Congress to tackle DADT this year in compromise bill

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Washington Post

Obama endorses 'don't ask, don't tell' compromise in Congress

President Obama has endorsed to a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that may sidestep a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

The compromise was finalized in meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers will now, within days, take a series of votes on amendments that repeal the Clinton-era policy, with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about the impact on troops. That study is due to Congress on Dec. 1.

In a letter to lawmakers pushing for a legislative repeal, White House budget director Peter Orszag wrote Monday that Obama's administration "supports the proposed amendment."

"Such an approach recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions," Orszag wrote.

While gay rights advocates hailed the move as a "dramatic breakthrough," it remained uncertain whether the deal would secure enough votes to pass both houses of Congress. Republicans have vowed to maintain "don't ask, don't tell," while conservative Democrats have said they would oppose a repeal unless military leaders made clear that they approved of such a change.

Even if the compromise language passes, a legislative repeal would go into effect only after Obama certifies that the change does not harm the nation's military readiness.

In a statement, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said the announcement "paves the path to fulfill the President's call to end 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The White House had initially hoped that Congress would wait until after completion of the Pentagon study before bringing up a repeal, but senior lawmakers made clear that they intended to push ahead on the issue, with or without administration support. Now the highly controversial social issue will return to the national conversation even as fall reelection campaigns begin to gear up.

Some Democrats, particularly in the House, wanted to wait for the completion of the Pentagon's study, while other, more liberal Democrats had been pushing for an immediate repeal. The compromise is designed to satisfy both concerns.

"We can live with this, and we're asking enthusiastically members to support and vote for it," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

If this passes, then it would truly be up to the President and the DOD to give the final say on this.

[Aaron]

So whats the compromise? I might have missed it but the article didn't really explain it.

[Gil Hamilton]

I was trying to figure that out too. I think the compromise is that they are going to repeal DADT, but it can't take effect until the Pentagon signs off on it after they conduct a study of the impact on soldiers this would have.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I was trying to figure that out too. I think the compromise is that they are going to repeal DADT, but it can't take effect until the Pentagon signs off on it after they conduct a study of the impact on soldiers this would have.

That. The military didn't want to take action on DADT until their own studies were complete; which is supposed to happen in the December timeframe. Progressive activists want DADT repealed now. So the compromise is that the authorization to repeal DADT will come down when the legislation is passed and signed, but the actual repeal won't take place until the DoD gives its okay.

[The Original Nex]

I was trying to figure that out too. I think the compromise is that they are going to repeal DADT, but it can't take effect until the Pentagon signs off on it after they conduct a study of the impact on soldiers this would have.

That. The military didn't want to take action on DADT until their own studies were complete; which is supposed to happen in the December timeframe. Progressive activists want DADT repealed now. So the compromise is that the authorization to repeal DADT will come down when the legislation is passed and signed, but the actual repeal won't take place until the DoD gives its okay.

Playing semantics; the repeal takes place with the passage of the legislation, the repeal's implementation is begun at the conclusion of the Pentagon's study.

[General Zod]

with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about the impact on troops.

You mean there haven't been studies on this sort of thing already?

[Psychic_Sandwich]

There have. They're little things like, oh, the British, French, German, Danish, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, Israeli, Finnish, Czech, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian and a bunch of other militaries. Those tests weren't wide scale or comprehensive enough for the US, though.

[General Zod]

There have. They're little things like, oh, the British, French, German, Danish, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, Israeli, Finnish, Czech, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian and a bunch of other militaries. Those tests weren't wide scale or comprehensive enough for the US, though.

I meant locally. I would expect the US would be able to put its head in the sand over the success of other countries on this issue.

[[R_H]]

There have. They're little things like, oh, the British, French, German, Danish, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, Israeli, Finnish, Czech, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian and a bunch of other militaries. Those tests weren't wide scale or comprehensive enough for the US, though.

The Russians allow homosexuals to serve openly?

[General Zod]

There have. They're little things like, oh, the British, French, German, Danish, Dutch, Australian, Canadian, Israeli, Finnish, Czech, Russian, Belgian, Spanish, Swiss, Swedish, Norwegian and a bunch of other militaries. Those tests weren't wide scale or comprehensive enough for the US, though.

The Russians allow homosexuals to serve openly?

There's no prohibition against it, but they're not exactly liked afaik.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The progressives on the anti-DADT front have concerns about its chances after the midterm elections since it's not clear how much conservative backlash the Democrats will face this November. Politically, it seems like a smart thing to do. The bill addresses the 'reasonable' concerns that conservatives have over the repeal of DADT about military readiness and it will make the remaining lawmakers (aka. Republicans) who object look more like obstructionists, liars or just anti-gay freaks. Meanwhile it has garnered the support of the largest anti-DADT groups as well as the president and the DoD. Now, it appears that there is confidence in both the House and the Senate that this bill will have the votes to get it attached and passed in the Defense Budget. If anything, it will take the task off of the plate of Congress and place it squarely in the President's and the DoD's ballpark. And the progressives will have to hope and trust that they will follow through their promise and repeal DADT in a timely manner.

with a provision ensuring that any change would not take effect until after the Pentagon completes a study about the impact on troops.

You mean there haven't been studies on this sort of thing already?

From what I understand, a lot of the study also involves the implementation of open gay troops in the military in regards to benefits. It's going to be an open question as to how gay couples (including married couples) will be treated in the military. We have this shitty law called DOMA that they have to take into consideration.

[Aaron]

It'll be rough for them for the first decade or so given what our woman experienced but it'll smooth out in the long run as the old guard leave.

[Gil Hamilton]

There have no doubt have been studies in the past, however, they haven't conducted a study specifically NOW. Totally different things.

[Aaron]

Exactly, that million dollars went to a totally different company.

[Duckie]

This repeal isn't actually as such- first off, it doesn't mandate repeal. It requests the Pentagon repeal the policy after their study if they so choose. Then, it doesn't legalise gay service. All it does is remove DADT, which means the UCMJ still (unless it's been changed and I never found out) bans homosexuals. So discharges are still legal.

Absolutely no change, assuming the Pentagon actually does get rid of it, which it is in no way required to do if it feels that allowing gays in would have any negative effects whatsoever. A patent "We repealed DADT, money please" grab to assuage the sting of those activist protests that are producing bad press among donors.

Personally, I'm sure of exactly one thing- I absolutely don't trust the Pentagon any more than I would trust Georgia if the Civil Rights Act of 1968 gave them the option of repealing Jim Crow pending a study to see whether it would hurt any white people's feelings, and still gave them the authority to deny civil rights to individual blacks when they saw fit. Nor would I trust Lyndon Johnson if he offered that lame-ass piece of shit in response to MLK.

I welcome someone to prove me wrong, but read the actual bill.

Edit- Now, granted, placing the blame solely on the pentagon will make outrage easier to focus, especially since 70%-80% of the US is okay with gay service so now they'll know who to blame rather than the nebulous clinton-congress-president-republicans-pentagon collective guilt we have here. It's essentially a reset to 1990, unless I'm seriously missing something.

And yes, the bill requests/allows the Pentagon recommend changes to the UCMJ based on its study. However, it states "if any", since the Pentagon can easily conclude gay service would cause a straight exodus (not even in this study, but just whenever it feels like) and then go 'whoops, so sad, no UCMJ changes'. All the power of a UN resolution for DADT repeal!

[Duckie]

Oh and not only that, but something else I've had pointed out to me that may or may not be correct- I am no constitutional scholar but I believe this is how it works- if the Pentagon chooses not to allow gay service (and it has to be okayed by Obama, Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for changes, but the Pentagon can choose just to take DADT repeal and then continue discharging under the UCMJ by not recommending any changes to it- it does not have to have a lack of change certified by the president and whatnot, meaning there's no way to require the Pentagon to actually change anything [plus that forcing the pentagon over its own study and objections would be even more political suicide than an actual repeal bill]), Congress has legally ceded their constitutional power over the issue to the Pentagon, and would have to repeal this bill to get it back, meaning we're SOL for another 20 years or however long that takes.

(Also no deadlines on repeal or any progress being made like the mandatory certifications being delivered no more than X days after the report arrives or whatnot, so god knows how long the bureaucracy will take to just decide to do something).

I'm not trying to have unrealistic "goddamn it fucking obama betraying us all the time" levels of blogosphere progressive expectations, but the wording leaves legal loopholes obvious enough for me, let alone for the Pentagon to slip through if they don't want repeal. Loopholes wide enough for a fucking battleship to get through. It seems entirely like just a gamble that the Pentagon will do the right thing. Not being knowledgeable about the military side of things, I haven't a clue whether that's a 50-50 shot or probably never going to happen or what, but I've heard some rumours about the intentions of people assigned to this study (like jury duty, basically anyone stupid or lazy enough not to get out of it) which make me not feel confident at minimum.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

The Russians allow homosexuals to serve openly?

My understanding is that, while they're not exactly popular, the explicit prohibition on homosexuals serving has been removed, yes.

[Raptor 597]

This repeal isn't actually as such- first off, it doesn't mandate repeal. It requests the Pentagon repeal the policy after their study if they so choose. Then, it doesn't legalise gay service. All it does is remove DADT, which means the UCMJ still (unless it's been changed and I never found out) bans homosexuals. So discharges are still legal.

Absolutely no change, assuming the Pentagon actually does get rid of it, which it is in no way required to do if it feels that allowing gays in would have any negative effects whatsoever. A patent "We repealed DADT, money please" grab to assuage the sting of those activist protests that are producing bad press among donors.

Personally, I'm sure of exactly one thing- I absolutely don't trust the Pentagon any more than I would trust Georgia if the Civil Rights Act of 1968 gave them the option of repealing Jim Crow pending a study to see whether it would hurt any white people's feelings, and still gave them the authority to deny civil rights to individual blacks when they saw fit. Nor would I trust Lyndon Johnson if he offered that lame-ass piece of shit in response to MLK.

I welcome someone to prove me wrong, but read the actual bill.

Edit- Now, granted, placing the blame solely on the pentagon will make outrage easier to focus, especially since 70%-80% of the US is okay with gay service so now they'll know who to blame rather than the nebulous clinton-congress-president-republicans-pentagon collective guilt we have here. It's essentially a reset to 1990, unless I'm seriously missing something.

And yes, the bill requests/allows the Pentagon recommend changes to the UCMJ based on its study. However, it states "if any", since the Pentagon can easily conclude gay service would cause a straight exodus (not even in this study, but just whenever it feels like) and then go 'whoops, so sad, no UCMJ changes'. All the power of a UN resolution for DADT repeal!

Pretty much all of what you said is correct. The UCMJ being altered is the crux of the matter at the end of the day. From what I can see here in the active duty and combat arms branch of the Army many are opposed especially older leaders, but in combat arms its a near unanimous feeling against gays openly serving. The Pentagon may change the UCMJ to let gays serve, but on the flip side there will be the mass exodus argument coming from old combat arms leaders who run the show. And that likely be their main tool fighting an alteration of the UCMJ. So you might even get something gays can only serve in military specialties that don't put them in frontline duty with their sex one hundred percent of the time which is the argument against women in combat arms. Also, the fact that officers are much more conservative than enlisted will not help either. Many of them will lock up the progress of any UCMJ change especially since those officers in charge will likely be able to interpret the study and report their findings to the Pentagon. Its funny once you become a soldier so many of your rights are waived, and most people who sign up don't realize that the UCMJ is radically different than the constitution.

[Ritterin Sophia]

You mean there haven't been studies on this sort of thing already?

There have, I remember from last Summer an Army TIMES article on repealing DADT. The findings showed younger enlisted, half the mid-level NCOs, and Officers across the board were in favor and that it was largely older NCOs and some of the mid-level ones that were oppossed.

[Aaron]

Is there some reason why every trade has to be immediately opened to gays? Why not a gradual approach similar to how woman were brought on board in many Commonwealth armies 30 years ago? Let gays serve openly in the support trades, see how it goes. Rinse and repeat in the combat support trades, and then again in the combat arms.

[Serafina]

Is there some reason why every trade has to be immediately opened to gays? Why not a gradual approach similar to how woman were brought on board in many Commonwealth armies 30 years ago? Let gays serve openly in the support trades, see how it goes. Rinse and repeat in the combat support trades, and then again in the combat arms.

Because they already HAVE homosexuals serving in every arm of the army.
So while they perform their little experiment, gays in other branches were you still allow discrimination would be as bad off as they are now.

I understand your intent - gradually replacing the bias - but your proposal has lots of drawbacks.

[Aaron]

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to take what you can get.

[Serafina]

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Yes, of course.

Your proposal has it's merits if it works - at least it would get rid of this constant hatecrime - i just wanted to point out that it is not flawless. Simply getting rid of the discrimination would propably be much better.

[Aaron]

Unfortunately, sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Yes, of course.

Your proposal has it's merits if it works - at least it would get rid of this constant hatecrime - i just wanted to point out that it is not flawless. Simply getting rid of the discrimination would propably be much better.

Oh I know it has drawbacks, if they were to do it this way then I'd prefer the gay servicemen to be given the option to remuster. Getting rid of the discrimination would naturally be much better but unless it comes from the top and is rigidly enforced, it's going to be a long time coming.

[Darth Holbytlan]

This repeal isn't actually as such- first off, it doesn't mandate repeal. It requests the Pentagon repeal the policy after their study if they so choose. Then, it doesn't legalise gay service. All it does is remove DADT, which means the UCMJ still (unless it's been changed and I never found out) bans homosexuals. So discharges are still legal.

You're parsing that news article far more carefully than it deserves. The bill, at least as currently available on Thomas, doesn't just repeal DADT, it replaces it with a non-discrimination policy w.r.t. sexual orientation:

Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the armed forces

(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the armed forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the armed forces.

(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--

(1) in the case of a member of the armed forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and

(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the armed forces, denial of accession into the armed forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.

(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the armed forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.

(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the armed forces on the basis of sexual orientation in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the armed forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the armed forces on the sole basis of such separation.

(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct that is not otherwise illegal manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

See also the House version, H.R.1283.