Senate Repeals ‘Don’T Ask, Don’T Tell’

[LaoPo]

The New York Times: BREAKING NEWS

Senate Repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

By CARL HULSE

Published: December 18, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Saturday struck down the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, bringing to a close a 17-year struggle over a policy that forced thousands of Americans from the ranks and caused others to keep secret their sexual orientation.

By a vote of 65 to 31, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, the Senate approved and sent to President Obama a repeal of the Clinton-era law, known as "don't ask, don't tell," a policy critics said amounted to government-sanctioned discrimination that treated gay and lesbian troops as second-class citizens.

Mr. Obama hailed the action, which fulfills his pledge to reverse the ban. "As commander in chief, I am also absolutely convinced that making this change will only underscore the professionalism of our troops as the best led and best trained fighting force the world has ever known," Mr. Obama said in a statement after the Senate, on a 63-33 vote, beat back Republican efforts to block a final vote on the repeal bill.

The vote marked a historic moment that some equated with the end of racial segregation in the military. It followed a review by the Pentagon that found little concern in the military about lifting the ban and was backed by Pentagon officials as a better alternative to a court-ordered end.

Supporters of the repeal said it was long past time to end what they saw as an ill-advised practice that cost valuable personnel and forced troops to lie to serve their country.

"We righted a wrong," said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who led the effort to end the ban. "Today we've done justice."

Before voting on the repeal, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants who came to the United States at a young age, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check.

The 55-41 vote in favor of the citizenship bill was five votes short of the number needed to clear the way for final passage of what is known as the Dream Act. The outcome effectively kills it for this year, and its fate beyond that is uncertain since Republicans who will assume control of the House in January oppose the measure and are unlikely to bring it to a vote.

The Senate then moved on to the military legislation, engaging in an emotional back and forth over the merits of the measure as advocates for repeal watched from galleries crowded with people interested in the fate of both the military and immigration measures. "I don't care who you love," Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said as the debate opened. "If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hide who you are."

Mr. Wyden showed up for the Senate vote despite saying earlier that he would be unable to do so because he would be undergoing final tests before his scheduled surgery for prostate cancer on Monday.

The vote came in the final days of the 111th Congress as Democrats sought to force through a final few priorities before they turn over control of the House of Representatives to the Republicans in January and see their clout in the Senate diminished.

Continues:

http://www.nytimes.c.../19cong.html?hp

LaoPo

[isanbirder]

This ought to be an advance, but I wonder how American gays see it? I can imagine a very large downside (I'm tempted to add, NOT backside!).

[SweatiePie]

I see it all as a bit strange, as I have said before, but American gays not in the military probably see it as a victory for gay rights, etc., and have little real interest in whether or not it has any effect on the military's ability.

I have spoken about this with a friend who is currently the "senior gay" in the British Army and his view is that those in the military probably see it with mixed views. Unlike the British military, and many others where gays are allowed to serve, it confers no extra rights apart from the right to serve in the military - similar rights to heterosexuals such as military pensions, married quarters, etc are not possible and will not be possible until similar rights are recognised generally. It also removes some rights which some gays would have preferred to keep, the most important being the right to keep their sexual preference private: the US military can now ask individuals their sexual preference, and they are required to tell - something which many may not appreciate.

In other countries where gays are permitted to serve in the military the numbers who actually want to do so are minimal, particularly in the combat arms (except, apparently, for women in the British Army where the proportion of lesbians is believed to have gone from 30% prior to gays being permitted to serve to 70% afterwards!), so the effects have also been minimal. In the US, though, the numbers appear to be much higher with thousands having been discharged in the last decade or so and this could adversely affect morale and efficiency in ways that it has not done elsewhere. On the other hand being discharged for being gay was one of the few ways out of the military early (the recent version of Section 22), so it is possible that the apparent numbers are only a reflection of that. Either way, it seems unlikely that it can make the American military any less efficient than it is now.

[Carib]

Also a topic in the general section about this subject;

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/427179-us-senate-votes-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell-policy/page__pid__4097824#entry4097824

:jap:

[ProThaiExpat]

The subtext of this legislation has wide ranging implications that may well prove decisive for gay rights into the future.

Consider the constitutional issues of equal protection of law. One spouse of a same sex couple joins the military, can the military deny benefits it grants to straight married couples?

Same sex couples in the military receiving federal benefits that same sex couples in states allowing same sex marriage are denied.

Can DOMA continue with denial of all federal benefits to same sex married couples when the military gives such benefits?

Can immigration laws discriminate against same sex married couples when the military permits it?

The Department of State has increased same sex couple's rights in many ways denied other federal employees. Can this continue if equal protection of the law cases are decided by the courts?

The rush by the religious right to change state constitutions some years ago to deny same sex couples equal protection, in my view, was driven by the certainty that the courts would apply equal protection under the US Constitution to such issues as same sex marriage.

Ultimately, these issues will be decided by the US Supreme Court and as presently constituted, will try in every way to deny such equality, however, Obama may have enough time in office to appoint one more progressive justice that will tip the current 5-4 conservative bias, or in my view, the multitude of cases decided by lower courts in favor of equal rights for same sex couples may force the US Supreme Court, by the logic of those decisions, to rule accordingly. Example Federal Judge Walker's meticulous trial and learned decision in California declaring denial of marriage rights to same sex couples as being unconstitutional.

While I see this legislation as a giant step forward in the equal protection of the law issue with gays and lesbians, the flip side of the issue, as far as a career in the military is concerned. may be limited to the lower ranks as I don't see promotion to senior officer ranks for "in your face" gays as is the case for the professions and business.

[Ijustwannateach]

Sweatiepie's caveat raises another troublesome point about implementation: closet cases. If someone isn't even aware that he/she is gay (a very common circumstance for many young people, especially those likely to be beginning their careers in the military or registering for selective service), will they be penalised for 'coming out' later? Will there be amnesty for those who have only realised after serving some time and then choose to 'come out' on their own? Counselling? New concerns over sexual harassment and/or fraternization?

Of course, all these things would have previously been problems for gay recruits, but with absolutely no support. With luck, many of these issues will become mainstream military business and 'normalised' through practice.

[SweatiePie]

Sweatiepie's caveat raises another troublesome point about implementation: closet cases. ........... New concerns over sexual harassment and/or fraternization?

My main point in that regard, and one in which I agree 100% with my British Army friend whose views made up the bulk of my post, was not so much about gays "coming out" voluntarily, but of gays deliberately being "outed", which they now can be and which they were protected from before. Gays, like anyone else, may prefer to keep their sexual preferences private for any number of reasons - in the military this could be because they put their military career and their military responsibilities ahead of their sex-life - but they are now denied that option in the US military. That, to me, is not a victory for gay rights but an unaccetable denial of basic human rights.

........While I see this legislation as a giant step forward in the equal protection of the law issue with gays and lesbians, the flip side of the issue, as far as a career in the military is concerned. may be limited to the lower ranks as I don't see promotion to senior officer ranks for "in your face" gays as is the case for the professions and business.

And this legislation is exactly why it is anything but a "giant step forward" for those in the military who put military service before sexual gratification. The friend I referred to who is the "senior gay" in the British Army (now long retired, but still on the Active Service List for recall if required), was the youngest Lt Colonel in the Army before retiring and served primarily in the British (and other) Special Forces; as he has a Civil Partner (Thai) it is pretty clear now that he is gay! When I asked him how he had "got away" with being gay in the Army when it was not allowed, or if he had just denied it, he simply said that the question had never arisen although there must have been some suspicions due to a total absence of any female companion (even temporary). When asked if he knew of any other senior gay British officers he said he knew of several, including one Field Marshal he had met (now deceased). None, apparently, were/are "in your face" gay but their sexual preferences were probably known but considered unimportant. Isn't that the way it should be?

[LeCharivari]

Thanks, Sweatie, you got my views just about spot on - that is just how "it should be", in my opinion.

I've posted about this topic elsewhere on the forum, but its possible I may get an answer here to one point which is puzzling me. Despite gays being allowed to serve in the British military and little or no discrimination, plus the same rights as straight personnel to pensions, married quarters, benefits, etc, the numbers involved are minimal, but in comparative terms there are apparently 10 times as many gays already serving in the US military. Why?

[tombkk]

Sweatiepie's caveat raises another troublesome point about implementation: closet cases. ........... New concerns over sexual harassment and/or fraternization?

My main point in that regard, and one in which I agree 100% with my British Army friend whose views made up the bulk of my post, was not so much about gays "coming out" voluntarily, but of gays deliberately being "outed", which they now can be and which they were protected from before. Gays, like anyone else, may prefer to keep their sexual preferences private for any number of reasons - in the military this could be because they put their military career and their military responsibilities ahead of their sex-life - but they are now denied that option in the US military. That, to me, is not a victory for gay rights but an unaccetable denial of basic human rights.

........While I see this legislation as a giant step forward in the equal protection of the law issue with gays and lesbians, the flip side of the issue, as far as a career in the military is concerned. may be limited to the lower ranks as I don't see promotion to senior officer ranks for "in your face" gays as is the case for the professions and business.

And this legislation is exactly why it is anything but a "giant step forward" for those in the military who put military service before sexual gratification. The friend I referred to who is the "senior gay" in the British Army (now long retired, but still on the Active Service List for recall if required), was the youngest Lt Colonel in the Army before retiring and served primarily in the British (and other) Special Forces; as he has a Civil Partner (Thai) it is pretty clear now that he is gay! When I asked him how he had "got away" with being gay in the Army when it was not allowed, or if he had just denied it, he simply said that the question had never arisen although there must have been some suspicions due to a total absence of any female companion (even temporary). When asked if he knew of any other senior gay British officers he said he knew of several, including one Field Marshal he had met (now deceased). None, apparently, were/are "in your face" gay but their sexual preferences were probably known but considered unimportant. Isn't that the way it should be?

I'm sorry to hear about the problems your friend in the UK Army faced, and the problems gays in the US Military had to face.

I was openly gay in the German Army in the early 1980s, and that was a non-issue. And that's what it should be IMHO: A non-issue.

I don't follow the idea that it is a bad thing that open gays can now serve in the US and UK military. If you don't want your employer to know you are gay, you can always hide it, but my question is: "Why would you want to?" Is there anything wrong about being gay?

[endure]

Here's a leader from today's Times:

Patriotism Affirmed

Belatedly allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military is right

December 23 2010 12:01AM

When President Truman signed an order in 1948 ending racial segregation in the US armed forces, he faced criticism from his own military commanders. General Omar Bradley, the Army Chief of Staff, said that desegregation would be implemented in the military only when it had become a fact in the rest of American society.

Such obstructionism, mounted for no reason of military utility, will seem scarcely credible now. Yet a policy of no greater sense or justice was repealed only yesterday by President Obama. From next year, homosexual men and women will be able to serve in the US military and acknowledge openly their sexuality. This is not merely a reform that is long overdue: it lifts an injustice whose counterparts have, belatedly and still with some exceptions, already been swept from civilian life.

Mr Obama’s decision works with the grain of public opinion. A Gallup poll this year recorded for the first time that a majority of Americans regarded same-sex relations as morally acceptable. Yet Mr Obama still showed political initiative in sticking to his campaign promises.

He will have recalled that the early months of the Administration of Bill Clinton, his Democratic predecessor, were dogged by controversy on this issue. Mr Clinton had argued in the 1992 presidential election for the reversal of a ban on gays serving in the military. Within days of taking office, he realised the strength of congressional and military opposition. An uneasy compromise was enacted that came to be known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell”. Recruits would no longer be asked whether they were homosexual; having been enlisted, they would be free to serve provided that they did not disclose their sexuality.

While the aim of the reform was noble, the outcome was worse than a legislative mess. In effect it declared that homosexuals had no place in the armed services and insinuated that their presence was a problem for an effective military. It thereby encouraged a culture of concealment, deceit and denunciation within the ranks. It also ensured that a future president would have to gain the approval of Congress before lifting the policy.

Fortunately, the outgoing House of Representatives and Senate did approve a new law this week. Opposition from within the military was blunted by a new Pentagon study, using survey data from Service personnel and spouses, which concluded that allowing gays to serve openly carried only a low risk to military preparedness.

The eradication of discrimination against homosexuals is not some whim of pressure groups. It is not social engineering to change the face of American institutions. It is not a plea for special treatment. It is common sense: recognition that homosexuals already serve, and do so with the same instincts of patriotism and public service as their comrades. A ban, and the policy that superseded it, specifically targeted them for suspicion and discriminatory treatment.

More than 13,000 people have been dismissed from the forces in the past 17 years under a policy that was supposed to be an advance for tolerance. These are Americans whose sense of civic duty is so great that they risked the discovery of their sexuality and punishment for it. They have been rewarded with ostracism and humiliation. This is not some merely theoretical injustice, and it should be a cause for pride that it is now lifted.

[LeCharivari]

I'm sorry to hear about the problems your friend in the UK Army faced ..........

I re-read Sweatie's post and I'm not sure where you got that from, but I never faced any problems about my sexual preferences in the Army. It wasn't a question of "hiding" anything - the question simply didn't come up and I didn't (and don't) see any more reason to broadcast my sexual preferences any more than I do such things as my religious beliefs, my school, and so on.

[tombkk]

I'm sorry to hear about the problems your friend in the UK Army faced ..........

I re-read Sweatie's post and I'm not sure where you got that from, but I never faced any problems about my sexual preferences in the Army. It wasn't a question of "hiding" anything - the question simply didn't come up and I didn't (and don't) see any more reason to broadcast my sexual preferences any more than I do such things as my religious beliefs, my school, and so on.

This is what Sweatie wrote and which I refer to:

my British Army friend whose views made up the bulk of my post, was not so much about gays "coming out" voluntarily, but of gays deliberately being "outed", which they now can be and which they were protected from before. Gays, like anyone else, may prefer to keep their sexual preferences private for any number of reasons - in the military this could be because they put their military career and their military responsibilities ahead of their sex-life - but they are now denied that option in the US military. That, to me, is not a victory for gay rights but an unaccetable denial of basic human rights.

IOW I agree that it should be your right to keep your sexual preferences private, and many people, not only in the army, prefer that. Of course, if nobody knows that you're gayu, they can't give you problems because of this, can they? Sweatie suggests that the new legislation says that they ask you, and therefore force you to give up this privacy.

The point of repealing the law is that if you choose to be open about it, of if someone else tells on you, they cannot fire you anymore. That. I think, is an achievement.

[powderpuff]

First of all what does this have to do with Thailand? Nothing.

Second under don't ask don't tell you would not be court martialled out for being gay.

Don't ask don't tell means your officers don't want to know your preference.

Why not stop the disinformation?

First thread in history allowed to run in 2 sub forums simultaneously.

[LeCharivari]

This is what Sweatie wrote and which I refer to:

my British Army friend whose views made up the bulk of my post, was not so much about gays "coming out" voluntarily, but of gays deliberately being "outed", which they now can be and which they were protected from before. Gays, like anyone else, may prefer to keep their sexual preferences private for any number of reasons - in the military this could be because they put their military career and their military responsibilities ahead of their sex-life - but they are now denied that option in the US military. That, to me, is not a victory for gay rights but an unaccetable denial of basic human rights.

Understood. These were not problems in the British Army, but potential problems in the American military.

I agree that the repeal of DADT and permitting those who are openly gay to serve in the military should improve things for both gays who want to serve in the military and for the US military, as it has in other contries, but its success will depend to a considerable extent on how it is implemented and administered. Different countries have approached the issue in different ways and the US military, with 20% being female and an estimated 5% being gay (the former could be one reason for the latter) despite DADT, needs to be careful how they administer the change.

[LeCharivari]

...under don't ask don't tell you would not be court martialled out for being gay.

Don't ask don't tell means your officers don't want to know your preference.

Incorrect..

Since the introduction of DADT 14,000 American service personnel have been dismissed from the military for being openly gay. These were administrative dismissals, not courts-martial (being gay is not a court-martial offence, although there are a number of associated military offences*).

DADT meant that irrespective of whether your commanders want to know your sexual preference or not, they are not allowed to ask.

*: In the US military these vary from article 134 of the UCMJ (UCMJ) - "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces", to article 125 - "Sodomy: unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. " I believe that steps to repeal or amend article 125 are already in progress.

In the British Army they include Section 19 of the Armed Forces Act (Section 69 of the Army Act in my time) - "conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline", to Section 42 "Buggery, indecency between men" (previously, and far more thought-provokingly, Section 70 "buggery, including of birds"). I believe Section 42 is being or has already been amended,

Edited December 25, 2010 by LeCharivari

[Ijustwannateach]

Powderpuff: it has already been stated tiresomely often that posts on gay topics in the gay subforum are not limited to Thai gay topics (ditto teaching subforum, ladies subforum, etc.).

It is also presently a subforum rule that bringing up this tiresome comment (obviously without checking the subforum posting guidelines) automatically earns a warning, which is now being delivered. Please be aware of subforum guidelines before posting.