don't tell hell

SHOCK: Defense Sec. Gates to Congress: Do Not, Under Any Circumstances, Repeal DADT

In the clearest signal yet that the Obama administration and the Pentagon do not want to see a DADT repeal before November’s mid-term elections (oh, sorry, before the Defense Department wraps up its “investigation”), Sec. Robert Gates sent a letter to the House Armed Services Committee warning them a repeal “would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter.”

Initial thoughts:

• And SLDN’s Aubrey Sarvis thought he had a back up plan.

• What’s Nancy gonna do?

• So much for that letter campaign.

• Sunday’s GetEQUAL rally in D.C. is gonna have a whole lot more ammunition.


The White House, via an anonymous spokesman, says, “The President’s commitment to repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is unequivocal. This is not a question of if, but how. That’s why we’ve said that the implementation of any congressional repeal will be delayed until the DOD study of how best to implement that repeal is completed. The President is committed to getting this done both soon and right.” Read: The president will direct Congress on how to act on a repeal, but only after his stalling tactic is completed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, meanwhile, insists Obama must call for an end to investigations while his minions wrap up their little research project. In a statement: “We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

Get Queerty Daily

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


  • Andrew

    Many here will be happy to know I’ve changed my POV.

    Fuck you America. I’m moving to Canada ASAP.

  • Jayson

    I am not that surprised by this. I mean do we really expect them to care? To change this stupid law? To treat gay people with dignity and respect? I have long ago given up on ” the land of the free ” , America is a joke.

  • Cam

    How nice of them to be so concerned with the views, concerns and perspectives, of the men and women in uniform.

    I’m just curious, what if the views and perspectives of these people were that the races should be separated and women shouldn’t be allowed in the service anymore?

    I didn’t see them acting so concerned when the students at “The Citidel” did not want to admit women.

  • Sam

    How about the gay men and women in uniform? And their partners? Are their perspectives not important, considering that they’re, you know, THE ONLY ONES IMPACTED BY DADT?


    colin powell supports the lift, clinton regrets signing it into law- obama will look like a fool. push the fucker out the way and knock his and obama’s dick in the dirt! you can only wait so long.

  • fredo777

    funny, i had just spotted this on HuffPo + was about to link queerty to it.

  • george

    This isn’t really news. Gates said as much in his testimony before Congress months ago. What’s changed?

  • AxelDC

    Exactly what kind of message would it send to our troops?

    That they are fighting for a nation that respects all its citizens!

  • Michael @


    What’s changed is that many more gays are finally waking up in the poppy field ObamaRahm sowed realizing we’ve been played once again!

    As you state, Gates AND Mullen made that clear in their testimony to the Senate Feb. 2nd and in everything they’ve said since.

    But most of our community, EXACTLY as ObamaRahm knew after McClurkingate and Warrengate ad nauseum, revealed how desperate they still were for a pat on the head that they didn’t feel the bitch slap that came with it: “TRUST US! DISCHARGING GAYS HURTS US MORE THAN IT DOES THE GAYS sniff sniff BUT DO NOT TOUCH DADT UNTIL AFTER OUR PHONY STUDY KILLS THE CHANCE YOU CAN REPEAL FOR YEARS!”

    So, instead of rising up en masse and condemning another NEEDLESS “study” so loudly Obama Inc. might have backed down, Gay Inc. just kept drinking the Barry Berry Kool Aid and starting building statues to Gates and Mullen for their alleged religious conversion from having defended DADT their entire careers.

    And, now, EXACTLY as ObamaRahm knew, members of Congress are using Gates’ charade er “study” as excuse not to do anything.

    But, lo and behold, our allies like Patrick Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand are refusing to take no for an answer so Gates has to pull off his cheap ass mask of empathy and threaten them directly.

  • wondermann

    Typical for Queerty to misinform. From the Advocate:
    “Defense secretary Robert Gates is directing Congress not to change the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy until a clear repeal plan is devised.

    In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, Gates told members of a House committee that forcing policy changes on the military “would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns, and perspectives do not matter.”

    Gates has expressed his support for repealing the ban as long as a plan is created to invite and employ openly gay and lesbian service members.”

    He wants a clear plan to repeal, he never said he didn’t want it to happen. Please get your house in order, Queerty.

  • Baxter

    @wondermann: Yes, the headline is supposed to be an attention grabber and doesn’t tell the whole story. But if you read the actual post, it says exactly what you just wrote.

  • Chapeau

    If Truman had waited for the military to get ready, the military would have been segregated until 1968 instead of 1948. Well, 1954, when the last segregated unit was assimilated.

  • Josh

    But if they wait until Republicans take back the house, its not going to happen anyways. :-/

  • Michael @


    Please just put down the Kool Aid and step away from the ObamaRahm Clown Car.

    “How to implement repeal,” my ass! It’s simply a matter of this:

    “ATTENTION! Yesterday we banned out gays. Today we don’t. Paperwork to follow. Dismissed!”

    When Gates announced those minor changes to current implementation, he didn’t say, “We have to wait until all the paperwork is updated.” He said they went into effect immediately and the branches had 30 days to conform their documentation.

    In 1993, when Clinton ordered “Don’t Ask,” military recruiters didn’t stop recruiting just because they didn’t have new questionnaires. They simply took a pen and marked out the question about homosexuality on the old form. I’d be happy to donate some pens to Gates and Mullen.

    According to a recent Palm Center report on the 25 countries that have lifted their bans, some did it immediately and none took more than four months!

    As for asking rank and file AND their families AND their “influencers” [whatever the hell Gates meant by that] how to implement, what the fuck are they going to say? SEPARATE BARRACKS? NO GAY ORGIES DURING CHAPEL? NO GAY SERVICEMEMBER ALLOWED WITHIN 100 YARDS OF STRAIGHT MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING?

    “Everyone may not be comfortable,” Frank said. “But the military is not about giving comfort to service members. It’s about obedience to the chain of command. It’s really not rocket science what needs to be done.” – DADT expert Nathaniel Frank.

    “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.” – Center for American Progress, March 2010.

    The Senate repeal bill already outlines the process; no “study” required:

    “(A) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs. (B) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation. (C) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims’ advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance. (D) Revision of any Department of Defense and military department regulations as necessary to ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces are written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.”

    Gates and Mullen’s real agenda isn’t how to implement repeal but how to stop it!

    The Three Ratketeeres

  • Bill Perdue

    He gets away with it because he works for a Democrat and used to work for a Republican. Bipartisanship in action.

  • AndrewW

    They’re just running out the clock until the mid-terms. That was always the Plan.

  • Kieran

    If it were black, Muslim or bi-racial American soldiers who were being thrown out of the military simply because they were black, Muslim or biracial, I doubt President Obama would need a “study” to determine how or whether to end the discrimination. When you know something is clearly wrong, bigoted and unjust and you fail to immediately act to stop the injustice, you are in fact condoning it.

  • Paschal

    @Michael @ I believe that President Obama and Secretary Gates do want Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed but they don’t have enough courage to push for repeal before the November elections. If they didn’t want repeal they wouldn’t have spoken in favour of repeal at all. They would have ignored the issue.

  • jason

    Robert Gates needs to resign, and now. He’s harming the military by contributing to the exclusion of able-bodied gay men and women. Robert Gates, you are a disgrace.

    As for Gates’ letter, I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama told him to write it. It’s called “back-up”.

    Keep in mind that a lot of things that happen in politics don’t happen at random. They happen by design. Obama told Gates to write this letter so that Obama could then have “back-up” for his position of not really wanting to repeal DADT.

    Obama lied to us, folks – just remember this at the next election.

  • PopSnap

    What if the Republicans take back the house?

    I know, we’ll compromise with them! ;)

  • jason

    Note how Gates excludes gay soldiers from his notion of “our men and women in uniform”. Is he kidding us? What about the lives and reputations of decent gay soldiers who are currently serving, Mr Gates? Isn’t their well-being concerning to you, Mr Gates?

    Mr Gates is quite simply not up to the job and should resign. He needs to make his resignation effective immediately. He is unable to look after the interests of all his soldiers.

    Go, Mr Gates, just go.

  • Michael @


    With respect, I disagree. For months, I have been getting weekly appeals for donations to the DNC or Obama World or whatever, and they’ve recently increased to one or more a day.

    ObamaRahm knew, after gay high profile/major donor boycotts of the DNC fundraiser last June and the National Equality March [which generated the last minute White House “Stonewall 40” celebration and his speaking at the HRC dinner, respectively] that they could not simply ignore repeal.

    So they dangled the carrots of Obama’s mention in the SOTU and Gates and Mullen’s testimony supporting repeal [but NOT repeal for those paying attention] to keep the gay dollars coming in as long as possible.

    Like the frequently beaten wife, you confuse her husband’s saying “But I love you!” with sincerity.

  • wondermann

    @Michael @ I’ll stop drinking the kool-aid when you start making sense. As much as I enjoy reading your Mad Hater approach to issues, I really don’t take you seriously.

  • Mickey

    Most Americans believe DADT should be repealed, what are the politicos so worried about?

  • Dick

    Let’s just think that he chose his words poorly if “their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter.” was what he meant to say then their views should also matter when they decide what military actions should be take and where and when they should be taken. What?? They can’t decide those things? Then why should they decide anything about the military. If you are a volunteer soldier(as we currently have no draft) then you follow orders.

  • jason

    Does anyone know if Robert Gates is gay or bisexual himself? I’d be interested to know….

  • fredo777

    @Michael @ Everytime you use lines like “Obamarahm” + “drinking the kool-aid”, i’m hoping you realize it makes you seem like just another of the repub crazies. Just my opinion, of course.

  • Michael @


    Sorry, the lives of gay servicemembers who were discharged yesterday, today, and will be tomorrow are too important to pretend we are not dealing with naifs and knaves.

    Would you advise someone not to yell, “Fire!”?

  • jeffree

    Our nation is now in 2 wars, and our troops are stretched thin and worn out. If “military preparedness” and success are primary objectives, there’s no logical rationale to kick out competent members of the armed forces simply due to their sexual orientation.

    Enforcing DADT means a waste of talent, personnell & training, and *DECREASES* the overal competance & preparedness of our troops.

    Shame on Gates & Obama.

  • DR


    You hit the nail on the head. The Dems are afraid of their own shadows at this point. I hope that Murphy will not be dissuaded, this is nonsense.

    Basically, the 14,000 GLB servicemembers discharged get no say. Current GLB servicemembers get no say or they’re “outing themselves” and will face discharge proceedings. Our straight servicemember allies who have repeatedly supported us aren’t being given any real input.

    This is all a farce to drag this out until the end of the year when the Dems *hope* they’ve survived midterm elections. Which is so NOT a guarantee at this point.

  • fredo777

    @Michael @ You can yell whatever you’d like, love. I full support your right to voice your opinion + even agree that it’s an important subject matter worth getting passionate about. I’m just saying, some of your particular word choices (“drinking the kool-aid”) might lead to others dismissing your comments as those of just another anti-obama nutter.

  • Jon

    Ok Gates, Deal! As long I get the following: As a white person can I give my opinion on how to treat the nation’s Negroes? As a white Christian male can I do a study to see how we should treat Jews? I think I have this right based on your bullshit study.

  • B

    What the article QUEERTY cited (but misrepresented) claimed Gates wrote was “Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully.”

    Also, the cited article stated, “Gates says he supports lifting the ban but wants to survey the troops first on how it should be done. He has ordered a study by Dec. 1 that will look at whether housing arrangements would have to be altered and gay partners would be allowed military benefits.

    “If Congress acts before then, ‘it would send a very damaging message to our men and women in uniform that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter,’ he and Mullen wrote to Skelton.”

    There’s a large transportation project doing pretty much the same thing in the area I live in – getting lots of public input, which will make people feel better when they go off and do what they were going to do anyway. (They’ll make some token adjustments on issues that are marginal to them, so the public will feel that public opinion influenced the process.)

    Hopefully the same thing will happen here – they’ll get some input, thank everyone, and repeal DADT, saying that all the contributions were very helpful in making the repeal a success (which means that any bigoted holdouts would be seen as undermining the work the others put in, thereby pissing off their straight peers.)

    It’s a slow process, but then, the military is the source of the quip, “hurry up and wait.”

  • AndrewW

    From the Associated Press:

    “Our military must be afforded the opportunity to inform us of their concerns, insights and suggestions if we are to carry out this change successfully,” Gates and Mullen wrote to the panel’s chairman, Missouri Democrat Ike Skelton.

    Gay rights advocates want legislation this year that would freeze military firings of openly gay service members, and some senior Democratic senators have said they want to offer such a bill.
    Other lawmakers, including Skelton, have said they are uneasy about lifting the ban and do not want to act before the force is ready.

    The letter provides Skelton and other unsettled Democrats political cover not to press the issue until after this year’s midterm elections. Early this week, Skelton asked Gates in a letter to outline his views as the House committee prepares the 2011 defense authorization bill.

  • AndrewW

    @Jon: I wondered who would actually post such a question:

    “As a white person can I give my opinion on how to treat the nation’s Negroes?”

    So, I clicked on your name “Jon” and was redirected to I guess you are in charge of the “childish and immature” stunts (Barney Frank’s words) AND stupid comments?

    Does that mean you are Jonathon Lewis, heir to Progressive Insurance Company, that has given these misfits $500,000? How is that investment working out? LGBT Blogs are the only ones to cover these stunts (thankfully) and most people seem to be either rolling their eyes or laughing.

    Is that what you had in mind?

  • reason

    Literally the same lines have been repeated over on this site for weeks. The plan towards repeal have been laid out months ago which includes a the study thats due December 1. Weeks after that some one on this site fantasized about ending my life because I said this news is nothing new. This site might as well set a timer for this story to display twice a week with the phrases rearranged to elicit radical responses via matlovich, kieran, tonyd etal. In this sites defense major news organizations are doing the same thing, reporting stuff that is being reiterated by officials as fresh news. This administration clearly learned from Clinton’s mistakes, if you want the military to respect you then you need to respect it. They need to have their voices heard so some of their concerns can be hammered out in implementation.

    For example if the study finds that 75 percent of the heterosexual would harm a gay soldier if they shared a bunk, it probably would not be wise to put the gays in the same bunks; if the majority said they could careless about using the bathroom with gays then there would be no need to waste money building separate facilities… Of course things get a lot more complicated then that, and the military wants to be prepared to land on its feet especially when your dealing with the lives of some of our most honorable citizens (citizens includes everyone in the armed forces that is putting their lives on the line for this country if whether they have achieved citizenship status or not). Secretary Gates has already stated that it’s a matter of when DADT gets repealed not if.

    Secretary Gates is one of the best individuals to ever hold his position: in the midst of two wars and a budget busting defense department there is no one else that I would want at the helm. Individuals like Gates have helped get this nation as far as it has come today.

    @Chapeau: The error in your argument is there was not a law upholding segregation of the armed force, and portions of the armed forces had already begun integration before Truman lifted a finger; it still took several years to complete the process. Unfortunately now it will take an act of congress to overturn this law which takes more delicate dancing, we should be aiding the process instead of trying to pull the rug out from under our alias.

  • Bill Perdue

    “Sec. Robert Gates sent a letter to the House Armed Services Committee warning them a repeal “would send a very damaging message to our that in essence their views, concerns and perspectives do not matter.”

    Who gives a damn what Gates or “our men and women in uniform” think about Clinton’s DADT. When Clinton originally proposed an end to military discrimination he and Democrats in Congress, instead of doing the right thing bent, to the will of Colin Powell and bigots in the Pentagon and turned the original bill on it’s head by codifying military bigotry in the form of DADT. It was the first of many Clinton betrayals.

    That’s exactly what’s happening now. Although this is not Obama’s first, or last, betrayal.

    DADT, Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654) passed both house with big bipartisan majorities, except in this case some Republicans voted against Clinton’s DADT thinking it wasn’t hurtful enough.

    The truth is that Congress it elected to make laws but in the late stages of the Imperial Presidency – National Security State they’re as worthless as the Roman Senate during the late stages of that Republic.


  • B

    No. 32 · Jon wrote, “Ok Gates, Deal! As long I get the following: As a white person can I give my opinion on how to treat the nation’s Negroes? As a white Christian male can I do a study to see how we should treat Jews? I think I have this right based on your bullshit study.”

    Well, just after laws banning housing discrimination were passed, a major concern among whites was that, if a black family moved in, all their neighbors would flee, causing housing prices to drop substantially (which happened in some cases due to an irrational panic). The argument was essentially, “I’m not racist, but I think enough people are that I’ll lose what I was counting on for my retirement.” In some cases it was an excuse, but in others, it was simply fear of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now, supposed the government had listened to those concerns and said, “OK, if there are financial loses due to fixing a social injustice that very many people caused, we’ll spread the loss equally, and compensate people for any loss in property values.” With the fear gone, people would not have fled just because a respectable, middle-class black family moved in, and integration might have happened a lot faster.

  • jizz

    I’m all for queers not being able to murder browns in an imperialist regime. Fuck hegemonic gays.

  • Jon

    @AndrewW: You seem to know so much about me. If I owned Progressive Insurance Company they would be upset to know I use AAA.

  • Andy

    @jizz: Yeah, all this hullabaloo about civil rights ignores the “civilian” rights of the people impacted by our military the most, civilians.

  • Michael

    America sucks.

  • Jeremy

    WHY? WHY? Why can a person with that much authority, history and age can be such an ignorant, narrow-minded human being? Why can’t he realize that LGBT soldiers are nothing less, if not even more of a patriot than any other soldiers? These people are so brave that they have put aside their deepest struggles and fears for all the discriminations of society in order to serve this country which did nothing to acknowledge their dedication. What else can be more heroic than this? And “damaging message”? A message about patriotism, sacrifice and generosity is damaging??????

    Our town is having a storm at the moment. The sky is rumbling with thunders and rain. I wonder if it’s reading the same news as we are right now….

  • jeffree

    All this boils down to a simple question: Is the DOD better off discharging qualified & trained lgb soldiers with good service records, or keeping them deployed?

    Better put: Do we need MORE or fewer competent men & women in the Armed Forces? If linguists & gunners & explosives experts, peacekeepers etc. are let go because they are LGB, are we better off or worse off?

    20+ nations have successfully integrated LGB members of the military into the general forces, with no ill effect on cohesion, readiness or outcomes. Why should the US DOD experience different results? We need all the help we can get.

  • Mike L.

    @Bill Perdue: OMG that cartoon is so right on target. Bless you for bringing this gift to me, I’m gonna save and cherish it with all my bitter heart.

  • jason

    As I said earlier, Obama directed Gates to write the letter.

    It gives Obama a fallback position which enables him to put off repealing DADT until he is even less politically able to do it – ie after the November congressional elections, when the Democrats are expected to lose big time. Then he can wipe his hands of the whole thing and simply point to Republican opposition as the sole reason for not repealing it. At the moment – with Democrats in the majority – he doesn’t have the liberty of this partisan, finger-pointing option.

    Both Obama and Gates must think that we in the GLBT community have shit for brains. Some of us do but many of us don’t.

    All in all, Obama is a fraud and Gates is a pin-head.

  • Rob Moore

    The Democrats are just using us for money mostly, but the DINOs hate us as much as all the Republicans.

    All of it is a charade. They are wrapping their lack of effort to make it look like a smart strategic move to get through the 2010 elections, thereby, implying the push will come afterwards assuming the Democrats don’t lose control of one or more houses of the Congress. The reality is this is a way to claim it wasn’t the fault of the Democrats. After the elections, the Democrats will have at best a diminished majority in the Senate so there is no chance it will get past another Republican threat to filibuster. If the Democrats lose control of one or more houses, there is no chance the Republicans will let it go through the house(s) they control. In the end, the result is the same. DADT remains in place.

    Our “fierce” champion is a fraud when it comes to equal rights for gay people. When he speaks to us, he has fingers or toes crossed each time he makes a promise. Speaking as an HIV+, middle fifties white queer, we no longer have a dog in this hunt. I know bullshit when I smell it. If I vote for Democrats, it will be on economic issues only since Republicans are too irresponsible to expose the economy to their incompetence. I expect no help on equal rights from the Democrats.

  • Michael @


    It’s always gratifying when Obama trolls resort to lying about history to support their excuses for the Massa’s betrayals.

    Yes, there were some blacks in the military before Truman’s order, but they were not “integrated” in any genuine sense of the word.

    And simply parroting phony repeal advocate Gates’s assertion that it took years to complete integration does not make true his willful lie: it’s not that it NEEDED to take years, it was ALLOWED to take years.

    One of the things SLDN told Obama’s transition team when they met with them a week before the Inaugural was that he should not reappoint Bush holdover and career defender of DADT Gates. Now we see why.


  • Paschal

    Before Australia and the U.K. allowed gay people to serve openly in their militaries, nightmare scenarios were predicted. The governments of these countries ignored this scaremongering and when gay people were allowed to serve openly, NOTHING changed. The U.S.A. should learn lessons from its allies. The Netherlans allowed gay people to serve openly in 1974. Oh wait, that resulted in over 8,000 Muslims beign killed. That obviously had nothing to do with a large number of armed and bigoted Bosnian Serbs and a hopelessly small Dutch U.N. force.

  • Lanjier

    Get it done RIGHT?? Dumping vets on the street is acceptable, but not throwing them on the street has to be done PROPERLY???

    Obama is really out of his fucking mind.

  • Jimmy

    It took the military less time to come up with a plan to invade Normandy that it has to enact a “policy change”. Since when does a general take into account the feelings of those under his or her command when he or she gives and order? It’s about the order, not feelings about it.

    If the dems lose congress after the mid-terms, we can kiss it all goodbye anyway.

  • Michael @

    “The Master’s tools will never dismantle the Master’s house.” – Audre Lorde.

    I kinda hate the cliche “the elephant in the room,” but it’s a starting point for our way out of this that should have been targeted three months ago when it first began to roar.

    YES, it is absolutely critical that the force fields some LGBT groups have erected around their political turfs be taken down, at least temporarily, so that we can more strongly work together to fight this implacable enemy-our own axis of evil made up of

    1. Political homophobia in the White House [taking orders from]
    2. Literal homophobes in the DOD [conspiring with]
    3. The Antigay Industry.

    Yes, there have been some narrow-cast alliances such as the upcoming lobby day and the Voices of Honor tour. But it is all of our voices that must finally speak at once and in unison:



    Even though it is what every discussion since February 2nd, every excuse for not voting on repeal, every argument from either side invariably comes back to, still this morning most are still speaking as if it MUST continue to be the master of our fate when we never should have shamelessly surrendered to it in the first place without a fight.

    Organizationally, only the Palm Center initially questioned The Study’s very existence. The rest of Gaydom, narcotized by Gates’ and Mullen’s alleged religious conversion on repeal, grateful for their Trojan Horse, fell into formation and saluted, looking straight ahead to what they imagined was imminent and inevitable repeal, failing to see the tanks that, because they let their guard down, had pulled up around us, the commandoes pouring from the horse programmed to rekindle old fears and recite their phony battle cry again and again, hearing after hearing, interview after interview: THE SKY WILL FALL IN FLAMES AND STRAIGHT SOLDIERS AND THEIR INNOCENT FAMILIES WILL BE CRUSHED AND INCINERATED IF YOU, CONGRESS, REPEAL NOW!

    1. The Study has no rational reason in terms of its false challenge of, in the words of the Center for American Progress, solving a nonexistent “complicated puzzle requiring complex solutions to minor problems.”

    2. It has no moral justification in its ignorant and insulting premise, entirely driven by homophobia, that out gay integration will somehow “impact” nongay soldiers and their families and the “broader military community” and that, thus, they, to show them “respect,” must be asked what they think should be done about the, what, “bloodthirsty savages” soon to descend upon them?

    Even theoretically conceding those two nonsensical rationales, Gates and Mullen offered no justification for their timeline which is NOT just 11 months of “study” but the demand most didn’t notice to be allowed to CONTINUE DISCHARGES FOR ANOTHER YEAR AFTER REPEAL while they “implement” their complex solutions to minor problems.

    WHY did no one in Congress and Gay Inc. ask them to justify delaying a vote on repeal for a year and, counting that time, delaying stopping discharges for nearly two years?

    As I’ve frequently pointed out, the Palm Center has documented that NONE of the 25 countries that have lifted their bans took more than four months to stop discharges and several stopped them immediately.

    REPEAT: The Study cannot be justified for its own self and it is the excuse the moveable middle in Congress is using not to vote now. Repeal has stopped because The Study is blocking the road.


    1. ALL LGBT orgs unite to denounce The Study itself because it is unnecessary and because it was built more than anything else upon homophobic ignorance and obstructionism.

    2. ALL LGBT orgs unite to remind Congress that it is THEIR Constitutional right and responsibility to decide (a) when they will vote on something, and (b) how the military will operate administratively. Justice and Equality are not military issues but American ones.

    Dan Choi explained Thursday night that he violated military regulations when he wore his uniform when arrested at the White House because he swore to defend the Constitution against ALL of its enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC! All three branches of our government are sworn to defend the Constitution, too. It is past time they did that for LBGTs are Americans, too!


    3. ALL LGBT orgs unite to join Nancy Pelosi in demanding a freeze on discharges until a repeal vote.

    4. ALL LGBT orgs reiterate IN UNISON their individual calls for repeal to be inserted into DEFAUTH in a way that combines the timeline for conforming regulations, policies, etc., by the DOD from the House standalone bill to no more than six months after repeal with Sen. Lieberman’s timeline for permanently stopping discharges which would be immediately upon repeal.

    The wholesale surrender by Gay Inc. to Gates chicanery has resulted in nothing but the loss of three months, in nothing but bringing us three months closer to the death of repeal.



    It is time for us to crawl out from under the bus owned by Barack Obama, navigated by Rahm Emanuel, and driven by Robert Gates and push The Study to the side of the road so that we can proceed to repeal!

  • Blake

    How pathetic is it that the USA, supposedly the leader of the free world does not even treat its own citazens as equal!!!

    I live in South Africa for which there is no doubt it is a deeply flawed country, but at least at the ground level, we are all legally equal.

  • AndrewW

    @Jon: Comment #32 you said:

    “As a white person can I give my opinion on how to treat the nation’s Negroes?”

    So, I clicked on your name “Jon” and was redirected to I guess you are in charge of the “childish and immature” stunts (Barney Frank’s words) AND stupid comments?

    Does that mean you are Jonathon Lewis, heir to Progressive Insurance Company, that has given these misfits $500,000? How is that investment working out? LGBT Blogs are the only ones to cover these stunts (thankfully) and most people seem to be either rolling their eyes or laughing.

    Is that what you had in mind?

  • Andrew

    @Blake: South Africa was indeed the FIRST nation on earth to include Anti-LGBT discrimination into the constitution, and has complete (as you said, at least legally) equality.

    How the hell has the US fallen behind a nation that formerly had apartheid?

  • Robert, NYC

    What a copout. What study do they need, really? Why haven’t they looked at our allies and how they implemented it without all the bureacracy. Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia for examples. Its nothing more than a delay tactic. Odd how our troops are fighting alongside gay soldiers from those countries and its not having an effect on our military. Gates is an asshole and so is Obama for allowing to come to this.

  • B

    No. 52 · Jimmy wrote, “It took the military less time to come up with a plan to invade Normandy that it has to enact a “policy change”. Since when does a general take into account the feelings of those under his or her command when he or she gives and order? It’s about the order, not feelings about it.”

    If it takes as long as it took to generate a plan to invade Normandy, you’d really have something to complain about: planning for the Normandy invasion took years, with a couple of false starts. You can get a summary at : “Two preliminary proposals were drawn up: Operation Sledgehammer, for an invasion in 1942, and Operation Roundup, for a larger attack in 1943, which was adopted and became Operation Overlord, although it was delayed until 1944.” Also, “The planning process was started in earnest after the Casablanca and Tehran Conferences,” where the Casablanca Conference was in January, 1943 and the Tehran Conference was in late November 1943, obviously making use of previous work.

    It was not just a case of telling the troops to “do it” because they had to stage everything, make sure there were sufficient resources to succeed, and address a slew of details. For example, “In preparation, the BBC appealed for holiday pictures and snaps of France for an exhibition. Those of the Normandy beaches were singled out to create detailed geological maps of the area. What was already known of the make-up was that the targeted beaches were underpinned in places by ancient woodland, which had created peat bogs not far below the beaches surface. Tests on similar beaches in Norfolk in 1943 proved them unsuitable for taking the weight of heavy tanks and transport, so detailed maps of the area were required. In December 1943, Operation Postage Able used an X-craft to collect suitable data for all of the beaches.”

  • WiseUp

    I think this was all planned by Obama and Rahm. Just like the Arizona immigration thing was planned. Let their crime rates rise, don’t send the Feds to help, then when Arizona gets desperate and passes a severe law Obama goes on record as saying he’s against it and needs African American, Hispanic, young people, and women to vote for him in the next elections (making sure to leave out gays so as not to insult Blacks and Hispanics). It’s Chicago politics at its most disgusting, and Rahm knows how easy the silly gays are to fool.

  • B

    No. 57 · Robert, NYC wrote, “What a copout. What study do they need, really?” They’ll have to go through all the regulations and training manuals to find the ones that will have to be changed. I’m not sure how many tens of thousands of pages of documents this is, but given the way bureaucracies like to generate paper, it is probably a lot.

    They currently have a ban on sodomy (mostly enforced against straight couples), in spite of the Supreme Court ruling making federal and state laws against sodomy illegal. Legally sodomy includes both anal and oral sex. If you allow openly gay people in the military, do you want to tell them that they have to be celibate? Obviously there are a number of regulations that have to be modified and someone is going to have to read through the mess and find the problem areas, which won’t happen instantly.

    They may have language about sexual harassment that was written to be opposite-sex specific. If the regulations are written that way, those regulations would also have to be updated to treat gay members of the military the same as straight ones. In principle, this is all trivial stuff. The problem is finding it in a mind-numbing set of boring documents, where the people smart enough to decypher the bureaucratese are going to be bored to tears.

  • Rob Moore

    @Michael @ Absolutely fucking right. The last time I was called by the Democrats to contribute to the House campaign fund, I made the same point. I was talking to an African-American woman and posed the question to her of how she would feel if the Pentagon was asking all the white soldiers how they would feel about integration.

    I was unsurprised at the lack of vocal criticism by LGBT organizations. They want to have these nice, polite conversations behind closed doors, which have been occurring for the last 25 years with zero results. None, nada, zilch.

  • Rob Moore

    @B: That is not the study to which he refers. He is referring to the study asking straight soldiers and spouses their opinions. That is insulting.

    Of course, someone has to read through the military code, but that should not delay the removal of DADT. The code can be fixed on the other side of that event. The sodomy regs are almost never enforced. I’ve been around enough soldiers to know they don’t even think about it before, during, or after sex, and even the military isn’t going around monitoring whether soldiers are having oral sex or buttfucking their hookers, girlfriends, fiancées, or wives.

  • B

    o. 62 · Rob Moore wrote, “@B: That is not the study to which he refers. He is referring to the study asking straight soldiers and spouses their opinions. That is insulting.”

    I’m not sure who “he” refers to, but if you go to you can see a video of Gates answering some questions about it. He specifically mentions finding out what regulations have to be updated, including things like benefits. As to a survey of the troops, it is only to get a list of issues that might effect the implementation. If there are particular misconceptions shared by large numbers of straight soldiers, for example, that is worth knowing when developing training programs.

    The bottom line, though is that Gates said the study was about how to implement a repeal of DADT, not whether it should be repealed. You can believe him or not, but my opinion is to wait until the study completes (late this year as scheduled) and only criticize him if he it turns out he is not doing what he currently claims.

    BTW, while you claim that the sodomy regulations are rarely enforced, that is not completely true – they can be enforced when there is something else going on. E.g., a sexual harassment case with credible evidence of oral sex but not quite enough evidence to make the sexual harassment charge stick.

  • Rob Moore

    @B: “He” refers to Robert NYC whose comment you referenced.

    So is it your position that we should just wait patiently until the Pentagon has determined all the misconceptions and little glitches exist in the military code before any action is taken? I hope not, because open-ended studies are how things such as repeal of DADT are studied until the Democrats no longer have the votes in Congress to push it through thus killing it at least for another two years. This is an approach, which has never been taken before when the military is being pushed to make a significant change. It was not used when the military was racially integrated under Truman nor was this approach taken when the military was required to open up to women beyond nurses and uniformed secretaries. In both cases, adjustments were made in training and the UMCJ after the fact. This is about whether or not to have separate showers and quarters as some have already suggested, which is the way bigotry works. The study will be made to fit the prejudices and bigotries of those who resist gays in the military so then it will be framed as such an enormous change that it cannot possibly be completed in less than five or ten years and will cost an additional X billion dollars making it too expensive.

    This study is completely bogus in its stated purpose. If it is allowed to go forward, we will not have another chance until the next time a Democrat is elected president and Democrats regain control of Congress. It is a scam.

  • Rob Moore

    @B: You state “BTW, while you claim that the sodomy regulations are rarely enforced, that is not completely true – they can be enforced when there is something else going on. E.g., a sexual harassment case with credible evidence of oral sex but not quite enough evidence to make the sexual harassment charge stick.”

    If it is a back-door way to make a harassment case, then it is being misused. Just as it is a foolish thing to legislate in civilian law, it is equally foolish in military life. I will restate my point. When used as a primary charge rather than a way to punish someone for something else that cannot be proved, sodomy prosecutions are very rare. Sodomy is every bit as difficult to prove as sexual harassment, perhaps, even harder. It would require witnesses who actually saw it happen and were not themselves involved. How many times have you walked in on two people have sex when they did not want an observer? Probably not often.

    Bill Gates has always defended DADT. Just because he is saying it should be lifted, now, doesn’t mean he really wants it. He cannot publicly contradict his boss without risk of losing his job.

    Perhaps, you can explain why you think this study is simply a sincere effort to be proactive and why it is necessary?

  • reason

    @Michael @

    The U.S. Navy had instituted a policy of integration in the latter part of WWII. Blacks were serving side by side with whites although problems existed in that only 38% of the Blacks were assigned to non-black units, also the number of Black officers were lacking along with other discriminatory policies. The issuance of executive order 9981 took place nearly a decade before the civil rights era, those that learned about it no about the genuine evil taking place, to put the time and hatred into prospective. At that time the Navy would work on expounding implementation of existing policy and the other branches could follow suit. Your statement that it was “Allowed to take years” demonstrates an insensitivity or an attempt to minimize the sacrifices, including the loss of life, of African Americans and the valiant efforts of good Caucasians to advance equality and justice in an extremely tumultuous environment.

    Your caviler attitudes on the Obama and Truman administrations allows your lack of understanding of the intricacies and nuances of governing in complex times to bleed through. The current military doesn’t have a blue print to allowing gays to serve openly, so any logical individual would ask for a study to be done so they can minimize difficulties that may arise; it’s literary problem solving 101. Your oversimplification parallels an individual stating why didn’t they plug that well in the Gulf of Mexico minutes after the explosion, thus failing to understand the gravity of an explosion and the sheer difficult of plugging a well on land let alone one mile underwater with oil and debris surging to the surface.

    If you wish to get information on the integration of the armed forces you can visit the Harry S. Truman Library:

    You can also check out the military history site:

    Oversimplification, especially if one is educated, is fundamentally disingenuous, though I don’t want to make a dispositional judgment on why you are drawing such shallow conclusions. Your attempted ad-hominem attacks on the President may elude to your lackluster efforts to make an honest thoughtful assessment of the challenges that the administration is facing.

  • reason

    For those that are attacking the Democrats as spineless, which party controlled state legislators have passed gay marriage into law? The Democrats. If that doesn’t provide clarity to the party’s world view and where they are going I don’t know what else will. It is obvious that things get more difficult when you get to the federal level and are dealing with all 50 states some of which have ban gay marriage. The party’s actions prove what they are trying to do and would have done already if it was not so complex and difficult on the federal level. The spineless people are unfortunately members of this community who are so ungrateful and wish to withhold funds and work to destroy the party that has not only already delivered but is trying to delivery more. I guess it’s true no good deed goes unpunished. When you help this community it resents you like the poor people in the south that lash out when the government provides them with health care they so direly need. Instead of trying to destroy our allies we should be out there reducing the resistance so democrat legislatures can continue to move forward in other states and the party can have more cover and support to make larger leaps on the federal level. Often the federal level is the lagging indicator of the party, just as jobs are the lagging indicator of an economic recovery.

  • Robert, NYC

    #67 Reason….don’t forget that 8 democrats in my state voted NO on marriage equality last December, a huge margin. New Jersey followed suit with democrats voting against it.

    There is absolutely NO reason to conduct an indepth study of allowing DADT to be repealed. All they have to do is look at our western allies and see how they did it. This is nothing more than stalling. How is it that convicted felons were allowed to serve under the Bush administration and probably still do under the current one. Did the military implement a study to find out how that would impact the morale of servicemen and women? NO! I didn’t hear anything from Gates about that or the higher echelons in the military either.

  • DR


    You’re making this ore difficult than it needs to be to justify this stupid study.

    The sodomy statues aren’t enforced nearly as much as folks claim them to be (mostly in instances of force, IIRC), and it’s not that hard to change a regulation. Just wipe it off the book. Most states did it ages ago.

    Sexual harassment? The highest courts in the country have already decided that homo sexual harassment is as actionable as hetero sexual harassment. You also might want to reread your books about the Tailhook incident. 83 women and 7 men claimed sexual harassment. The foundation is already there to deal with sexual harassment.

    Benefits? Please, the federal government barely gives any to gay couples, and to be quite frank, that can come later. Repeal first, decide on benefits later.

    The Secretary of Defense is shoving it off with all these pointless questions in an effort to delay a repeal. The ground troops don’t care, none of our allies have militaries which collapsed after integration, and many of these questions can be answered post-repeal.

  • Robert, NYC

    No. 63 @B

    B… it is, gays get virtually no federal benefits unless working for a federal agency and not all of the rights that straights get either. Gay married couples get NO federal rights or recognition, so using “benefits” as part of the delay tactic is lame. A gay survivor whose spouse has died can’t even collect their partner’s social security, but straights sure can. In fact, its insulting and offensive for Gates to even mention benefits. He has no clue about discrimination against LGBT people, let alone allowing us to serve openly in the military. This is nothing more than homophobia and an unwillingness of the government and the president to end this injustice, NOW. Look how fast 30 states enacted DOMA, no debate, but a rush to get it on the books in those states. They didn’t need time to study that.

  • reason

    @Robert, NYC: You are ignoring the realities on the ground in New Jersey and the diversity of the constitutes that are being represented. A Democrat form a conservative district is going to be more hesitant because the inroads have not been made in his district; the bulk of that responsibility does not lie on the politician but the gay community and its allies. Unfortunately gay rights is not the only issue facing the party and some elected officials hedge so they can stay in office to continue making progress on things of concern on the Democrat agenda. Just like you are angry that things aren’t moving fast enough, there are health care advocates angry that things didn’t go far enough, environmental advocates angry that things aren’t moving fast enough, anti-war people angry the wars are not being wined down fast enough, immigration reform advocates angry that anything on gay rights or health care was done before immigration after all they risk being kicked out and harassed at least everyone else will still be here to fight for their rights, and the list goes on. The different areas of the country that have different priorities complicate matters further, which brings into focus some of the difficulties of governing. It is our responsible to move things along in every district in the country to make it easier for Democrats to move on our priorities, they certainly are willing, in the places that are furthest along they stepped up and passed gay marriage. It is the realities of politics, you can vote someone in who decides hey I am only going to work on gay rights, but they wont be able to stay in office long enough to get anything done. Our system is set up to take small steps at a time, sometimes those steps are backwards but at least we can avoid taking leaps backwards.

    It’s great that our allies have integrated, but we can’t just copy them because we are not them. Some of our allies were able to move a lot quicker with civil rights, we weren’t able to because we had different levels of factors that would have made following their decisions perilous. Just because our armies may look the same as some of our allies inside we are not the same; there are big differences between someone from Alabama and Vermont let alone a different country with divergent values and cultures.If you grabbed a large swath of gays form Russia and Uganda and threw them into San Francisco leaving them to their own devices, do you think they would suddenly be able to function at the same level as the San Fransisco gays? Most defiantly not, a lot might end up on the streets. One would need to plan and figure out the needs of these new people and things that may need to be put in place to help them secede; the plan for the Ugandans would be different from the Russians. Just because they are all gay doesn’t mean you can follow the same path, just because they are all immigrants doesn’t mean the same solutions will work. We need to chart out a path that is going to work for us. In our past nation building adventures we have attempted to press our values and our blue prints on others which resulted in extreme failures. To avoid that in our military, our country is logically doing a study, were I am sure that they will access things that we can implement from our allies and areas were we need to chart a different course with sensitivities to our very different cultures, in order to attempt to land on our feet after repeal.

  • Anderson

    How is the Hope and Change working out for you?

  • Barack

    Hey Fudge Packers

    Can you write another check to the DNC. We need your money to bring about the change this country needs. I will be there for you each step of the day.

    A big check not $20.00.

    Yes We Can

  • Rob Moore

    @reason: Your analogy comparing Russian gays and Ugandan gays to Americans is a false one. First of all, I myself have known gay men who emigrated to America from Russia and a Muslim from Saudi Arabia. They adapted easily and thoroughly to living as openly gay men in America. In particular, the man from Saudi Arabia was one generation removed from slavery. Both his parents were abducted from East Africa as teenagers by Saudi slavers. His parents were freed by their Saudi owner after several years. I was as surprised as anyone that slave traders still existed, and that slavery was still practiced in some parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen; yet, he adapted to a culture vastly different from the one he knew growing up.

    Culturally, we are much closer to England, Australia, even Israel, than he was to America. As to the differences between someone from Alabama and someone from Vermont, I beg to differ. I grew up in West Georgia only 12 miles from the state border with Alabama. Culturally there is no difference. I also spent a lot of time in different parts of New England and upstate New York. Except for the lack of availability of good Italian in rural Georgia, and the concept of grits in New England, there was not much difference. I was a Catholic and there was no discernible difference in Catholics in New England and Georgia except percentages of each state’s population. How did the military deal with racial tensions when Truman integrated the races? Did white soldiers from the South require different handling than those from Vermont? No. If a white soldier did something out of line towards a nonwhite soldier, the response from the commanders was pretty much the same. West coast European-Americans were no fonder of Asian-Americans than Southern European-Americans were of African-Americans, yet, somehow, it worked. There were incidents, but they were handled. When we are finally integrated into the military, there will be incidents that are handled, but at least if a gay or lesbian soldier is victimized, they will not be victimized, again, by commanders who bring charges under DADT. This study is not rational as a basis to delay repeal or suspension of DADT unless its true purpose is to delay repeal until the political resources are no longer sufficient to achieve that goal.

    DADT is a vile piece of work akin to Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. Bill Clinton might regret signing it, now, but he cannot say he was not warned or that he was not relieved the matter was ended in 1993. He sold us out as an act of political expediency with DADT and DOMA. Obama and the NATIONAL Democrats are doing the same thing.

  • B

    No. 64 · Rob Moore wrote, “So is it your position that we should just wait patiently until the Pentagon has determined all the misconceptions and little glitches exist in the military code before any action is taken?”

    I’d wait before criticizing Mr. Gates. You can certainly make sure that your congressperson and senators know that you are taking a promise to repeal DADT seriously and want it repealed as expeditiously as feasible. I don’t think you’d want a situation where DATD is repealed and then when some soldier announces he just married his boyfriend, his homophobic commanding officer takes that as a reason to start a sodomy investigation (the rule against sodomy seems to be used when there is some other reason they want to go after someone).

    While they could be stalling, it is also possible that there really are details they have to check to make sure the change will be successful.

  • B

    No. 70 · Robert, NYC wrote, “No. 63 @B B… it is, gays get virtually no federal benefits unless working for a federal agency and not all of the rights that straights get either. Gay married couples get NO federal rights or recognition, so using “benefits” as part of the delay tactic is lame. ”

    … did it occur to you that Gates may want to change that and make sure they get benefits regardless of what other federal agencies do?

  • B

    Regarding No 60 (now “hidden” because of negative reader comments from 4 individuals out of over 2000 who looked at this thread), all No 60 contained was an example of military regulations that might have to be changed when DADT is repealed.

    I guess some people don’t want reality to rear its ugly head, with QUEERTY using brain-dead filtering criteria.

  • Rob Moore

    @B: This is one with which I can agree. I do not like this new feature hiding comments regardless of how many like or dislike them. It detracts from the flow of discussion. I would rather hide comments that rely on insults and name calling rather than simple opinions, facts, and logic. Maybe that’s just me.

    From what I see B has not resorted to verbal assaults. I don’t agree with some of his opinions, but his responses are at least stated reasonably and without childish insults.

Comments are closed.