going public

Gay Soldiers Need This Immunity Law to Even Tell Congress About DADT Law

danchoitape

It’s sort of hard to hear from gay military servicemembers when, uh, testifying before Congress would be a gross violation of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. So before we can even repeal the discriminatory measure, Congress is trying to pass another law — just to make it okay for these soldiers to tell lawmakers how terrible DADT is. It’s called the Honest and Open Testimony Act, and it was introduced today by Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings with 27 co-sponsors. As the Palm Center notes, “Because the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy requires the discharge of service members who acknowledge that they are gay, lesbian, or bisexual, the bill would serve as the first relaxation of the military ban in sixteen years.”

Heh.

Can you imagine legislators having to pass a law so, say, Wall Street bankers could openly identify as Wall Street bankers to they could testify before Congress and plead for their help?

Immunity!

Get Queerty Daily

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

7 Comments

  • Attmay

    “Can you imagine legislators having to pass a law so, say, Wall Street bankers could openly identify as Wall Street bankers to they could testify before Congress and plead for their help?”

    That’s a weak analogy. For one thing, Wall Street is not a function of the government. It is part of the private sector. The military is a function of the government, authorized by the Constitution.

  • Brian

    What a sick sad country we live in.

  • Mike

    I note the initials of name of the act with irony.

    Honest and Open Testimony.

  • tavdy79

    It’s just occurred to me that DADT might actually be invalid under the First Amendment. It does, after all, require the federal & state governments to protect citizens’ right to free speech, and DADT denies LG servicement and women that right on pain of losing their job.

  • what

    The First Amendment is not absolute. This has been ruled over and over again. I could give a thousand examples from the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to someone working for the CIA speaking about state secrets. On top of this, the military has been excluded from much of the Constitution(al rights) for a very long time.

  • Taylor Siluwé

    Wow. The HOT Act. Interesting.

  • Ben

    @tavdy79: The difference is that when you join the military, you enter into a contractually binding relationship in which you knowingly sacrifice some of your rights for the greater good of the country.

    This is why soldiers can’t sue their commanding officers for knowingly ordering them into positions where they could be injured or killed. If a civilian did that, it would be negligent homicide. In the military, it is just status quo.

Comments are closed.