The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Center for Military Readiness Challenges Secretary Gates on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Center for Military Readiness Challenges Secretary Gates on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

By Kevin Mooney on 3.29.10 @ 7:29AM

President Obama’s views on gays in the military and the potential fallout associated with his proposed policy changes have not received a lot of press attention. But there is one organization that has been out front in center of challenging administration officials who are complicit in advancing an agenda that does not square with the best interests of the U.S. military.

In response to announcement from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, has issued the following statement:

“Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending.

“Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama’s views than they are about the terms and intent of the law.”

Donnelly continued, “Whether intended or not, regulation changes announced today could create an incentive for ‘third parties’ to ‘out’ someone who is not eligible for military service. This will undermine respect for the law and perpetuate the institutional dishonesty that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen complained of in February.”

She added, “It is unfortunate that Adm. Mullen has mischaracterized the views of active-duty subordinates who are not truly free to express their own opinions, due to the Chairman’s inappropriate personal statement prematurely calling for repeal of the law. Admiral Mullen has disingenuously claimed little disagreement with his personal view among active-duty troops. But junior personnel will not disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during focus group meetings, and those who do agree with Mullen should not be used as props in the presence of the media.”

She added, “It is also ironic that Adm. Mullen has criticized a three-star general for expressing a personal view in support of the 1993 law, even after Mullen himself expressed a personal opinion favoring repeal of the same law before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2. This appears to be a double standard that is not helpful.

“Furthermore, Secretary Gates has once again insisted that the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) that he has established should limit its report only to “how” and “when” to repeal the law-not “if” the law should be repealed. This posture effectively cuts out Congress and the American people, who will oppose any attempt to impose a European-style LGBT Law and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered policies on our military by what Sen. John McCain described as a ‘fiat.’

She continued, “If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law ‘more humane,’ he should follow the legal mandate to explain the purpose and meaning of the law more accurately, and exercise his legally-authorized option to reinstate ‘the question’ about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. All of the personal stories about servicemembers discharged for homosexuality could have been avoided if the Bush and Obama Administrations had taken steps to more fully explain and enforce the actual law.

“Despite the unnecessary and unfortunate confusion caused by Secretary Gates today, I remain confident that members of Congress ultimately will retain current law, which is important to protect recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.”

Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified

With regard to the matter of “third party outings” generally, Finding #15 in the statute clearly states that “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” Because there is no constitutional right to serve, the creation of an unjustified exemption for persons revealed to be gay by others would contradict the plain meaning and intent of the law.

In a prominent case that sparked the discussion of “third parties” last year, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a former weapons systems officer, continues to claim that he should be spared discharge. An investigation by Fehrenbach’s local newspaper, the Boise Statesman, found that he was accused of sexual assault by a “third party” he solicited for consensual sex on a gay website. A police report ensued, but Fehrenbach was cleared when he proved the incident was consensual.

Defining Discipline Down

It is unclear whether new regulations will allow Fehrenbach to remain in the Air Force. Nothing in cases involving “third parties” justifies a suspension of enforcement, since the law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve.

Yankeegirl| 3.29.10 @ 10:45AM

A lot of Navy Chiefs' wives will be upset when their husbands' ships put out to sea for a six-month deployment with a fully diverse crew packed into tight quarters. Ahem. Better make them get HIV tested on their return and God forbid anyone needs a blood transfusion if there are casualties aboard. Thanks so much for putting your fighting men and women at risk, Admiral Mullen, in order to kiss up to Obama.

Mike| 3.29.10 @ 10:59AM

Kevin Mooney is an articulate bigot.

Tim| 3.29.10 @ 11:59AM

"All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. "

Gilbert K. Chesterton

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 4:07PM

Brilliant Chesterton--good post, Tim.

Derek Leaberry| 3.29.10 @ 12:31PM

Homosexuals tend to degrade everything they come in contact with. Just ask the Catholic Church. Homosexuals were allowed to become priests, creating a homosexual cancer within the Church. Many of these homosexual priests took advantage of children, not only costing the Church hundreds of millions of dollars but lowering the church in the esteem of its own membership and the public at large. The harm caused by the thousands of homosexual priests the Roman Catholic Church will take decades to repair. Why would the military wish to go through the same agony?

Eric| 3.29.10 @ 1:19PM

Comparing all homosexuality to what happened in the Catholic Church is beyond ridiculous. Gays do not degrade everything they come into contact with Derek. They have literally been in all the military for centuries and if you can point to even one single instance that a homosexual degraded the military I'd love to hear about it. The fact of the matter is they are already here, get used to it. They just want to not be hunted or live in fear for their jobs for simply loving someone that most find inappropriate.

Retired Captain| 3.29.10 @ 1:23PM

This just confirms that bigotry and hate mongering is still alive and well. Navy Chiefs and HIV test, hello, there are already regular tests for members of the military and guess what; most positive tests come from "straight" men having sex with prostitutes (male and female)! As for the gay priests and children rubbish, someone should really enlighten you that most pedophiles are "straight" men. The majority of these scare comments come from homophobic men who believe someone is out to get them because they are the perpetrators of most sexual harassment and violence on women and children!

Nick| 3.29.10 @ 2:34PM

Homophobic?

The only time I would be afraid of a homo, is if they were coming at me with a knife, and I didn't have my gun!

Joe Gafman| 3.29.10 @ 1:28PM

I guess all of you who hate patriotic gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans who want to serve their nation in the military, and are doing so today, many of them known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands, will have to take your grievances to some other arena. The day is rapidly approaching when DADT will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Secretary Gate's new enforcement policies is but a small step towards the time when ALL men and women who serve their nation can do so in the military under the exact, same rules and regulations of speech and conduct. What an amazing concept! Equality under the law.

Active Duty Mike| 3.29.10 @ 1:36PM

Ok, this isn't hard to figure out. We are here. We want to serve our country. No we don't want to hit on every straight guy out there. In fact most of us are far to fearful of someone going crazy to even approach them. Soon, very soon, at a minimum we well be free to live our PRIVATE lives to the full extent without fear. When DADT is repealed, and face it right wingers IT WILL get over yourselves and trust in the training of our armed forces to provide for the common defense. We will do our jobs and do them damn well.

BJ Rose| 3.30.10 @ 7:19PM

Mike:
You are painting "right wingers" wi the same brush you claim they paint gays with. I could care less what someone does in his or her bedroom - that's their business, not mine. I have been on active duty and knew numerous homosexuals who served their country proudly and with honor. I would stand with them any time.
I like a small government that has no business telling anyone who they should run their lives. Choice is up to the individual - but homosexuality is not a choice in my view. Who would choose it?
The Army is going through the same machinations that occurred when women were finally allowed to serve. This isn't any different - and you are right. In the end, no one will care.

Liam| 3.30.10 @ 7:41PM

The proof will be in the pudding, as granny used to say!

Flee| 3.29.10 @ 2:41PM

By serving openly does it mean gays would be identified as such on their uniforms? This would be detrimental if captured by any Islamic forces that would make a symbol of their destruction. Can you imagine how they would treat an openly gay soldier if captured? Don't ask, don't tell seems the most fair way for anyone to serve.

Nick| 3.29.10 @ 2:55PM

Yes, it will be on the uniform.

It will be a "Tinkerbell" patch, for the homos; and a razor with a line through it, for the lesbos.

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 4:00PM

Let the military rank and file decide the openly gay issue--put it to a vote! What's going to happen if a lot of heteros leave the military because of this?

If we allow gay activism destroy our military we deserve what we get.

CAPTUSMC| 3.29.10 @ 3:30PM

How much of this piece was written by Mooney? It is almost all quotes from Elaine Donnelly, a rabid wing nut who has NEVER served one day in uniform. Her Center for Military Readiness is one bedroom in her home in Michigan. CMR has only one employee and is funded by a number of right wing organizations.
When DADT is inevitably repealed it will be a nonevent for those on active duty. Sexual orientation will remain a personal and private matter. Most gay people in uniform are conservative by education, training and background and have been in the closet most of their lives. That is where they will likely stay. The only change will be that the sword of Damocles will be removed from over their heads.
In twenty years, our children will look back at this law the same way we do about the integration of people of color and women today. It will be a shameful part of our national history.

Nobama| 3.29.10 @ 4:04PM

What's shameful is ignoring the wishes of heterosexuals in the military.
Shame on you if our country's national security is compromised over this issue.

Eric| 3.29.10 @ 5:01PM

Heterosexuals are not being ignored have you even talked to someone in the military lately? Speaking from straight standpoint we don't care. Just about all polling data shows 70%+ either approve of the repeal or don't care. In a country where the majority rules does that not seem like an obvious choice. Heteros' are being considered, what you don't seem to get is that we want the best trained and most willing to defend their country standing by us!

Nobama| 3.29.10 @ 5:15PM

Where's proof of your 70% claim?
I want the best trained military, too, and gay activism will destroy our military and our readiness.

Troll.

wzak| 3.29.10 @ 10:52PM

Donnelly doesn't come close to the trash spewed by the otherside of the fence who would never even think of wearing a uniform no less support their spawn from doing such.
The right wingers should call for a "Recruiting Boycott" for about 6-8 months .

Jeremiah| 3.30.10 @ 12:32AM

You got it! Let the fascists chew on plummeting recruitment numbers.

Everly Waverly| 3.29.10 @ 4:01PM

What better a place but the military for experimentation, ya know, placing troops within the blast radius of atomic bombs, LSD ingestion, forced cohabitation with the 3rd sex. Why is this even being talked of, it will cause more trouble than it solves? Who's ticket is being punched, (excuse the thought), what do the mucky-mucks expect to gain? What of the specter of tainted blood, that should dispose of this folly at once!!!

Nobama| 3.29.10 @ 4:05PM

The 'mucky-mucks' don't have to live with the results of their decision. Of course!

Joe Gafman| 3.29.10 @ 6:15PM

Tainted blood. HAHAHA. You must be under the impression that there aren't tens of thousands of gays serving right now. Get your head out of the sand, Everly. If those tens of thousands of gays can serve now, where is all the tainted blood? In fact, where are all the problems you guys are worried about. Try staying up on the news on DADT. Here's some data for you to chew on:

In a Vet Voice Foundation poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans, 73% of the vets said that allowing gays to serve openly was acceptable; and 58% of them thought there were gays in their own unit.

In the latest Military Times poll of active duty and mobilized guard/reserve troops, 57% thought there were gays in their own unit, and 11% said that there commanding officer knew about them;

In a 2006 Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans, 23% said they knew for certain there were gays in their own unit, and 45% said they suspected there were gays in their own unit; 73% of them said they were comfortable working around gays and lesbians.

How's that for polling the troops. Tainted blood! HAHAHAHA. With all the known gays serving, where are all the problems? Seems to me we still have the best military in the world, with known gays and lesbians serving right alongside their straight peers.,

wzak| 3.29.10 @ 11:23PM

Goody... polls

Zogby:
9% polled strongly agree with gays serving openly
28% polled that gays had a negative impact on personal morale with 6% polling a positive impact
29% polled being very comfortable around gays with 59% polling being somewhat comfortable or somewhat uncomfortable (somewhat is defined as "to a degree")

Military Times:
14.5% strongly favor gays serving openly
Top 2 concerns of repeal are reducing harassment and violence against gays

Bottom line, the only survey that will matter is the survey DoD will have conducted.

Jeremiah| 3.30.10 @ 12:31AM

I draw the line at the military trying to force heteros to serve in an openly gay military. Won't fly.
Anyone objecting to the new policy should be able to opt out with an honorable discharge.

They didn't sign up for it, so there's no contract.

You got a problem with it? Then you can stick it.

Joe Gafman| 3.29.10 @ 6:46PM

Oh, and here's another poll to chew on: In a current recent Military.com poll commenting on the Marine Corps Commandant's concern about gays being roommates with straight Marines, 70% of the poll respondents agreed with the statement: "Just because someone is gay doesn't mean he or she can't be a respectful roommate. Grow up."

Jeremiah| 3.29.10 @ 7:22PM

Leave it up to those serving in the military--they have to live with it. Until I see polls that are confirmed as legitimate I remain unconvinced.

Gay activism will destroy our military, though--you can count on it.

CAPTUSMC| 3.29.10 @ 7:43PM

Jeremiah: What military were you in where they voted? Perhaps the Dutch Army. Show me the evidence that having gays serve honestly in the British, Canadian, Australian and Israeli Military destroyed them. Nobama: What branch did you serve in where the troops got to decide anything? Everly: What blood have you ever been sprayed with? Derek: You need to learn the difference between child molesters and gays. Get your head out of your ass. Retired Capt, Joe, Mike and Eric: Bullseye. You are all right on target.

Jeremiah| 3.30.10 @ 12:25AM

Who the hell are you, moron? I don't know you from nothin' and I believe your silly posts even less.

Any dirtbag can put up CAPTUSMC and pretend he/she's the real thing--any dirtbag at all. The odds are slim at best that you're a marine, loser.

You fascists think you're going to FORCE hetero Americans to serve in an openly gay military? I've got news for you, clown, it will NEVER happen. Bet your prissy ass on it!

CAPTUSMC| 3.30.10 @ 9:12AM

Jeremiah: There is no doubt you have never served a day in your life. Prove me wrong. If we are betting asses, you are going to loose yours!

Jeremiah| 3.30.10 @ 1:18PM

That's "lose" moron. Your spelling stinks, too.

You can't force heteros in the military to serve in an openly gay force if they don't want to.
You're all about freedom, right? Well, freedom applies to everybody.

CAPTUSMC| 3.30.10 @ 7:08PM

What the hell is an openly gay force? If you ever served a day, you would know once a legal order is given there is no alternative to following it. As Admiral Mullen said about a Army LtGeneral Mixon " he should vote with his feet." That is the only freedom you have once you put on the uniform. You still haven't said what service you were in. I suspect you are such a great speller you must have been a Remington Raider. Know what that is numbnuts?

Jeremiah| 3.30.10 @ 7:49PM

Wow! You sound like a little Nazi! Who are you to force others to serve against their will?
Who knew the big, tough "Marine Capt." wears pretty pink panties? Got those panties in a pinch, don't ya? Haha

Typical liberal scumbag--'freedom for me but not for thee'. You damn liberal fascists are going to destroy our military over a moronic social experiment.

CAPTUSMC| 3.31.10 @ 12:41AM

Let me ask this one more time. I won't stoop to your level. What service were you in and what did you do? It better be good because we will all know if you are BSing us. I am calling you.

Jeremiah| 3.31.10 @ 3:00AM

"We will all know?" Who, you and the crazy voices in your head?
Stop the threats, mouth breather--you look like an idiot.
Don't you have something better to do--like pushing your stupid gay agenda on another anonymous web-site?

Let the active-duty rank and file decide this issue--they have to live with it.

CAPTUSMC| 3.31.10 @ 5:44AM

I rest my case.

Jeremiah| 3.31.10 @ 8:27PM

Of course you do, you've been out-witted.

Nice try, though.

Derek Leaberry| 3.30.10 @ 8:49AM

I find it amusing that so mnay lefties decide to post at conservative web sites. Unless American Spectator is no longer conservative.

Joe Gafman| 3.30.10 @ 3:51PM

Derek, are conservatives only interested in hearing viewpoints that confirm their own bias? Surely you don't think that discussion boards, such as this, exist only so that conservatives can "preach to their choir."

So I'll post the main point I was making earlier: with lots of gays serving now, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands, and with nobody showing any negative impact on unit morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness, where is the need for DADT? Why is it necessary to arbitrarily kick out someone simply because another person finds out they're gay? If our military's operational readiness is just fine, even with many known gays serving, where is the problem?

Derek Leaberry| 3.30.10 @ 5:10PM

Mr. Gafman, when you get outside politically correct cultures or atmospheres, few men respect homosexuals. How can you serve with and under men you have no respect for?

Liam| 3.30.10 @ 5:28PM

There may not be obvious negative impact on troop morale now but you're taking a huge chance that there could be OBVIOUS negative impact on troop morale IF and WHEN gays start serving openly.

What then? Kiss our national security good-bye.

Joe Gafman| 3.30.10 @ 6:24PM

Derek and Liam, let me remind you of the existing data, once again, from Iraq/Afghanistan veterans and currently serving troops: there are already are openly serving gays in both theaters of war, sharing tents, latrines, hooches, showers and every other type of facility. And there are no reports of degradation in troop morale, unit cohesion and certainly not any reported negative impact on combat readiness.

You can hypothesize all you want about what YOU think MIGHT happen if gays were serving with the knowledge of their peers, but the reality on the ground, right now, in both theaters of war is that there are no such problems with known gays serving. Let me repeat that: polls of currently serving troops and recent veterans show that the majority know there are gays serving right alongside them, sometimes even known to their commands, yet --- it's no big deal. No problems. End of story.

Our military continues to be the finest on the planet, with gays serving openly now. There is no longer any reason to continue DADT.

Jamie| 3.30.10 @ 7:55PM

I don't know if you're telling the truth--most likely you've got a gay agenda--but if gay activism enters the military, it will destroy it. And there's no way you can refute that.

CDR USN| 3.30.10 @ 6:49PM

Funny how lesbians never enter the discussion - tainted blood! sexual molestation! If this is truly what matters most to you in selecting a military, then you should be advocating for an all-woman force since the vast, vast, vast majority of sexual assaults, violent crime, HIV spread, and domestic abuse are perpetuated by men.

Mamie| 3.30.10 @ 7:52PM

Yeah, that's the ticket! An all female force--if everyone had PMS at the same time there would be WWIII!

Joe Gafman| 3.30.10 @ 9:55PM

Here's an interesting fact for you: the very first American casualty of the Iraq War was an openly gay Marine, SSGT Eric Alva (don't believe me? look it up). He was personally presented his Purple Heart by the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and he was visited in his Walter Reed Hospital bed by Pres. and Mrs. Bush.

Imagine that! A gay Marine, known to his fellow Marines when they went into battle together on the first day of the war. I guess his fellow Marines valued him as a member of their combat team, and didn't care that he was gay.

wzak| 3.30.10 @ 10:45PM

Real interesting case. Prior to deploying, Alva, a Marine Staff NCO outed himself to his subordinates. Why would a SNCO step across the professional threshold to enlighten his troops on his sexual orientation is between Alva & the man upstairs. Others can draw their own conclusions.
Another Marine by the name of Jeff Key did the same thing as Alva. Outed himself prior to deploying in the hopes of a DADT discharge maybe. It didn't work & he was deployed and after being in Iraq for 2 months, Key was sent CONUS for a non-combat related operation. While CONUS, he once again played the DADT card to avoid going back and this time he was successful leaving his peers behind to carry the load.
GAO Report show approx 83% of DADT discharges are of those who outed themselves. 90% of the 83% occur within 1.5 years of service with 20% during basic training. Agenda driven one's claim that many out themselves after being confronted by command after someone they confided in turned them in. A more likely scenario is that those seeking the discharge to avoid in many cases deployment will out themselves to peers or subordinates with the hope it will reach command. Sort of like suicide by cop.

Joe Gafman| 3.31.10 @ 1:41AM

You're right about Alva. He shared a personal side of himself with his fellow Marines, and you know what|? They didn't care. They considered him a leader and he was valued as a warrior among warriors. The fact that he got his leg blown off by a land mine, and he became the first casualty of the war seems to have escaped you -- his fellow Marines didn't care about his sexual orientation. Too bad that seems to be the most important part of his service for you; sad, but it says more about you than it does for this American hero.

As for Jeff Key, I happen to know the man personally and know his story quite well. You've got the details wrong about him. Yes, he outed himself to his commanding officer, but he did so stateside after being returned to the US from Iraq because of an injury suffered there. He did so because he became disillusioned about what we were doing in Iraq. One can criticize him for that if you want, but in regards to known gays causing problems with their peers, Jeff was also known to be gay by his fellow Marines. You can even see evidence of that in the film that Showtime did about Jeff called Semper Fi. And again, nobody cared. In fact, some of his fellow Marines appear in the film.

Furthermore, Jeff served another 18 months after returning stateside, openly gay on Camp Pendleton, and like in Iraq, it wasn't a problem. In addition, he wrote and starred in a one-man play, which is still playing at various places around the country, called the Eyes of Babylon -- about his experiences in the Iraq War based on a diary he kept while deployed. His fellow Marines from Camp Pendleton would often come to his performance of the play in Los Angeles, where it opened. A more spectacular example of an openly gay Marine you couldn't ask for, and it didn't cause any evident problems the whole time he was at Camp Pendleton.

Jeff started a charitable foundation, the Mehadi Foundation, for children in Iraq, and he runs an outreach for injured veterans in the U.S. today.

Jeff is one of the most inspirational men I know. If you haven't seen Semper Fi on Showtime, I highly recommend it.

The fact remains that there are tens of thousands of straight service men and women who know gays in their own unit, and yet combat readiness is just fine. Where are all the problems people are worried about. Known gay troops are fighting alongside their straight peers and there are no evident problems with morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness. I ask again, given that reality on the ground, right now in both theaters of war, where is the need for DADT? Where is the need to continue to kick out trained, experienced troops simply because somebody finds out they're gay?

Jeremiah| 3.31.10 @ 3:19AM

Do you mis-understand on purpose? I have no problem with gay Americans; what they do in their private life is none of my business. But when it comes to our fine military, I am concerned that gay activism could cause division and low morale within the ranks.

I think it's only fair that heteros' wishes be considered, too. Fairly. If people want to opt out because the military had changed from the one they signed up for--they should be able to. Otherwise, I think there could be a lot of resentment.

I hope this can be worked out so everybody is treated fairly, but I'm also wary of the law of unintended consequences.

CAPTUSMC| 3.31.10 @ 6:11AM

I know Key and Alva also and they were top notch Marines. Jeremiah: When repeal inevitably happens, my Marines will do what they always do, salute and say Aye, Aye Sir/Mam. They are professionals. Just as with our closest allies this is all a tempest in a tea pot and we will look back and realize that nothing really changed. Our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in arms will merely have the sword of Damocles removed from over their heads and they will be allowed to live with honesty and integrity as full members of the team.

Jeremiah| 3.31.10 @ 8:31PM

Just remember: The security of our nation is at stake here and you've sworn an oath to protect it; screw up military morale and readiness and put us at risk, and the blame will be on YOU.

And we will know it.

wzak| 3.31.10 @ 10:04AM

That Alva lost his leg is not lost as it is not lost that many have given an arm, leg or life. As Alva has gone from Marine to political activist, he is fair game with no sympathy protection.
From Jeff Key's bio, "On March 31, 2004, he went on CNN as Paula Zahn's guest and used the ban on gays in the military to be discharged and to speak out in opposition to the occupation of Iraq."
Key, sporting no Purple Heart, used DADT as an easy out with no bad papers whereas a hetro who decided after 2 whole months in-country that the Iraq War was immoral (cough, cough) would have had on more extreme measures to avoid contractual obligations. The activists can pin whatever label they want on Key. As a Marine, I tag him with another label and it's not homosexual.

Joe Gafman| 3.31.10 @ 10:46AM

The salient points about both SSGT Alva and Lance Corporal Key is that they were gay Marines who served with the knowledge of their fellow Marines and there was no evident disruption to unit morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness. Since those were the bases of the current DADT law, those bases are obviously false.

But Key and Alva are but two examples of thousands of similar stories. As I posted earlier, here are the data to back up the fact that the majority of current troops or recent veterans know gays in their own unit -- and the military continues to function just fine, once again demonstrating the falsity of the foundations for DADT:

2006 Zogby International Poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterana: 68% either knew for certain or suspected there were gays IN THEIR OWN UNIT; 73% said they were comfortable working alongside gays and lesbians;

2010 Vet Voice Foundation poll of Iraq/Afghanistan veterans: 58% thought there were gays IN THEIR OWN UNIT; 60% said that being gay has no bearing on a service member's ability to perform his duties; 73% said they were personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians;

2010 Military Times poll of active duty troops and mobilized guard/reserve troops: 57% thought there were gays IN THEIR OWN UNIT; 11% thought their commands were aware of this fact and weren't taking any action about it.

So, once again, LOTS of "openly" gay troops serving right now, in both theaters of war, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands, and it's not degrading operational effectiveness.

Game, set, match on DADT.

Jeremiah| 3.31.10 @ 8:35PM

How many of you posters for the repeal of DADT are gay? It's self-serving and selfish of you to push for repeal and ignore the wishes of heteros, and I believe you do it at your own peril.

If our military effectiveness is compromised--all of us will suffer.

CAPTUSMC| 4.1.10 @ 12:03AM

Jeremiah: You seem sensible unlike some of the folks who have recently posted here. I agree, nothing should be done that would adversely impact readiness. If anyone has a shred of evidence that allowing honest service would cause our military to be less effective, I would be the first to say it is too dangerous to make the change. I just have not seen such evidence in studies or in the experience of our closest allies. Instead, I see highly qualified personnel who are doing a great job being discharged merely because of their sexual orientation. It just seems to make no sense.

Jeremiah| 4.1.10 @ 11:37AM

You seem like an intelligent individual, so let me pose this question to you: How could you have any evidence that "honest service" would present a threat to military readiness and morale when the policy is not yet in place?

That doesn't make any sense, and there's no way in hell you will know for sure until the dust settles--and you know it. It could be too late by then and we could all be really screwed.

Beware of the law of unintended consequences.

Dino| 4.13.10 @ 12:13AM

Hey Jeremiah, I am sure you will completely discount the paralells, but there were those who said back in 1948 that African-Americans were "self serving" to complain about the segregation of the US Military and it was selfish of them to push for integreation and ignore the wishes of the white soldiers. I mean why should we have fixed something that wasn't broken?? Didn't we win World War II with a segregated military? Why don't you ask yourself this: what would you have told someone back then who said that continuing the separation of the races in the US Armed Forces was necessary to preserve morale, unit cohesion, good order and discipline?

Joe Gafman| 4.1.10 @ 5:59PM

Jeremiah, read the poll results above. There already are lots of openly gay troops serving honestly now. And there are no significant problems with unit morale, unit cohesion or combat readiness. What more do you need to know? The reality is that gays are serving alongside their straight counterparts, and it's not a problem. Therefore, there's no longer any need to kick out trained and experienced gay troops because it's assumed there will be problems. The gay troops are already serving in many instances, and it's no big deal.

Jeremiah| 4.1.10 @ 10:27PM

Joe, you and I both know that conditions always change when something becomes 'official'.

Be honest and admit that you really don't know what will happen to morale, because short of owning a crystal ball--you really can't know.

The difference between you and me is that you have an agenda and I don't. You're blind to the possible consequences that may result from more permissive regulations regarding gays, or perhaps you're not blind at all--you just don't care. And there's no way for me to tell.

CAPTUSMC| 4.2.10 @ 2:33PM

Jeremiah: You are correct that anything is possible. All we can do is look at a risk benefit analysis. There is no evidence that honest service will have any adverse impact on unit cohesion, morale or discipline. The examples of a military cultures similar to ours is our closest allies, the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Israeli's. The same predictions of doom were made before they lifted their bans. When it happened it was a "nonevent." So what are the benefits. First, we know that we have lost over 13,000 trained troops. 800 have been in critical MOSes. The cost of just basic training replacement is in the 100's of millions( some sources say billions). These lost troops would be available to reduce those who have been toughing it through multiple deployments with minimal dwell times. Don't you think this repeal would help them and their families? It is estimate an additional 3-4000 troops leave each year at the end of their enlistment because of this law. That is an additional 50-60,000 troops lost. It is also estimated that the are 40-50,000 potential recruits who do not join up because of this law. These are big numbers even by government standards. I challenge you or anyone to show how a risk benefit analysis come up with any conclusion that repeal is the right thing for our military and our country.

Jeremiah| 4.2.10 @ 4:02PM

Capt., bottom line is I just don't know for sure what will happen and neither do you.

One thing I do know for sure, though, is I don't trust Leftists--because Leftists lie. The ends justify the means, right?

That is the reason for the hostility you see on this thread; probably most of it.

Joe Gafman| 4.2.10 @ 1:53PM

Jeremiah, by your reasoning, there would never be any changes at all in military personnel policy, because you never know what the consequences would be. Thus, our military would still be segregated (as the Joint Chiefs were adamantly convinced that mixing black and white troops would degrade unit morale, unit cohesion and combat readiness -- hmm, where have we heard those arguments before?), women would still have severe restrictions about where they could serve in the military, women would not be in command of units or vessels, women would not be admitted to the service academies, etc. etc.

Invoking assumed consequences, when the reality shows them to be incorrect is nothing more than a cover for maintaining a discriminatory, unfair policy that subjects patriotic gay and lesbian Americans who want to serve their nation to a separate set of laws and regulations of speech and conduct that only then, and not their straight peers, have to endure.

Repealing DADT will simply allow ALL men and women who don the uniform in defense of their country to serve under the exact, same rules and regulations of speech and conduct.

Jeremiah| 4.2.10 @ 3:56PM

Again, your gay agenda is clear and our national security is superseded by that agenda. Further, your statement, "Invoking assumed consequences, when the reality shows them to be incorrect..." is absurd and you know it: "Reality" is based on present conditions and would be subject to change if military policies were altered.

And then, of course, after you've lost the argument, you seek to truncate it and do what every gay Leftist apparatchik does next, bust out the tried and true verbal ad hominem hammer--"HOMOPHOBE!"

I'm damn sick and tired of gay activists; your selfishness and self-righteousness are repellent.
You don't give a damn about your country, as evidenced by your braindead, brainwashed focus on only one issue.

That's why I know with certitude, if you extremists get your way, our military will be fully compromised. That's your real endgame anyway and you use deceit to get there.

There is method to your madness.

Joe Gafman| 4.2.10 @ 5:06PM

Jeremiah, you seem to be letting your anger get the best of you, impugning the patriotism and honor of those with whom you disagree.

For the record, I served my country for 25 years in the military, retiring with honors as a senior officer. So do yourself and other readers of this thread a favor and try to stick to the topic at hand rather than attack and try to degrade those who disagree with you.

You failed to answer the issue I raised above, that is, by assuming dire consequences to any change in military policy, you not only advocate for always maintaining the status quo, but by your own reasoning, you would be advocating against all of the progressive changes in the past that have improved our military.

Given that there are tens of thousands of service men and women who already know gays in their own unit, and there is not a shred of evidence that military effectiveness is degraded, and given that there are a lot of commanding officers who know this as well, and unit morale and unit cohesion are just fine, where is the justification for continuing to kick out trained and experienced troops simply because somebody finds out they're gay?

That is the issue you have failed to address. Instead of waving a red flag of "gay activist," how about presenting a rational argument for a change -- where is the evidence that allowing known gays to serve honestly that the military would suffer?

Repealing DADT will simply allow ALL men and women who don the uniform in defense of their country to serve under the exact, same rules and regulations of speech and conduct. Please explain why equality under military law is a bad idea.

Joe Gafman| 4.2.10 @ 8:24PM

The problem with many people’s thinking about DADT is word is “openly.” Many people hear the word "openly" and they imagine gays acting inappropriately, harassing or coming on to their straight brethren, or soliciting sex or engaging in other forms of misconduct. That is the problem with the word "openly," not with gays serving "honestly" as many are doing now. Yes, "openly," is the problem -- but it's an imaginary problem. The reality is far different.

Since 68% of the troops in the Zogby International poll of Iraq/Afghanistan service members said they either knew for certain or suspected there were gays in their own unit, yet none of the assumed misbehavior is occurring, and the military continues to be the finest in the world, what is the problem?

Since two-thirds of the troops know or suspect they are fighting alongside, living alongside, sharing showers, latrines and every other type of facility with their gay battle buddies, fellow Marines, shipmates and fellow airmen, and nobody seems to be complaining, why do we still need a discriminatory law like Don't Ask, Dont' Tell?

Joe Gafman| 4.2.10 @ 10:55PM

) Here's the nub of the problem: If a straight soldier shows his buddies a photo of his wife and kids, it's okay. If a gay soldier shows his buddies a photo of his partner and their kids, he gets kicked out.

If a straight soldier answers the question "what'd you do this weekend," and says he went dancing with his girlfriend, it's okay. But if a gay soldier answers the same question saying he went dancing with his boyfriend, he gets kicked out.

If a straight soldier answers the question from his buddies, "do you have a girlfriend," and answers "yes," it's okay. if a gay soldier answers the same question, "no, I have a boyfriend," he gets kicked out.

That is the problem with "don't ask, don't tell." That is what it means to serve honestly. Getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" simply means that everyone serves under the exact, same rules and regulations of speech and conduct. Now isn't that a strange concept? Imagine, equality under the law.

Time to repeal this discriminatory law and stop throwing out trained, experienced and valued troops.

Jeremiah| 4.6.10 @ 11:01PM

Liberals like you confuse truth and anger--I am not angry, I am sad because I believe our great country is going down the toilet.

Why do I think this?
Just read your posts that focus like a laser beam on ONE issue while ignoring our security concerns--and you will have the answer.

You don't care about your country because you are blinded by your gay agenda. I don't trust you because of your selfishness; most certainly, gay activism like yours will destroy our fine military and our once fine country.

You will be to blame and you'll suffer, too.

Dino| 4.13.10 @ 12:22AM

@Jeremiah. The don't ask don't tell law is NOT based on truth, it is based on superstition and sterotyping. It also compells servicemembers not to be truthful as Admiral Mullen said in his February 2nd testimony. Gays and lesbians already serve openly in the militarys of almost all of our NATO allies and in US Paramilitary organizations like defense contractors, law enforcement and civilian employees of the Department of Defense. All of them behave professionally and appropriately.

Joe Gafman| 4.7.10 @ 1:18AM

No, Jeremiah, I love my country and am proud of the 25 years I served in its military. When gay men and women are allowed to serve their country in the military with the same honor and dignity as everyone else, the military will be stronger, our nation will be stronger, and the cause of equality and justice will be strengthened.

It's too bad your hatred blinds you to reality: thousands of gay men and women are already serving in the military, known to their peers and sometimes even to their commands, and our military continues to be the strongest in the world. Those are the facts; that is reality. Try as you might, you cannot dispute that truth, for you have no facts to back up your point of view, except your own prejudice.

Joe Gafman| 4.7.10 @ 1:20AM

Here's another example of an openly gay American serving his country in the military, known to all his shipmates:

USN submariner, Steve Lorandos, an openly gay sailor who served aboard a nuclear sub from 2004-2006, was known to be gay be everyone on the boat (there are no secrets on a sub). Nobody cared. He was a highly respected NCO. Unfortunately, Lorandos chose not to reenlist because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and the Navy lost a highly trained and experienced submariner. He left because of the risks that he could be kicked out if his next command chose to make an issue out of it. How long do you think it takes to train a replacement?

He served honestly without any problems -- no negative hit to morale, unit cohesion or operational readiness.

So why the need for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

Joe Gafman| 4.9.10 @ 9:43PM

Re openly gay submariner, Steve Lorandos. It's hard to think of an environment where privacy is more lacking than a nuclear sub: underwater for 3 months at a time in a confined space - all male crew -- shared heads (latrines), showers -- even shared beds (a practice called "hot racking," although only one person at a time sleeps in a rack (bed)). Yet, despite all this, nobody on the boat took issue with Lorandos serving openly. That's because "openly" doesn't mean improper behavior, harassment or misconduct. Openly simply means people knew -- and it was no big deal.

Joe Gafman| 4.10.10 @ 10:14PM

) Here's an interesting fact: The First Iraq War veteran to serve in Congress is Congressman Patrick Murphy. Married with two kids, Roman Catholic, heterosexual, former Army officer. And he is the most vocal advocate for allowing gays to serve openly there is in government.

Imagine that. A straight, married former Army officer who says that gays are already serving their country without problems, and it's time to get rid of the law that discriminates against their honorable service.

Here's what Congressman Murphy has to say on his website:

"‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ clearly isn’t working for our military, and it hinders national security and military readiness at a time when America is fighting in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My time in Iraq taught me that our military needs and deserves the best and the brightest who are willing to serve- and that means all Americans, regardless of their orientation. Discharging brave and talented servicemembers from our armed forces is contrary to the values that our military fights for and that our nation holds dear."

Dino| 4.13.10 @ 12:03AM

@Joe, Thank you!!!!! You are exactly correct. Congressman Patrick Murphy along with Congressman Joe Sestak (D)-PA a retired Admiral, and the highest ranking former military officer in the US Congress, supports the full repeal of don't ask don't tell. I haven't seen many comments about the testimony of Admiral Mike Mullen on February 2nd, when he very eloquently called for the full repeal of don't ask don't tell. He is the strongest voice yet. Admiral Mullen has served for over forty years as a commissioned Naval Officer. He has a LOT of credibility. He says to scrap DADT. So let's do it.

Joe Gafman| 4.13.10 @ 10:30PM

Dino,

You are quite correct. Having ADM Mullen's endorsement, as well as that of former JCS Chairman, Gen. Shalikashvili (who originally had agreed with DADT, and was the first Joint Chief to have to enforce it) on our side is strong stuff indeed. You'll notice that none of the opponents commenting here have offered any credible data to back up their opinions, which simply consist of the fact they don't like gays. They conveniently ignore the mass of data that show that the majority of current troops already know gays are serving with them, and they not only don't care, but it clearly is NOT hurting operational readiness.

That being the case, what possible reason is there to continue to kick out trained, experienced and valued troops simply because someone finds out they're gay?

Repealing DADT will allow ALL military personnel to serve under the exact same rules and regulations of speech and conduct. Isn't that a radical notion? Everybody has to obey the same rules -- what is possibly wrong with that concept?

Josh| 6.28.11 @ 1:02PM

And what of the over 1,000 flag rank officers who said this is a bad idea? Mullen knows who his political masters are. He'll say what he thinks they want him to say.

Your assertions here are talking points. The data, as such, shows there are lots of concerns on the part of the vast majority in the military to this policy change.

The American Spectator

View all comments (82) | Leave a comment Leave a comment