Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Wait… We’re Still Discharging People Under DADT?!!

Obama signed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal on December 22nd, but the Air Force approved a DADT discharge on April 29. What the eff?

First off, you should know that DADT is still legally in effect until ‘Bama, the defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress all do a bunch of governmental witchcraft to officially remove it from the books.

Second, the discharged Air Force servicemember in this case may have requested his own discharge:

Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, who stated that he was unfamiliar with this case, wrote, ”[T]he Department of Defense has made it abundantly clear that it is now virtually impossible to discharge someone who does not want to be discharged. ‘We know that servicemembers have sometimes requested their own discharges and have used the fact that the law is on the books to force a discharge through despite a command or service preference for retention.”

Curious. Will this unnamed Air Force servicemember be the last DADT discharge? That’s gotta be worth a free drink at the bar.

On:           Jun 3, 2011
Tagged: , , , ,
    • Cam

      Cue all the BOP apologists to come in here and say

      “He wanted to get out and knew that DADT was going away so the military did him a favor by letting him out because the GOP is great and everything is fantastica nd the DEMS are evil and hate us all!”

      Or some story along those lines.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      This is exactly why i am voting third party. There are many things we justifiably hate the Repuglycunts for but there are also many things that the DemonCons say they do that they don’t. This is one of them. Stall until elected, then either ignore or set up a discriminatory policy like Clinton did.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      Still discharging people and still no marriage equality and still no jobs. Is there something i am missing. OH YEAH, the repuglycunts are worse so gay people should just accept the Democratic lying filth that puts up a good talk while doing NOTHING for gay civil rights. Hey why not, we have voted for decades so no one is gonna change a good thing.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      Save it girls. I don’t see Obama addressing this in one of his many appearances. Just vote third party and be done with all this nonsense or at least get the ball rolling for future generations who do not have to tolerate this sickening endless volley ball tournament.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ptboat

      I don’t know if anyone remembers this, but there are a series of steps, and a timeline, that were put in place for the repeal. It is a slow and mostly pointless process, but huge progress has been made. It would be a better use of outrage to pay attention to the many moves to reverse the repeal all together.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      Its corrupt and it’s all because of duality entrenchment. Both parties want to be the only players in the game. AKA America!!!

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @ptboat: Somedaaaaayyy over the rainbowwwwwwwwwwwww. You know the rest.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ptboat

      I also find it interesting that no one paid attention to the fact that the soldier most likely requested his discharge. Understanding the politics in the situation, it would be incredibly naive and self destructive to vote for a third party out of anger. Unfortunately, social change is never immediate and please don’t think that I’m not impatient as I am ready for my marriage to be recognized by more than 7 states and the District of Columbia. After 20 years of commitment, I feel it’s more than time. Then again, I remember when we had to rent two bedroom apartments, because of city ordinances, and our love was illegal.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @ptboat: It is incredibly tiring to hear you dribble and regurgitate that line about being “naive and self destructive” when it comes to exercising ones RIGHT to vote. Practice what you preach. Anger is a motivator for many things and is especially appropriate in politics. Get a grip.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @ptboat: Did you happen to read what i said? “Both parties want to be the only players in the game.” That is accomplished by convincing people like you to go around calling anyone who disagrees with the duopoly of being “naive and self destructive.” T I R E D!!!

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Prof. Donald Gaudard

      @ptboat: The article said “may have” and you say “most likely”. Let’s face facts — neither of you know what happened. Remember the old saying, “The friend of my enemy is my enemy?” HRC, GLAAD, and Obama are friends of Danny Culkin, Rev. Warren, etc. Therefore, they are NOT my friends.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      Our particular system of democracy would reduce to effectively a two-party system regardless. A third won’t get enough power to be worthwhile unless one of the big two is dying; and if either that or a split happens, one of the then-three would quickly go away. For multiple parties to coexist successfully we’d need to switch to a more parliamentary system, and those have their own problems.

      Anyway, the law *is* still in effect; barring a major change, it won’t be shortly (though what never should have been cannot, of course, be removed too soon); and apparently the guy wanted out. So what’s the big deal?

      Jun 3, 2011 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ptboat

      Ewe, it is both naive and self destructive to think that the populace of this country would be behind a third party that would initiate mass changes in the status of this community. There’s no argument to that because it is nothing other than fact. We have seen far more progress under democratic administrations and congresses than we have ever seen from any other party. Indeed, the only other party in office has long striven toward regressive policies and even, during the height of the AIDS crisis, toward actions that could be associated with genocide through inaction. Well, if you don’t count the out and out demands for expatriation and other criminal actions.

      Prof.: You must have noticed that I did not say that the article made a definitive statement. Obama is not my friend either, but I have seen more friendly action through him than anyone else save the direct comments of Clinton. I’d love to see the day when a politician does not have to play a centrist line when it comes to things like this, but it just ain’t going to happen in this country’s near future. So cut your nose off if you will.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ptboat

      Hybyt: Exactly. I have learned that living in reality effects far more change than living in fantasy.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dallas David

      Well . . . not knowing the specifics of his situation, there’s no telling why he wants out. Maybe he doesn’t want to deal with integrating with a bunch of heterosexuals, or maybe he didn’t know he was gay when he enlisted and now he needs time as a civilian to sort things through in his mind (yes, these things happen).

      Ya never know . . .

      Jun 3, 2011 at 12:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      Check out my first comment….didn’t I predict that somebody would come in here and try to claim that the military was really just being nice because this guy probably WANTED to get out and they were just helping him out by using DADT to do it?

      Didn’t take long for somebody to come in and say exactly that did it?

      Jun 3, 2011 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @ptboat: I am more than a one issue voter and so are other people who do not support the same ol same ol over and over nonsensical bullshit so just save it for someone else. Don’t even start with AIDS. Gay people did something about that fucking inaction.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @ptboat: That’s right ptboat. there are commenters on here who did more for AIDS and long before your boy wonder Clinton came along and to this day bullshits over tea about Africa.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      @Cam: Seeing as THE ARTICLE ITSELF says the same, “predicting” that someone will agree and claiming that their doing so makes them a (GOP, I assume you meant?) apologist is more than a little over the top!

      Jun 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam


      The fact is, the policy still exists and was used.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 4:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hyhybt

      @Cam: Why do you say that as if it were a point of disagreement?

      Jun 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • McMike

      @ewe: And by voting for a 3rd party, one which has absolutely no chance of winning, you’re handing a vote over to the Republicans which by and large hate you.

      Sure, voting 3rd party might make you feel like you’re making some kind of statement but the only statement you’re making is how utterly stupid and damaging your vote really is.

      Jun 4, 2011 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @McMike: Mike: i already said to save that crap for someone else. I don’t vote for someone to make a statement to anyone. I vote based on who i believe in. Go try your best of the worst crap on someone else. Unfortunately it works quite well on a lot of people BUT doesn’t change the fact that you are still a second class faggot. My boots need shining next when you’re done whatever your doing. Thanks.

      Jun 4, 2011 at 10:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nat


      I don’t know how this could be made any clearer: the airman WANTED TO BE DISCHARGED. Full stop.

      Honestly, some of you are two steps removed from Truthers and Birthers at this point. Stop ignoring facts that don’t fit your narrative.

      Jun 4, 2011 at 12:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nat


      So better the futile gesture than the one that produces results, however marginal?

      Jun 4, 2011 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @Nat: My hand is shooing you away. I want you know that i,too, am being just as dismissive of you and whatever you think you want to make a point about. Next time you want to pretend to pose a question for someone don’t garnish it with your personal bias.

      Jun 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe

      @Nat: our founders did not lock in a two party system in writing because they were all too aware that fantatics like you would be sounding off through bullying and harassing others who choose to exercise their rights. The same way you do. It’s called having VISION.

      Jun 4, 2011 at 3:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The crustybastard

      @ptboat: There is no timeline. There is not even any obligation to complete the dehomophobification process. Most importantly, it does nothing to advance the process to continue to discharge otherwise qualified service members. Nothing. But the president keeps fighting for it.

      Jun 5, 2011 at 2:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jon

      Reports are that he wanted the discharge. That’s kinda sick to me on a few levels.

      Jun 6, 2011 at 8:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.