Time To Repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Today, SecDef Bob Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen are expected to announce that the Defense Department will stop aggressively pursuing third-party charges of homosexuality against service members. They will also announce the formation of a group to study the issue for a year and (one would hope) to develop an implementation plan for eliminating the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

Gay rights groups are calling the hearing historic even as they question how quickly the administration is prepared to act. But Republicans are already signaling that they are not eager to take up the issue.

“In the middle of two wars and in the middle of this giant security threat,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC, “why would we want to get into this debate?”

Still, it is undeniable that a variety of 21st-century forces — a new generation in the military, a change in climate at the top levels of the Pentagon, pressure on the president from a critical interest group, even Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand’s anticipated Democratic primary battle in New York — converged to begin repeal of a 1993 law that has led to the discharge of more than 13,000 gay men and lesbians, including desperately needed Arabic translators.

As Mr. Gates told Mr. Obama last year, it was no longer a question of if the ban would be repealed, but when, said the meeting participant, who declined to be named to discuss internal White House deliberations.
-------------
Polls now show that a majority of Americans support openly gay service — a majority did not in 1993 — but there have been no recent broad surveys of the 1.4 million active-duty personnel.

A 2008 census by The Military Times of predominantly Republican and largely older subscribers found that 58 percent opposed to efforts to repeal the policy; in 2006, a poll by Zogby International of 545 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans found that three-quarters were comfortable around gay service members. 

I understand President Obama's desire to postpone this debate until the health care issue was resolved. Since that issue is now nearly concluded, it is certainly time to move toward closure on DADT. The Republican claims that the military would lose efficiencies or be uncomfortable around Teh Gays just doesn't hold water. But that shouldn't matter, since they are the minority party, right? I'm much more concerned that conservative Democrats will try to hold up the issue in fear of election year backlash. What we ought to see is the Senate Democrats placing a short paragraph in the FY 2012 National Defense Appropriations bill. That would seal the deal, but do they have the guts? Will the Dems in fact grow a spine this year? I guess we'll find out.

Also see these articles discussing the positions of Rep. Pat Murphy (D-PA), a former Army officer, and CPT Tim Hsia, an active duty infantry officer.

UPDATE: Kudos to Admiral Mike Mullen for his testimony. "This is not about command influence," Mullen said. "This is about leadership, and I take that very seriously."

Comments

[Belphagor1527]

I'd really like to see someone opposed to gays openly serving explain why this issue is different than when the services integrated racially. As I understand it, the arguments are all the same with the same predictions of lost effectiveness, esprit de corps, recruiting problems, etc.

[J.]

Oh, you don't want to have that conversation. It's ridiculous and they aren't open for reason. The most common response I hear from such opponents is that homosexuality is a "lifestyle decision" and not an inherent trait. Then the second argument is how we shouldn't use the military as a "test bed" to implement progressive social reforms.

They're still back in the 1950s, pushing the position that gays and lesbians should stay under cover, should not receive equal benefits because it will either destroy marriages or destroy military culture. This is an emotional debate, not logical.

[James]

Actually, J, I think their tone is very different this time around, which bodes well for the repeal of DADT. Listen to what they're actually saying: not "homosexuality is a sin against God," but, "oh, we're kind of busy right now, call back later."

They really don't want to talk about it because it's one of those issues that reveals the extent to which the Republican base has diverged from the majority. The US is simply not the same country, culturally, that it was in 1993. But the religious right that anchors the GOP to such losing issues as school prayer, evolution, and gay repression is stuck in the nineteenth century. There's no way this argument ends in their favor. Losing would be bad enough, but winning would be a disaster. Studying it to death is the best they can hope for.

[Grover Leoning]

Deleted by administrator for being way over the line

[NVH]

Oh come one let ole Grover from the street be free J !

I actually like the stalling tactic as I read it to study the thing for a year. Though it's a valid decision to make since having been at a particularly military institute when women first got there, you had better have your shit together on all fronts on how to deal with what will come up or you end like the Citadel.

But the politics tell me the Repubs might latch on to this to keep their base salivating for 2012 while trying to actually get shit done between now and and then with this other one term Democrat president. Hope and pray...