Bill To Overturn Gay Military Ban Being Introduced In Congress

The Plum Line:

Uh oh -- this could be a bit of a test for President Obama: The office of Dem Rep. Ellen Tauscher confirms that she will introduce legislation today ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy -- a measure she says we need to "tear down" so that the military can be "better."

Read the whole story: The Plum Line

Comments

[Pippen]

First alot of posters to Huffpo are not current or former military members and many are extreme left wing liberals. I like the left's idealistic view and their strive to do the right thing. It's inspiring but one has to couch these occassionally unrealistic views or views that are future designed in the world of the now and reality.

Reality is that we are at war with two countries. Men and women's lives are at stake who wear the uniform.

Just changing the entire cultural morasse in fell political bombshell could see a huge fall out of the majority of sailors and soldiers who ARE NOT GAY and are vehemently against the orientation as it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That alone will shake morale.

You want to shake up morale of a winning operation during time of war ?

Good luck on that one. I'll keep an eye on the football but I can tell you now, you're not going to get past the fifty yard line on this one. Maybe during peace time.

[OMAguy]

I am a current member of the military and just went over my 17th year and while I cannot, nor would not attempt to, speak for everyone in uniform I can share some insight. I believe that when, not if, the ban is lifted on gays serving openly with dignity there will be some outcry from a very small minority of the military. I even believe a few will eventually leave because of the lifting of the ban, but how much longer should we continue to deny some Americans their constitutional rights? I also believe that the few that leave could be made up by gay people who would join that would never have considered the military. Also, the thousands of gays that were discharged could be allowed back in. In my command an Admiral had a meeting with the submariners just prior to the election of President Obama and the thought of the gay ban ending was very much on leadership minds. The Admiral asked the submariners to raise a hand if they would have a problem serving with open homosexuals, guess what? Not one hand went up. In many ways today's active duty force has moved beyond this, we know gay people, we serve with them, we have gay friends--this is not an issue for most of us. Except some on the extreme religious right our nation is moving on too and its about time.

[dm10003]

soldiers and marines will follow orders.

soldiers and marines know they must be very choosy what to be afraid of.

[Steamboater]

pippen: Your same tired excuse was used to bash and deny openly Gays military involvement for decades, during Vietnam and during other wars. The same excuses were used against desegregating blacks in the military. The milityary will survive with Gays serving openly. If it can't, it's notmuch of a military. Two Gay people are thrown out of the military EVERY DAY as per MSNBC. that's not making for a better military, especially in a time of war when we desperately need men and women who can speak Arabic. We went short on that in Iraq and elsewhere because of a stubborn homophobic president and military high command who refused to allow the military to, you know, become all it could be. Gays who we needed and spoke Arabic were out.

It's only been during war however that the military has allowed a margin for Gays to beome part of the military and if you really knew anything about this history, you'd know that. They couldn't serve openly but if found out or revealed, the military was quick to grab us as we were ust cannon fodder. It happned to me during the Vietnamn War when I was drafted but REFUSED to put my life on the line to defend a lie.

[Montgriz]

Maybe it is time to shake up our military and let them finally realize that they are the Army of ALL the people, and not just the wing nuts, and right wingers with economic interests in military adventures­.Gays are very much in AMerica...­if, through some whim, they want to enlist, so what...Tho­se that don't like can grow up and accept it, or leave.....­Much of out military is so poorly educated and lacking in social awarenss they might just benefit by change....­.

[Equalnotspecial]

Studies as well as the experience of many of our allies, have already proven DADT is unnecessary. It is really only about perpetuating the stigmatization of gay people while indulging the prejudice of some.

There will never be a convenient time for those who would deny equality to grant it.

[ztck5356]

My dad fought in WWII in the Navy and he told me that gays were always a part of the military and it never occurred to him or anyone else that he knew to make it an issue. He said your enemy don't stop to ask you your sexual orientation before they attack! He died last year at the age of 80, never understanding this crazy policy.

[Eric8869]

Everyone agrees this policy does not work. Plus the military looks the other way on gay people when they need bodies during wars. They discharge them when they return - a real insult to heroes.

REPEAL DADT! Gay people have always served in the military and they always will. They die for Americans every day. Let them serve without witch hunts or fear of being kicked out.

If you haven't read CONDUCT UNBECOMING by Randy SHilts - it is excellent.

[reedmaker]

Well said--thanks for adding your voice to the discussion.

[Steamboater]

Yes, they'll take us when they need bodies on the line. They wanted to take me if I underwent psychiatric counseling during Vietam and I in effect told them to go you know where.

[BethA]

Great point.
Lets end the hypocrisy, by ending the discrimination!

[ThePeacemakers]

The US is always ready for people to die, especially the ones that get exposed to constant terrorism in their own country that goes unaddressed.

[militarymomforobama]

Sneaky See Profile I'm a Fan of Sneaky I'm a fan of this user permalink

Can you demonstrate that one's benefits of service can be denied to a recognized legal marriage? Can you describe the part of the law or policy governing distribution of veteran's benefits?

Sorry, I'm not from Missouri but I still believe in "Show me."
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--

When a member of the military shows that he or she is in a same sex marriage, which they would do when they apply for their spousal benefits, they would be discharged on the grounds of homosexuality.
It is called Dont ask because upon enlistment, they are not permitted to ask, and Dont tell, because they cannot discharge you on grounds of homosexuality if you do not admit it.

[BethA]

Wow, I didn't know that? They can be discharged for applying for benefits that ANYONE is suppose to be eligible for.

That's really dirty...

TIme to end this discrimina­tion...

[Graywolf48]

Here's something else I'm sure you don't know, if I contacted a service person's commanding officer and said I saw that person go into a gay bar, or go home with someone I knew was gay, that would be all that is required to investigate and discharge that service person under DADT. Officer's who received their college degrees at military expense who have been discharged before the end of their obligated service under DADT have been forced to repay their college expenses. Britain, Israel, France and Germany, just to name a few countries, allow gays to serve in the military openly. It has never been a problem for them. The same arguments used to keep gays out of the military today are the same arguments used to keep African-American's segregated and in many instances limited to service jobs while in the military u until the 1940's.

[joshuachayne]

The Federal DOMA act also restricts gay couples from extending veterans benefits to each other...

"In 1996, Congress passed the perversely named "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. DOMA defines marriage as requiring a man and a woman. It bars Social Security, veterans', or other federal benefits in the event of a gay partner's death or disability. It disallows same-sex couples from filing joint income-tax returns, even if they share all their property. Finally, in defiance of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, it declares that no state is required to give any legal effect to a same-sex marriage or civil union from another state."

http://www.clgs.org/resource-library/why-gay-marriage-matters

[joshuachayne]

Here is more on how Don't Ask Don't Tell affects the benefits for gay people....

http://www.aver.us/aver/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=80

[joshuachayne]

Heres a story about a decorated veteran who lost his benefits after an arsonist set fire to his room and while cleaning up in the aftermath they found his porn.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/military/milnews039.htm

[ScandalousCandice7]

Good now we can erase some of the more embarrassing moments of the Clinton era too.

DADT and DOMA are Clinton policies that were just outrageous and yet Hillary had the support of the gay vote in the primaries. I never understood that. Two of the most divisive policies against gay people.

[crayola 08]

ya know, as a gay person most of the gay guys i knew overwhelmingly supported Hillary during the primaries. i never understood it. i was 100% for obama. in the end after many discussions with some of my friends and aquaintences i came away with the unsaid notion that they didn't support obama because he was black. i wasn't surprised though, racism is pretty pervasive still in the gay community.

[ScandalousCandice7]

Most of my gay friends said they loved the tragic diva story. It was like voting for Gloria Swanson in Sunset BLVD.

And they loved that she marched in a pride parade once. That's all fine and dandy, but whenever you asked them about DOMA or DADT, they had no valid explanation as to why they supported her. Or when asked about why she didn't support gay marriages. Civil unions only.

[nomadicexpat]

it had absolutely nothing to do with his race, it has to do with his positions and the unequivocal support hillary lends the community.

[eopanga]

While I'm certaintly no fan of DADT people should remember why it came about the first place. Bill Clinton gets some credit within the gay community for at least trying to tackle the issue of gays in the military, something that Obama has yet to show that he's willing to do. He tried to eliminate the ban against gays in the military in his first few months in office only to be met be fierce opposition by the general public, the republicans in Congress, and the military leadership. DADT was the compromise that was forged into order to get all sides to agree but it antagonized both those of the left who felt it didn't go far enough and those on the right who felt it went too far. And it ultimately derailed Clinton's legislative agenda by aggravating the public which at that time was opposed to gays in the military.

[ScandalousCandice7]

Bill Clinton was the one who signed DADT in to law.

Obama is going to leave it up to the individual states to decide what is best for them. He doesn't personally believe in gay marriage he has said that. But he beleives more in the Constitution. For now this is more important than anything because you will see more freedoms and equal rights for everyone.

[reedmaker]

Neither one of the candidates was great in their policy positions on gay issues. My feeling with both of them was that they said what they thought they had to say to get votes. That's what politicians do. As for their true feelings, hard to say, and it might not even matter.

I will say this: Hillary often made a point of giving a shout out to the gays in her speeches, whereas O most often made statements like the one in his address at the convention (paraphrasing): we may not agree on gay marriage, but I think we can at least agree that gay partners should have hospital visitation rights.

My response to that was "That's ALL?!" Honestly, for a man who is supposed to be a visionary leader, that attitude is pathetic.

Also, regarding Bill and his multitude of failures and frequent capitulation to the right, he at least BROUGHT UP gay rights as a legitimate issue. He was coming on the heels of Reagan, who would not even say the word AIDS (and the very forgettable H.W.). Even just to hear a president say that gay people have value as human beings was HUGE. And he did that. He was a big disappointment, yes, but at least in the beginning, he had the courage to say what he thought was right.

Obama has not done that. Or maybe he really believes that gays are second class citizens. Either way, disappointing.

[ScandalousCandice7]

Actually Obama made more pronouncements to gay people than she did. I never heard her once on the campaign trail through a shout out. But he did. I am not saying she never did, but as a political junkie who watched just about 24/7 never heard her once say it.

[ScandalousCandice7]

He only has one mistake when it comes to gay issues. That was Rick Warren at the Inauguration. To this day this political tactic to make headway with Evangelicals makes no sense.

But don't count him out just yet. He may be in no hurry to sign up every state to allow gay marriages, but he is a man about the constitution and equal rights. You will see what he is capable of.

But I do love the judgments on Obama's performance 40 days in to the job wile our economy tanks.

[Steamboater]

Obama is as bad as Bill Clinton on Gay rights because both said they supported it BUT ... That doesn't speak well of anyone who puts himself out there as a visionary leader of change. Clinton really stabbed us in the back butHhilary is not Bill; she's tougher and the only way DADT is going to overturn is with a president who comes out with his fists up and gets tough. Obama should know better yet he's caved into ambition and appears a wuss in the face of republicans on full and complete civil rights for Gays. His sucking up to a monster like Rick Warren is a perfect example. It had nothing to do with bipartisanship and everything to do with trying to garner republicans into his corner at our expense. These people aren't going to change their minds on the issues affecting Gays. Obama can keep his religion all he wants--to himself--but don't apply it to my civil rights and use it as an excuse to deny me my civil rights, that same bible that was used to keep blacks in slavery and to deny them marriage with whites.

[Gripen]

With the uppcomming war with Iran USA may need all troops they can get so i think they arent so worried about gay ppl any more.

I am abit ironic but i think it can be a half truth in it for i see an increase in half truth and lies about iran in media now days simular to the ones before war in iraq.

[militarymomforobama]

I would love to carry on with this topic, but my treadmill is staring at me--I was really bad this weekend!

I'll check back later to see if anyone has been successful in dispelling the myth that Richard Simmons is waiting for the chance to sign the contract.

By the way--I think he would make a da_m_n fine sailor.

[motoGpifupleez]

Can you imagine it? After 233 years, if this passes, there will finally be a homosexual in the U.S military.

[Steamboater]

We're already there--in the closet but already there.

[Hemkit]

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm...

[dm10003]

so the village people were prescient???!!!

[joshuachayne]

Because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays who can marry legally in MA and CT aren't able to extend their veterans benefits to their spouses like straight married couples can.

One of the first injured in Iraq war was Eric Alva, a gay man who lost a leg. He should have been able to be open and he should be able to get married if he wants to.

Gays fight for our rights in war too and sadly some people want to deny them their equal rights that they are fighting and dying for.

[Sneaky]

"Because of Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays who can marry legally in MA and CT aren't able to extend their veterans benefits to their spouses like straight married couples can."

Is this true? If so, do you have a source you could point me to?

[lizr]

it's not rocket science Sneaky.

Marriage between gay people is not yet recognized on the Fed level.. to the contrary - (DOMA)

although this is coming. Meanwhile people suffer from discrimination ~

[joshuachayne]

Yes its true. They can't put their same-sex spouses name on the papers to extend their benefits to them without violating Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[Twopennygal]

Not only are they not allowed to share their benefits with their families, but they cannot even acknowledge them and, if they do marry, they have to marry in secret. There's even a place on the marriage certificate for keeping it secret, I know, a friend of mine is in the military and has to keep her marriage secret. It makes you wonder why GLBT people even want to server in a military that discriminates against the families they are protecting.

[ThePeacemakers]

What if GLAAD or some other organization came out (no pun) and said "Thanks. But no thanks. We need to fight religious extremism here in the US."

[NoOneSpecial]

Politico's article is full of opinion and hot air.

Just because a Rep in Congress has filed this bill doesn't mean Obama is saddled with the same situation on "gays in the military" that Clinton faced 17 years ago.

Public opinion and the opinions of military leaders have shifted radically on the subject in that time.

And big deal if it gets the social conservatives riled up. They are ALWAYS riled up. Their "outrage" is predictable and about as boring as watching paint dry. Does anyone care if they howl after the spectacle they made of Terry Schaivo?

Gays serving openly in the military is about 50 orders of magnitude less "controversial" than gay marriage right now.

[Montgriz]

Canada, among others, has gays in the military. and they are fighting alongside of Americans in Afghanista­n.....hmmm­mmmmm,,,wh­y the silence on Obama's part....

[Sneaky]

My worry is that this is going to become more about gays who are soldiers than soldiers who are gays. The professionals act like it, no matter their sexual orientation. I feel for the NCOs who have to draw up bunk assignments with some of the more flamboyant enlistees.

[proggirl]

As long as they follow orders and behave honorably, what possible difference would it make? "Flamboyant": 50s cliche´of gay behavior. I know there are some who follow that mode of behavior, but most don't. Move your thinking ahead about 50 years.

[Sneaky]

I'm aware that 'flamboyants' are a minority amongst the gay community, but they still exist and are the preferred cliche to be highlighted by popular media outlets. This minority cliche is rewarded via attention by said popular media outlets, while the more common 'gay' (the citizen who does not consider themselves apart from the larger society) archetype is ignored. I'm many things, but ignorant of the social dynamics on this subject is not one of them.

[militarymomforobama]

Your worries are unfounded.

[Sneaky]

Not even slightly, as evidenced by a minority community amidst the larger gay community being more combative and less about inclusion with society. You can't claim to be an independent subculture and cry foul and claim the larger culture isn't letting you integrate. I know several servicemen who are gay, but they were soldiers first. These are men (and women) I'm not worried about, because they don't hurt the function of the military. The men (and women) who consider themselves gays who happen to be enlisted are, on the other hand, much more apt to create problems where there weren't any.

Like I said, I'm not worried about the professionals.