Don't Ask Don't Tell: is the end near?

[nerdanel]

Take one:

I think we need a thread to follow the political and legal developments on DADT in these, its (hopefully) final months.

I think you may be optimistic in saying that the policy is in its final months, nel. I don't really see it ending that quickly.

Take two:

Gates essentially concedes that DADT repeal will not happen this year, even if not in so many words.

It definitely doesn't look promising, but it's not impossible.

So we were both wrong, and both right. I'm so glad.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, I saw that. He delayed presurgery tests so he could be there. This makes me suspect that this was a vote that was close . . . until it wasn't, meaning people felt safe switching to "yes" if their vote wasn't going to be arguably "the deciding vote."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Interesting that two Republicans actually switched their votes from the cloture vote to the final vote from no to yes. Haven't seen that too often.

nel, I'm so glad that we both turned out to be wrong in our pessimism.

[Inanna]

[Holbytla]

The whole thing is funny to me, as one coming from a military before DADT.
Funny as in strange rather than comical.

The world has changed, and though the military tends to lag behind, they do also tend to take notice of change. I highly doubt that this will cause any kind of revelations or shockwaves through the branches, and I would bet that they were beyond ready for this. As lagging as the military can be, there are instances where the general public lags all the more.

The military wants capable people first and foremost. That is coming from firsthand experience. The whole perception thing lies beyond and way above the average person doing a job. That stigma has always been a part of the upper echelon moreso than the general rank imo.

Does anyone really suppose there were never instances of homosexual activity in the military?

Such a facade.

[Inanna]

Does anyone really suppose there were never instances of homosexual activity in the military?

That's not the point here, is it? For someone who was discharged after said activity, this makes all the difference.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As Lt. Dan Choi (a gay servicemember who was discharged due to DADT and who has been a leader of the movement to repeal it) said yesterday in response to the news that the repeal had passed, this is a different situation than the integration of African-Americans and other racial and religious minorities into the armed forces:

Integration of gay people has already happened. This is one inherent difference between our civil rights movement and that of the past decades. We are integrated, we simply fight for our integrity. As each civil rights movement fights for access to a particular resource, it is clear that the gay rights movement fights for access to dignity and our own integrity. This struggle only begins.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lt-dan-ch ... 98695.html

[vison]

This is a good thing. Can't think of anything else to say.

[Hachimitsu]

Very nice to hear that DADT is over. W00t!

[nerdanel]

Two fairly obvious cautionary notes: I share everyone's excitement at the approaching end of the official DADT policy. But it is still premature to assume that gays and lesbians will all be able to serve openly. The initial wave of open gays and lesbians - whether newly enlisting, or newly coming out - are going to have to be emotionally resilient. Many will inevitably deal with some degree of harassment, which may prolong the coming out of others. I expect that gay Marines will have a particularly difficult time, as some aspects of this article support. The article quotes several, openly straight Marines suggesting that gays are not fit for combat, should be "stuck into" non-combat units like women, and will face problems in the "macho" Marines because "being gay means you're kind of girly." (I will omit my thoughts on the insidiously sexist nature of these comments and the absolute bar on females in combat for now.)

The other reason that full-blown celebration is premature is that DOMA is still in effect, and will likely bar gay military members with partners from full equality. Now that gay servicemembers can be open, can they reside in family housing with their spouses and any kids? Will the military provide spousal and survivors' benefits to their partners, including supporting gay spouses of deployed servicemembers on equal footing with straight spouses? Likely not as long as DOMA endures. I do not underestimate the importance of this step forward. But no one should labor under the delusion that the US military is about to start immediately treating gays and lesbians equally.

I do not personally believe that Obama views gay rights as a particularly important issue. He has, so far, delivered on two of four promises (hate crimes and DADT), the latter after nearly two years of frustration and anger from the gay supporters who contributed so much time and money to help elect him. He has continued to defend DOMA, a homophobic and probably unconstitutional law, in court (contrast Schwarzenegger and Brown on Prop. 8 ). And of course, he does not support same-sex marriage. However, even if I am wrong and he considers gay rights to be of vital importance, I suspect he will be unable to deliver on his remaining two promises - ENDA and DOMA - because the painfully effective "party of no" is about to control the legislative show even more effectively than they've been able to do in the minority.

[yovargas]

Oh, Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal ... sex,17698/

[Holbytla]

The UCMJ has a lot to say about conduct and also sexual conduct regardless of sexual appetite. The military will still be the military. There is no getting around that aspect of things. Open sexuality, regardless of preference, is rarely if ever tolerated.
Conduct unbecoming a (fill in the blank) encompasses a huge area, and I have little doubt that that aspect of the UCMJ will be especially upheld with regards to any type of open of intimated sexuality.

The military will have soldiers and they will act according to the strictures regardless of their race or sexual preferences. They will also not allow discrimination.

Of course there are going to be people who discriminate against gays as there still are people who discriminate against races and religions. There are provisions to deal with that, and I do think that since minorities and women have at least partially paved the way, the impact won't be as severe. That won't make things easy by any stretch though.

The signing of this bill is a step on a long path.

[nerdanel]

Open sexuality, regardless of preference, is rarely if ever tolerated.
Conduct unbecoming a (fill in the blank) encompasses a huge area, and I have little doubt that that aspect of the UCMJ will be especially upheld with regards to any type of open of intimated sexuality.

I have every confidence that this will be upheld for gay soldiers. As for straight soldiers, there are many who need to learn to keep their sexuality to themselves - or at least away from their non-consenting female colleagues.

[Holbytla]

Conduct is upheld for every soldier regardless.
Rape is a crime, sexual misconduct is a crime. People caught performing such acts will be and have been punished. The problem is catching the perpetrators.

There have been a lot of scandals (Tailhook for example) that have plagued and will continue to plague the military. That isn't to say that there aren't methods in place for dealing with them, but only a fool would think that passing laws assures safety or that the military or any country on the planet is safe.

Beyond punishing people for their acts, what is the answer to stopping hate crimes or acts of sexual misconduct in the military or in civilian life?

I would guess that it starts with education, but with any endeavor to change people who commit such atrocities, it is a long slow process that may never totally bear fruit. People who are capable of such things either have it burned in their brain that it is ok, or just don't care. Laws are not going to stop them.

Many years ago, if there was a young adult in trouble, they were often given the choice between going to jail or joining the military. That doesn't happen anymore. If you have pending charges or a record with felonies you can't get in. Maybe that will help stop some of the violence that occurs in the military, but it won't stop it all. We are dealing with an institution that for many years was allowed to segregate and discriminate. Lots and lots of progress has been made, and with each new endeavor, some groundwork has been laid by past groups to help new groups along the way. Never will it be enough nor will it ever be easy.

At its most basic level, the military is a society where everday laws and customs get thrown out of the window. At its most basic level, it's kill or be killed. It is an institution that teaches people how to kill and how to survive. How to accomplish a mission. Laws and customs mean nothing on the battlefield. Kill or die is the only law. There is an enemy out there and you are encouraged, no, commanded to kill.

That is the basic mindset and that is why we have such difficulties in dealing with accepting changes like race, sex and sexual preference. That isn't to say there won't be change or that the military won't take the one step forward and two step backwards approach that they do, but it all stems from societal changes that need to take place in a society where the norms are far from norms.

[nerdanel]

The Obama administration has been unable to agree to a moratorium on gay discharges pending implementation of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and discharges remain theoretically possible under the policy. Nor is it clear when the administration plans to certify military readiness, beyond estimates that the time might come in August. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice continues to defend the policy in court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/us/po ... epeal.html