News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:Air Force Times adds detail to DADT Poll
Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2010
As we noted on the 7th, the Military Times (of which the Air Force Times is a part), has conducted their annual polling about the attitudes or its readership on the issue of open service by gay men and women. While the readership of this publication is conservative and not representative of military personnel at large, trends between years are interesting, as are demographic breakouts.
Our presentation was initial analysis of raw data and we did not delve deeply into the subgroups in the survey. The Air Force Times has released an article which adds additional texture to the limited picture that this non-representative poll presents.
Service members’ responses were similar when separated by age or rank. The Military Times survey showed opposition to open service was slightly lower among the junior enlisted paygrades of E-1 through E-4 — whose ranks account for nearly half of the armed forces — as well as among racial minorities.
But the difference in responses by gender were stark — more than twice as many women as men (55 percent to 27 percent) support allowing gays to serve openly.
The survey showed noticeable differences by service as well. Marines were the most likely to oppose open service by gays, according to the Military Times survey, with 64 percent holding that view, compared with 52 percent of soldiers, 48 percent of airmen and 45 percent of sailors.
The Times also spoke with personnel to see what concerns they had. Perhaps the most telling was that those who expressed support for repealing the policy has personal experiences in which they knew a gay soldier who served a function that was essential to their task.
Robinson’s support for repeal goes back to his days as a lieutenant, when he was part of a 12-member team manning an observation post in Macedonia in 1996. They were out on the edge, self-sustaining, with resupply every three weeks. So they cooked their own meals.
But only one troop, a sergeant, could cook — and he was part of the patrol rotation. “We wanted that guy to be the cooking guy, and I got with my sergeant and I said, ‘What do you say we make old Sgt. X kind of the permanent cook?’” Robinson said. “So he doesn’t have to go on patrol, and when we come back, we eat well. And everybody was like, yeah, why didn’t we think of this three months ago?”
The sergeant’s cooking skills, however, were not the only thing that made him stand out in the minds of his teammates.
“We thought this guy was homosexual” because of the way he carried himself, Robinson said.
“Everybody kind of thought it, but nobody ever really talked about it. But I asked myself, as a lieutenant, ‘What would I think if he told me he was gay?’ This was before people were talking about this openly in the military. This was a tank battalion.
“And I thought I’d probably be uncomfortable with it for a minute, and then I’d be like, oh, yeah, OK.”
He said it was a nonissue with everyone else in the unit as well because the bottom line was that “he was an effective soldier.”
What do past Military leaders say about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2010
Those who are desperately looking for an excuse to continue supporting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the anti-gay military policy, are trying to downplay the efforts of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense as being an anomaly. They remind the public that the call for the repeal of a ban on open gay service men and women is their “individual opinion” and act as though it is non-representative.
But Admiral Mullen is not the only person to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Robert Gates is not our first Secretary of Defense. Nor are they the first to weigh in on this issue.
Not all such military leaders have public statements. And some have positions that can only be deduced from indirect statements. But here is what I’ve found:
Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
- Michael Mullen
10/1/07 – present
Called for repeal - Peter Pace
10/1/05 – 9/30/07
Opposes repeal - Richard B. Myers
10/1/01 – 9/30/05
Position unknown, perhaps opposed - Hugh Shelton
10/1/97 – 9/30/01
Likely supportive - John Shalikashvili
10/25/93 – 9/30/97
Called for repeal - David Jeremiah
10/1/93 – 10/24/93
Position unknown - Colin Powell
10/1/89 – 9/30/93
Supports repeal
Secretaries of Defense
- Robert Gates (R)
12/18/06 – present
Called for repeal - Donald Rumsfeld (R)
1/20/01 – 12/18/06
Unknown - William Cohen (R)
1/24/97 – 1/20/01
Called for repeal - William Perry (D)
2/3/94 – 1/24/97
Likely supportive - Leslie Aspin (D)
1/21/93 – 2/3/94
deceased - Dick Cheney (R)
3/21/89 – 1/20/93
Supports repeal
It would appear that Mullen and Gates are closer to the rule than to the exception.
COMMENT | LINK
Reserve Officers Association changes position on gay military service
Timothy Kincaid
February 15th, 2010
The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) was founded in 1922 and granted a Congressional Charter in 1950 to “support and promote the development and execution of a military policy for the United States that will provide adequate National Security.” They are an advocacy group representing military officers.
Shortly after the 1993 battle over open service in the military, ROA passed the following resolution:
Resolution No. 07-26
Federal Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Armed ForcesWHEREAS, Title 10, United States Code, Section 654, establishes a policy whereby homosexuals are currently permitted to serve in the Armed Forces under the misguided concept of “Don’t ask; Don’t tell; Don’t pursue”;
WHEREAS, the law further states that, “Pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of Congress to establish qualifications of service in the armed forces.” and further that, “There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces”; and
WHEREAS, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, an Act of Congress, prohibits sodomy and other deviant behavior on the part of Armed Forces personnel, on duty, off duty, public or private, in uniform, and out of uniform, worldwide; and
WHEREAS, the special conditions and demands related to accomplishing military missions, especially in wartime, are uniquely distinct from the conditions which prevail in civilian society; and
WHEREAS, heterosexual Armed Forces personnel experience significant stress when forced to associate with known homosexuals in close quarters, lacking privacy, and during life and death situations; and
WHEREAS, the presence of homosexual personnel in the Armed Forces has been found to be detrimental to good order, morale, discipline, esprit de corps, recruiting, and retention, which are at the core of combat effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, service in the Armed Forces is a unique calling, entered into by those who meet and maintain stringent physical and mental requirements; and
WHEREAS, discrimination related to deviant behavior, sexual preference, and aberrant lifestyle must not be confused or equated with that based on gender, race, or religion; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, chartered by Congress, urge the Congress to exclude homosexuals from induction, enlistment, commissioning, and continued service in the Armed Forces of the United States.
In other words, this group not only opposed service by gay personnel willing to serve in silence, they endorsed bold and blatant anti-gay discrimination in terms selected to indicate contempt and disdain. This position was renewed during National Conventions on June 12, 2004 and June 30, 2007.
However, as of last Wednesday, the ROA no longer sees same-sex attracted people as deviant homosexuals with aberrant lifestyles that cause stress and are detrimental to good order. Now they are gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military, and this endorsement of discrimination has been jettisoned.
From the ROA press release.
Members of the Reserve Officers Association of the United States voted Wednesday to rescind its previous call for complete exclusion of gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military.
The association also rejected by a two-thirds vote a proposal to endorse the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) law, which allows gays and lesbians to serve, provided they keep silent about their sexual orientation.
Leaders were careful to note that they have not endorsed President Obama’s efforts to repeal the ban. They simply will take no position and cannot be used as a source by opponents of open gay service.
This decision is monumental. These include the “officers in the field” to whom Republicans claim to be deferring on this issue. This 63,000 member organization speaks not for the Pentagon, but for “all federally commissioned officers and warrant officers, and their spouses” with a special emphasis on the men and women in the Reserve Components, many of whom are now serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney supports Mullen’s DADT repeal efforts
Timothy Kincaid
February 15th, 2010
In an interview the ABC’s This Week, Dick Cheney said that it is time to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
KARL: OK, “don’t ask/don’t tell” — you’re a former defense secretary — should this policy be repealed?
CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of “don’t ask/don’t tell,” when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen — or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think — my guess is the policy will be changed.
KARL: And do you think that’s a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it’s partly a generational question. I say, I’m reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they’re the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our — of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they’re still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?
When the chiefs come forward and say, “We think we can do it,” then it strikes me that it’s — it’s time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.
This is not the first time that Cheney has indicated skepticism for anti-gay attitudes in the military. As early as 1991, Cheney (then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush) called the military policy that considers gay servicepersons a security risk is “a bit of an old chestnut.”
Quinnipiac poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – ask a biased question, get a meaningless answer
Timothy Kincaid
February 10th, 2010
In the spring of 2002, Peter A. Brown assailed the mainstream media for being unfair. It was far too liberal and chuck full of bias.
So it is only fair, by Brown’s standards, to look and see if he has any bias in his writing and statements. For example, in 2007 when Brown warned that Democrats could be hurt by supporting gay rights or in 2009 when Brown claimed that reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could have enormous political risks for President Obama was there possible bias in his position?
Vincent Rossmeier certainly seemed to think so when he reviewed two polls on same-sex marriage, one of which was a Brown led Quinnipiac poll. As Rossmeier noted, how you ask a question will effect the answer that you get.
And this may be particularly true with Quinnipiac’s latest poll on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Here is how Peter Brown is selling the results:
Although on the surface the idea of ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a lot more popular with the American people than it was in 1993, it remains controversial despite the polling numbers.
Even though Mr. Obama now has the Pentagon brass on his side, a fight over allowing gays to serve openly will pit the president against conservatives and other former military leaders. They will argue that Mr. Obama, who never served in the armed forces, is trying to impose his views on the guys and gals in the trenches.
When Americans are asked about some of the details that might be involved with ending the current policy, they are somewhat less supportive of accommodating open homosexuals into the armed forces.
And Brown is right in that the results of his poll can be viewed in such a way as to find “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”. But to get that “controversy”, the Quinnipiac had to word questions in a way that are hard to view as anything other than advocacy and push polling.
The Pentagon, which backed the change in congressional hearings last week, is studying several matters dealing with how to accommodate gays should the change be made. And on those questions the numbers are different than on the basic question.
Opponents of changing the law have long said that support for allowing gays to serve openly would drop once the American public understood some of the changes that might accompany it.
For instance, there is solid public support, 54%-38%, for restrictions on gay service personnel from showing their sexual orientation while on the job. Among military families, that ratio is 59%-33%.
There is also plurality opposition, 50%-43% for the Pentagon providing for the domestic partners of gay soldiers and sailors as they do for the spouses of straight service people. And by a narrow 46%-45%, voters don’t think that heterosexual personnel should be required to share quarters with gays.
Really? I don’t think so.
First let’s look at how the poll is structured:
Questions 1 through 5 ask about demographics. OK so far.
Then questions 6 through 19 ask about opinions as to how President Obama is doing on foreign policy, in Afghanistan, whether we should be in Afghanistan, etc. The next four questions are about terrorism and whether foreign terrorists should be given civil rights, and the fears about the Christmas Day attacker.
Now that the respondent is warmed up on the fears and drama of our dangers and the uncertainties of military service, comes the questions about gays in the military. We are not provided with questions 24 through 31, but eventually along came
32. Federal law currently prohibits openly gay men and women from serving in the military. Do you think this law should be repealed or not?
After that buildup, it wouldn’t be surprising to find that the answer was “No”. But even after reminding voters that they aren’t happy with Obama’s treatment of terrorists and bombers, 57% said the ban should be repealed (though 12% less than Gallup found eight months ago). Then 66% agreed that the currently policy is discrimination, 65% said that allowing gay troops would not not be divisive or hurt the ability of troops to fight effectively (despite the leading wording of the question), and virtually everyone agreed that the military should not aggressively pursue those revealed by a third party.
But then came Peter Brown’s “gotcha” questions:
36. Do you think gay military personnel should face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job or not?
I don’t even know what that means. Any restrictions?
Sure. Maybe. I guess whatever restrictions that apply to other personnel.
A better question might be: 36. Do you think gay military personnel should face the same restrictions on sexual expression as are currently applied to other service personnel or should they face additional restrictions?
37. Do you think the Pentagon should be responsible to provide for the domestic partners of gay personnel or not?
The Pentagon should be responsible?
The bias in that question is blatant. Obvious. Glaring.
Why didn’t Quinnipiac ask, “37. Should the domestic partners of gay personnel receive the same benefits as the spouses of heterosexual personnel or not?” Wouldn’t that have been a less biased question, especially since he falsely claims that this is what the results said? It might have received a mostly “not” response, but it would not have the built-in bias that Brown’s wording favored.
And finally
38. Do you think heterosexual military personnel should be required to share quarters with gay personnel or not?
Oooh, required to share!!
I guess this one could have been worse. Brown could have asked if wholesome God-fearing heterosexuals should be force to shower naked with avowed homosexual sex addicts. He could have used the phrase “bunk with” or talked about submarines.
But he did avoid the much more neutral “same housing” or “current quarters”. Ironically, while the military households surveyed were less likely to support the change, they did not oppose being “required to share quarters” any more than the population at large. Perhaps that’s because they know the housing realities and were not scared by Brown’s phrasing.
This poll adds little of real value to the conversation. We know that Americans support the change in policy across almost every demographic and Peter Brown’s efforts to try and downplay that support is of little consequence.
In fact, if there is one thing that Brown’s poll did tell us, it’s that the military families don’t buy the dog and pony show that anti-gays are using to scare Americans on this issue. Nor are they all “conservative young men who share the family values of Republicans”.
When asked about lifting the ban, Republicans in this poll were only 40% supportive as opposed to 48% in military households. And 44% of Republicans thought the change would be divisive while only 38% of military families agreed. This trend continued consistently.
And it also showed that if you want to manufacture “controversy” about “accommodating open homosexuals”, you can always use the highly biased polling methods of Peter A. Brown and Quinnipiac University.
Fox News: DADT a failure and absurd
Timothy Kincaid
February 9th, 2010
On Fox and Friends Weekend, Col. David Hunt, a Fox military analyst, called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell an “abject failure”. Fox host Clayton Morris agreed, calling it a civil rights issue and absolutely absurd.
They said Sen. John McCain is “flat wrong.”
Military Times poll shows sharp decline in support for DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 7th, 2010
The Military Times is a newspaper targeted at career military personnel. For the past several years the paper has been surveying its readership on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tomorrow they will be releasing the latest results and today they pre-reported the findings.
Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today, the Military Times newspapers will report Monday.
An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.
Those opposed to open service will likely latch onto this survey, ignore the trend, and claim that this is conclusive proof that half of America’s servicemen do not want to work with gay soldiers. But, as we noted in 2008, this survey is not even close to being representative of military personnel. In fact, only 47% of the survey participants are currently members of the military.
This latest survey, however is closer to reflecting servicepersons as a whole. The respondants in this year’s poll were on average 4 years younger than those in 2008. And the drop in support for the DADT policy between 2008 and 2010 nearly mirrors that in the drop in percentage of participants over the age of 40, about 10%.
The new survey is also more extensive than prior years. It asks a number of additional questions relating to gay service personnel. After deleting the veterans, lawmakers, family members and others, the following can be gleaned from this non-representative study:
- 95% of participants identify as heterosexual. Around 2% identify as gay or bisexual and the rest ticked the “decline to answer” option.
- Attitude about allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military:
- Of those who oppose open service, 54% believe that sexual oriention is a choice while only 34% of those who favor open service have that belief.
- If the ban were overturned, about 38% believe that gay couples should receive the same benefits as straight couples and about 44% oppose the idea.
- The most challenging issues for the military should the policy be overturned are believe to be reducing harassment against openly gay personnel, and reducing violence and hate crimes against gay personnel.
- 56% know that there are gay people in their unit, 17% do not believe that there are and the rest aren’t certain.
- Of those who found out about a gay person in their unit, 2% reported them up the chain of command.
14% strongly favor
15% favor
19% neutral
15% oppose
36% strongly oppose
There were also a number of subsets of if-then questions which sought to get opinions about levels of comfort or discomfort. I did not attempt to make meaning of them.
Based on this non-representative survey, it would appear that about half of career military service personnel are opposed to open service, about one third strongly opposed. However, very few are actually willing to end a fellow soldier’s career when the subject becomes personal rather than theoretical.
Ollie North: Repeal DADT and What’s Next? NAMBLA and Same-Sex Marriage
Jim Burroway
February 6th, 2010
Here’s another one who thinks that gay people are pedophiles:
Stunning assault on the all-volunteer military, the very best in the world. Barack Obama now intents to treat them like lab rats in a radical social experiment, and it can be very, very detrimental. Not only does he want the Congress to repeal the law, Secretary Gates as much as said I, Secretary Gates, am going to selectively enforce the law and basically impose a moratorium on discharges for those who meet the standard as it were.
Now, here’s what’s next. NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) members, same-sex marriages. Are chaplains in the U.S. military going to be required to perform those kinds of rituals? Do they get government housing? In other words, all of this stuff that everybody says “Aw, we can just take care of it because we’ve got the best military in the world” — and we do — ads to the burden of these youngsters who are now on their ninth year of a war, back to back deployments, and more combat time than my Dad got in World War II. That is a very serious issue, and it affects readiness, recruiting and retention and they’re ignoring it in this White House.
While North slams gays for being pedophiles — a charge that has nothing to do with reality — he also slams the maturity of the men and women fighting those two wars. They aren’t youngsters. They are professional soldiers fighting for the rights of convicted accused felons like North to lie on national television.
AZ Senator Jack Harper discusses the details of a gay soldier’s life (without permission) in order to advance his anti-gay agenda
Timothy Kincaid
February 5th, 2010
Arizona’s anti-gay State Senator Jack Harper felt it necessary to go to the floor of the statehouse on an issue over which that body has no say: the open service of gay military personnel. He had to warn everyone of just what would happen if, gasp, gay people were allowed to tell the truth.
They’ll smoke pot, go AWOL and infect their roommates with HIV. Because gay people are individualists and can’t “come together for the good of the unit” (a rather unfortunate choice of words).
The text of Senator Harper’s monologue.
I’d like to tell a story about one of my experiences in the Military and how it um, how it related to the President’s speech last night. I understand the President will be making a um, a push to allow gays to openly serve in the military. And, uh, from my experience this is, uh, this is a mistake.
Back in 1989 when I was in the first infantry division, I got there in 1988, and we were in old barracks and we were moving into new barracks and went from bays to two-man rooms. And, um, sergeant first class of my platoon wanted me to room with a person that we all knew was a homosexual.
And I said, “Sergeant, if I have to room with him I’m going to turn him in.” So he ended up assigning another soldier to serve, um to room with this person.
Specialist Rollins was the individual. Specialist Rollins was quite an individualist. I think that might have been the biggest problem cuz when you’re in the military you’re about, you’re supposed to be about putting your personality aside and coming together as a unit for the good of the unit, for the good of the country. And being an individualist there is not room for in the Military.
Specialist Rollins at the time, one time tested positive for THC which means he was smoking pot. He got an Article 15, lost a stripe, and had to do seven days of extra duty. Another time PFC Rolling went AWOL for a number of days. Our platoon had to go down and inventory his stuff including his personal effects which were very evident that he was openly homosexual.
After PFC Rollins was eventually captured he was court-martialed out, not because he was homosexual but because he had gone AWOL.
Um, being an individualist does not match well with being in the Military. You’re supposed to conform to the standards and come together as a unit for the good of the unit and for the good of the country.
Now, after Rollins had been court-martialed out of the military, his roommate had PCS, Permanent Change of Station, gone on to another thing. About a month later, cuz I was the uh, the battalion sid burse clerk which means I ran the computer that kept the database of the grade changes, positions, things like that, rank. Uh, the uh, medics came to me and said we have a person that tested positive for, uh, for HIV and we only have the last four of his social security number and we need to look him up. It was the person who had roomed with PFC Rollins. Now this was a promiscuous soldier so it might not have been that he had a relationship with Rollins.
But, ah, we had problems from the beginning because we decided that we would not turn in someone who was openly serving in the military that was a homosexual, that we knew to be a homosexual. We tried to be tolerant, but it didn’t work. It didn’t work for our platoon, it didn’t work for the first infantry division, and it will not work for the United States of America.
Thank you
I can’t even begin to discuss how inappropriate it is for a state senator to go to the floor of the senate and discuss the military career and life of another person. By name.
This is beyond foul, and he should be censured.
Sen. Hatch “clarifies” that he meant the opposite of what he said about DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 4th, 2010
Senator Hatch (Mormon – UT), is now uncomfortable with having told Andrea Mitchell that he had an open mind on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Perhaps his church informed him that his position was in opposition to changing the policy or perhaps the Republican Party clarified for him exactly what he thinks, but whatever the reason, Senator Hatch wishes the public to know that his vote will be in opposition to the change irrespective of the requests of the Pentagon, the position of the Commander in Chief, the findings of the study, or the wishes of the populace.
His church’s paper, the Deseret News, helped set the record straight.
“It’s deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy,” Hatch’s statement on Thursday said.
I guess little ol’ “liberal” me must have misconstrued his position when I posted the video and typed out this words verbatim. I suppose I should have realized that he meant exactly the opposite of what he said. Sen. Orrin Hatch is not “at least open to the idea” of being “willing to vote for the change.”
Or, to put it in politician-speak:
“What I said was that I want to see Adm. Mullen’s report. This is a controversial issue with inflamed passions on both sides,” Hatch said.
“Over the years, the views of the military officers and experts, whom I respect, have said that repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would make life for our troops more difficult — especially as our armed forces wage a global war on terrorism,” Hatch said.
He added, “I always try to be fair and stand by what’s right and that is why I look forward to reviewing the admiral’s report.”
Somehow “I look forward to reviewing” seems a bit disingenuous when coupled with “I do not support” and “experts, whom I trust”. One gets the sense that the ‘review’ will be a search for items to criticize rather than an impassioned desire to do what is right and correct.
I’m uncertain whether this is an indication that the Republican Party wishes to present a unified front in opposition to the change. But if that is the case, it will only serve to further entrench the party as recalcitrant, obstructionist, and hopelessly in servitude to a tiny fraction of socially ultra-conservative activists.
Polls have shown that a majority of the public, a majority of Republicans and a majority of conservatives all favor doing away with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But it seems that Sen. Orrin Hatch no longer dances to the tune of conservative Republicans; he now only dances when the subset of social extremists play.
Sadly for Senator Hatch, it must be increasingly difficult to look in the mirror and say, “I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind” or “I just want to do what is right”.
Orrin Hatch is open to overturning DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 3rd, 2010
Senator Orrin Hatch (R – UT) talks with Andrea Mitchell about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
HATCH: I believe that there are very outstanding patriotic gay people who serve in the military and they aught to be given credit for it. And they shouldn’t have to lie about being gay.
On the other hand I think a lot of people are concerned that if you do away with the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, that literally they’ll come back and ask for special rights and preferences and privileges that others don’t have. I, I don’t see that either.
So, ya know, like I say, I just don’t, I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind.
MITCHELL: So you’re willing to vote for the change.
HATCH: Well, I don’t know about that. I’d have to look at it, I’d have to really see, and of course, they recommend, Admiral Mullen said at least a year study by them and then they’ll come out and make the final recommendation. So, at least that’s what I got out of it.
So, I’d like to wait until the end and see what they come up with and see what happens.
But I can see why the people on both sides are upset. I just want to do what’s right.
MITCHELL: So I can put you down as being at least open to the idea. So, uh
HATCH: I am.
MITCHELL: That’s a very interesting statement.
While I would rather hear that Hatch has unequivocal support for overturning the policy, I welcome words of “openness to the idea” from prominent Republicans.
Colin Powell endorses plan to reverse DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 3rd, 2010
Three times before, Gen. Colin Powell who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bill Clinton and Secretary of State under George W. Bush, has suggested that the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy be revisited. Now, like Gen. Shalikashvili, he believes the time has come to repeal the ban on open service. (NY Times)
“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” General Powell said in a statement issued by his office. He added: “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.”
Repealing DADT “May Cause Further Natural Disasters”
Jim Burroway
February 2nd, 2010
Rabbi Yehuda Levin warns of natural disasters if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military, is repealed:
Thirteen months before 9/11, on the day New York City passed homosexual domestic partnership regulations, I joined a group of Rabbis at a City Hall prayer service, pleading with G-d not to visit disaster on the city of N.Y. We have seen the underground earthquake, tsunami, Katrina, and now Haiti. All this is in sync with a two thousand year old teaching in the Talmud that the practice of homosexuality is a spiritual cause of earthquakes. Once a disaster is unleashed, innocents are also victims just like in Chernobyl.
“We plead with saner heads in Congress and the Pentagon to stop sodomization of our military and our society. Enough is enough.”
Family Research Council’s Peter Sprigg Wants To Throw You In Jail
Jim Burroway
February 2nd, 2010
Don’t believe me? Then check this out:
Peter Sprigg was on Chris Matthews’s Hardball to talk about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays in the military. Sprigg, of course, is against ending the ban. But skip ahead to about the 8:15 mark, and you can see what Sprigg really wants to do:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you Peter, do you think people choose to be gay?
SPRIGG: Uh, people do not choose to have same-sex attractions, but they do choose to have homosexual conduct. And that’s conduct also , which incidentally is against the law within the military. It violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It doesn’t make any sense for us to be actively recruiting people who are going to be violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
MATTHEWS: Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: Well, I think certainly it’s defensible.
MATTHEWS: I’m just asking you, should we outlaw gay behavior?
SPRIGG: I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the sodomy laws in this country, was wrongly decided. I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.
MATTHEWS: So we should outlaw gay behavior.
SPRIGG: Yes.
This is the guy who nearly two years ago said we should “export” gays:
Illinois primary elections: what it means
Timothy Kincaid
February 2nd, 2010
US Senator from Illinois
Republican
Today Illinois Republican voters elected Mark Kirk as their Senate nominee. Kirk, a moderate, has long been an occasional ally of the community. As a Congressman he has voted for ENDA and against the FMA and supports civil unions. During this election, one opponent sought to gain political mileage from rumors that Kirk is, himself, gay.
Kirk is not, however, perfect on our issues. He does not favor marriage equality and has stated that he does not support the reversal of the ban on open service in the Military. (Herald Review)
Kirk said he disagreed with Obama’s call to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a policy that prevents homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
“I’m a member of the U.S. military,” said Kirk, a Naval Reserve intelligence officer. “I don’t think we should change the policy.”
But while Kirk has room for improvement, his positions on our issues are significantly preferable to most other Republican Senators. With 64% of the vote in, Kirk is the clear primary winner with about 58%.
Democrat
In the Democratic primary, the choices were much broader. Alexi Giannoulias and David Hoffman both endorse marriage equality and Cheryle Jackson endorses civil unions. All candidates support ENDA and repealing DADT and DOMA.
A gay long-shot candidate, Jacob Meister, received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats. Meister withdrew from the race earlier this week and endorsed Giannoulias.
With 64% of the vote, the current tally is
Giannoulias , Alexi 38%
Hoffman , David 35%
Jackson , Cheryle 20%
Illinois Governor
Democrat
The primary contention was between incumbent Pat Quinn, who has served since Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached in January 2009, and Dan Hynes. Quinn supports civil unions and Hynes supports full marriage equality. Hynes received the endorsement of Stonewall Democrats.
With 64% of the vote, Quinn has 51% to Hynes’ 49%. Quinn has held a small lead through all of the precinct counts so far.
Republican
The three five candidates, Kirk Dillard, Andy McKenna, Jim Ryan, Bill Brady, and Adam Andrzejewski all share opposition to civil unions and marriage equality. In their race to be the furthest far-right social-issues troglodyte they seem to be indistinguishable, but Log Cabin suggested that Dillard was the preferable of the bunch so perhaps they have some information that makes him the “lesser of evils”.
With 58% of precincts reporting:
McKenna , Andy 22%
Dillard , Kirk 20%
Brady , Bill 17%
Ryan , Jim 17%
Andrzejewski 15%
APsaA: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell harms soldiers
Timothy Kincaid
February 2nd, 2010
Dr. Prudence Gourguechon, the President of the American Psychoanalytic Association, has a blog on Psychology Today. She praises the renewed effort to reverse Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and reminds us that her organization has taken a position on this issue based on the well-being of the serviceman.
Our research and clinical experience adds the following psychological ill effects of DADT to the social and military problems mentioned in the Times editorial:
• Increased stress levels are seen in soldiers who are not able to freely access partners and friends back home for needed support
• The emotional toll of keeping sexual orientation hidden is well documented
• Increased isolation of those living under DADT leading to greater vulnerability to stress syndromes.
One has to wonder if the stress on that young straight conservative serviceman being forced to coexist with a gay soldier even remotely compares to the young gay (probably conservative) servicewoman being forced to hide, deny, and lose access to her support network and even her partner. Somehow it makes all the deference to the fragile sensibilities of the sheltered homophobe seem a bit disingenuous.
Gates and Mullen ask for another year before dismantling DADT
Timothy Kincaid
February 2nd, 2010
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates spoke about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” before the Senate Armed Services Committee today. Both recommended reversing the law but asked for another year to figure out how to implement the change in policy. (NY Times)
To lead a review of the policy, Mr. Gates appointed a civilian and a military officer: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s top legal counsel, and Gen. Carter F. Ham, the commander of the United States Army in Europe. Pentagon officials said the review could take up to a year.
In the interim, Mr. Gates announced that the military was moving toward enforcing the existing policy “in a more humane and fair manner” — a reference to the possibility that the Pentagon would no longer take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Mr. Gates said he had asked the Pentagon to make a recommendation on the matter within 45 days, but “we believe that we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.”
I have a better idea, gentlemen. Rather than wait for your report, Congress should pass the law that entirely eliminates the ban on open service in the Military and give the Pentagon a year in which to put a new policy in place. That way we don’t find ourselves a year down the road with a different Congress and insufficient votes.
In a signal that this policy change will face Republican opposition – regardless of the wishes of the Pentagon – Sen. McCain spoke strongly in opposition. He relied on Elaine Donnelly’s petition which found 1,000 former officers who were willing to put their name down in opposition to equality. McCain presented the petition as though it was a representative study.
Mr. McCain said that a thousand retired admirals and generals had signed a petition against change, and that their views reflected the honest beliefs of military leaders as a whole, whatever Admiral Mullen’s personal view.
However, such bogus sampling may not hold up to the findings of studies. In addition to the review by Johnson and Ham,
For further information, Mr. Gates said he would ask the Rand Corporation to update a 1993 study on the effect of allowing gay men and women to serve openly. That study concluded that gay service members could serve openly if the policy was given strong support from the military’s senior leaders.
However, timing is crucial. Any shifting in the Congress towards more Republicans (almost a certainty in this mid-term election) can become an excuse to yet again delay equality for gay Americans.
Reason for DADT comment: pressure, not encouragement
Timothy Kincaid
February 1st, 2010
The New York Times has an article about President Obama’s pledge to reverse Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the anti-gay Military policy, in which they report the impetus for movement on the issue:
President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military.
But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban — ones that could reach the Supreme Court — that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.
It is interesting that the President’s timing was not swayed by encouragement from gay supporters, but rather as a result of legal actions of a gay group hostile to the administration. Although the Times does not note it, the only lawsuit against DADT which is currently advancing is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. (Update: The Log Cabin case is, I believe, the only organizational case. There is at least one other individual case.)
Log Cabin, an organization of gay Republicans, will not shade their press releases about their lawsuit in a way that is favorable to the administration or in a way that provides cover. They do not get invited to Obama White House cocktail parties, have access to administration insiders, or have anything else to lose. Nor do they feel constrained by any desire to protect the Democratic Party.
I think that as much as the administration wants to avoid defending constitutionality, they really want to avoid the negative publicity that defending this unjust policy could bring. At it must be especially galling that those accusing the President and his administration of being anti-gay are are group of Republicans.
Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues
Timothy Kincaid
January 31st, 2010
Massachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.
On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.
WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.
BROWN: Yes.
WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?
BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.
WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.
BROWN: That’s my view.
WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?
BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.
I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.
Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.
Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.
But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.
On marriage:
WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?
BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
…
And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.
Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.
It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?
And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?
We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.
I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.
DADT repeal process started
Timothy Kincaid
January 28th, 2010
The Hill is reporting:
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen will testify next week on the repeal of a controversial law preventing openly gay people from serving in the military.
“The Joint Chiefs and the Chairman understand perfectly the president’s intent to see this law repealed,” Kirby said. “They take very seriously their obligation to provide him and Secretary Gates the best military advice about both the impact of repeal and its implementation across the force. They look forward to developing their advice and providing their advice in the near future.”
This testimony will reveal the Pentagon’s strategy for lifting the ban on open service. (Fox News)
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen will unveil next week a plan to lift the ban on gays serving openly in the U.S. military, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday.
The military officials will lay out their plan when they testify in front of the Senate Armed Services next Tuesday.
Morrell said the Pentagon is not bringing a legislative proposal to Capitol Hill, but rather an assessment of steps that need to be taken internally to get to the point to change the law.
This testimony may not yield complete agreement. However, the much noted response of the military leaders to Obama’s appeal to lift the ban may not be an indication of disapproval.
When Obama asked Congress to repeal the law in the speech, Gates stood and applauded, while Mullen and the Joint Chiefs remained stoic.
A source close to Mullen said the rest of the chiefs follow Mullen’s lead and will clap only when he does. On Wednesday night, Mullen did not feel it was appropriate to show either support or contempt for such a politically charged issue, the source said.
Next week’s testimony may provide insight to whether the issue will be contentious. The public overwhelmingly supports lifting the ban, but many legislators have used the Military’s opposition as a cover.
While many legislators may oppose lifting the ban out of anti-gay animus, if the Pentagon endorsed the proposal it will make it difficult to find an objection that can be portrayed to the constituents as both principled and supportive of the military.
