So much for hope. Robert Gates: We may NEVER change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

[Bluebear]

Yes, I know. Robert Gates is only singing ONE SONG. And here it is:


CARLISLE, Pa. (AP) — Changing the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay troops is "very difficult," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, indicating that doing so could take years — if it ever happens.

Speaking at the Army War College, Gates said he and President Barack Obama were discussing the policy and whether to change it. Gates said he was not yet taking a position about whether gay troops should be open about their sexuality, which could lead to their discharge under the current rules.

Gates also noted it took five years for the U.S. military to racially integrate during the Truman administration.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDnDB00pfRtff5uMw-ibUW563pOwD97JSEF80

[roody]

1. They won't, but we will.

[Bluebear]

2. I was assured this would take place in january. :(

President Obama will end the 15-year-old "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.

Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team's Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:

"You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'Yes.' "

http://www.truthout.org/011409C

[roody]

8. I am sorry Obama lied to you.

Change will come from the bottom up. We have to make him (and all other legislators) do the right thing.

[Kaleva]

44. an earlier statement

"Friday, April 11th 2008, 4:00 AM
Obama said ending the policy, which was instituted during Bill Clinton's administration, is something he could "reasonably" get done if elected."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/11/2008-04-11_obama_ill_end_dontask_donttell-1.html

[JVS]

3. Given the military's inability to recruit as many people as it needs, the don't tell part could...

probably be destroyed by a refusal of gay service men and women to observe it.

[JeffreyWilliamson]

75. Now that's very interesting...

What do you suppose would happen if a group got together and promoted a national military coming out day, media blitz and all?

If a lot of service members did come out and speak up, could they kick them out without a massive backlash in the press?

[JVS]

80. I don't know about a media blitz. That's one way to run it, I supposed. I think a good way.

But I also suspect that under pressure from stop loss, that the level of turning a blind eye toward things on the part of their commanding officers. When DODT was instituted basically the army was saying "we won't ask, but we'd better not find out about it" Now the military is short staffed. I wouldn't be surprised if something like putting a picture of a significant other on your desk would go unchallenged and people would avoid asking. Incremental, but at some point the policy would seem ridiculous. I like your idea better

[Thrill]

4. Who cares what he says? Its up to Congress to pass it. And I'm sure Obama will sign it

Congress needs to do their job

[ohheckyeah]

5. I wonder if the percentage of military

people who are gay is great enough to start a campaign encouraging all gay troops to refuse to re-up and a campaign to encourage gays not to enlist in the military?

This really sucks. If you are good enough to fight and possibly die for your country you are certainly entitled to equal treatment and the right to happiness.

[Captain Hilts]

13. We won WWII with gays in the military. Hell, we didn't have 'under God' in the pledge either.

It's a wonder we won.

[ohheckyeah]

15. Discrimination pisses me off. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

16. Go with it, my friend. And, how does one prove they're straight?

Is there a blood test or something?

[ohheckyeah]

23. LOL....

I never thought about that. secret handshake maybe? :-)

[QC]

6. IT'S ONLYY A TOO MINUTE PRAYER!!1!!!!1!!

[jtrockville]

7. Fine. Don't change it. But apply it to ALL equally.

No one can disclose their sexual preference. Ever. Any/all fraternization (holiday parties, celebrations, etc.) will be amongst troops only - no family allowed, because that would be the equivalent "telling".

[MADem]

49. Then you still have the problem I raised.

Straight people disclose their orientation in the military all the time--by showing up at the personnel/disbursing office with their marriage certificate, so they can get the "married with dependents" pay. They turn up at the housing office to get base housing for their families, too.

You'd have to prohibit service members from marrying, or get rid of all those extra pays and benefits for having a family.

[jtrockville]

66. What's good for the goose....

No one is prevented from marrying, right? As long as you don't "tell"?

So I guess "family" benefits should either be discontinued because "telling" is prohibited (a horrible proposition), or benefits should be provided to all troops equally.

That's how I see it.

[MADem]

71. If you marry right now, you ARE telling. You are telling a Clerk of Courts.

You are telling your spouse. You are telling your wedding guests and the person who marries you.


AND...perhaps you don't realize the most onerous aspect of DADT for gay people--they aren't supposed to ACT on their orientation.

To be blunt, Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue...and don't fuck.

That's how the policy is written.

To pay everyone the same benefits, they'd either have to screw the marrieds (a nonstarter), or give a great payday to the singles (incredibly expensive). Honestly, I have always thought that they should change that rule--why should someone get an extra salary SOLELY for being married or having children? It's patently unfair. If they pulled that shit at McDonald's or IBM there'd be a mutiny and a lawsuit. In the military, it's tolerated--separate and unequal.

[jtrockville]

77. You're right - there'd be mutiny if done elsewhere.

Forced celibacy. What a concept. What a shameful shameful concept.

Just an observation re extra salary: it seems to be acceptable to pay extra to married folks (men) in cultures where spouses (women) aren't expected to work. I have mixed feelings about it - particularly when it's gender specific. I generally support family-friendly policies (though I'm not sure how to resolve, in my mind, the inherent unfairness to folks who choose not to have a family). But whatever the policy, I strongly feel it shouldn't be gender specific, or gender-preference specific.

I was really hoping the military would take more of a lead in this area.

[MADem]

81. They pay women more if they have a family, too. The dividing line is

marital status and/or dependent children--it's not gender based.

Single people (who often work the hardest because they don't have family obligations, and draw the lousy watches over the holidays, and who work late while the married types run off to pick the kids up from daycare or scamper off to a PTA meeting, e.g.) receive less money, simply because they don't have that spouse or kid/s.

Nothing wrong with paying EVERYONE well. I think that the military overuses the singles at times, to the point, at some commands, where they're taken advantage of. And the insult is, they're paid less, simply because they aren't burdening the military with the added expense of family travel expenses, family medical/dental insurance, family housing, DoDDS schools, family services, MWR, etc., for family members. It's kind of stupid, really.

[hendo]

9. Clinton was such a great guy, wasn't he? Worst policy ever.

well, one of the worst.

[Captain Hilts]

11. He didn't write it. He tried to do better but Obama supporters Sam Nunn and Colin Powelll

stopped it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

14. It wasn't his fault. It was Sam Nunn's fault

[Captain Hilts]

17. I still remember John Warner and him being filmed talking to sub sailors about it.

And sub sailors don't give a damn because you pee by yourself and shower by yourself.

Even right wing crazy sub sailors don't care. Really.

Hell, gay sailors knew subs had the best food and higher pay.

[Bluebear]

20. And that ratfink idiot Dan Coats.

[QC]

27. Yes, I remember Nunn and Warner taking great pains to point out to the reporters

how close the quarters were.

And I remember Colin Powell invoking the same arguments that were used, not even fifty years before, against people like him.

It was an ugly time.

[Bluebear]

30. Dan Coats would be in the sub leading the questions...

"It's awful cramped in here, isn't it awful cramped in here? you wouldn't want a gay in here, would you? No I didn't think so." Later: "The men I talked to said they would not feel comfortable with a gay in those cramped quarters". idiot.

[Captain Hilts]

37. It's true about subs. I am regularly on a subvets' BBS and the most rt. wing cranks of them...

mention knowing gay guys on the boats and say they just didn't have a problem with it.

[ruggerson]

54. I guess you don't know much about Don't Ask Don't Tell

[QC]

59. I'm finding that we have a lot of posters who were in diapers in the 90s

and they have largely internalized the wingnut/corporate media version of that decade's history.

[LostinVA]

61. Clinton did what he could -- he wanted (and tried very hard) to allow gays to serve

Thank Sam Nunn and all those DEsk Generals.

[Captain Hilts]

10. The military had started integrating under FDR, actually. Even the Navy. They knew...

it was a volatile issue and just didn't announce it.

There's a memo from the Sec. of the Navy to FDR discussing the fact that blacks as members of crew replacements was not meeting any significant resistance as expected in the most segregated of services.

[tuvor]

12. Wait a minute, Bluebear...Gates does not say the words you've attributed to him.

What was the point of misquoting him?

[Bluebear]

22. /ignore

Enough of you, permenently.

[tuvor]

34. Ignored for noting your sneaky punctuation? For reading the source you provided...

...and not finding the words you attributed to Gates there? And calling you on it?

I'm hurt.

[Uzybone]

18. If you put something in quotes, are saying the person made that statement?

because Gates never said that.

[Bluebear]

24. OK your quotes are gone. Now, "are saying" something about his statement?

Or did you just want to make your point about quotation marks?

[MADem]

19. You have to dump DOMA first. Why? Because if you allow gays to serve openly,

you CANNOT deny them marriage equality. You have the "clash of the federal laws" happening here.

The minute you change DADT without getting rid of the DOMA, you'll see a lawsuit when some guy/gal gets married and his/her spouse is not granted base housing, an ID card, and the member doesn't get the "With Dependents" rate of pay.

That's the issue, really.

[Bluebear]

26. Well, Obama is against gay marriage. His spokesman did say he would repeal DADT though.

[MADem]

47. But pull the string--you really can't do one without the other.

A repeal of DADT will be followed by a DOMA lawsuit.

I doubt that gay Americans will be down with living in a "separate but unequal" military status as openly gay people. You, Sgt. Smith, can get married, but YOU, LCPL Jones, cannot. That's just not right.

Right now, when gay people join the military, they join with the full understanding that their participation is contingent upon "DADT." In fact, DADT applies to all military members in some form--no one is supposed to ask, and gay people are not supposed to tell. Get rid of that, and then you are faced with telling a servicemember that they are to be denied military benefits based on their (not illegal) orientation.

It's just a real can of worms.

I don't know which will come first, the DADT leaving followed by the lawsuit against DOMA, or if DOMA will get tossed and then DADT will fall. But eventually both will have to go.

Before DADT, before DOMA, there was a big huge dossier at DOD that described, in precise detail, how integration of gays into the Armed Forces was going to happen. It covered everything, from EO sensitivity training to how medical personnel should approach gay personnel, to workplace interactions, and of course, a de riguer PDA (public display of affection) warning.

I wonder if they kept that thing. An awful lot of work went into it.

[roamer65]

21. Why would any GLBT person want to join the military of a country...

that denies them basic human rights? This question has perplexed me for many years.

[MADem]

51. It's a job where they can gain a lot of skills and travel, that's why.

If you are a gay kid trapped in a very rural environment, without a lot of money or prospects, and maybe no small amount of discrimination, and you have an opportunity to be stationed on a ship out of San Diego or on a base in or near some other large city, where they can blend into a larger community, it would be natural to want to jump at that chance.

It's a trade-off, sure. But I suspect it beats being trapped in a one-horse town where they're still "hiding," more or less.

[Bluenorthwest]

63. The gay and lesbian people I know who served

all did so out of a love of country. They all had many options. They made a choice I would not make, but they did not do so out of desperation, nor for a chance to relocate.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but they serve out of a sense of duty, and a desire to use their abilities for the greater good. At least all of them that I have known, and I'm a gay man who is not young. So I've known dozens of such veterans and service members. So I'm basing this on actual life experience. I'm sure some kids join up for the reasons you state, but none that I have met in 30 years.

[MADem]

70. I had 4 or 5 kids "out" themselves to get out of the military.

Great workers. Good kids. They were from VERY rural towns and a social background that could only be termed "disadvantaged"--backwoods KY, WVa, that kind of situation. They wanted to get out (when the job market was good) and move to a large city and find work. They were tired of dealing with hiding at small and/or medium sized ships and installations.

You aren't "bursting my bubble"--I've had to process those discharges with considerable regret. See--I'm speaking from personal experience. I not only had to lose a good worker, but I had to do without a personnel asset for up to a year when they "told." Believe me, I'm very familiar with the entire mechanism for DADT discharges.

This isn't to say that gay people don't love their country, though. I never suggested they didn't. See, gay people are like anyone else--save people at DU, apparently--they actually CAN hold more than one idea in their heads at a single time.

[arcadian]

25. The hope is piling up in local landfills

Along with other campaign signs and slogans.

[QC]

28. Sounds like you didn't get your pony!

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

33. It's just poutrage, I realize.

[QC]

38. You people are just so emotional! n/t

[Bluebear]

39. Yay, Robert Gates!

:crazy:

[Bluebear]

68. .

[countingbluecars]

29. Where does Gates say we may NEVER

change 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?

[Bluebear]

32. 'doing so could take years — if it ever happens.'

Is that all you had to say about the article?

[countingbluecars]

40. He doesn't say those words.

That is what the writer of the article took from his words.

As to the issue, I think the powers that be should get moving, difficult or not, and get rid of this absurd policy.

[Bluebear]

42. "If we do it, it's imperative that we do it right ..." Gates told reporters.

That "if" isn't enough for you?

[noamnety]

35. That's what the AP article claims.

Check the link in the OP, it's the very first sentence. I believe their statement is based on his wording of his answer, which was "if we do go down that road ..." leaving open the possibility that we might NOT go down that road.

[Bluebear]

36. Some folks would rather parse the story and defend Gates.

Rather than comment on this outrageously unfair policy. It's disgraceful.

[countingbluecars]

41. Maybe some folks like honesty. n/t

[Bluebear]

43. Yeah, I'm just a big fat lying liar. "IF we do it, it's imperative that we do it right ...": Gates.

[countingbluecars]

45. I never said that.

When I read any article, I look at what is in direct quotes. The rest is up to interpretation.

[Bluebear]

46. Yes, OK, thanks. Night!

[noamnety]

64. My process was different.

I looked at quotes, and I had some questions, so I searched online and found the transcript. :)

[countingbluecars]

65. Your process is better.

I need to start doing that more.

[LostinVA]

62. No, the "If" means "never"

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GeorgeGist]

48. Gay troops will never be integrated into the military ...

before the clock starts.

But they're free to die defending homophobia while their hoping to be recognized as equals.

[Jamastiene]

50. Get to the back of the bus, quit whining.

Get UNDER the bus, later for you. We'll do it later.

Later comes: NEVER, now quit whining and get back under the bus.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated? - Johnny Rotten

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Gates will probably be gone after 2010 and the next Secretary of Defense will work on it

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter a whole lot if it happens now or two years from now

What matters is that it happens while we still have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress because it won't happen if we don't have those things.

Sure, I think Obama should do it tomorrow but he obviously thinks otherwise. If I had my guess I think he's waiting for Gates to be out after 2010 and he wants to do it closer to re-election.

[QC]

60. But in two years they will tell us the midterm elections are coming up,

so we need to back off in order not to upset the wingnuts, and then it will be the 2012 election and we certainly don't want to do anything controversial then, and then....

There will always be a reason to put off doing anything. We all know this pattern.

[Hippo_Tron]

67. If that does indeed turn out to be the case, I will agree

But I stand by the fact that in the grand scheme of things, if this gets done within Obama's time in office it doesn't really matter if it gets done now or a few years from now. If it doesn't ever get done, then that's a missed opportunity.

[dbackjon]

72. So in the Grand Scheme of things

Equality for all Americans is not important?


If that is what you believe, then FUCK YOU TOO.


Unless you are for IMMEDIATE EQUALITY for all AMERICANS, then you have no place here.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. I'm for immediate equality for all Americans

But if it takes a year or two instead of right fucking now, it's not the end of the world. I would rather this be done successfully than done immediately.

[Bluebear]

74. Problem is we were hoping it would be right fucking now.

There always seems to be a reason to delay it.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. I'm not arguing with those that are saying he will just keep delaying

I'm just saying that if you do take Obama at his word that he will repeal DADT then I don't see a problem if he does it a year or two from now. If you don't take him at his word and think it won't get done, I understand that. Politicians do indeed tend to break their promises. But I don't have little patience for those who want everything to change this instant. It's better to wait a year or two and get this done right than have to wait another decade or two before we get to try again.

Clinton was not prepared for the political battle with gays in the military and as a result we are worse off today because the ban is now codified into law with DADT. If Clinton had simply done nothing, Obama could've just repealed the ban with an executive order (very fitting considering the military was integrated with one).

[dbackjon]

79. It is a problem if you are gay and getting dismissed from the military

Equal rights are easy to delay if they don't affect you.

[Coffee and Cake]

53. I think Goldwater said it best.

"You don’t have to be straight; you just have to shoot straight."

[bluedawg12]

56. This is not about integration of gays, it is about total exclusion from service

If you exclude an entire group of people from the ability to serve their nation, it has a ripple effect beyond the inability to serve and protect our nation.

[Occulus]

58. So Obama can issue an order.

Anyone who doesn't like it can quit without prejudice.

Problem fucking solved. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. This SO stupid. I don't think there's a single military in which it's been a problem

Probably the nearest equivalent to the US military changing is the British military - largish country and military, western industrialised democracy, roughly the same attitude towards homosexuality (note: the British military is a very 'traditional' environment). And the result of saying homosexuality was fine in the military? It became a complete non-issue:

Gay Britons Serve in Military With Little Fuss, as Predicted Discord Does Not Occur

...
Since the British military began allowing homosexuals to serve in the armed forces in 2000, none of its fears — about harassment, discord, blackmail, bullying or an erosion of unit cohesion or military effectiveness — have come to pass, according to the Ministry of Defense, current and former members of the services and academics specializing in the military. The biggest news about the policy, they say, is that there is no news. It has for the most part become a nonissue.

The Ministry of Defense does not compile figures on how many gay men and lesbians are openly serving, and it says that the number of people who have come out publicly in the past seven years is still relatively low. But it is clearly proud of how smoothly homosexuals have been integrated and is trying to make life easier for them.
...
“There was a lot of apprehension among some senior personnel that there would be an increase in things like bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation, and some of them were almost predicting that the world was going to come to an end,” the Defense Ministry official said.

Similar concerns were raised when, bowing to national antidiscrimination laws, the military began allowing gay personnel who had registered for civil partnerships to live in military housing with their same-sex partners. “But all the problems the services thought were going to come to pass really haven’t materialized,” the official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/europe/21britain.html?pagewanted=1

[Proud Liberal Dem]

78. I don't understand what there is to "discuss" at this point.

We need more soldiers right now, we've already lowered the standards for recruits, and we have other more important things to worry about nowadays than we (apparently) did in early 1990's, and gay people are ALREADY acknowledged to be serving in the military anyway (albeit privately), so HOW difficult is it really be to just do away with the whole ridiculous policy right now? :shrug: Everybody knows that gays and lesbians have served in the armed forces in the past, they serve the armed forces NOW, and they will always (amazingly) continue to serve regardless of what kind of idiotic and discriminatory policies are in place, so why even HAVE a policy in the first place? Only in the fevered delusions of fundies do gays and lesbians pose any kind of threat to their fellow service members. It is as though they believe that gays and lesbians, if allowed to serve openly, are suddenly going to start "going brokeback" on their straight counterparts- as though their propensity to act out inappropriately is somehow higher than straight service members. :eyes: Anybody remember Tailhook???