More

DADT Repeal Marks Milestone In Fight For Gay Rights

VERENA DOBNIK   12/19/10 10:52 AM ET   AP

Dadt Repeal Gay Rights Movement

NEW YORK — Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead.

The Senate voted Saturday to end the 17-year ban on openly gay troops, overturning the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."

"It's one step in a very long process of becoming an equal rights citizen," said Warren Arbury of Savannah, Ga., who served in the Army for seven years, including three combat tours, before being kicked out two years ago under the policy. He said he planned to re-enlist once the policy is abolished.

"Even though this is really huge, I look at it as a chink in a very, very long chain," he added.

The ruling drew quick rebuke from foes of lifting the ban who argued that the military shouldn't be used to expand the rights of gays and that allowing them to serve openly would hurt troop morale and a unit's ability fight.

Supporters declared the vote a civil rights milestone.

Aaron Belkin, director of the California-based Palm Center – a think tank on the issue – said the vote "ushers in a new era in which the largest employer in the United States treats gays and lesbians like human beings."

For thousands of years, he said, one of the key markers for first-class citizenship in any nation is the right to serve in the military, and Saturday's vote "is a historic step toward that."

Repeal means that for the first time in U.S. history, gays will be openly accepted by the military and can acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being discharged. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law. Before that, they had been explicitly barred from military service since World War I.

The change won't take immediate effect, however. The legislation says the president and his top military advisers must certify that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' fighting ability. After that, there's a 60-day waiting period for the military.

Some supporters of the repeal traveled to Washington to witness the vote, including Sue Fulton, a former Army captain and company commander who is spokeswoman for Knights Out, a group of 92 gay and lesbian West Point graduates who are out and no longer serving.

Driving home to North Plainfield, N.J., the 51-year-old Fortune 500 executive said she thinks the repeal will have an effect on the civil rights of gays in America.

"As more people realize that gay and lesbian citizens are risking their lives to defend this country, perhaps they'll be more willing to acknowledge gays and lesbians as full citizens in other ways," she said.

Conservative organizations said the vote didn't reflect the sentiments of rank-and-file military members and should not have taken place so close to the end of the current session of Congress.

"The issue that really disturbs me more than anything else is that legislation that's controversial tends to be done in lame-duck sessions when a number of the elected representatives are no longer accountable to the people," said Len Deo, president of the New Jersey Family Policy Council.

The Massachusetts Family Institute blasted Senate Republicans, including Sen. Scott Brown, who broke rank with their party on the vote.

"(They) made a vow not to vote on 'don't ask, don't tell' until the budget was resolved and they broke trust with the people," said the group's president, Kris Mineau. "In doing so, they not only have put special interests above fiscal interests but also have put our troops at risk during wartime."

In New York, home to one of the nation's largest gay communities and a gay pride parade whose grand marshal this year was an openly gay, discharged serviceman, 28-year-old Cassandra Melnikow glanced at a news ticker in Times Square announcing the repeal and said: "Excellent! It's about time."

"I don't see what difference (sexual orientation) makes in the fighting military," said Melnikow, a public health researcher. "What's the big deal?"

___

Associated Press writers Russ Bynum in Savannah, Ga., Jay Lindsay in Boston, Geoff Mulvihill in Trenton, N.J., Sudhin Thanawala in San Francisco and Stan Lehman in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
NEW YORK — Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead. ...
NEW YORK — Allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the U.S. military is a step toward equality, advocates say, but a fight for other social changes such as gay marriage still lies ahead. ...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 108
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
11:01 PM on 12/19/2010
But if gays and lesbians get equal rights, everyone will want them!
05:33 PM on 12/19/2010
DADT was oppressive because it condoned discrimination, so I celebrate those in the House and Senate who first broke the repeal free from other legislation -- a tactic that I always opposed and a tactic that was always doomed to failure -- and then voted successfully for repeal. They are the true heroes of this vote. But, as other comments have noted, this does not move us further toward equal rights. Those actions will be separate and, sadly, they will be just as hard fought. It is still possible in this country to oppose equality and be considered respectable and electable. It is also still possible to oppose equality and cloak the discrimination in terms of religion. When I was young and growing up in a southern area, we were told that the inequality of Blacks was established in the Bible. It was just as ridiculous to make that statement as it is today for people to use religion as an excuse to discriminate against gays/lesbians -- or anyone else! But, the battle goes on. I would like my Democratic party and President, who stood on the right side of DADT, to come to the right side of overall equality. We will keep working until they do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BenK1976
04:08 PM on 12/19/2010
NOw let's GET RID OF DOMA!
photo
SteveDenver
Progressive and liberal, just like Jesus Christ.
11:06 PM on 12/19/2010
Either get rid of DOMA or introduce marriage legislation that defends and sanctifies the institution to such a high level that only angels an get married!

Why should heterosexuals be allowed to crap all over marriage? No divorce, no criminal history, no bad credit history, no spotty job history, no prenuptial contracts, no childless couples, no bad grades, no cavities, no premarital sex. Those opposed to same-gender marriage have already underlined that LOVE has nothing to do with marriage.

It is easier for heterosexuals to enter a life commitment than to get into a university. That needs to be changed if they insist on reserving the "right" to marriage for themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BenK1976
11:39 PM on 12/19/2010
It's going to be an even tougher fight. Arguments against DADT were varied and inconsistent because they were based on an underlying bias.

DOMA and similar efforts are also based on underlying bias (homophobia) amplified by ideology and religiosity. These encourage (even more than DADT arguments) a departure from reason as the basis for any discussion.

While challenging arguments in favor of DADT was like trying to hit a moving target at least they could be challenged because they claimed basis in reason. Arguments supporting efforts/laws like DOMA are both moving targets and difficult to challenge because the underlying "reasons" are actually interpretations of faith or statements of ideology which do not require reason to assert.

I agree with you whole heartily. If all marriages were held to the standards and purposes set forth by the H8ers then few, if any, marriages would qualify!

BUT, whether they like it or not, here we come! They have no idea what they're up against. They don't understand that I know they H8 me if I fight for what's right or if I don't. So I might as well fight.

H8 is a choice.

Love is not. Love is, well, love.
01:29 PM on 12/19/2010
The repeal does little for gay rights...Article 125 of the UCMJ still prohibits gay sex...So now we can say who we are and be proud, but we can't do what we want to physically with eachother.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:33 PM on 12/19/2010
That's what the mormon church now preaches. Hooray - our military has advanced to the point of the mormon church. (Or will once the repeal actually kicks in, which may not be for a long time...)

(And, of course, that was a sarcastic 'Hooray'.)
01:42 PM on 12/19/2010
Funny that after campaigning on repealing DADT, after Judge Phillips ruling made White House and Congressional stalling obvious for what it was, there was still no Commander in Chief order to do a review of the UCMJ and what changes would need to be made after repeal. Reagan was able to order a whole Star Wars Defense Initiative when the technology didn't exist. There's no reason a report couldn't have been commissioned while DADT repeal was being discussed in congress.

When's the date on that report? What are the objectives? When is the final day for full implementation?

We cannot allow the ball to be dropped now. We have to keep pushing.
photo
hopepad08
"Hope" and "Change" is a beautiful thing.
03:23 PM on 12/19/2010
Don't most laws we have in effect right now make it illegal for gay sex. I'm thinking the "S" word is illegal.
photo
ljmck
Stand Up, Show Up, Speak Up
01:00 PM on 12/19/2010
Take another few hours to celebrate. Then Repeal DOMA.

Equal rights do not exist until everyone has equal rights.

Old, white men (for the most part) rule our city councils, legislatures, and Congress because we let them, because we elect them. While they rule, they keep in place laws that preserve their power.

Time for change. No more Hope and Change. Just CHANGE.
01:09 PM on 12/19/2010
And follow through. I want to know what the target certification and implementation dates are. The Commander in Chief should be setting some deadlines.
photo
ljmck
Stand Up, Show Up, Speak Up
01:26 PM on 12/19/2010
That sounds a lot more commandery than he likes to be. So, agree, we must press for speedy implementation.

Write Congress. Tell them you expect them to monitor speedy implementation:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

The question is: How many will die before survivor benefits are fairly implemented?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:34 PM on 12/19/2010
Exactly. We need some deadlines so they can't just keep kicking this can down the road.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LynnyC
12:52 PM on 12/19/2010
so some jerks are saying that no laws military related should be done during wartime? we've been at war with the middle east as long as i can remember. We can't stop working to make things better for our troops. We have to always be fighting for their safety and rights.
01:44 PM on 12/19/2010
We're at war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Iran and North Korea may be added to the mix. And that doesn't even count the Wars on Terror and Drugs.

If we have to wait till the end of American was for equal rights for all, it's never gonna happen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BenK1976
04:10 PM on 12/19/2010
technically we are not at war since Congress never declared it. as for military actions, well we've been in a constant state of deployment and military action since WWII ....so it's an argument they like because we never stop being in a state of war (as they define it)
12:49 PM on 12/19/2010
Obama to Sign Law Ending Military Gay Ban
In a historic vote for gay rights, the Senate agreed on Saturday to do away with the military's 17-year ban on openly gay troops and sent President Barack Obama legislation to overturn the Clinton-era policy known as "don't ask, don't tell. http://www.newslook.com/videos/276061-obama-to-sign-law-ending-military-gay-ban?autoplay=true
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeaMastr
12:48 PM on 12/19/2010
how about the $$$ angle. I have long opposed government sanctioned discrimination purely on a fairness of finances. Denying homosexual gay people (HGPs, I coined us), the right to serve in the military DENIES the right to work for taxpayer supported, legislature granted VETERAN BENEFITS. It is the same way with refusal by the Feds and MOST of the States to grant survivor benefits to gay couples. It ALWAYS struck me that that unfairness was stealing from us and from our estates, pure and simple theft of our money. And while we are at it how about a thought that we HGPs pay to educate all children whose parents send them to public schools, and in some cases private schools. Thus, we subsidize teaching ever so many children to hate, just to please their parents.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
democratsaint
The GOP-The Humpty Dumpty of economics
12:38 PM on 12/19/2010
how much you want to bet this is payment for tax cut and the start treaty
12:04 PM on 12/19/2010
It is a great day in America and proud to be an American
12:02 PM on 12/19/2010
(corrected) We should also be asking ourselves WHY? Why would military leaders suddenly be in favor of Congress taking the issue of repeal back from the courts (who had recently ruled the policy unconstitu­tional)? Why? Because military leaders now have control over the implementa­tion process. Anyone who thinks that is a good thing, needs a refresher course on the history of military treatment of gay troops.

Case in point: The Pentagon issued a directive yesterday making clear that openly gay service members are still against the law and that the military will control the implementa­tion process as they see fit (this so-called repeal IS NOT a true repeal, it is a bunch of weak broth meant to give cowardly politician­s political cover):

http://worldofwonder.net/2010/12/19/The_Pentagon_Military_Gays_Stil/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
12:17 PM on 12/19/2010
As in any Congressional action that effects the military, i will take some time to be implemented and the Pentagon was right in issuing the directive. Remember, they are responsible for maintaining order and discipline.

I believe it is a true repeal but I am also concerned that there was no time-limit set on its implementation. I hope that those that have cases in the court system continue to move them forward. The repeal of DADT can just as easily be reversed again by Congress with a new law and the only way to have a final settlement is to have a court decision that discrimination against gays and lesbians serving in the military is unconstitutional.
12:20 PM on 12/19/2010
There were many voices just like yours that said the original compromise that lead to Don't Ask Don't Tell would only last a year or so before open service by gay troops would be allowed by military leaders. Don't Ask Don't Tell has lasted 17 years AND IS STILL THE LAW OF THE LAND despite the votes in congress.
12:21 PM on 12/19/2010
A part of me thinks that the only reason this legislation was passed was to forestall court cases.

I think it's going to take another court case to push this to completion. I'm afraid that Obama will drag this up to 2012 so that he can run on, "You have to vote for me, because my opponent won't implement the repeal and maybe one day I will."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
12:25 PM on 12/19/2010
"We should also be asking ourselves WHY? "

The answer to your "Why" question is simple. The military leadership is terrified of a court decision that would require DADT to be set aside immediately. and give them no "wiggle room" to make the transition smooth. This does not necessarily take the issue back from the courts because a decision has already been handed down. One thing it does do in provide the Obama administration with cover to stop defending the DADT law and if they don't defend it then I believe the most recent decision stands.
12:49 PM on 12/19/2010
The Admin has said from the outset that congressional action is preferable to judicial. The Pentagon agrees. Congress and conservatism is what got us into this DADT mess to begin with. I wish people would not lose sight of that.
12:00 PM on 12/19/2010
We should also be asking ourselves WHY? Why would military leaders suddenly be in favor of Congress taking the issue of repeal back from the courts (who had recently ruled the policy unconstitutional)? Why? Because military leaders now have control over the implementation process. Anyone who thinks that is a good thing, needs a refresher course on the history of military treatment of gay troops.

Case in point: The Pentagon issued a directive yesterday making clear that openly gay service members are still against the law and that the military will control the implementation process as they see fit (this so-called repeal IS NOT is a bunch of weak broth meant to give cowardly politicians political cover):

http://worldofwonder.net/2010/12/19/The_Pentagon_Military_Gays_Stil/#disqus_thread
12:55 PM on 12/19/2010
Why would military leaders suddenly be in favor of Congress taking the issue of repeal back from the courts (who had recently ruled the policy unconstitu­tional)? Why?

__________Where do you get "suddenly" from? The Log Cabin strategy was correct: push the issue in the courts to press Congress to overturn what it had previously done. They also got additional pressure from the Executive branch to do the same.

Military leaders have always had control over the implementation process except in the case of DADT. For instance, the object lesson everyone always wants to use is military segregation/desegregation. That wasn't congressional law that did that, it was military social policy. DADT is different: congress ruled for DADT and the military had to deal with the legislative branch's rules on it. This is balance of powers stuff, and Log Cabin and the Obama admin called it correctly (though I personally do not agree with the needless appeals to the 9th circuits rulings.)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:59 AM on 12/19/2010
Now, what about all those folks discharged over the years for being gay? Does this need to be redressed?
12:05 PM on 12/19/2010
Justice delayed is justice denied. And for the thousands upon thousands that have seen their military careers ruined, this so-called repeal is NOT retroactive. Some have the ability to re-enlist, but not at the rank they once held, and others who are now to old to re-enlist are plain S.O.L.
11:54 AM on 12/19/2010
According to the Senate, the rights of 4.12 x e-4 percent of service members who have served since 1993 are more important than the human rights of .04 percent of the entire US population. That's 14000 vs. 11 million. Of course, repealing DADT is a more convenient political victory. Sorry, DREAM Act...you just won't save as many political careers, thus you won't be supported. I'm sure you understand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:00 PM on 12/19/2010
I expect people like Rand Paul to argue that, while it may be illegal for the armed forces to discriminate against gays, it's perfectly okay for private businesses to do it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rsheeran
Beware them both, and all of their degree
12:04 PM on 12/19/2010
Always has been and always will. Same for any race, religion, sex, age, income level
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
eyecon
Retired CEO & Quality-Mgmt Consultant
12:02 PM on 12/19/2010
Most of us who supported the repeal of DADT also supported the DREAM act, I would caution that this wasn't a choice between one or the other. Therefore, the comparison of importance is misguided. Ultimately, though, your blame is misplaced. It was the GOP that successfully filibustered the measure.
12:58 PM on 12/19/2010
Most of us who supported the repeal of DADT also supported the DREAM act

__________Thank you. But it was the GOP + 5 dems. We will bring the DREAM Act back, despite the carping of guys like Rodolfo A Quiles. The malcontent you have with you always.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
unimatrix0
11:44 AM on 12/19/2010
If the President is the Commander-in-Chief, and is technically part of the military, why wasn't DADT struck down long ago by courts, as it denied openly gay citizens from running for President. Had a gay person been elected President, they would have been arrested for violation of DADT, and if you can't serve in the military, how can you be the President? If a President would be exempted, then there is discrimination on the application of DADT. I will be glad when it is finally over.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:03 PM on 12/19/2010
I suspect that becoming Commander-in-Chief does not make him part of the armed forces. The whole point is that the CIC is an elected civilian.
12:08 PM on 12/19/2010
The president is THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MILITARY. Sadly our so-called "fierce advocate" Obama ceded the decision making process to military leaders (most of whom would be happy to keep DADT in place) WHICH IT STILL IS. DADT IS NOT DEAD being openly gay in the military is still against the law of the land. Don't believe the hype.

http://worldofwonder.net/2010/12/19/The_Pentagon_Military_Gays_Stil/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom95134
12:11 PM on 12/19/2010
There is at least one suit working its way through the court systems and I hope it continues. The court approach is not something that could happen overnight and, in my opinion, still needs to move forward to keep Congress from passing .some law that is equally as despicable as DADT. Until the courts decide the Constitutional question some future Congress could pass a law signed by some future President that would impose something similar to DADT. The only real resolution is to have the discrimination by the military against Gay & Lesbian soldiers judged as unconstitutional by the court system.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:23 PM on 12/19/2010
It's very difficult to get the genie back into the bottle.
01:05 PM on 12/19/2010
The good thing about this is Obama is not going to sign it. But yes, the court cases must continue, though they are not the final answer to DADT. DADT started in congress and had to be put out of its misery by congress. This is basic balance of powers stuff.