Box Turtle Bulletin

Pentegon asks military personnel for their opinion on DADT

As part of the Military’s “review” of the anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, military officers have encouraged soldiers to share their concerns in group settings. But few concerns about gay soldiers have seemed to be paramount on the minds of the troops. So the Pentagon is sending email invitations for service members to privately provide their opinions. (CNN)

The survey, which servicemembers can expect to receive via e-mail, asks about such issues as how unit morale or readiness might be affected if a commander is believed to be gay or lesbian; the need to maintain personal standards of conduct; and how repeal might affect willingness to serve in the military.

The survey also asks a number of questions aimed at identifying problems that could occur when troops live and work in close quarters overseas in war zones. For example, the questionnaire asks military members how they would react if they had to share a room, bathrooms, and open-bay showers in a war zone with other service members believed to be gay or lesbian.

Should you be Forced! to Shower! with Homosexuals!!??!!

Gee, I can hardly wait for the response.

The threat to DADT repeal may come from Obama rather than McCain

Two news reports offer an odd turn of events.

From the anti-gay uber-conservative Washington Times

No filibuster on gays

There will be no filibuster of the pending defense budget bill that contains a repeal of the military’s gay ban — at least not from Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is leading the fight to preserve the ban.

Contrary to a smattering of press reports, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee is not trying to find the votes to block the bill, which may reach the floor next week. A filibuster takes 60 votes to override.

“Sen. McCain is not filibustering the bill,” his spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan told special correspondent Rowan Scarborough.

However that does not mean that the repeal will go through. From the AP

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says President Barack Obama could end up vetoing legislation that would lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
…
But Gates tells “Fox News Sunday” that Obama probably still would veto an upcoming spending bill that includes the repeal — if the bill also contains money for defense projects he says are wasteful.

If the bill is vetoed, the legislature will either override the veto or begin the process of revising the bill. It seems unlikely that there are adequate votes or political will to override the President. So political horse trading will resume.

Some legislators want to keep the spending in the bill so as to protect interests in their community. And DADT may become a bargaining chip because, let’s face it, very few legislators give our interests much priority.

Mayor Krieger, meet Maj. Rogers, a fallen hero who happened to be gay

The following is a reprint of an opinion editorial in the June 19, 2010 edition of the Arizona Daily Star. It reflects the views of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jason Cianciotto and Major Alan G. Rogers at Jason's wedding on June 28, 2006

Maj. Alan Greg Rogers was killed by an improvised explosive device during his second tour of duty in Iraq on Jan. 27, 2008. I wish Yuma Mayor Al Krieger could have met Alan – his life and ultimate sacrifice exemplifies why Krieger owes gay and lesbian servicemembers far more than a faux apology for his recent statement about “limp-wristed” soldiers.

Over a decade earlier, Alan and I became friends while he was stationed at Fort Huachuca. His life was as complex as it was inspiring – he was adopted at 5 years old, an intelligence officer in the Army, an ordained Baptist minister, African American, and he also happened to be gay.

Alan loved serving his country, loved his Christian faith and was proudly gay. He not only refused to forsake any part of himself because of anti-gay discrimination, he gave his life for his country despite that discrimination.

After his burial in Arlington National Cemetery, The Washington Post published a story about Alan’s life, lauding him as a hero, the recipient of two Bronze Stars and a Purple Heart. However, many of us who knew Alan were struck by what wasn’t part of the story: the fact that he was openly gay and worked to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Criticized for excluding such a significant part of Alan’s life, the Post admitted that “there was enough evidence – particularly of Rogers’s feelings about ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – to warrant. . . . adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it.”

In August 2008, that complete story was told by New Yorker magazine, in “A Soldier’s Legacy: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but Alan Rogers was a hero to everyone who knew him.” In the article, Alan’s friend Shay Hill shared that Alan believed “you don’t change the system by alienating those who are against you. You change the system by trying to convince those who are against you.”

Alan would have appreciated the opportunity to meet Krieger because he believed in creating change as an insider.

For example, as one of only 25 officers sent to Georgetown University in 2004 to earn a master’s degree in public policy, Alan analyzed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for his thesis. He concluded that repeal “would yield higher readiness rates, save potential millions of dollars in investigations and discharge processing of gays and improve our overall national security posture.”

It was risky for Alan to write about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” while still enlisted, but he wanted to be a living example of why the military has more to gain than lose by welcoming gay soldiers.

He protected his 20 years of service by making personal sacrifices, including the ability to settle down with a partner while he was still enlisted. This was one of Alan’s goals when he retired, which he planned to do after returning from Iraq. He never had the chance.

In a letter Alan wrote to accompany his will, he concluded, “I know that I am going up yonder to be with my Lord. Please tell those who remain not to grieve too much but to have a big party and celebrate. . . . My only regret is that I have never found that special one to grow old with and watch the sunset with.”

It’s time to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – for Alan and for the estimated 65,000 gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives for their country. If Krieger took the time to get to know even just a few of these heroes, I know he would agree.

For more information about Alan’s life, media coverage after his death, and a link to a PDF of his master’s thesis about “Don’t Ask, Don’t, Tell,” check out his biography page on Wikipedia.

Southern Baptists support discrimination in the military

In a move which shocked absolutely no one, the Southern Baptist Church took yet another vote to make sure that everyone is absolutely clear that they don’t like gay people. They don’t like them in the church, they don’t like them getting married, and they don’t like them serving in the military.

In a long-winded declaration which decried “Normalizing the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces” repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum, the Southern Baptist Church declared:

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 15-16, 2010, affirm the Bible’s declaration that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered and sinful, and we also affirm the Bible’s promise of forgiveness, change, and eternal life to all sinners (including those engaged in homosexual sin) who repent of sin and trust in the saving power of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we oppose changing current law to normalize the open presence of homosexuals in the armed forces, and insist on keeping the finding of Congress that sustains current law, which states that even “the presence in the armed forces” of persons demonstrating “a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” creates “an unacceptable risk to . . . the essence of military capability”;

Praise Jesus, feel the love. We can be “forgiven”, but not “normalized”. And all that normalization would “destroy the finest fighting force the world has ever known.”

Of course this is all out of love. And the Southern Baptists, they don’t hate us, nosiree.

Well I have a question for Dr. Land and his merry band of Baptists: if you love us so much, if your policy positions are not based on hate, then why is it that there is not one single, solitary, stand alone, sitting out there, mild little instance – not one – in which you haven’t taken the position which is most harmful to the lives, liberties, freedoms, and happiness of gay people?

Ever?

Rep. Skelton: Just Talking About DADT is a Danger to Children

One Senator Congressman in Missouri thinks the entire debate on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ought to come with a parental advisory sticker:

Rep. Ike Skelton, a conservative Missouri Democrat, said he thinks the debate in Congress over the proposed repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law might force families to explain homosexuality to their children.

“What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Skelton asked reporters during a media breakfast.

Skelton said that even though no one in his district has raised the topic with him, he says he still doesn’t think the mere discussion of DADT is family-friendly enough. “My biggest concern are the families,” he said.

Skelton is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. The full House has already passed the Defense Authorization Bill which includes a clause paving the way for repealing DADT.

Scott Lively Warns of Nazi-Like Takeover If DADT Is Repealed

Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively has a new post up at his web site, in which he promises to personally go all-out to oppose the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by distributing copies of his book, The Pink Swastika to every member of the Senate — assuming he can get the donations he needs. Yes, there’s a fundraising angle, but that shouldn’t distract anyone from understanding that Lively is a true believer in his Holocaust revisionism whether it pays him a red cent or not.

In the Pink Swastika, Lively posits that the German Nazi movement was, at it’s very core, a homosexual movement, and that militant and violent fascism is the core feature and goal of the LGBT equality movement. He uses that same twisted view of history to argue against DADT’s repeal.

Lively certainly can’t be faulted for having an overly-active imagination. Consider his prediction of what will happen if DADT is repealed. First, if gays are allowed in the military, then straight people will refuse to serve. Those straights who remain will turn to violence in response to the unrelenting sexual harassment. That violence will lead to “politically correct” sensitivity training, which will prompt a further exodus. This then leads to a draft, which would be supported by the “anti-war Lefties.” But that sensitivity training? It won’t work, so they will have to segregate the services into gay and straight units. And that’s when the homosexuals take over all the branches of the military — just like, he says, what happened in Nazi Germany.

Whether or not a segregated service was initiated, a homosexual subculture of servicemen would form, characterized by intense internal loyalty and political ambition. Eventually, this “army within an army,” buoyed by pro-homosexual “affirmative action,” and the ability to act covertly (due to the fact that some would remain “closeted”) would come to dominate the services. What would they do with such power? The historical precedents are uniformly bad.

And just when the gay-Brownshirts have their own private army, that’s when the gay-hating Muslims gang up and attack. The end.

You know, I hope Lively does succeed in getting his message to every U.S. Senator. If he didn’t exist, we’d have to invent him.

But in all seriousness, the truly disturbing part of this whole thing is this: Lively’s lunacy is easy to laugh at when he lets his paranoia run wild here in the U.S. But when he exports it to Russia, Eastern Europe or Uganda, it causes real and lasting damage. He’s a buffoon, but that doesn’t mean he’s not mortally dangerous.

You’ll Never Guess Why Hawaii’s New GOP Rep. Supports DADT Repeal

Hawaii’s new Republican congressional representative Charles Djou was among the five House Republicans who voted to add the amendment paving the way for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s” repeal to the Defense Authorization Bill last week. Djou, who is also a captain in the Army Reserves, earned the Log Cabin Republicans’ endorsement partly because of his support for DADT’s repeal.

While we welcome Djou’s support for DADT repeal, his reason for supporting the repeal is more than puzzling:

Q: So why did you go against your party’s leadership on the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” question?

Djou: You know, on that particular issue, it comes from personal experience. I have served for nearly 10 years now as an officer in the United States Army Reserve. What concerned me about the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is that it just simply doesn’t work. And I saw too many instances as an army reservist, soldiers would sign up for a re-enlistment bonus, get this gigantic sum from the American taxpayer, and then as soon as the unit gets called up to mobilize to Iraq or Afghanistan, they suddenly claim they are gay with no prior indication at all of that whatsoever. Get the discharge and keep the bonus. That’s wrong, that’s unfair and that’s why this policy should be changed, and I was very happy to cast that vote as I did last night.

Djou claims to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I wonder what kind of backhanded justification he has for that.

Two Psychiatrists Advocate For Gays In the Military — In 1945

In any society where males are herded together in closely-knit, interdependent groups, the problem of homosexuality invariably manifests itself. Such has been the case in the military service, to the extent that a greater of homosexuals have come under the scrutiny of psychiatrists than ordinarily are observed in civilian life. We have had the opportunity to study a large group of homosexuals, and our experiences have led us to believe that the subject of homosexuality is not as nebulous as one might gather from the literature. It became increasingly apparent to us that it has been unnecessarily distorted and confused by a conglomeration of viewpoints, and that clarification of the homosexual personality has been long in order.

That was the opening paragraph to a study published in the March 1945 edition of the American Journal of Psychiatry. Titled “The Homosexual as a Personality Type,” the article was written by Lt. Herbert Greenspan and Commander John D. Campbell of the U.S. Navy Reserves, two psychiatrists tasked with providing psychiatric counseling and evaluations for Navy personnel who had fallen under the suspicion of being “unfit for military service.” Many of those referred to the authors were suffering from a variety of legitimate mental and emotional disorders, but some were referred because they were suspected of being gay.

The psychiatric profession in 1945 had no official position on whether homosexuality was a mental disorder.  The first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,which would define what was and was not a mental illness, wouldn’t come out until 1952. When it did, homosexuality made the list and stayed there for another twenty years.

But back in 1945 the debate was still underway. But unlike later debates, that one wasn’t between whether gays were normal or ill. The choice then was between being mentally ill or a criminal delinquent (or both; diminished capacity didn’t always garner much sympathy for gay people in some quarters). While the two opposing camps were arguing it out in the professional literature, those arguing for the mental illness model were clearly gaining ground. And they were easy to identify; they tended to describe gay people using the relatively new word “homosexual,” or perhaps, occasionally, the not yet anacronistic “invert.” 

But you were also just as likely to enounter journals describing gay people as delinquents, sexual deviants and perverts. Seeing these terms today is jarring, especially when you read them being used with the same professional detachment that was used in describing someone as an asthmatic, autistic, hysteric or schizophrenic — four more conditions which, like homosexuality, were often blamed on poor parenting or bad character. In that light, the emerging opinion that homosexuality was a neurosis was actually the more enlightened opinion.

And this is what makes Greenspan and Campbell’s 1945 article particularly interesting. They went beyond the “enlightened” position and argued that homosexuals were actually quite normal. They called homosexuality “a congenital anomaly rather than a disease,” although they based that opinion on some decidedly unscientific observations:

Additional substantiation for the biological theory of homosexuality is found in the predominance of female characteristics in these individuals. Much has been said both pro and con as to the significance of these and disagreement is still pronounced. However, it has been our experience that the majority of inverts display evidences of physical as well as psychic traits of effeminacy — an effeminate manner, appearance, temperament and interests. Delicacy of speech and movement, high-pitched voices, esthetic interests, feminine body configuration and “white-collar” occupations were particularly noticeable.

Greenspan and Campbell’s reasons for supporting a biological basis isn’t compelling by today’s standards.  But their methods, such as they were, were standard practices at the time. Casual observances were routinely the basis for a whole range of supposedly scientific theories throughout the “soft” sciences. Just a few years later, Alfred Kinsey’s would try to fix that by introducing a measure of mathematical precision to the study of human sexuality. But even that pioneering effort was abysmally primitive and seriously flawed by today’s standards. Yet, for another thirty years, as unreliable as those statistics were, they were the best we had. Given that context, Greenspan and Campbell can be forgiven of their lack of scientific rigor. It’s just the way things were back then.

But what they lacked in statistical sophistication, they made up for with some pretty compelling logic. Blaming “bad environment” for criminal behavior was an emerging theme in psychiatry, and it was in this sense that Greenspan and Campbell chose to address the environmental issues which supposedly would have driven these men to “social delinquency”:

Further contradiction of the environment theory can be found in the obvious fact that there is a much stronger environmental force acting on the individual to become heterosexual, than homosexual. Most of our patients originated from small communities where there was every influence and reason to conform with accepted sexual practices. Yet, the direction of their original sex impulse persisted in spite of an environment which not only fostered, but made it mandatory that they comply with heterosexual demands. By the same token as acquired homosexuality, why did not heterosexuality become acquired? It would appear that there is a force at work in the homosexual, physiological in nature, which is more powerful than the family customs, laws and social expectations of his environment. Apparently, these so-called contrary sexuals cannot acquire heterosexuality, even under favorable circumstances, as some would have us believe that homosexuality can be acquired under conditions far less conducive.

This passage shows that Greenspan and Campbell were keenly aware of the intense pressures their gay subjects struggled with. But despite those pressures, their charges were still unable to conform to the dictates of the day. Clearly they were not mere criminals.

But were they mentally ill? Greenspan and Campbell looked again at their charges and said no. The men they saw were fully functioning, competent, conscientious, empathetic, nondelusional, nonpsychotic — in short, they suffered none of the conditions that people with mental illnesses experienced. Further, the authors were impressed by their gay charges’ adaptability to their hostile environments, and they admired their clients’ many talents — the very same Nöel Coward-like characteristics which likely brought them to their superiors’ attention in the first place:

The homosexual personality is usually intelligent, and frequently above the average. His mental processes do not differ in many respects from those of the normal individual… Evidences of his homosexual constitution are found in his hobbies, artistic interests, pseudosophistry, feeling of intellectual superiority and pursuit of a career. Esthetic interests in art, music, literature, the theater, etc., are particularly common. Dealing in the abstract entices the homosexual mentality, probably more on an emotional than an intellectual basis, and represents a sublimation of his homosexual tendencies. Many dabble in poetry, art, sculpture and drama; a delicate appreciation of colors, fabrics and the arts usually resolves in such occupations as beautician, music teacher, actor, bookkeeper, etc. In the military service we find homosexuals in the capacities of hospital corpsmen, yeomen and chaplain’s assistants. In our experience it was unusual for a homosexual not to like music in one form or another.

Consequently, Greenspan and Campbell found huge differences between these well-functioning gay men and those who suffered from genuine mental illnesses:

The psychopath is erratic, impulsive, restless, unreliable and devoid of conscience. He suffers with a poverty of emotion which makes it impossible for him to experience any qualms about his misdeeds or others’ misfortunes. The homosexual is the exact antithesis of all this, for we find him conscientious, reliable, well-integrated and abounding in emotional feeling and sincerity. The homosexuals observed in the service have been key men in responsible positions whose loss was acutely felt in their respective departments.

…Both the psychiatric and social status of the invert is becoming increasingly more clear with the advancement of clinical psychiatry, and it is encouraging to note that society is being weaned away from the fallacy that homosexualism is a crime. We are gradually coming to the realization that the homosexual suffers from a regrettable sexual anomaly, but otherwise is a normal, productive individual, who is neither a burden nor a detriment to society.

Sixty-five years later, LGBT servicemembers are still being kicked out of the military, and their losses are still being acutely felt. Some things haven’t changed. Not yet, anyway.

But it soon will, because sixty-five years later, we did pass another milestone that Greenspan and Campbell predicted. It was just this year, for the first time in history, that a clear majority of Americans finally determined that LGBT people are normal, productive people who are neither a burden nor a detriment to society.

Progress has been frustratingly slow, hasn’t it? Greenspan and Campbell were a whole lifetime ahead of everyone else. It’s nice to see the rest of the world finally start to catch up.

House passes Defense Authorization Bill

The House of Representatives has passed the Defense Authorization Bill including the compromise (delayed) repeal of the anti-gay Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell provisions. If the Senate companion bill passes, they will be reconciled and then go to the President who, it seems, may veto it and throw everything back into question.

Stories From the Frontlines: A Love Letter to a G.I.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) kicked off its “Stories From the Frontline” series as part of a campaign specifically targeted toward adding the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Authorization Bill, which the SLDN saw as the best opportunity to repeal the ban on gays in the military. With yesterday’s votes in the Senate Armed Services Committee and in the full House of Representatives, that strategy has come to fruition.

And so it is fitting that on the day before Memorial Day weekend, the SLDN’s final letter is in the form of a love letter written during World War II, on the occasion of their anniversary. The letter was originally published in the September 1961 issue of ONE Magazine. (You can read about ONE Magazine and the amazing contribution it made to furthering freedom of speech for LGBT people here.)

The letter, as published in the September 1961 issue of ONE Magazine. (Click to enlarge)

Dear Dave,

This is in memory of an anniversary – the anniversary of October 27th, 1943, when I first heard you singing in North Africa. That song brings memories of the happiest times I’ve ever known. Memories of a GI show troop – curtains made from barrage balloons – spotlights made from cocoa cans – rehearsals that ran late into the evenings – and a handsome boy with a wonderful tenor voice. Opening night at a theatre in Canastel – perhaps a bit too much muscatel, and someone who understood. Exciting days playing in the beautiful and stately Municipal Opera House in Oran – a misunderstanding – an understanding in the wings just before opening chorus.

Drinks at “Coq d’or” – dinner at the “Auberge” – a ring and promise given. The show 1st Armoured – muscatel, scotch, wine – someone who had to be carried from the truck and put to bed in his tent. A night of pouring rain and two very soaked GIs beneath a solitary tree on an African plain. A borrowed French convertible – a warm sulphur spring, the cool Mediterranean, and a picnic of “rations” and hot cokes. Two lieutenants who were smart enough to know the score, but not smart enough to realize that we wanted to be alone. A screwball piano player – competition – miserable days and lonely nights. The cold, windy night we crawled through the window of a GI theatre and fell asleep on a cot backstage, locked in each other’s arms – the shock when we awoke and realized that miraculously we hadn’t been discovered. A fast drive to a cliff above the sea – pictures taken, and a stop amid the purple grapes and cool leaves of a vineyard.

The happiness when told we were going home – and the misery when we learned that we would not be going together. Fond goodbyes on a secluded beach beneath the star-studded velvet of an African night, and the tears that would not be stopped as I stood atop the sea-wall and watched your convoy disappear over the horizon.

We vowed we’d be together again “back home,” but fate knew better – you never got there. And so, Dave, I hope that where ever you are these memories are as precious to you as they are to me.

Goodnight, sleep well my love.

Brian Keith

(Reprinted with permission of ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives, www.onearchives.org, ONE Magazine, September 1961)

House Approves DADT Repeal

Following an earlier vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the House’s version of the Defense Authorization Bill that paves the way toward the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The vote was 234-194. Five Republicans broke ranks to vote for the measure. They were Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Charles Djou (HI), Judy Biggert (IL), Joseph Cao (LA), and Ron Paul (TX).

Update: Twenty-six Democrats voted against the amendment. They were Bobby Bright (AL), Marion Berry (AR), Mike Ross (AR), Sanford Bishop (GA), Daniel Lipinski (IL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Travis Childers (MS), Gene Taylor (MS), Ike Skelton (MO), Bob Etheridge (NC), Mike McIntyre (NC), Heath Shuler (NC), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Mark Critz (PA), John M. Spratt, Jr. (SC), Lincoln Davis (TN), John Tanner (TN), Chet Edwards (TX), Gene Green (TX), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Rick Boucher (VA), Nick Rahall (WV).

A contrast in debate

I just watched the floor debate in the House of Representatives over the compromise amendment to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and it could not have been a greater contrast.

Those who seek to keep discrimination in place were angry, blustering, and while they pretended to be supporting the servicemembers, it was clear that their objection was to ending the ban. And it was clear that they wanted to rant, repeatedly requesting more time to express their anger.

On the side in favor of the amendment were military veterans and civil rights leaders speaking about tolerance and the intergrity of the Military and the nation. They provided succint, personal, and heartfelt endorsements.

The House voted to pass the amendment on a mostly party-line vote: 230 – 194.

Only five Republicans voted for the compromise amendment. Twenty-six Democrats voted in opposition. Ten members did not vote (6 Democrats and 4 Republicans).

No doubt some will claim that they voted “no” not out of support for discrimination but because they don’t like the timing, passing the bill before the report is in. Frankly, I think that is weasel-talk.

It is unlikely that Republicans will fillibuster the Defence Authorization Bill, regardless of Sen. McCain’s blustering, and if they do, it is likely that there are sufficient votes to end debate.

This is very tenuous legislation with many caveats, milestones and other things that can go wrong. However, I think that it is not overstating to say that today was the death of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as the policy for our Military.

Senate Armed Service Committee passes compromise DADT language

From the NY Times

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted in a closed session, after about an hour of heated debate.

The tally was 16 to 12. Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she was the only Republican to vote in favor of a repeal. She called the debate “vigorous.”

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the committee, said he believed the full Senate would support the repeal.

Senate Armed Services Committee Approves DADT Repeal

Moments ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that paves the way toward repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The vote in favor of the amendment was 16-12. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has already said he will try to mount a filibuster on the defense funding bill once it reaches the floor of the Senate.

Click here to see how the Senators voted.

Byrd endorsed DADT compromise with additional sixty day implementation delay

Senator Byrd has released the following statement:

U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement announcing that he will vote for a compromise amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Byrd worked successfully with interested parties to include some additional language that would give Congress an additional 60 days to thoroughly review the implementation policy once certified:

“I did not want to blindly assent to repealing this law without giving the Congress an opportunity to re-examine the concerns of our Armed Forces and the manner in which they are being addressed.”

“Therefore, I worked with the Senate and House Leadership, Senators Lieberman and Levin, Congressman Murphy, the Administration and the Department of Defense to include a provision in the proposed compromise amendment that would delay the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for 60 days after receipt of the findings of the Pentagon Review and the determination of the proposed policy and regulation changes.”

“This period of time will allow the Congress, along with the American people, to thoroughly review the proposed policy recommendations to ensure that these changes are consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention for our Armed Forces.”

“With these changes, I will support the amendment expected to be offered by Senator Lieberman to the Department of Defense Authorization bill.

With Byrd’s promised vote, the bill now has more than the required votes for attachment to the Defense Authorization Bill and for passage out of committee.

It now appears that the timeline will be repeal of DADT language this week, completion of study by December 1, then some undefined period for drafting of policies to be followed by sixty days for Congressional review. I don’t know if there is a provision by which Congress would have to vote again, but this delays implementation until after the swearing in of the next Congress.