Don't Ask Don't Tell: Getting Repeal Right This Time

In 1992 then president-elect Bill Clinton announced that he was going to issue unilaterally an executive order that would end discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military. Big, big mistake.

Although the LGBT community cheered, we were in the minority. The bigots and the hysterics made a louder noise, drowning out the measured voice of reason. When Clinton came into office, he was opposed on this issue by the Joint Chiefs, including its chairman Colin Powell, by many in Congress, and, according to an ABC News - Washington Post poll of May 1993, by 55 percent of the American people. Of course, the Right exploited the issue and it took months for the brouhaha to die down. During those months Clinton saw a lot of his political capital evaporate.

After hearings that gave a number of people the opportunity to vent their homophobia, Congress decided on a "compromise" measure. It passed the statute we know as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which declared -- against all evidence and various studies commissioned by the Pentagon and others -- that homosexuality was incompatible with military service. So instead of the old regulation, which could have been changed by executive order if the ground had been properly laid, we got a law that now only Congress can repeal.

Fifteen years after the law was passed, the new president-elect Barack Obama is determined to avoid the mistakes the Clinton transition made in regard to this particular issue. As president, Clinton thought he could walk into the Oval Office, sign an executive order, and the discriminatory regulation would disappear. It didn't work that way, and it still doesn't. President-elect Obama wants to open the military to gays and lesbians but he's got to do more than snap his fingers to accomplish that goal. An executive order won't cut it this time.

In an astute analysis entitled "The Ghosts of 1993" and published on his much acclaimed website fivethirtyeight.com, Nate Silver asks, "What high-profile policy change has the support of 75 percent of the American public, and could be implemented by changing a very few simple statutes at essentially no cost to the American taxpayer?" You've got it. In response to his own question, Silver writes, "That would be a repeal of Public Law 103-160, the 1993 measure more commonly known as 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' which prohibits openly gay persons from serving in the United States military."

To get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" we must proceed deliberately and according to a plan, which will not require grandstanding but which will require leadership, lining up the votes one by one and reaching out to the Pentagon to ensure their cooperation. Public sentiment (in contrast to 1993), is leading the way. An ABC News - Washington Post poll identical to the 1993 poll was taken last July. It showed 75 percent in favor of open service with only 22 percent opposed. (One might note that the percentage of those opposed is virtually the same as President Bush's approval rating.)

The new Administration needs to hear from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs about implementation and how to do it right this time. The Department of Defense was not on the train fifteen years ago and the train crashed. No one wants to replay 1993. We've seen that movie. We're watching another movie now. I like this one a lot better.

The politics as well as the people have changed dramatically in the last fifteen years. One hundred forty-nine members of the House have signed on to a bill, H.R. 1246, that would repeal the ban. More than a hundred retired admirals and generals have urged Congress to lift the ban. When Mr. Obama said last September that DADT was a bad law that should be repealed, and that he wanted to work with the military to figure out how to make that happen, he created barely a ripple.

The economy is collapsing around us and the specter of a serious depression looms. We are fighting two wars with not enough troops. The globe is warming and the ocean is rising. No one expects DADT to be the first item on the new president's agenda. But we do expect it to be on the agenda. And we expect action sooner rather than later. Make no mistake about it, this can be done in the 111th Congress.

If the new president can't accomplish this, what are the chances for the rest of his program? To quote Nate Silver again, "if Obama can't get a DADT repeal passed, then good luck with something like universal health insurance, which though also supported by solid majorities of the public, is not at 75 percent support, and will be met with much, much more vigorous resistance from lobbying groups."

Comments

[JohnBisceglia]

DADT is one of the most unequivocal cases of denial in US Hissstory. To paraphrase,
"We have to pretend you are heterosexual to feel safe, but please for-the-love-of-God don't tell us the truth." Boys... You can't handle the truth!

DADT is ridiculous; it's as if your government bet billions of your tax dollars on the answer "ribs" in a game of "Heads or Tails". Seriously. Just in terms of money and human resources it is reckless at least, if not criminal. I imagine a nice cafe filled with nothing but Gay Americans sipping lattes and speaking Arabic. Gee, if only they had something BETTER to do...

In a moral and just world, it would be CRIMINAL to treat U.S. citizens who volunteer their lives to serve their country as the American Government treats all LGBT military personnel today. To consider these patriots as "immoral", as Mr. Peter Pace had the temerity to do, is a serious affront.

DADT is an unnecessary hardship for everyone involved, from the military and our government to every single taxpayer and military personnel. Can't the hetero boys GET OVER IT and "DEAL", because their fear wastes more than America can afford.

[firstfreeze]

even Obama's military advisers don't support a repeal of DADT. That policy is the best compromise you will get without destoying the military.

[gaydm]

Allowing gays to serve openly will not "destroy the military". It may destroy idiotic religious dogma and bigoted boor's who infest the military ranks. Spend some of your derision on the military Heterosexuals who are raping, assaulting, and traumatizing our female service members who are trying to do their jobs honorably. We need to just throw out those who have a problem with gay people serving. They should be doing their jobs, not worrying about stuff that will not effect them.

[DRaymond]

If Obama is smart he will ask the pentagon to draw up a list of areas where openly homosexual persons could serve without affecting force readiness. That will take a couple of months at least for Obama to work on the critical stuff and it will get the Pentagon on board. I suspect that the report would include a huge list of areas where they are having trouble finding and keeping recruits. Once the list is drawn up legistation changing DADT would fly thought congress and Obama could sign it with zero political cost.

[KevinVT]

That list would pretty much cover everything now. Every single study has shown that "force readiness" and "unit cohesion" will not be affected by allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Some studies were commissioned by the Pentagon, then suppressed by them because they didn't give the answers the old top brass wanted.

For most enlisted men and women it is a non-issue.

[randyjet]

The military discriminates in many areas and for good reasons because their job is the fight and win wars, not to act as a job source for all people. When I was in the military, I was discriminated against and denied the possibility of a full airline career as a pilot because I was too tall. The same is true of many other categories in the military. Gays may serve NOW in the military as long as they keep their sexual activities private. They are NOT going to be hunted down as in the past, and in order to be kicked out, THEY HAVE to state to their commanders that they are gay.

If we run short of people to man the positions, then indeed the standards will change as they did in WWII when they were running short of bodies. It got so bad that they drafted prisoners right out of prison. The REAL question is, Will allowing gays to serve openly in the military increase military effectiveness? Are we so short of people that the downside is out weighed by the up side? THOSE are the relevant and ONLY questions that must be answered.

[Dave01]

"Gays may serve NOW in the military as long as they keep their sexual activities private."

That is true for EVERYONE! What makes one believe that it would be any different for gays? And by the way, they are currently recruiting prisoners because we are that short on bodies today! You seem to be under some delusion that all gays do is prance around trying to get in the sack with everyone we come across. Many of us have families (although not legally recognized), but many of us who were kicked out simply for being gay were doing our jobs while everyone around us knew that we were gay and had no problem with it.

[gaydm]

Gays serve in the military now. They have served and will continue to serve OUR country. To allow them the opportunity to serve openly will not change anything about where they serve. If anyone all of a sudden has a problem with it, they can be counseled about there problem with gay people. And if that does not work then they can be booted out to become failed airline pilots.

[MrTessier]

As was noted in one of the comments, this is not necessarilly a matter of changing a law. The uniform code of military justice still would need to be changed. I'm not really sure if that comes from the military lawyers and judges, or if it can be changed by congress. Does anyone know? I believe the current law only keeps individuals from going to a federal prison, so if the law is repealed, then wouldn't that just leave the UCMJ as the guideline for all the branches?

[daddysboy]

Why should the hands of bigots have to be held while they make up their minds whether to do the right thing or not? Clinton was right to call this a simple matter of executive order and was wrong to allow his decision to be hijacked. Clinton met far too many people half-way and maybe that's what made his administration as successful as it was despite all the republican blockage, but on this issue it is a simple matter of joining the rest of the democratic world in the 21st century or burying our heads in the sand and pretending that we aren't a backward-thinking country. I think with the choice in Obama, our way ahead is clear; let's not pretend that we need to massage anything to secure a change that America should have had years ago.

[Othniel47]

This delay is ludicrous.

First this is not a gay issue; it is a national security issue with civil rights overtones. The pseudo-Christian right's howl about this issue is one which in fact is a prime example (along with denial of religious freedom at the Air Force Academy) of how National Security is to be sacrified on the altar of this religionist minority's greed and power-laden ideology just as our nation's educational system and financial future has been by the GWB embrace of pseudo-science.

Our National Security does not have the luxury of cow-towing to the radical religionist minority on this issue. Most American Christians frankly are embarassed by them and by the shadows they have caused to eclipse the Person and Work of Christ. And most Americans frankly would prefer not to be invited to the Armageddon they seek to engender while their leaders rake in the book and movie profits.

[T2inDC]

I agree this delay is ludicrous. This repeal is long overdue. Any delay just gives the opponents time to organize and fight a repeal. I am not sure why we are reaching back 15 years with fear that we will repeat the same mistakes of Clinton. Clearly

[Alex02139]

The gay community has given its money and its energy to the Obama machine, and now we can go to hell. Based on his incredibly conservative personnel choices, I'm willing to bet that the Obama administration will do nothing toward equality. The IRS "imputed income" Gay Tax will remain, DOMA will remain, DADT will remain, the Shepard Act will not even come to a vote. Face it: the LGBT minority will be sacrificed on the altar of "bipartisanship," whereby conservative homophobes are appeased so that Obama gets reelected.

Prepare for disappointment, the Democrats only hate us slightly less than the Republicans.

[daddysboy]

"Prepare for disappointment..." That kind of apathy is best served over a light TV dinner, ALONE.

[loper2008]

Obama will repeal DADT. I'm glad you agree he should reach out to members of the military first.

[OldSarg]

DADT will likely stay in place. The majority of Americans still see homosexuals as people that have no control over their physical actions. As sad as it is over 70% of Americans feel that the gay lifestyle is deviant and amoral. Most members of the military are also worried that, potentially, if they provided first aide to a wounded soldier who was gay they could contract AIDs. This phobia may also cause military members to reject help from medics they think are gay.

[wkt20]

What studies are you citing? You speak as if you know these statistics to be facts. People have many phobias. Why should gays be the ones singled out. If someone has such a fear of another group of people that they can't stand to serve with them or be helped by them in a time of need, then they are the ones, I would suggest, who don't belong in the military.

[Sparhawk]

You obviously haven't served. Homosexuality is incompatible with Military life as stated by Old Sarg and for other reasons.

DADT is a horrible compromise and should be made into a definitive policy.

Homosexuality is covered by the UCMJ and will be prosecuted. THAT will never change.

This has nothing to do with Civil rights. It has to do with Espirit de Corp within the ranks of the Military.

[Pupster]

The cost is not to the taxpayer; the cost is the political capital of fighting against the very vocal social conservatives and their political representatives. It will not be as easy as your 75% approval number suggests. I hope that DADT gets repealed; it's terrible policy and discriminatory in an unnecessary way. BUT... I'd rather Obama fight for it at the right time. If the choice is tackling it right away and losing versus waiting a while and winning, I choose the latter.