Box Turtle Bulletin

McCain: “I Hope Gay and Lesbian Americans Will Give Full Consideration to Supporting Me”

Jim Burroway

October 1st, 2008

In what is believed to be the first time a Republican presidential nominee made himself available to the gay press, John McCain participated in a written interview with the Washington Blade this week in which he said he appreciated the Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement and hopes that “gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me.”

McCain wrote about working with former Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) for 25 years. Kolbe was the first Republican Congressman to serve in the House as an openly gay man. McCain also spoke highly of former Tempe Mayor Neil Giuliano, who is now the executive director of GLAAD. Giuliano survived a recall election in 2001 over his sexual orientation. And McCain recalled giving the eulogy at Mark Bingham’s funeral. Bingham, a member of a San Francisco bay-area gay rugby team, died while bringing United Flight 93 down into a Pennsylvania cornfield on September 11, 2001. His actions along with others on the flight may have saved thousands of lives in Washington, D.C., which is believed to have been the hijackers’ target.

As for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” McCain said:

I promise to give full consideration to any legislation that reaches my desk. On “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” I’m going to defer to our military commanders. So far they have told me it’s working. I’m willing to have the policy reviewed to make sure that’s the case, but at the end of the day, I’m going to rely on the commanders who will be impacted by a change in the law.

I wonder if this somewhat non-committal answer will be satisfactory to his conservative base. For some, merely promising to have the policy reviewed might be too much for them. For example, Tom Minnery, head of Focus On the Family Action sent out an email alert identifying “Out in the barracks: homosexuality hits the armed forces” as an alarming headline we might see if Obama were elected.

Sad, Sad Elaine Donnelly

Timothy Kincaid

September 30th, 2008

Poor Elaine Donnelly.

Her fight to keep gay folks from serving their country through military service is becoming a lonely and thankless task.

She showed up at Congress back in July only to find that it’s a different place than she’d like it to be. Gosh, anti-gay ranting just doesn’t get the response it used to. Now she found herself mocked by both Democrats and Republicans and those who she thought were on her side were ‘much too busy’ to make it to the hearing that day.

And the public just is no help any more. Three quarters of voters, at least, think that gay folks should be able to serve openly. And that not just those San Francisco liberals. No, 59% of conservative Republicans, conservative Republicans, think that gay people should be able to fight for their nation. Oh, the tragedy.

Even the military leaders are turning against her. First it was a general, and some prior Chaimen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then a Secretary of Defense, and some past Presidents, and then a commission of former military leaders, and now its hard to find anyone who will stand with Elaine and talk about “HIV positivity” and showers and black lesbian gang rapists.

What’s a girl to do?

Well Elaine is, if nothing else, tenatious. She just knows she can find an ally out there somewhere if she looks hard enough.

So she turned to the tried and true.

Elaine just knows that there are crusty old veterans full of stories about how awful the sissies were back in WWII. And if she could just get these venerable old men and remind America of the sacrifice they paid then surely the nation would come to its senses and run the gay folks out of town. And if there’s no one left to translate Arabic, well who cares? You don’t need to know what they’re saying to bomb ‘em back to the stone age.

So Elaine set up a extra-special super-secret meeting. She would get together with only the high level senior mucky-mucks of veterans organizations, come up with a list of dark misdeeds by the militant homoSEXuals (yes, militant, what other kind would be in the service?) and march back to Congress like Jeremiah of Old to confront the lawmakers with her anecdotes of woe and doom.

But, darn it, you can’t even rely on the octogenarians to hold onto their homophobia any more. Those crotchety ol’ back-stabing sneaks betrayed her. They leaked her letter.

And now PFLAG is telling everyone about her super-secret mission. Alas, alas. Her beautiful plan has gone to naught.

Oh but never fear, fair reader, for Elaine will rise again. For as long as she has strength to fight and heart to hate, Elaine will be there on the forefront saying any and every vile thing she can in her quest to drive the evil sodomite from the land.

Major Alan Rogers - the Rest of the Story

Timothy Kincaid

July 29th, 2008

In March we learned of the death of Army Maj. Alan G. Rogers, a man praised by the Pentegon and lauded in the Washington Post and on MSNBC. And we observed the mainstream media try to hide the truth of Maj. Rogers’ life, that he was a gay man actively working to reverse the ban on openly gay servicepersons. Then we read as the Post’s ombudsman chided the paper for the deletion (unknowing that she was leaving out facts of her own).

We even saw how some friends and distant family angrily tried to hide or deny his orientation and how someone at the Pentegon attempted to change information in Rogers’ wikipedia entry.

Now the New Yorker has an 8 page article detailing Rogers’ life and laying rest to any rumors or misunderstandings. It is well worth reading.

Deputy Secretary England attended a memorial service at the Pentagon, where Thomas Gandy, a director of counterintelligence and human intelligence, hailed Rogers as “simply the most talented officer I ever had the opportunity to serve with,” and described his selflessness in taking wounded veterans at Walter Reed hospital to a Super Bowl party on a nearby base. “There was something special about Alan Rogers,” Lieutenant General John F. Kimmons, the deputy chief of staff for Army Intelligence, said. “He was more than he seemed.”

And indeed he was.

And there was much more behind the story of efforts to hide his orientation. The New Yorker did not find malice or a conspiracy, but the type of well-intentioned homophobia that assumes that a hiding one’s orientation protects a reputation.

Rogers was both more secretive and more honest than many of those who knew him really wanted to believe about him. He was a brave man, a good man, a loving man, and the embodiment of the evidence that those who seek to keep this discriminatory ban operate from a base of foolishness, ignorance and bigotry.

FRC Disapointed With Donnelly’s Testimony?

Jim Burroway

July 25th, 2008

You bet they are. Yesterday, right on schedule, the Family “Research” Council sent out their daily Washington Update yesterday as they always do. Washington Updates typically consist of three stories, and yesterday’s top story was one which blamed Elaine Donnelly’s utterly deplorable testimony before the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee on “rude congressmen” instead of  Donnelly’s own abysmal incompetence:

Rude Congressmen Tell and Don’t Ask at Hearing

For the first time since Congress beat back Bill Clinton’s effort to bring homosexuals into the military in 1993, there was a hearing on the topic yesterday on Capitol Hill, which FRC’s Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg and several Witherspoon Fellows attended. The Democrats in Congress are laying the groundwork for action next year, when they hope Barack Obama will be president, to overturn the law which codified the military’s longstanding policy excluding homosexuals. Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, and Sgt. Major Brian Jones, a veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force, ably defended the law in the face of shockingly disrespectful and even abusive questioning by members of the House Military Personnel subcommittee. Particularly egregious was the behavior of Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), who said that Donnelly’s concern about the impact of HIV-positive soldiers was “dumb” and that her testimony about behaviors common among homosexuals was “bonkers.” Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) used the silly line, “When did you decide to be heterosexual?” The false assumptions that people are “born gay” and can never change, and that homosexuality is equivalent to race, permeated the questioning. Yet no one explained how it would benefit the military to recruit service members who plan to commit acts which are criminal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This morning, that lame defense of Donnelly is gone, along with the rest of the entire Washington Update for the day.

Press, Congressmen Skewer Donnelly’s Testimony

Jim Burroway

July 24th, 2008

Elaine Donnelly’s ridiculous testimony yesterday before the House Armed Services personnel subcommittee continues to elicit expressions of disbelief throughout Washington. Speaking before the first hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 15 years, Donnelly set back the cause of excluding gays in the military and “torpedoe[d] her own ship,” according to Dana Milbank at The Washington Post:

Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.) labeled her statement “just bonkers” and “dumb,” and he called her claims about an HIV menace “inappropriate.” Said Snyder: “By this analysis . . . we ought to recruit only lesbians for the military, because they have the lowest incidence of HIV in the country.”

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), a veteran of the war in Iraq, called Donnelly’s words “an insult to me and many of the soldiers” by saying they “aren’t professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while successfully completing their military mission.”

Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) pointed a finger at [retired Navy Capt. Joan] Darrah and glared at Donnelly. “Would you please tell me, Miss Donnelly, why I should give one twit about this woman’s sexual orientation, when it didn’t interfere one bit with her service?” Donnelly said something about “forced intimacy.” Donnelly returned to the case of “Cynthia Yost . . . assaulted by a group of lesbians.” She neglected to mention that the incident was alleged to have occurred in 1974.

Donnelly clearly seemed to unify lawmakers on both sides of the aisles against her. As Milbank pointed out, “It was tempting to think that Donnelly had been chosen by Democrats to sabotage the case against open military service for homosexuals.”

Donnelly wasn’t the only opponent of DADT to provide comic relief:

Donnelly was followed by [retired Army Sgt. Maj. Brian] Jones, a tough-talking businessman who suggested that the military’s tradition of “selfless service” would be undermined by gay men and lesbians. “In the military environment, team cohesion, morale and esprit de corps is a matter of life and death,” he said. His written statement spelled it “esprit decor”; it also warned of “a band of lesbians that harassed new females,” and noted his own military experience when “the only way to keep from freezing at night was to get as close as possible for body heat — which means skin to skin.”

Military Service Issue - Sixty Years Ago This Month

Timothy Kincaid

July 23rd, 2008

Today’s debates over “forced cohabitation” are not without historical comparisons.

On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.

The comparison was not lost on one witness today (CNN)

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman, a black man who joined the Army when it was segregated, testified that the current treatment of gays and lesbians is similar to how African-Americans were treated before President Truman integrated the military in 1948.

“I know what it is like to be thought of as a second-class citizen, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of what you are or what you look like,” Coleman said.

Earlier this year the House of Representatives honored the order ending segregation

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress to honorably and respectfully recognize the historic significance and to celebrate the 60th Anniversary of President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 signed on July 26, 1948 that declared it to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin thereby beginning the process of ending segregation in the United States Armed Forces.

Today former Secretary of State Colin Powell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others celebrated the 60th anniversary of the integration of U.S. Armed Forces in the Capitol Rotunda.

Donnelly Repeats Bogus Statistics to Congress

Timothy Kincaid

July 23rd, 2008

Today in Congressional Hearings on whether the Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell policy is effective or counter-productive, anti-gay activist Elaine Donnelly claimed that polls support her contention that military personnel don’t wish to serve with openly gay servicemen. The Army Times reports

Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy group that focuses on military personnel issues and a longtime opponent of gays in the military, said the annual Military Times poll of service members consistently shows that between 57 percent and 59 percent of service members oppose allowing gays to serve openly in uniform.

But the poll that Donnelly quotes is not a representative poll of service members. We analyzed Donnelly’s claims in February, and found the following:

Using the 2000 statistics of the Heath Status of the United States Army (and assuming that there is not a strong variance between services) we can compare the Military Times poll to the Army’s report of those who actually serve.

• Army average age – 28; MT poll participant average age – 37
• 44% of service members between 17 and 24; 7% of MT poll participants fell in this category
• 8% of army personnel are 40 or older; 41% of MT poll participants are 40 or older
• 51% of army personnel are married; 82% of MT poll participants are married

As the Military Times put it, “The annual poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.”

In other words, this is NOT a poll of active service persons who are on the front lines eating, sleeping, and showering with their mates. In fact, only 2% of those polled lived in barracks. Unlike the Zogby poll, the Military Times poll is of those who have made the military their career.

Perhaps Donnelly isn’t edequately skilled to determine for herself that the Military Times poll is non-representative. Or perhaps she deliberately uses deception as a tool to advance her anti-gay agenda.

But in either case she should not be testifying before Congress.

Palm Center: Elaine Donnelly Not Qualified To Testify

Jim Burroway

July 23rd, 2008

The Palm Center has announced that the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy is set to publish a review of Elaine Donnelly’s 2007 article in the review. Donnelly, who is president of the Center for Military Readiness, opposes the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and was one of two witnesses testifying against repealing the military’s ban on gay servicemembers. According to Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center, Donnelly’s testimony was drawn largely from her 2007 article which is “riddled with mistakes”:

“It’s unclear why Elaine Donnelly has a platform at all on this issue,” Belkin said. “She and her organization do no research.” Belkin noted, for example, that to bolster her point that the British military has been undermined by allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, her article cites a single footnote which refers to five newspaper and radio stories, none of which have anything to do with gays in the military.

… 

Donnelly’s article is riddled with other errors, including misidentifying the Palm Center as a Berkeley organization, misreading the evidence on gay service during wartime and misunderstanding the statistical methodology of demographic data on the prevalence of gays in the U.S. military, as well as the research methods used in assessing polling data and the financial costs of the ban on open gays.

Here is an example of Donnelly’s performance in Washington today:

[Hat tip: Alvin McEwen]

You Know It’s Over…

Jim Burroway

July 23rd, 2008

… when the National Review — William F. Buckley, Jr.’s outfit — says “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” doesn’t make sense.

No One Wants “Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell”

This article is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin

Timothy Kincaid

July 23rd, 2008

The “Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell” policy was a 1993 compromise between those who favored an all-out ban on gay service persons and those who favored a fully inclusive Military. It wasn’t much liked by either side at the time and is still not popular with either gays or anti-gays.

The anti-gay most visible on this issue is Elaine Donnelly, one of the two anti-gays scheduled to speak today in Congressional Hearings on the issue. Donnelly has long been opposed to the Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell compromise and claims that it is actually contrary to the wording of the law passed in 1993. Donnelly’s position is that there are no provisions for “not asking” and that therefore the Military should have a restrictive ban including witch-hunt efforts.

To reinforce that idea, anti-gays were passing out buttons today that said “Keep the LAW, not the DADT policy.”

What then are the likely outcomes of the hearings?

Return to a full ban on all gay servicepersons.
The arguments of Elaine Donnelly are a bit limited. They cannot rely on studies, comparison to other nations, or any other tangible evidence.

Donnelly has to rely on two arguments: that gays are icky, and that heterosexuals don’t want to be around gay people. Because of this, she claims, the Military would be harmed by allowing gay persons to serve openly.

Because gays are icky, other service persons would be distracted from their job. And because heterosexuals don’t want to be around gay people, they won’t sign up for service.

While these claims do speak to the issue of open v. closeted service, neither of these arguments is particularly germane to a return to a ban. And because a return to a full ban would likely be seen by the public as homophobic and hateful, there is not likely to be much of a push in this direction.

Retain Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell
This is the Military’s position, as expressed to the chairman of the hearings. However, the Military did not send anyone to the hearings to articulate that position. Further, they told the chairman that they would abide by congressional orders.

Since the termination of Joint Chairman Peter Pace, the opinions coming from the Pentegon about DADT have been tepid at most. The impression, to me at least, is that while the Military dislikes change in general, no one is fired up to keep DADT in place.

Retaining DADT is also the default position of John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President. However, McCain’s support is couched in language that suggests a less-than-solid support for this position. Rather than state this position as his own, he defers to “senior military leaders”.

However, although there are few voices articulating support for the status quo, a position difficult to champion in either idealogical terms, this is by far the safest position for conservative or moderate legislators or either party.

Yes, the citizenry has come to the position where they want open service. And very few Senators or Congressmen openly state that gay servicepersons are incapable of serving their country well. But anti-gay sentiment is more more deeply felt than tolerance and while Americans don’t favor the policy, they aren’t rising up to demand its repeal.

As long as this issue is not brought up for a vote, no one needs to go on record as either opposing the Military, the populace, gay activists, or rightwing activists. Which probably explains why there has been no movement on this issue for 16 years in either Republican or Democratic controlled Congresses.

However, non-action may not be an option for much longer. Supporter in both parties are more vocal in their efforts to overturn this example of institutionalized discrimination. And the Congressional Hearings may indicate a willingness by Democratic Party leadership to allow Congress to readdress the issue.

As public opinion has shifted so far in favor of fully repealing the ban, and as more and more persons of expertise and experience have come to question is effectivity, legislators may find that they will need to take a stand and sooner rather than later.

Repealing the ban
This is the position favored by the citizens, a position that seems to cut across demographics.

It is also the position that seems to be enhanced with each new study, review, commentary, and observation. Over the past few years, a great many individuals and institutions that had been in opposition to full and open service have come to either reverse their thinking or to allow for reconsideration.

Most Democrats in Congress would find it difficult to vote to retain DADT. Even conservative pro-Military ex-servicemen Blue Dog Democrats like Congessman Patrick Murphy are skeptical about claims that servicemen are incapable of serving with their openly gay fellows.

Additionally, many Republican Congressmen will be hesitant to be seen to be too far out of the mainstream on this issue. As a majority of Republican voters favor lifting the ban, only the idealogues, or those who fear conservative activists, will feel pressured to take an anti-gay stance that is not popular with their constituents. Further, some Republicans may see this as a way to counterbalance their anti-marriage stance and appear reasonable and mainstream to the all-important Independent voters.

Although it may be a bit optimistic, I predict that a vote would result in nearly all Democrats favoring a reversal of the policy joined by a respectable number of Republicans.

Becoming Law
The question is whether new legislation allowing for open service would be signed by the President into law.

Were such a bill to pass under the current administration, I think it likely that President Bush would use his veto. Although this has been a President hesitant to veto legislation, he seems to make exceptions for law that would put gay citizens on an equal footing.

I think it also extremely likely that a President Obama would not hesitate to sign. He has been open in his support for gay servicepersons.

The question, at least to me, would be what a President McCain would do. Although he has spoken against changing policy, he has done so in a passive way, deferring to the expertise of others and avoiding taking a personal idealogical position. With enough Republican support, McCain might announce that “senior military advisors” don’t see the change in policy to be detrimental to Military effectiveness or unit cohesion and sign the bill. Alternately, he might feel endebted to the rightwing and might veto. At this point, I don’t think I can predict his action.

From 1993 to 2008: DADT and the House Armed Services Committee

Gregory Herek

July 23rd, 2008

Today the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee holds hearings on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I’d like to be able to discuss the social science research relevant to the policy. However, there isn’t much to say that is new.

To be sure, new studies have been released that consider issues related to privacy, unit cohesion, and the experiences of other countries that have integrated sexual minorities into their militaries. But the conclusions of the newer research don’t differ much from those of past studies.

Thus, it seems appropriate to revisit a previous set of hearings in which the House Armed Services Committee heard about social science research relevant to military personnel policy. In my latest post at Beyond Homophobia, I reprint an excerpt of my own 1993 testimony before that Committee, and discuss the consistency in research findings during the past quarter century.

As in 1993, the real question today is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy.

HRC Liveblogging “Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell” Hearings

Timothy Kincaid

July 23rd, 2008

To get HRC’s perspective live, check out this site.

ABC-WaPo Poll: Gays Should Serve Openly in Military

Timothy Kincaid

July 18th, 2008

Just in time for hearings on Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell, a new poll from ABC and the Washington Post reports increasing support for openly gay servicemembers.

Seventy-five percent of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said homosexuals who are open about their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military, up from 62 percent in early 2001 and 44 percent in 1993. Majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike now believe it is acceptable for gays to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces.

Hearings Set for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Timothy Kincaid

July 17th, 2008

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is now reporting that hearings will be held on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay citizens.

On July 23 the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the impact of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning service by openly lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The hearing will be the first since Congress enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” fifteen years ago.

The hearings were scheduled by Congresswoman Susan Davis, (D-CA), Chairwoman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Davis’ district includes San Diego’s three military bases and Davis lived for years as a military wife.

Scheduled to testify against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” are U.S. Army Major General Vance Coleman (Ret.), U.S. Navy Captain Joan E. Darrah (Ret.), and former Marine Staff Sgt. Eric F. Alva.

It will be interesting to see who will speak in favor of the current policy.

Sacramento Bee: Ex-Convicts In Military Risky

Jim Burroway

July 13th, 2008

The Bush administration’s Department of Defense has been kicking out gays and lesbians as fast as they can find them, but the number of “morality waivers” they’ve been giving out to ex-convicts who sign up has risen steadily since 2004.

Last year, a record 9,935 waivers were granted. This morning’s Sacramento Bee reports on 120 recruits who entered the military under morality waivers and found several instances of continuing criminal behavior in Iraq. The Bee also cites a U.S. army study which found that servicemembers accepted under a morality waiver were:

• 1.4 times more likely to be court-marshaled,
• 1.7 times more likely to be accused of misconduct in service at least once (and 1.3 times more likely to be accused more than once),
• more than twice as likely to desert,
• three times more likely to fail alcohol rehabilitation,
• and 1.3 times more likely to be discharged in lieu of court-marshal.

But gays and lesbians can’t serve openly because they somehow represent a danger to military effectiveness. Go figure.

Study by Senior Military Officers: DADT Harms Military Effectiveness

Jim Burroway

July 8th, 2008

A new report (PDF: 1.39MB/16 pages) written by four high-ranking retired military officers and issued by the Palm Center of the University of California lends significant support for repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly. The report by Brigadier General Hugh Aitkin (USMC), Lieutenant General Minter Alexander (USAF), Lieutenant General Robert Gard (USA), and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN) concludes that the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly actually diminished military effectiveness and unit cohesion, and calls for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

One additional interesting fact stood out in the Study Group’s assessment: Those who oppose gays and lesbians serving in the military refused to participate or provide any information. It appears they simply don’t want the issue looked at calmly and rationally:

The Study Group was saddened that not a single expert who opposes gays in the military was willing to meet or talk with us in person. For each expert, the group offered to take written, and/or in-person testimony, and offered to arrange and subsidize transportation to Washington, D.C. or to arrange videoconferencing or teleconferencing facilities. The group also asked experts who oppose gays in the military to provide additional names of experts who might participate. Because not a single one of these experts was willing to participate in person or to provide additional names of people who would, therefore the group devoted particular and extensive effort to the study of their published work and any written comments they were willing to submit for consideration.

Among those who were invited to participate but declined were Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, the leading opponent of efforts to repeal DADT. Others who declined to participate in this study include Peter Sprigg, Robert Maginnis, and Melissa Wells-Petry of the Family “Research” Council.

The study’s authors list ten findings:

Finding one: “The law locks the military’s position into stasis and does not accord any trust to the Pentagon to adapt policy to changing circumstances.” Because the ban is written into law, the authors contend that it restricts the Defense Department from adjusting its policy to meet military needs or readiness. They say that because the military officially can’t change its policy, it is up to individual commanders to exhibit flexibility in deciding on their own whether to ignore or violate the policy, which leaves the false impression that DADT is working.

Finding two: “Existing military laws and regulations provide commanders with sufficient means to discipline inappropriate conduct.” The authors note that existing law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and other Pentagon regulations provide commanding officers with all the tools they need to “disciplin[e] inappropriate public displays of affection, fraternization, adultery, or any other conduct which is prejudicial to the maintenance of good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.”

Finding three: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell” has forced some commanders to choose between breaking the law and undermining the cohesion of their units.” The authors hinted at this in their first finding. Here, they explored the problem more fully:

The Study Group heard from a heterosexual officer who returned recently from a tour of duty in Iraq. He told the group that one of his best non-commissioned officers was probably a lesbian, and that if he had been presented with credible evidence of her homosexuality, he would have been forced to choose between following the law and keeping his unit intact. For this officer, unit cohesion was marked by the need to retain a qualified, meritorious lesbian service member. When asked which choice he would have made, he said that he would have opted to break the law. Experts in military law attested, “The statute makes it mandatory to follow up if told.” Yet, a former non-commissioned officer confirmed, “There were times I should have said something. I didn’t. I helped people manage their career.” He acknowledged, “I was breaking the law myself.”

The authors also noted that “no commanding officer has been admonished for not following up” on learning of a subordinate’s homosexuality.

Finding four: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell” has prevented some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members from obtaining psychological and medical care as well as religious counseling.” People should be able to expect a degree of confidentiality when talking with doctors, chaplains, counselors, and other professionals. LGBT servicemembers however aren’t afforded that confidentiality. They have been discharged after confiding in chaplains, and doctors and therapists are under orders to report clients who discuss their homosexuality during treatment. One commanding officer discussed the bind this caused:

As an E-6, I had become a leader, and as a leader, troops came to me for advice and guidance. I had many gay troops working for me, and some of them I saw suffer a great deal because of this policy. One gay troop had a sexually transmitted disease and he asked what he should do about it. I advised him, of course, to see a doctor, but he called it to my attention that if he did, he could be kicked out of the Navy. Another troop was having a relationship problem with her girlfriend — she threatened committing suicide — and I told her to see a counselor or chaplain, but then I realized that wasn’t a good idea because talking about her girlfriend would violate the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. No matter what I told these troops, nothing was the right answer and I felt like a hypocrite.

This can affect straight personnel as well:

In one remarkable incident in 2001, an Air Force airman sought the assistance of a military psychiatrist after a civilian raped him. The psychiatrist announced that the airman must be gay if he allowed himself to be raped, and he threatened to out the soldier to his command if he spoke about being gay during their therapy session.

Finding five: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has caused the military to lose some talented service members.” Between 2003 and 2006, more than 800 people with mission-critical skills have been dismissed under DADT. During the same period, the military recruited 4,230 convicted felons under the “moral waivers” program. They cited a UCLA study which found that 4,000 people would have retained each year since DADT was established in 1994 — about 1,000 on average were discharged each year, and 3,000 more left on their own who would have stayed if they could serve openly. In contrast, only 2% of servicemembers said they wouldn’t have joined the military if gays and lesbians were permitted to serve openly, which also amounts to about 4,000 per year. This means that repealing DADT would be a wash, recruitment-wise.

Finding six: “‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has compelled some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to lie about their identity.” This means that the policy “puts some gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members in a quandary and undermines the personal integrity essential to honor and trust.”

Finding seven: “Many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are serving openly.” According to one estimate, some 65,000 GLBT personnel are currently serving in the armed forces. And according to a recent Zogby poll, 23% of personnel already know that they are serving alongside someone who is gay.

Finding eight: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” has made it harder for some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to perform their duties.” One non-commissioned officer described the problem this way:

I had two gay friends while I was stationed in Spain. One man, E., was very open [about being gay], like me. The other one, T., followed the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy nearly to the letter of the law. T. told me that he was gay, but to his co-workers he lied about having girlfriends. But everyone hated him. I asked the guys at work why they harassed T. when none of them harassed E. or me. They said the problem wasn’t the fact T. was gay, the problem was he was a liar. And to them, that meant he was a coward. They were personally insulted that he lied to them. In this case, DADT is a dual-edged sword: if you follow it, you’re mistrusted; if you don’t, you play Russian roulette every day with your career.

This goes back to the issue of personal integrity. When someone is permitted to show integrity, they garner the respect that is essential to unit cohesiveness. But when fellow servicemembers know someone is lying about one thing, they will find it difficult to trust that person in other matters. And this issue of trust goes to the very heart of unit cohesiveness.

Finding nine: “Military attitudes towards gays and lesbians are changing.” According to the study’s authors, poll results show that between 58% and 79% of the public believe that gays and lesbians should be permitted to serve openly. Interestingly, the study’s authors didn’t note in this section a Zogby survey from last year among returning military veterans which found that only 37% felt that the ban should continue.

Finding ten: “Evidence shows that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly is unlikely to pose any significant risk to morale, good order, discipline, or cohesion.” This is actually the most exhaustively supported finding, perhaps reflecting the importance the authors place on this finding. They poured over several studies and polls among U.S. military personnel, and could find no correlation between having a gay or lesbian unit member and that unit’s cohesiveness or effectiveness. The study group also solicited input from British and Israeli military experts, where gays and lesbians have been permitted to serve openly with no impact to military readiness.

The study group issued these four recommendations based on their findings:

Recommendation 1.Congress should repeal 10 USC § 654 and return authority for personnel policy under this law to the Department of Defense.

Recommendation 2. The Department of Defense should eliminate “don’t tell” while maintaining current authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and service regulations to preclude misconduct prejudicial to good order and discipline and unit cohesion. The prerogative to disclose sexual orientation should be considered a personal and private matter.

Recommendation 3. Remove from Department of Defense directives all references to “bisexual,” “homosexual,” “homosexual conduct,” “homosexual acts,” and “propensity.” Establish in their place uniform standards that are neutral with respect to sexual orientation, such as prohibitions against any inappropriate public bodily contact for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.

Recommendation 4. Immediately establish and reinforce safeguards for the confidentiality of all conversations between service members and chaplains, doctors, and mental health professionals.

Sgt. Manzella Discharged Under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Jim Burroway

June 27th, 2008

Army Sergeant Darren Manzella, who appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes to talk about serving openly as a gay man in the Iraq war, has been discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” effective June 10.

According to his interview with Lesley Stahl, he served openly during most of his time in the army with the full support of his colleagues and superiors. This isn’t surprising. According to a poll of military veterans, 73% said they would feel comfortable serving alongside a gay or lesbian service member.

Sgt. Manzella told the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), “My sexual orientation certainly didn’t make a difference when I treated injuries and saved lives in the streets of Baghdad. It shouldn’t be a factor in allowing me to continue to serve.” Sgt. Manzella was awarded the Combat Medical Badge for serving under fire in the streets of Baghdad to provide medical care to American soldiers, Iraqi Guardsmen and civilians. He also received several other awards recognizing his courage and service.

Court Rules Against Military Gay Ban

Timothy Kincaid

May 21st, 2008

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Military must prove that a dismissal furthers the military’s goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion to justify dismissing any specific gay serviceperson.

“When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest … and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest,” wrote Judge Ronald M. Gould.

Now it has been my observation that many of the personnel dismissed over Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell served honorably, worked well with their unit, and added to cohesion and troop readiness. Often their immediate supervisors sought to keep the gay servicemen. So I think the Military will find this a rather steep obstacle.

This ruling does not invalidate the military policy. And we must recognize that the 9th Circuit is the most overruled of all appeals courts. But if it stands, it may well make DADT so toothless as to be unenforceable.

The personal life situation upon which this decision rests illustrates the foolish and unnecessary nature of this law.

Maj. Margaret Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

Witt joined the Air Force in 1987 and switched from active duty to the reserves in 1995. She cared for injured patients on military flights and in operating rooms. She was promoted to major in 1999, and she deployed to Oman in 2003 in support of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

A citation from President Bush that year said, “Her airmanship and courage directly contributed to the successful accomplishment of important missions under extremely hazardous conditions.”

Her suspension and discharge came during a shortage of flight nurses and outraged many of her colleagues — one of whom, a sergeant, retired in protest.

Now Maj. Witt’s lawsuit can go forward. I wish her well.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Doesn’t Defend DADT

Timothy Kincaid

May 7th, 2008

One of the defenses made in support of continuing the military’s anti-gay Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell policy is that senior military strategists oppose gay soldiers from serving openly. Well, it doesn’t get more senior than the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff.

Speaking at West Point this weekend, Admiral Michael Mullen was asked his opinion about the impact if the incoming administration were to be supportive of gay servicemembers. According to PinkNews,

Speaking to graduating cadets at West Point military academy on Sunday, Admiral Mike Mullen said that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy enacted by Congress in 1993 is a law that the Armed Forces follow.

“Should the law change, the military will carry that out too,” he said.

This is the second time that Mullen has appeared unfazed by the notion of openly gay soldiers. During his confirmation he told the Senate,

“I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that’s appropriate.

“I’d love to have Congress make its own decisions with respect to considering repeal.”

Without the public support of military leaders or prominant politicians, it is surely only a short time before this misguided policy is scrapped for good.

The Dishonesty of Elaine Donnelly

Timothy Kincaid

May 1st, 2008

Elaine Donnelly has made it her life’s mission to return the military to the 1930’s. Through her Center for Military Readiness, she agitates against gays in the military and women in combat.

While gay people make her shudder, women are grudgingly acceptable in the service - as long as they don’t fight. It’s just not very lady-like, ya know.

But while Donnelly actively campaigns to reduce equal opportunities for women in the Military Service, you’d never know that from her new anti-gay campaign. On her new website established “build an online army” to fight against “gay activists”, there’s no reference to Donnelly’s hostility towards “Pentagon feminists” or any other anti-woman policies she espouses.

Instead, Donnelly states her purpose as “Support for Military Men and Women“. [emphasis mine]

Perhaps she realizes that being both anti-woman and anti-gay may seem just a little too hateful even for those who might support her agenda of restricting the Military to heterosexuals.

And like so many anti-gays, Elaine Donnelly has given up even the slightest shred of integrity she may have ever held. To Donnelly truth is subjective and honesty inconvenient.

See Also:
Personal Cruelty
Time Magazine Relies on Non-Representative Poll Pushed by Anti-Gay Activist
More Evidence that DADT is Dead
American Family Association Picks Up The “Ailing General” Theme