Defense Sec. Robert Gates is, at this moment, leading a Pentaon briefing where he’s laying out the new rules for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell dismissals. You already know what to expect, and by refusing to launch new investigations into a soldier’s sexuality based on third-party information, the Pentagon will supposedly leave alone 1-in-5 outings. (That means some 80 percent of gay soldiers’ sexuality is made known voluntarily.) What the new rules still don’t allow for: Soldiers to put photos in their bunks of their partners; to use the accurate gender pronouns when referring to their partners; to tell comrades about upcoming wedding anniversaries; to go to gay bars without the fear of being spotted. You know, because that sort of thing is still the fault of gay soldiers.
[flv:http://ht.cdn.turner.com/cnn/big/politics/2010/03/25/bts.gates.dont.ask.dont.tell.cnn_416x234_dl.flv https://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws.com/wp/docs-null/2010/03/gates73723.jpg 650 400]
There was, evidently, some debate about whether a one-star or a two-star officer should be required to initiate a formal investigation. Gates says he was “comfortable” giving the ability to one-stars; the important part was “that we elevated this to people who have a lot of experience and have a lot of maturity.” And anyone testifying about a gay soldier’s sexuality will have to do it under oath, and they’ll look skeptically on anyone reporting a gay with a motivation to harm him.
Here’s Lawrence Korb, of the Center for American Progress, explaining why DADT remains an embarrassing part of American history.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Cam
Enough, end the fucking policy. They still think that the community has no internet acces and that HRC can get us to shut up and be quite if they throw us the tiniest of bones. So now, when they are possibly in danger of losing the whole policy they say that they might actually start enforcing it in the way it was origionally supposed to be enforced? F-That. Repeal. All a third party has to do now even with the change is go to the commander and say “I know they are gay because I saw it on their facebook page, it’s not there now because I said something to them, but it was.” And if the commander is a bigot they will take that as evidence and kick them out.
The Artist
Isn’t the reason people enter the military is to be around people of the same sex, in small proximity, together, all the time, bonding, getting to know each other on deep levels. You know, like playing sports? PEACELUVNBWILD!
Rainfish
What if I were heterosexual in the military and wanted to go a Gay Bar? Would I have to wear a large button that read: “Don’t Worry, I’m Not a Fag!” just in case some MP saw me there?
It used to be said, “The Truth Will Set You Free”.
Now, that takes on a whole new meaning. The “Truth” will set you free from your job, your family, your citizenship, and even, in some cases, your very own life.
When I was a kid growing up in the sixties, I remember the USA created “Radio Free Europe” to get the “truth” out to millions living in silence behind the Iron Curtain under Communism where countless people weren’t allowed have a voice by their repressive government. ….Well, welcome to 21st Century America!
Sadly, the human rights abusing USA is rapidly becoming nothing more than a dangerously festering hemorrhoid in the anus of humanity that desperately needs to be lanced.
America has lost its soul.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
Apparently you haven’t watched the statement yet. Because unless there have been MAJOR clarifications by the Pentagon General Counsel, what we were led to believe would change appears to have been all hype and Gates remains the DADT lover he’s always been.
1. Gates did NOT say “third party outings” are now banned. He simply said that higher levels of officers would now consider such information and outers would need to testify under oath. Such information can STILL be used to discharge people.
SO WHAT? The “grudge” outers are THE MOST LIKELY to be willing to do that. The people who outed both Victor Fehrebach and Margie Witt would no doubt have been willing to do that. In Fehrebach’s case, his outer only apparently lied about Fehrenbach raping him.
It was TRUE that he and Witt ARE gay and gays ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SERVE so they would STILL be discharged!!!!!!!!!!!!
[img]http://www.ohio-share.coxnewsweb.com/multimedia/dynamic/00507/ddn052809pilot05_507083c.jpg[/img]
2. “These changes are meant to provide a greater measure of common sense and common decency”??? TO DADT? That’s like saying a wife beater will only continue to beat his wife using “common sense and common decency.” A nonsensical and indecent policy can only be righted by eliminating it ENTIRELY and IMMEDIATELY.
3. And they want to spend MORE tax dollars for essentially a RETRIAL of the cases of anyone not yet fully discharged who choose to go through that ordeal????? Where’s the “common sense” in that? And Margie Witt wouldn’t benefit anyway as she’s already been discharged.
Gates announced no “new policies’ in relation to the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Witt’s case which he PROMISED the Senate would also be announced in 45 days [nearly A YEAR after they should have been].
4. The branches have 30 days to conform regulations BUT the “changes” will take effect immediately? THEN why not stop discharges immediately upon repeal and then change the regs on paper?
5. Protection from information given to lawyers and security clearance investigators were ALREADY covered. He’s padding.
6. Showing his true colors, Gates didn’t really raise the bar on discharges, but he’s raised the bar AGAIN on “permission” from hoi polloi to repeal. On Feb. 2nd, they suddenly claimed that, in addition to straight servicemembers, they had to consult their “families” about the alleged “impact” of repeal. NOW he’s added “influencers,” too. WHAT the hell does that mean? Who’s next? Their high school football coach? Their Boy Scout leader? The girl they took to the prom?
Our latest phony Friend of the Gays ADM. Mullen said they must get “information from those it will affect most.” Attention, Sir! That would be GAY SERVICEMEMBERS!!!!!!!!!!
7. Once again, they warn of “difficult and complex issues” WITHOUT documenting what those are.
“Those who take the point of view that there must be a long period of transition are simply setting up a straw man to hide their real agenda, which is to maintain the current ban. Given these arguments, it is critical that the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not be perceived as a complicated puzzle requiring complex solutions to minor problems. Substantial research finds that transitioning to an inclusive policy would be significantly less difficult than proponents of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell claim.” – The Center for American Progress.
This is nothing but a stunt to further narcotize people into believing they actually want repeal to happen when all they really want is to run out the clock until the chance for repeal is dead!
Cam
Remember, the Pentagon ALREADY STUDIED THIS ISSUE IN 1989!!!!
Here is an NYTimes article from 1989 showing that because the study was favorable to gays serving the Pentagon burried it. So since it’s already been studied, this new “Study” is just a B.S. Stalling mecanism.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/22/us/report-urging-end-of-homosexual-ban-rejected-by-military.html?pagewanted=1
DR
This policy needs to end, but I wouldn’t be so dismissive of the confidentiality provisions.
LBG soldiers can now speak with lawyers, doctors, clergy, psychotherapists, abuse counselors, etc. without fear of being outed and discharged. Imagine if August Provost had access to these services, maybe he wouldn’t be DEAD. Let me repeat, DEAD.
That’s just a glaring example. But for other soldiers, they can speak with professionals about personal issues and actually be open and honest, which is a change; Michael says that communications with lawyers was always protected, but notice he doesn’t mention how communications with the other professionals was not protected. Ever been outed by a doctor? A therapist? Your chaplain? Imagine how a soldier feels being outed by one of those professionals. I can’t imagine how it would feel knowing that you can’t consult a professional in a time of need.
The tightening of the rules of evidence, while a baby step as well, is also big. I can tell you from experience in the legal field that people are not as inclined as you may think to lie under oath. How will those guys who try to out a woman as a lesbian because she wouldn’t sleep with him react now that they can face charges if they have to take an oath and deliberately lie? And since that’s one of the major third-party outing methods, this is good. Especially since she can now seek help for it.
Yes, I agree these are baby steps. But dammit, it’s better than we have, and ranting hysterically isn’t going to help. It sucks that we won’t have any definitive answers until December, but this is a step in the right direction.
Now we just need to keep fighting the good fight, not stomping out feet and throwing temper tantrums.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@ DR:
If you’re suggesting I’m “ranting hysterically,” then fuck you and not in the good way.
If that part of your comment wasn’t directed at me, let’s proceed to others you made.
First, despite all the initial hysterical rantings and your own certainty, there has never been any proof put forth that August Provost was killed for any other reason than that, while on guard duty, he got in the way of a psychopath determined to wreak havoc and arson on their base because he was being discharged after having been found guility of drug use and robbery. After shooting Provost at the entrace to the base, he was caught, with gasoline, on his way to try to set fire to helicopters on their airfield.
Let me repeat: NO EVIDENCE.
Please spare us the inference that I purposely did not mention the ONLY good thing that was announced today: the long overdue inclusion of patient-doctor, chaplain, et al. confidentiality.
“tightening of rules of evidence” is YOUR phraseology not theirs which, as I recall was, “greater scrutiny.” In either case, if a third party provides TRUTHFUL information that you’re gay YOU’RE GOING TO BE KICKED OUT.
So peddle your Kool Aid some place else please.
DR
Michael:
You ignore the impact that confidentiality will have on LGBT servicemembers. I notice that you fail to address that beyond lawyers, who you claim were bound to “not tell”. I notice you don’t answer how important is is that GLB soldiers have equal access to therapists, chaplains, doctors and other service providers who are now bound by the same rules of confidentiality that they are in the civilian world.
We can disagree about why Provost was killed until the cows come home, but there has been mass speculation about his sexual orientation as well as his murderer’s. And the fact is that if he had access to the proper service providers, and he was in fact gay, maybe he wouldn’t be dead right now. You may not like that hypothetical, but that doesn’t make it any less true. Is he an extreme, yes, but sometimes that’s what it takes to show people why we need certain protections.
I stand by my comments on the oath. I can tell you from experience that most people, absent serious mental illness,
will not lie under oath. And when they refuse to take an oath to get their hearsay evidence entered on the record, they’ll have no credibility.
You insist on seeing what happened today as a bad thing while ignoring the good it can do until we get a full repeal. I don’t. I’m not going to spend my day online bitching about how it wasn’t repealed; I’d rather celebrate a small victory and continue fighting for the repeal. Too bad you’d rather throw temper tantrums.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
@ DR:
The invincibility of your ignorance emits the distinct aroma of the Obambot.
1. I acknowledged the good of the change re confidentiality. But, repeat, it is the ONLY demonstrable good.
2. Provost’s sexuality was not “mass speculation” but a demonstrated fact.
3. Please provide us with three documented examples of your alleged “mass speculation about … his murderer’s” sexuality.
4. AGAIN, where is the correlation between Provost having greater access to “service providers” and prevention of his death? “Facts” are demonstrable; so if this is one, as you claim, document it. A bullet proof vest might have helped him, but….
5. “You may not like that hypothetical, but that doesn’t make it any less true.” Uh, “hypotheticals” are by definition neither true nor false.
6. I never said the announcements today were a “bad thing,” only, save for the confidentiality issues [ASSUMING they will be universally enforced while “don’t harass” has not], an exaggerated thing meant NOT to “be more humane” but distract from the fact they are, regardless of anything they SAY, attempting to slow walk the efforts of repeal to death.
Mark Kraft
These sorts of changes in the military — though not enough — simply would not have happened during the Bush administration, even though Gates was in charge then too.
Obviously, the president has either allowed or silently ordered these policy changes to advance, which is good. He has a military panel in place that is reviewing how best to transition to phasing out DADT, whose report will be done by December… also good.
This will set the Democrats up for overturning it with significant support, quite possibly shortly after elections.
Hyhybt
An improvement is an improvement, and I strongly suspect that moving the investigations up to the level of general will cut down even on voluntary/accidental self-outings ending in a dismissal, simply because unless it’s blatant or causing some sort of trouble, they have better things to do.
But I’m an incurable optimist.