Senate Will Hold Hearings On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Report

Daily Beast:

The Daily Beast has learned that the Senate, prompted by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, will hold hearings on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"--a first since 1993, despite Obama's campaign promises.

Read the whole story: Daily Beast

Comments

[DRaymond]

03:14 AM on 07/28/2009

Hearings are an excellent idea. It will give plenty of opportunity to pierce the old arguments that DADT is needed or wanted by the military. The example of other armies that have opened their ranks will be informative. It will take heat off of Obama and put it right where it belongs...in congress, which enacted DADT in the first place and is the only place where DADT can be permanently changed.

[PlaceboStudman]

08:00 PM on 07/27/2009

For any of you who still have doubts and questions, there is a great blog in the World section of HP about how Great Britian handled their transition to allowing gays into the military in 2000. The article states that the US military brass are already looking to the British model to see how we can do it, so it really is just a matter of time, and a matter of public will, when WE will push congress to put DADT repeal higher on their priorities list.

[CaliforniaLove]

07:27 PM on 07/27/2009

Don't Ask Don't Tell? Congress don't bother...we have FAR more important issues on the table.

[Jeff Cunningham]

10:39 PM on 07/27/2009

So equal rights for all isn't important? How selfish ...

[sarabono]

07:25 PM on 07/27/2009

Why? To support the Lefty Liberals in the North East and San Francisco or is she just trying to humiliate Obama? This is not a top dog issue right now for America.

[k6007]

09:03 PM on 07/27/2009

It is for gays serving in the military (last time I looked they were tax-paying americans, as well). How many soldiers has the military LOST due to dadt, this year alone?

[SD Indy]

05:10 PM on 07/27/2009

For anyone who may be interested, I have put together a spreadsheet of Democratic and Republican representatives who are "gay-friendly" along with their DC phone numbers (and a hyperlink to their Congressional Districts). Every one of them listed voted in favor of the hate crimes bill, and have yet to co-sponsor H.R. 1283 (the DADT repeal.) The spreadsheet can be found here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AuZ0gmfWDsHjdE9icEpfcEVsei1Ub3M5bDVpYkxBMnc&hl=en

Please call and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 1283.

[Jeff Cunningham]

03:31 PM on 07/27/2009

One of the things about DADT I'm not sure has been discussed ...

Obama could strike an executive order to suspend the enforcement of DADT until Congress passes a repeal, but he has yet to do so -- even though the Palm Center at UC-Santa Barbara asked him to back in May. If Obama were to draft an executive order and a bill never made its way through Congress, there remains the chance that Obama's successor could draft an executive order of his or her own to reinstitute DADT.

There's also the matter of perception. After the allegations being levied against the Bush administration for not always adhering to the law, Obama has to be careful not to give the same impression. Though he repeatedly calls for the repeal of DADT, the President is mindful that the law is still intact, and an executive order to halt its enforcement could give the impression that the administration feels its above the law.

Remember Richard Nixon and his "when the President does it, it's not illegal" line? Yeah, let's avoid that, if we could ...

To read more, visit my blog at http://pulledleftandright.blogspot.com/.

[liberaldemdave]

01:50 PM on 07/27/2009

i seriously doubt gillibrand's sincerety. she can't even get the number of dismissals right. as of today, that number is 320, NOT 265...the 265 number was hit approximately 18+/- days ago.

the statement from her office was inaccurate when it was released. 18 days ago, gillibrand wasn't even on the glbt-dadt repeal radar.

this just smacks of political pandering since she's up for re-election and everyone (especially new yorkers) know she's a blue dog, at best.

[shorelive]

02:00 PM on 07/27/2009

I agree with you 100%. Gillibrand's probably just been advised behind the scenes by her mentor Hillary and supporters to go through the motions of seeing to the issues of "those gays" and then make sure this goes nowhere as soon as the election is over. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. And beware of gunlovers with do-nothing commissions.

[PlaceboStudman]

02:06 PM on 07/27/2009

Ignore her and start focusing on the work of Rep Patrick Murphy. He's got the credentials and the credibility to really be an honest and genuine advocate for this policy. Gillibrand's, as with most senators' allegiances can be bought and sold like commodities on Wall Street, and we've all seen just how well THAT went

[liberaldemdave]

02:12 PM on 07/27/2009

i *heart* patrick murphy. it's so fantastic to have a REAL "fierce advocate" who's also served in uniform and is straight supporting glbt civil rights.

[DXM]

12:27 PM on 07/27/2009

A perfect opportunity for the ultra-right wing bigots in and out of government to come out the the woodwork and spew their hate and utter ignorance.

[PlaceboStudman]

12:43 PM on 07/27/2009

let'em come out and show their true colors. They'll be easier to deal with and easier to paint them in a bad light by showing how misguided they are by their precious little invisible man in the sky zombie ghost

Religion of course being the ONLY reason to oppose homosexuality or any aspect of homosexual relationships

[truthartbeauty]

01:24 PM on 07/27/2009

that's what they seem to live for!

[timberdoodle]

11:42 AM on 07/27/2009

The religious cults need bigotry and hate to keep their followers active and involved. History shows religions have always opposed equality in race, gender and sexual preference.

Fox news needs bigotry and hate to keep their listeners tuning in for more fodder for their obsessions.

The Republican party needs bigotry and hate to keep their base active and involved in their party.

If bigotry and discrimination disappear in America so will the GOP.

[PlaceboStudman]

11:47 AM on 07/27/2009

Its no wonder why you never hear the phrase "moral equality" but you do commonly hear the phrasee "Moral superiority". Religion's only reason for being is to control and restrict human's behavior for the political and financial benefit of other human beings.

[harveyr2]

11:28 AM on 07/27/2009

Skyrocketing unemployment, a banking system teetering, and Congress is spending time on don't ask, don't tell.

It is time for every incumbent to lose their seat.

[PlaceboStudman]

11:31 AM on 07/27/2009

If you have a problem with LGBTs, then it's your problem. Meanwhile the rest of the country will adhere to logic and rational thought and realize that treating LGBTS equally and fairly will be adventageous to the rest of the "higher priority" (note sarcasm) issues

[larry278]

01:51 PM on 07/27/2009

Very true. The US Armed Forces managed to integrate African-Americans among the troops when HST told them to do it. The US Armed Forces can & will integrate openly gay troopers into their units. There are creative types in the forces; there are many very loyal troops, a vast majority of our troops who will make integration of openly gay people into every unit of the USA's forces work. They will welcome the openly gay troopers. There are honorable discharges & retirements for troops who won't or can't welcome openly gay troops into their units.

[Taiyo]

12:35 PM on 07/27/2009

This is NOT a waste of time. We are losing numerous talented, experienced service members because they are being ousted from their service by DADT. It's outdated, unreasonable and unnecessary.

[beanchihuahua]

11:21 AM on 07/27/2009

Having served in the military (1994-2005), I had no problems with gays serving alongside me. The doc who delivered my daughter was gay and some of the best people I served with were gay.

HOWEVER, to repeal DADT will require more than just a signature ending it. If anyone remembers tailhook, we had so much sexual harassment training to deal with that continues to this day.

This raises a few questions:
-Will the military recognize gay marriage so the spouse of the servicemember can receive the SGLI and Tricare benefits and other benefits afforded to family members?
--Will the military discriminate and not allow homosexuals to serve on submarines or in close quarters with everyone else?

It sounds so easy for civilians to think it's just a wave of a pen and all is well. But anyone who has served knows what a nightmare it is to get policy in place in the miltiary. There will have to be task forces set up and rules on what is acceptable behavior on both parties.

As a veteran, I want this to be done right. I want our men and women to be able to comfortably serve alongside each other without the ignorant homophobes and old school military who only recently stopped making sexist jokes.

[Opti]

12:40 PM on 07/27/2009

beanchihuahua: Thank you for your service.

A thoughtful post...I would guess that there will be a backlash for some when being gay no longer disqualifies anyone from serving. The thing is, there is no recourse available to gay servicemembers as the policy stands now. If someone complains to their CO about being harassed because they are gay, they lose their position. I think that most are prepared to deal with open hostility that they can confront and would prefer it to behavior that is, in essence, protected by DADT.

[truthartbeauty]

01:27 PM on 07/27/2009

thank you for that post. and honestly....isn't enough that these men are willing to fight and die for our country????????????????? I'll bet there are tons of homophobic bigots who didnt have the blls to go to war themselves!

[rizvisa1]

11:18 AM on 07/27/2009

As a straight person who fully support LGBT community, I would say about time.

[PlaceboStudman]

11:08 AM on 07/27/2009

Look, folks, what are we doing sitting around moaning and complaining about this? We should be writing our congressmen, to force them....no, don't ask them, don't tell them, yes, actually force them to put some real consideration into this policy change.

there is no logical reasonable excuse to keep LGBTs from serving openly and honestly with integrity and respect, other than a few ignorant bigots who would have opposed black integration back when that was an issue.

But, as we've seen, black integration is no big deal (why would it be?) and neither will be integration of LGBTS

[PlaceboStudman]

10:55 AM on 07/27/2009

Congress needs to get off their cushioned little butts and do this. No more excuses. All the other "higher priorities" (note sarcasm) are being taken care of and are at least out of the gates. There is no reason other than their own cowardice and political salvage attempts to keep this policy in place. At this rate it won't be for another 50 years until this law is repealed. Considering the world's last WWI soldier just died in GB, we're going to have to wait til the last WWII soldier dies off before a majority of people consider repealing this

[ProgressiveAndProud1]

10:47 AM on 07/27/2009

I love it ....

First the rabid r@cist birthers get all foamed at the mouth and now we bring the gay hating b1g0ts out into the open.

BRILLIANT!

[PlaceboStudman]

10:50 AM on 07/27/2009

At least if they're out in the open, we can deal with them and show just how rediculous and irrelevant they are

[1dogs2]

10:55 AM on 07/27/2009

And let them know the consequences of defending this idiotic policy. Let's get a list of the Senators opposed to repeal and crash their telephone and e-mail systems on a daily basis.

How are you doing, Placebo?