Cheney candidacy!

Seriously, Cheney would never be elected President. Bush at least has some kind of charisma and apparently is considered charming by a large proportion of the population. Cheney is the original Nosferatu. Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric dust that has so much as brushed past someone with charm won't even settle on the man's body. He's the anti-charisma.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by jayjay

You know, you really shouldn't scare me like that. Give a guy some warning if you're going to posit a Cheney candidacy!

Seriously, Cheney would never be elected President. Bush at least has some kind of charisma and apparently is considered charming by a large proportion of the population. Cheney is the original Nosferatu. Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric dust that has so much as brushed past someone with charm won't even settle on the man's body. He's the anti-charisma.

The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008)

Why do you presume that? Cheney's age and health are major stumbling blocks, and the man has the charisma of a cardboard standee.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing.

Cheney won't even run. You heard it here first.

It could be that recruitment problems might force the abandonment of this policy. Whatever the reason, this could only be good for gays. Acceptance in the military would be a big step towards better acceptance throughout society.

[asterion]

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?

[Lemur866]

Cheney has already announced categorically that he will not run in 2008, not that anyone seriously thought he would.

2008 will be the first wide wide open presidential election in a long time, with no incumbent president or former vice president running. In fact, I think the last one was 1952, Eisenhower vs Stevenson.

Back to gays in the military. Given the manpower requirements for the army, discharging volunteers just because they are gay makes even less sense than it did before the Iraq war. As for the contention that a Republican congressman would be in trouble for supporting it, well, as Nixon used to say, if the president does it it is not illegal. If the President signs on, suddenly the conservative talking heads will turn on a dime and talk about how inclusive and statesmanlike and patriotic it all is.

[rjung]

The well-oiled right-wing media machine could easily sell "legalizing" gays in the military to the GOP's core voters. Just pitch it as King George's infinite generousity for the 21st century and you'd be done by lunch.

[Jonathan Chance]

No Cheney. Let me fifth that.

And I see the fact that three Republican's are endorsing this as a cry of military pain. This can get through congress if it's sold in a 'we need to keep recruitment up' way.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by asterion

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?

No. Don't ask, don't tell was passed by Congress, and an executive order can't be issued that violates the law. Before the Don't Ask law was passed, the President would have been able to.

[Scott Plaid]

I am all for female presidents, but I hope we don't have O Fortuna Rice run for prez. Why? Because she's unmarried. We can't have a president who goes out on dates.

[Broomstick]

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out. There is historical precedent for various not-liked groups being encouraged to sign on when warm bodies/cannon fodder is needed then disposed of when no longer so essential.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Malodorous

a gay Sergent with a purple star

Maybe his Lieutenant's not using enough astroglide.

The award is a purple heart.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

Duh. Let me rephrase that to say that Cheney (who I presume will run in 2008) will be seriously tarnished if Bush signed such a bill.

Cheney has said several times that he'll never run for President. And if he did his daughter would be a way bigger issue than this could be.

[Ravenman]

Cheney made a good funny last week. At some speech, he categorically refused to run for President in 2008. But he did volunteer to lead the Republican search committee for their 2008 presidental candidate....

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out. There is historical precedent for various not-liked groups being encouraged to sign on when warm bodies/cannon fodder is needed then disposed of when no longer so essential.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well. Though not impossible, I do think it would still be pretty difficult to go backwards on this.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by asterion

Couldn't the President (and I'm talking in general here--I don't see Bush doing this or any first-termer of either party) just force it one way or the other by executive order, like Truman forced integration?

Quite possibly. Particularly if Bush let in people who openly admitted they were homosexuals, a later president would have trouble drumming them out. Of course, Bush isn't so crazy as to do such a thing.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

The incumbent VP usually get the party nomination. I presume you are a Republican? As a Democrat myself, I consider the enelectability of Cheney in the general election a Good Thing.

Ewwww...no, I'm not a Republican. I just think that a Cheney candidacy is completely out of the question and would be a net increase in general pain because I'd have to go through an entire campaign season with Smugly Lizardlips out front and center all over the place...

[Harborwolf]

Yessir, this one's a real coin tosser. On one hand you have rights natural dislike for the homosexual. On the other you have their love for patriotism and their need for warm bodies in Iraq.

What the heck. I'll be optimistic and think that this has a chance of passing. Now is not a good time to be turning away willing soldiers. I think that those in favor of it's passing can make a really effective push.

[Neurotik]

But...but...if we start letting them risk their lives for their country, we may feel obligated to let them marry who they want...

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Neurotik

But...but...if we start letting them risk their lives for their country, we may feel obligated to let them marry who they want...

And given that gay marriage is hugely unpopular in the US (in Michigan where I live, a constitutional amandment banning it passed easily because of fear of activist judges), I can see this why the logic above would be good reason for many to oppose gays in the miltary.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

And given that gay marriage is hugely unpopular in the US (in Michigan where I live, a constitutional amandment banning it passed easily because of fear of activist judges), I can see this why the logic above would be good reason for many to oppose gays in the miltary.

I suspect the biggest issue the DoD will encounter when (yes when it'll happen eventually) gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly will be the status of their partners? Will they be given the same benifits as military spouses? Will the military even recognize them as next of kin? There are issues like housing, pensions, etc that will need to be addressed. Or what if a gay/lesbian soldier doesn't come home and gets a posthumous, will his/her partner be allowed to stand in during the presentation ceremony?

[Ravenman]

Well, the Defense of Marriage Act says that the Federal government may not recognize same sex spouses, so no, unless that law is changed as well. And seeing how DOMA was passed by a pretty wide bipartisan margin, we're likely looking at no less than another decade before there might be the political will to change or repeal DOMA.

[Scott Plaid]

Let's say "civil unions" get passed, and then a gay person dies heroically serving his country, I can easily see a ground swelling either overcoming reluctance to use the term, marriage, or inclusive language allowing soldiers partners to reap benefits of being married to a solider. Of course, with public opinion the way it is, such a scenario would probably take only a slightly shorter time then the Ravenman's projected timeline of a decade, so......

Just my 2….

Just where the ¢۩۞₤∏™£ΔΏ is the symbol for cents?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Scott_plaid

Just where the ¢۩۞₤∏™£ΔΏ is the symbol for cents?

Silly! Discussions about homophobia NEVER make cents...

[Johanna]

OK, now that the gays in the military issue is about to be settled (hopefully), what about the transgendered? The final frontier.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Broomstick

What I would really hate to see is the welcoming of gays/lesbians while we're at war, followed by a mass dismissal after peace breaks out.

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Johanna

OK, now that the gays in the military issue is about to be settled (hopefully), what about the transgendered? The final frontier.

I doubt that'll happen for quite a while, honestly. There's still more of a stigma about transgenderism than there is homosexuality, there are fewer transgendered people than homosexuals, and the transgendered don't have an effecive lobby (while the gay rights groups do, supposedly, lobby for transgendered rights, they don't really focus on them, or do an effective job).

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.

And the Korean war. Think of Klinger from M*A*S*H. The real problem today is that homosexuality doesn't have the huge stigma it did back then. If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I doubt that'll happen for quite a while, honestly. There's still more of a stigma about transgenderism than there is homosexuality, there are fewer transgendered people than homosexuals, and the transgendered don't have an effecive lobby (while the gay rights groups do, supposedly, lobby for transgendered rights, they don't really focus on them, or do an effective job).

In the event of the draft though, transgendered folks who went from male to female would create an interesting problem. We don't draft females.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay.

That's what Chevy Chase did to avoid the Vietnam draft.

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

And the Korean war. Think of Klinger from M*A*S*H. The real problem today is that homosexuality doesn't have the huge stigma it did back then. If the draft were reinstated today, we'd find half the young men in the country were gay.

What about Klinger? He (and the real-life soldiers on whom he was based) was neither gay, nor transgendered, nor even a "real" crossdresser.

Klinger has nothing to do with this debate.

[rfgdxm]

Originally Posted by Fiver

What about Klinger? He (and the real-life soldiers on whom he was based) was neither gay, nor transgendered, nor even a "real" crossdresser.

Klinger has nothing to do with this debate.

He most certainly is relevant to this debate. The point is that he was faking it to get out of the military. Expect a lot of this sort of faking if the draft is reinstated in the US.

[Lemur866]

First of all, the draft isn't going to be reinstated, it would be political suicide. We've had dozens of threads about this. There will be no draft. Not gonna happen. Nope. About as likely as Cheney running for President in 2008.

Second, if there was a draft, the restriction on gays in the military would be rescinded so fast it will make your head spin. If they're gonna draft you, you're not going to be able to get out of the draft by claiming you're gay.

Third, all the rules for a new draft (if we have a new draft, which we won't) would be completly different from the Vietnam-era draft. Just because the draft was organized in a particular way in Vietnam doesn't mean we'll do the same thing again. A draft would require an entirely new act of Congress, the President can't just write an executive order. And since almost all the senior military people in the Pentagon are Vietnam-era veterans, I think they'll attempt to avoid some of the more egregious errors of the Vietnam-era draft. Making all new errors of their own, of course.

[Mr. Moto]

I'm a Selective Service local board member, and I've been talking about some of those changes in this thread.

The biggest one is with student deferments. They used to be very open ended, and as long as you were making progress toward your degree, you didn't have to report for induction. That has been radically changed.

Now, if you're a senior, you get to finish the academic year. Others in college get to finish the semester. High school students, if it comes to that, are deferred until graduation or until age 20, whatever comes first.

That is, if there's ever a draft, which I agree is unlikely.

[Rashak Mani]

Imagine an Arab country being threatened with a US invasion... if they think there are lots of gay soldiers participating they certainly would be more reluctant to face such an invasion !

Well tasteless comments aside... I'd be surprised if this passes... though I think its way past time that the US military change their attitude with their gay servicemen. Even if its not much of a change...

[Fiver]

Originally Posted by rfgdxm

He most certainly is relevant to this debate. The point is that he was faking it to get out of the military. Expect a lot of this sort of faking if the draft is reinstated in the US.

He was faking insanity, not gender dysphoria. Not relevant.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

That happens anyway. In both WWII and Vietnam, the military sort of turned a blind eye to homosexuality, only to crack down on it when the war ended.

Of course, that could also lead to a huge backlash. "How DARE you dismiss us, after we risked our lives for you!" Considering that homosexuality is much more acceptable than it was back in the days of Vietnam.

Also, in the extremely unlikely event there was a draft, I would think they'd seriously consider drafting females this time around.

[Ravenman]

I really, really wish this talk of the draft would die. Republican Congressmen are uneasy about going along with the President to reform Social Security. What makes anyone in reality-land think that they'll go along with sending unwilling Americans to war?