Gates: Pentagon Considering Easing Don't Ask Don't Tell

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Gates: Pentagon Considering Easing Don't Ask Don't Tell stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ANNE GEARAN | 06/30/09 09:26 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
Defense Secretary Robert Gates speaks at the U.S. Central Command's Gulf States Chiefs of Defense Conference, Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at a hotel. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.

"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.

The defense chief, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

Gay rights activists and others have criticized the Obama administration for not quickly following through on a pledge to lift the ban on openly gay military service.

President Barack Obama and his spokesmen say he remains committed to repealing the Clinton-era law known as "don't ask, don't tell," but neither the White House nor congressional leadership has moved swiftly to do so.

There is no timetable for the pending bill to repeal the 1993 law, which was intended as a compromise to get around a full ban on gay military service. Gay rights leaders, however, have said it is an insult.

Obama says he wants to build support for the change among military commanders before urging Congress to move ahead.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and others have cautioned that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime or to place an additional burden on an already overstretched uniformed force.

Gates said he discussed repeal of the no-gays policy with Obama last week, but he did not detail the conversation.

"We were talking about how do we move forward on this to achieve his objective, which is changing the policy, and the issue that we face is that how do we begin to do preparations and simultaneously the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law," Gates said.

Several liberal legal experts and outside groups have urged Obama to issue an executive order that would make the law unenforceable, but Gates appeared to be considering measures short of that.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He ...
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
312
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
photo

There are costs and risks associated with this policy. It's up to our lawmakers, as action arms of our citizens, to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. Be careful what you ask for because you may just get it. Meaning, no complaints when Sally is showering with Johnny.....or when healthcare costs rise because overweight/elder recruits are having heart attacks in basic....or when the high school dropout doesn't understand why his actions of stomping on a Koran became an international incident because he never passed history/social studies in school.
MAJ Jeff Bacon
Student
Command General Staff College
Fort Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this work are those of the author's and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of the Defense, or the US Government.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 07/16/2009
photo

Women were not integrated in to our service academies until 1976. I'm sure the same logistics and costs arguments were made by those that opposed this initiative back in the 70's. Women servicemembers today contribute widely to our armed forces. Today women and men serving are provided separate lodging and shower facilities. If the basis for this is sexual orientation, do we provide yet another requirement to provide a homosexual male or female separate facilities? Do we house a heterosexual female with a homosexual male? Difficult questions.
Personally, I've been disappointed with our nation's involvement in the Global War on Terror. Arguablly, it is being fought by our military, not our nation. Not to take away from the service and contributions of our federal employees and adjacent agencies, but the bulk of the heavy lifting is being done by our servicemembers in uniform. Where is the sense of duty and responsibility for every American to do their part as seen during WWII. I'm not asking for a rationing war bonds or the retooling of industrial lines, but the current fight is not just about kicking in doors and snatching up terrorists. As important, if not more, are the civil support and construction efforts. If an obese, gay, high school dropout is the best qualified individual to go downrange and build Iraqi infrastructure, then so be it. If a 50 yr old female can physically perform in a combat role and keep up with today’s infantrymen, than put her in place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 07/16/2009
photo

Our regulations already 'discriminate' against other demographics besides gays. Our regulations pertaining to height and weight discriminate against the obese. Women are denied the right to serve in branches of service termed 'combat arms'. Citizens older than 42 are prohibited from joining active duty. Americans without a high school education or equivalent are prohibited from serving. Are these examples of 'inhumane discrimination' as well? Perhaps.
These regulations were likely (I cannot speak from a position of authority on any of these) put in place for logistical and practical reasons. The obese and elderly were surmised as being incapable of performing under the physical rigors of war? A health risk or burden on our healthcare system perhaps. Maybe women, though recognized as equals, were deemed too weak to serve in combat roles. Equal treatment? Maybe it was viewed as too much of a logistical burden to house and provide separate facilities for the different genders? I don't know the actual reason for any of these policy decisions. Sadly, some may very well have been made for discriminatory reasons, but I would hazard a guess that most were justified from a money/logistics standpoint. That doesn't make them right or in line with the values of our nation regarding nondiscrimination. (cont)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:02 PM on 07/16/2009
photo

I believe gays should be allowed to serve in the military.
As an active duty officer in the United States Army, I'll support the laws established by our nation's policy makers. I state this up front because it's not up to me as a service member, or SEC Gates, or even President Obama to repeal this 'Clinton-era' ban on gays serving openly in the military. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the language of the law as it was written back in 1993, it was put in place and can only be overturned by Congress. Not wanting to play game "It's not my responsibility", I'd like to provide the following to aid our legislative branch in making an objective decision regarding the matter and provide point for all to consider.The larger question at hand is not whether we should turn away gays from serving, but why would we turn any qualified candidate away that wants to serve his/her country?The term qualified is where we start to get into gray areas. What constitutes someone as qualified to wage our nation's wars? There is a standard set to provide a template of what right looks like in a prospective, or serving, soldier. Again, reference lawmakers discussion above. (cont)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 PM on 07/16/2009

I agree this should just be repealed as is, but also we are still at war and need to make sure that those who are on active duty get al weirded out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 07/01/2009

I am gob-smacked. There is no 'humane' version of this policy. Canada has had LGBT military personnel serving openly for about 20 years. I believe that most of the EU has ended discrimination in their militaries and it hasn't led to a collapse of their defense capabilities. Indeed, the Canadian troops have been fighting in the south of Afghanistan (the most dangerous area of the country bordering Pakistan) for several years. I can only surmise that the hold up is a core group of evangelical christian senior staff in the Pentagon that is advising Gates and Obama on this issue. Over the weekend I attended the Toronto Pride Celebrations, where over 1 million people (LGBT and straight) came together. There were several groups marching in the parade including the Canadian military, several police forces (RCMP, Toronto, Ottawa, York) as well as fire fighters. Each of them also had recruiting booths right beside the other booths for the HIV/AIDS community, Dykes with Tykes, Gay Fathers, the Rainbow Chorus, Amnesty International, etc, etc, etc, etc. I can assure you that the vast majority of service members will become accustomed to having openly LGBT service personnel very quickly. Those that don't accept will simply have to cope. There were some (many?) racist members of the the military when it was desegregated. They had to learn to keep their prejudice to themselves. Eventually race became less significant with each new generation of recruits. The same will be true of homophobia.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 07/01/2009
- Kirk59 I'm a Fan of Kirk59 10 fans permalink
photo

We should institute "open" military units where gays can serve openly. Eventually all units would become "open" but in the meantime homophobes could elect to serve in "closed" units. Those serving in "open" units should be looked upon more favorably when it comes time for promotions.
Any sexual liaison between any members of a unit, gay or straight, should be forbidded, if they are not already. It is those emotional attachments which may effect the decisions of soldiers in life and death situations.
Every other US citizen is required to perform their job in an "open" society, working side by side with all types of people, including gays. If all of us are mature enough to do it, then the people who are sworn to protect us should be also.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 07/01/2009
photo

Good God. This is ridiculous. Just repeal the ban, already, and move on! There IS no "humane" way to apply an Inhumane law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 07/01/2009

how bout , dont ask, dont tell you like some guy in your division. So if you are gay its cool, just dont make another guy feel weird by saying you want his junk

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:25 AM on 07/01/2009
- mollymac I'm a Fan of mollymac 15 fans permalink

Having worked with a substantial number of gay men as a clinical therapist, I can assure you straight guys that most gay guys don't want your "junk". How unbelievably out of touch you are! And how little you know.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 07/01/2009
- ICorpsDoc I'm a Fan of ICorpsDoc 16 fans permalink

The only thing that Gates will do with this policy is kill the celebration for the ending of DADT.

In effect the policy will be done the moment that some gays are kept despite the knowledge that they are gay. The keeping of some will undercut the rational for getting rid of the rest. It will gut the rational. Then after the law can and will be changed.

Smart people. I do like their approach.

Sure it may not be fast enough for the gay community. But anything that stops the witch hunts that I saw back in the day is a good thing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 07/01/2009
- zanzig I'm a Fan of zanzig 38 fans permalink

You know for all the "Operation Enduring Freedom" stuff that America attempts to export all over the world, your country generally has the most repressive laws in connection with civil rights generally. The Australian Defence Forces lifted their ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the service in 1992, New Zealand in 1998, Britain in 2000. 23 nations across the world have such open policies in place in the defence forces. And here you are still talking about it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 07/01/2009
- hulagirrrl I'm a Fan of hulagirrrl 37 fans permalink
photo

Funny how most other NATO members have gay soldiers and there aren't these issues.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:19 AM on 07/01/2009
- JoAnnCr I'm a Fan of JoAnnCr 16 fans permalink

Let's see...how to discriminate, make poor staffing choices for the military, and undermine the safety of our troops by choosing the less qualified over the more qualified and make it more humane!?! That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Gates needs to get his priorities straight. We need well qualified and dedicated individuals. Their record of contribution should be the criterion for continued service.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, has no place in our military or in any other organization that wants success and contribution to be the standard. Nothing will ever be humane about discrimination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:04 AM on 07/01/2009
photo

Did you even read what he said

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:31 AM on 07/01/2009
- Disuberence I'm a Fan of Disuberence 130 fans permalink
photo

EPIC FAIL.

75% of the public supports repealing DADT
73% of those in the military support repealing it.

Forget trying to make it "more humane" make it GO AWAY.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 AM on 07/01/2009
photo

Read the article,he's on our side and people are slill complaing.WTH

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 AM on 07/01/2009
- jcwtts1 I'm a Fan of jcwtts1 147 fans permalink
photo

He is looking for a work around while he waits for the law to be changed. Something the President ordered him to do by the way, which is why, 5 months ago, Obama put DADT into review.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 07/01/2009
photo

Even India is entering the 21st century:

India on the Verge of Repealing 150 Year Ban on Homosexuality, Imposed by the British

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/30/india-on-the-verge-of-repealing-150-year-ban-on-homosexuality/#more-12346

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 AM on 07/01/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (9 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect