that's that

DADT Repeal Lost Its Anti-Discrimination Clause As A ‘Practical Necessity’

So how come Rep. Patrick Murphy’s original Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal bill, which included a non-discrimination policy based on sexuality, was stripped of that little provision? Political favor trading, we knew already, wherein Democratic support was promised in exchange for letting the Pentagon continue to be able to discriminate against gays at their choosing (but not initiate a discharge proceeding under DADT). Speaking yesterday on an eQualityThinking conference call, Murphy insisted that we’re still better off: “[E]veryone played a vital role in passing this major piece of civil rights legislation all being it’s not perfect. The 1964 civil rights legislation was not perfect, but it was a huge step on the way forward. We need to make sure that we continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they don’t try to revoke this over in the Congress.” Murphy is the same guy who previously said he believed after DADT was repealed, the Pentagon would, at President Obama’s urging, implement a non-discrimination policy on its own. Haha. Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN’s chief, agreed with Murphy’s rational, relays Wonk Room: “[A] decision was made by the leaders of the legislation on the Hill that those provisions would have to be dropped in order to insure more votes, not only in the House Armed Services Committee, but also on the House floor. So, it was a matter of practical necessity and politics.” So there you have it: Gays can still be discriminated against in the armed forces out of practical necessity and politics. Have fun with that!

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #aubreysarvis #don'taskdon'ttell(dadt) #house stories and more


  • Gigi

    So how is it a repeal of DADT when they’re still allowed to discriminate? They can discriminate but not FIRE? Please someone, explain. (I haven’t had coffee yet…)

  • Tollendyr

    Explanation: Obama is a Bigot AND an Idiot.

  • Cam

    PAtrick Murphy, a hetrosexual Iraq war vet that made it his mission during his first term in Congress to get DADT repealed.

    Log Cabin republicans endorsed HIS OPPONENT and were celebrating his defeat in the last election.


    1. They filed suit to get rid of DADT
    2. They worked to OUST the congressman pushing for it’s repeal.

    Any of you Log cabin or GOProud folks want to come in here and try to claim that you AREN’T just shills for the party and that gay rights and issues are far far far down on your list of things you care about?

  • justiceontherocks

    Is DADT repealed or not? They can’t fire you because you’re gay but they can make you so miserable you want to leave. That’s not change I can believe in.

  • pepa

    @Cam: How can you claim that the gay republicans are the only shills when in fact it was your party that decided to not have a non-discrimination policy for the military?

    Explain that one.

  • Cam

    @pepa: said..

    How can you claim that the gay republicans are the only shills when in fact it was your party that decided to not have a non-discrimination policy for the military?”

    I’m not sure I get your point. You are trying to say that the democrats trying to put in a policy of non-discrimination for the military is somehow shilling for a party?

  • DR


    First of all, when Patrick Murphy won, it was by a *very* slim margin. When he lost the following election cycle, it was also by a *very* slim margin (I believe less than 10,000 votes). Anyone who knows PA voting is not surprised at this. His survival in Congress was always in doubt.

    Secondly, by the time he lost the election, DADT was already declared toothless by many who were aware that the non-discrimination provisions were removed (this was all in the news by election time). Let’s not blame LCR or GOProud for the fact that the Democratic party political wranglers dropped the ball and took out the non-discrimination provisions in the first place. The Democrats wussied out of a strong repeal, and gave us a toothless “amendment” instead of a full, strongly worded repeal.

    Stop revising history.

  • reason

    Non-discrimination policy doesn’t need to be handled through the congress, it can be set at the executive or military levels. They are making changes to the military code which governs behavior, so it would be wise to see how things pan out before jumping to conclusions. For some on here it is just another cover to display their own hatred, making them no different than frc.

  • reason

    Also seeing how there was just a story on here a few days ago about an officer facing military justice for harassing a soldier with homophobic terms and retaliating against him, I doubt that any sort of discrimination is going to be tolerated after the certification process takes place.

  • the crustybastard

    @DR: Truedat.

    I’d also add the following: DADT was the brainchild of, and enacted by majority Democrats (-1); DADT “repealed” by majority Democrats (+1); Net progress: (0)

    While Democrats continue slapping themselves on the back for their super-duper awesome job of ensuring that at some unspecified date in the future, it’s likely that uniformed gays will be subjected to somewhat less extreme forms of discrimination, let’s not forget that meanwhile much of the civilized world has attained or is pursuing full legal equality.

    “B-b-but Palin!” is neither justification of, nor rebuttal to, those facts.

  • Scott

    Does this mean all of the LGBT’s will be the first ones sent to the front line to lead the charge? They’ll all be put in separate regiments? They won’t be promoted? Lesser pay? Can’t get family housing?

  • the crustybastard

    @Scott: It means that neither the servicemembers, nor their families, will receive equal benefits.

    Put another way, gay servicemembers will continue to perform the same work as straight servicemembers, but for lower pay — as a “practical necessity.”

    That’s the Democratic Party’s idea of “equality.” Hurrah.

  • B

    No. 1 · Gigi wrote, “So how is it a repeal of DADT when they’re still allowed to discriminate? They can discriminate but not FIRE? Please someone, explain.”

    The explanation is in a wisecrack often attributed to Otto von
    Bismarck, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”

    My explanation (using California rules): if someone owes you $10,000 and you get talk that person into voluntarily giving you $3000, take the $3000 because you are then in a position to recover the rest in small claims court, making the process relatively cheap and painless.

  • justiceontherocks

    @B: We need a “translate into English” button for that one.

  • Devon

    I can’t wait to hear the fun excuses people come up with to explain why the commander in chief of the United States military can’t add gays to the United States military’s non-discrimination policy.

  • Nick Farben

    I was in the army for 5 years and I’ll say that it really depends what they mean by ‘discriminate’. In the military, very few are protected from all forms of profiling entirely.

    Policy can still discriminate against women, for instance, in pilot training selection for instance. Men are favoured due to height constraints and funding reasons (women’s contracts have clauses for them to leave the service temporarily if they have children etc, a clause that women themselves fight for, but also means that the air-force takes that into consideration before spending the tens of millions or so to train that pilot).

    In the Australian army, gay men are less likely to be selected for recon and field roles, but more likely to be selected for base operations and logistics. I’m sure there’s some profile study as to why they do this, but I’m not privvy to it.

    Other notable profiling includes the preference of ‘white horses’ (children of high ranking officers or government staff) in lower risk roles (cos it causes a media storm if they get killed), preference for female administrative and intelligence officers, preference for male tank operators (cos they are often designed for male height and physique), preference for male commandos (I’ve been told that the standing peeing thing is the reason, go figure)…

    During my BMT training, they put all the women (only 5 of them) in an air conditioned bunk (meant for high ranking officers) because only that building had female toilet facilities. The two openly gay guys in my company were put in seperate bunk groups, which also means different bath and duty schedules. The idea was to discourage us from fucking by reducing out contact, as if all gay guys would immediately have sex… which we did anyway, but besides the point, he was hot and we were in uniform alot, just saying.

    Of course, having no clear cut discrimination policy may signal to some douchebags that they have the right to be verbally homophobic, etc. So hopefully they outline a homophobia policy thats seperate from just profiling in policy.

  • B

    No. 14 · justiceontherocks wrote, “@B: We need a “translate into English” button for that one.”

    Think about it for a couple of hours and it hshould start to sink in.

  • the crustybastard

    @Nick Farben: When you read back over your examples, you’ll find they contain a justifiable “because.” For example, “they put all the women in an air conditioned bunk because only that building had female toilets.”

    Where there is a legitimate reason for disparate treatment, that’s NOT illegal discrimination. However, to exclude all women from BMT training because the CO is flatly unwilling to make any toilet accommodations, or because he believes women are “prone to hysteria” would indeed be unlawful discrimination.

    Married soldiers getting a special housing allowance would not necessarily be unlawful discrimination against unmarried soldiers. However, excluding only married GAY spouses from the housing allowance should be unlawful under the same rationale that excluding only married BLACK spouses would be — because it’s discrimination for no functional reason except to discriminate and cause harm. That should be constitutionally impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

    Sad fact is, President Obama won’t have any problem with that kind of discrimination. He endorses that shit, defends it in court, and hasn’t expressed any real interest in repealing the federal law (DOMA) that purports to exclude gay citizens from various Constitutional rights.

  • jason

    President Obama will rightly be blamed for this if there is substance to it. Senator Patrick Murphy is a sleaze who may have misled us, just like your typical Democrat.

  • D Smith

    The military has its own regulations on harassment, discrimination and prejudicial treatment of others… and if i remember my AR’s right it covers basically anything you can think of to begin with… so DADT repeal losing the non-discrimination portion, is something of a non-issue to be honest.

  • justiceontherocks

    @B: Sober up before you post again.


    @#13-B – I thought your Cali reference was a great explanation for your point, but not necessarily correct. Many times when what is considered to be a “great leap forward” is made, the focus falls and those left whining and bitching for scraps are seen as people who just can’t be satisfied.
    As has been said on here several times, it’s finding where that line’s going to exist. I make ~$400 less a month than my married active duty counterparts JUST because they’re married. Not because they’re smarter, work harder, or put in more hours. In fact the opposite is usually the truth. I was the Leading Petty Officer of a Reactor Control division on a submarine out of Norfolk VA. Two of the six guys who reported to me were married. They constantly were needing time off of work to deal with their spouses various issues, and were constantly distracted while at work by their nearly constant marital issues. The straw that broke in this case however is when they’re away from their spouses for more than 30 days, they would also receive a “Family Separation Pay” bonus of another $250/month.
    So in the end, I do more work for less pay.

  • Glenn Beck

    So are all the gay drones who blindly support the Democrats and Obama will just start losing their minds again and blame Bush and Republicans and GOProud for this?

    The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans don’t hide behind PC language, are open and blunt about what they support and what they will do. The Democrats are like alchemists who promise you gazillion things just to make you vote for them all the time and then still fck you in the end while deflecting all responsibility to others.

    Wen election time will come, Obama will march in some gay pride parade with his own drag outfit and a rainbow dress to impress all the queens who will be so happy that the first president is marching at their parade and “supports” their rights. Everyone will quickly forgive this teleprompter reading charlatan and vote for him again. Lady Gaga will not be impressed by these news.

  • the crustybastard

    @Glenn Beck:

    Um, no.

    The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are fine with slow-walking us to some “separate-but-equal” horseshit, while Republicans can only manage to run around in circles hyperventilating, “Lordy! The homma-sexshuls are gonna rape us in the bathrooms! Won’t somebody think of the children!”

    So it’s not that gays support Democrats because they’re good on our issues — they get our support by default because you Republicans are alarmingly retarded.

Comments are closed.