Will It Be the Senate Or the Courts? DADT Report Throws Down the Gauntlet

Jim Burroway

November 30th, 2010

The Defense Department’s comprehensive review on implementing an end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was released today, and its hard to imagine a more ringing endorsement for the policy’s demise. Timothy has already reviewed the report’s recommendations. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act with its impact on important domestic arrangements remains the greatest single obstacle to achieving full equality for LGBT service members, as it is for the rest of society. But as for the repeal of DADT itself, here is the money quote you’ve all been waiting for (PDF: 8,847KB/267 pages):

Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.

But if anyone decides to forget to read the report (I’m looking at you, Sen. McCain), Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates backed up the report with a statement urging the Senate to repeal DADT this year. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the report’s findings and recommendations “solid, defensible conclusions.”

More significantly, I think, is this warning that Mullins directed toward the holdouts in the Senate:

Mullen added that the implementation of a repeal of the law would not be without its challenges, and that he supports the process taking place through the Congress instead of the court system. “We can best address those challenges by having it within our power and our prerogative to manage the implementation process ourselves,” he said.

This would suggest that the Pentagon sees DADT as indefensible in the courts, which presents a serious challenge to the Republican opposition in the Senate: Do you want to do this the easy way or the hard way?

Some of the report’s key findings include:

  • 70% believe that having a gay service member in their unit will have a positive, mixed, or no effect on the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done.”
  • 69% reported that they had worked with a service member who they believed to be gay. On that point, the report conceded that “The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. military, and most Service members recognize this.”
  • Of them, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was either “very good,” “Good,” or “neither good nor poor.” On that point, the report concluded that “Both the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.
  • Of service members spouses, 74% said repeal would have no effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”

The report also found that when units in war zones were questioned about whether they thought lifting DADT would hurt unit cohesion, a higher percentage thought that it would, relative to units that were not in war zones. But the report made a key distinction between those predictions and the perceptions of those serving in war zones who had actually had the experience of serving known or suspected LGBT service members:

However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” Meanwhile, in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”

The report also contains a key history lesson, noting that the challenges in eliminating racial segregation in the armed forces in the midst of the cold war and rising tensions in the Korean peninsula were much, much greater.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high as 80–90%. Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama and other cities were still racially segregated.

The report noted that the survey’s questionnaire was not intended to answer the question of whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed, but how. The report said that asking whether the policy should be repealed “would, in effect, have been a referendum, and it is not the Department of Defense’s practice to make military policy decisions by a referendum of Service members.”

As I said, it’s hard to imaging a more compelling case for DADT’s repeal if it had been written by Servicemembers United themselves. The Senate now has a stark choice: Either allow DADT to die an orderly death according to the Pentagon’s implementation plan, or risk throwing it open to the chaos of an immediate injunction from the courts. If they really were interested in combat readiness and unit cohesion, the answer should be obvious.

Larry

November 30th, 2010

Of interest is the number of those who responded to the survey.

“The survey is based on responses by some 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses to more than a half million questionnaires distributed last summer by an independent polling firm.”

Would the survey have different results if there were more people responding? Perhaps many of those who do not want DADT repealed did not respond, knowing that their voice was not being respected and heard.

The percentage of those responding does not give confidence in the survey and the results.

Andrew

November 30th, 2010

Actually Larry it’s more likely that people who supported the repeal didn’t answer. People tend to vote/fill out forms/etc when they’re against something. Also, anecdotally none of my straight marine friends filled it out, saying that the government didn’t care what they think anyway. And they support the repeal. And we live in the South.

The response rate was pretty high, all things considered. Also, the military isn’t a democracy so asking those guys was a courtesy they don’t normally get.

Timothy Kincaid

November 30th, 2010

Larry,

We can say with certainty that 71% of troops did not care enough about DADT one way or the other to bother to respond to the survey.

In fact, only about 9% of troops were so opposed to open gay service that they took the time to say so.

Ivan

November 30th, 2010

This story, from the UK armed forces, is instructive:

http://goo.gl/zSaHU

And not only that. Lance Corporal James Wharton was also featured on the front page of the official “Soldier” magazine.

Like the US report says, it’s all about leadership.

Spartann

November 30th, 2010

Not for nothing…but I’m sure many of you can remember when tens of thousands of draftees had to rely on the military’s policy on homosexuals as the only way to keep from serving during a time of war.

So tell me, now that it looks like DADT will be rescinded soon, what do you propose they use in the future to keep from fighting the next time we have compulsive military service??? I mean I’m just asking.

Ryan

November 30th, 2010

Interesting hypothetical, Larry. Those who were concerned their voices wouldn’t be heard…chose not to speak out at all. And thus, those hypothetical soldiers who opposed repeal so strongly the couldn’t be bothered to fill out a form should have the final say. Why do I get the feeling I’ll hear this talking point all over Fox News this week?

R

November 30th, 2010

>what do you propose they use in the future to keep from fighting the next time we have compulsive military service???

Move to a country that you are willing to risk potentially having to fight for or that has a draft constitutionally barred, or prepare to make a good C.O. case.

Boo

November 30th, 2010

I’m waiting for McCain to say we still haven’t heard from Joe the Plumber.

You know he wants to.

Chris McCoy

November 30th, 2010

Spartann wrote:

Not for nothing…but I’m sure many of you can remember when tens of thousands of draftees had to rely on the military’s policy on homosexuals as the only way to keep from serving during a time of war.

So allowing non-LGBT a convenient escape clause (by lying about who they are, and capitalizing on and perpetuating homophobia for personal gain) is reason enough to deny actual-LGBT the right to serve? Brilliant.

So tell me, now that it looks like DADT will be rescinded soon, what do you propose they use in the future to keep from fighting the next time we have compulsive military service??? I mean I’m just asking.

Conscientious objector has always been the correct way to escape compulsive military service, and is irrespective of sexual orientation.

Lucrece

November 30th, 2010

I’m pretty sure DADT repeal would fail in the courts. So bigoted Senators would have no qualms about filibustering.

Kagan would excuse herself, and that would leave a 4-4 split (don’t even think for a moment that Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts would strike DADT down), assuming Kennedy even wants to get involved.

Stefan

November 30th, 2010

Kennedy nearly always sides with the plaintiffs on gay rights cases. Also, even with a split, and the lower courts ruling being upheld, it wouldn’t matter since the injunction issued would apply worldwide (as was what the judge in California ordered).

Timothy (TRiG)

December 1st, 2010

Aside: As Bertrand Russell pointed out, due to the privileged position of religion in our society, it’s very very hard for non-religious conscientious objectors to escape enforced military service in times of a draft.

TRiG.

Chris Mitchell

December 1st, 2010

[This commenter impersonated another person, using their name and their return email. The real Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications at Reason Magazine, is a supporter of our community. Reason Magazine is founded on libertarian principles and, as such, opposes arbitrary discrimination based on sexual orientation.]

customartist

December 1st, 2010

The Survey is in and it is indisputable. Senators voting against Repeal vote Against the Will of the American People. The Bigots will be Revealed.

Senatorial voting records during the original Civil Rights Movement might have been obscured or unpublicized, but the Votes of Today’s Senators will be Front Page News!, and we must remind them of this!

Let your voice be heard!

Email Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Email Congress:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Email The Whitehouse
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Call the Senate and Congress: (202)224-3121
*The Operator will direct you if you do not know your representative

*IMPORTANT* Be polite and to the point.

Ben in Oakland

December 1st, 2010

I´m in Argentina at the moment, but couldn´t wait to get to a computer. And I found out what I wanted.

A 29% response rate? In other words, emotions ran the gamut from ho to hum.

Truly, our country should flat out be ashamed of itself. more accurately, our congress should be.

And the Father of the Palinator? Unleashing that woman on us was the worst thing he ever did. This nonsense is pretty close. Has no one called him on this? Could Our Fierce Avocado have even a word to say on the subject?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.