More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

Posted: November 30, 2010 02:49 PM

This is a historic week in our quest to strengthen our armed forces and secure equality for all Americans.

Today, the Pentagon has released its yearlong study of how to implement repeal of the corrosive "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. This report makes it unambiguously clear that the risk of repeal on military effectiveness is minimal, that any risks can be addressed by implementing the report's recommendations, and that a clear majority of active duty servicemen and women have no problem with repeal. It should come as no surprise that the men and women who serve bravely in our military don't care about the sexual orientation of their fellow servicemembers, they just want to serve their country proudly and believe others should be able to do the same.

Later this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the results of the study. Thursday will be devoted to supporters of repeal, including Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then Friday's hearing will be devoted to the opponents of repeal. It's my hope that the study and these hearings will move those Senators who've been on the fence or who have reserved judgment pending the release of this study to support repeal.

The fact is, repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has strong majority support in the country and now we know it has strong majority support within our military.

Since DADT was instituted 17 years ago, more than 14,000 American troops have been discharged at an estimated cost of over $400 million; those discharges include more than 800 specialists with skills deemed mission critical by the U.S. military and include over 300 of our foreign language speakers. We've lost pilots, engineers, doctors, nurses, and combat medics to this policy, all of which are disciplines where the military has faced shortfalls in recent years.

In addition, this policy has disproportionately impacted women. While women make up approximately fifteen percent of the armed forces, they account for nearly a third of all "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges from the military.

This must end.

Over the past year and a half, I've spoken to many of my colleagues about repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and what I heard most was that they needed to see leadership from the military. So last year I requested the first ever hearings on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the US Senate. Then in January, President Obama offered a strong voice for repeal in his State of the Union address and then in early February, both Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen expressed their support for repeal at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

As Admiral Mullen said then:

It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals, and ours as an institution.

I couldn't agree more.

We simply can not lose one more brave man or woman to this destructive policy. It is immoral, it is discriminatory, and at a time when we are fighting two wars abroad and need all of our best and brightest serving, it hurts our military readiness.

This is a national security issue, this is a fairness issue and this is a measure of who we are as Americans. We are now closer than ever before to repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and lifting the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

I call on my colleagues in the US Senate to support cloture of the Defense Authorization Bill with DADT repeal language in tact this year. It's what the nation wants, it's what our military wants and it's the right thing to do.

 

Follow Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@SenGillibrand

 
 
  • Comments
  • 83
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
Dragoon
Got Liberty? Legalize Freedom!
11:16 AM on 12/03/2010
Senator,
Unfortunately I am not as optimistic as you are. If the Senate fails to support cloture, will you call upon the President to repeal DADT in the military through executive order?
photo
LogicalMathMan
Math, Finance, English, Business Instructor
12:55 PM on 12/02/2010
We send our troops to fight for freedom and then we deprive and 'refudiate' such freedom to some of our citizens. Such hypocrisy!...I wish lightning bolts from Heaven were more commonplace.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Arion
09:23 AM on 12/01/2010
Thank you, Senator. Let's get this piece of garbage out of the way ASAP and then move to repeal DOMA.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jim Neal
Candidate US Senate 2008. Chapel Hill, NC.
08:32 AM on 12/01/2010
HuffPo Survey:

1. Your guess at the odds for the Senate not repealing (voting for cloture)?
I'm at 2:1 against.

2. Should the Obama Administration's DOJ appealed the September ruling by District Judge Virginia Phillips that DADT was unconstitutional thereby rendering Congressional action moot?
Count me as a yes.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jim Neal
Candidate US Senate 2008. Chapel Hill, NC.
08:47 AM on 12/01/2010
Oops.

2. Should the Obama Administra­tion's DOJ NOT have appealed the September ruling by District Judge Virginia Phillips that DADT was unconstitu­tional thereby rendering Congressio­nal action moot?
Count me as a yes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zoemonster
08:27 AM on 12/01/2010
If you're wondering why the focus is on the trumped up fears over some potential misdeeds by gay enlisted soldiers that have never been subsatantiated, consider this: some reports say that about 1/3 of enlisted females are sexually abused or raped by this male dominated institution, but nary a peep about this from the MSM.

Just another distractionary tactic to keep the sheeple from seeing what the real issues are.
03:46 AM on 12/01/2010
Senator Gillibrand

We discriminate before we enlist or commission anyone joining the armed forces. This is necessary to achieve the primary goals of the military. Our forces main role is to protect the interests of the country and deliver our will, by force, to those we disagree with. To do this we discriminate by intelligence, age, height, weight, mental health, family situations, attitude, moral turpitude etc. Many of the people we discriminate against may have made excellent soldiers, but the MISSION is always more important the the individual or the group.
This is done to minimize the chance of failure to complete missions and weed out potential problems before they arise. We need service members to work together in a professional manner while possibly under enormous stress as a cohesive team. If there is a chance that open homosexuality may reduce readiness, then it should be considered before we arbitrarily lift the ban.
It is not your job, the Senate, the House, the courts or the Executive branch to make this decision. It should come from the Military itself. You tell them what you need done and they tell you what they need to accomplish it. That is how it is supposed to work!!!
Anyway, if your party was serious about this the President could end this in 5 minutes with an executive order. The truth is none of you give a shit about the military or gays!!! It is just another issue used to divide people at the polls.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PresidentRobertBooth
05:44 AM on 12/01/2010
***We discrimina­te before we enlist or commission anyone joining the armed forces*** To do this we discrimina­te by intelligen­ce, age, height, weight, mental health, family situations­, attitude, moral turpitude etc***

This is not discrimination, but rather a decision on the verifiable capability or lack thereof of a potential recruit.
 
***Many of the people we discrimina­te against may have made excellent soldiers, but the MISSION is always more important the the individual or the group***

There is no evidence to suggest an openly gay soldier will disrupt a mission of any sort.

****It is not your job, the Senate, the House, the courts or the Executive branch to make this decision. It should come from the Military itself. You tell them what you need done and they tell you what they need to accomplish it. That is how it is supposed to work!!!***

The military have already indicated DADT is not necessary
 
05:45 AM on 12/01/2010
This is so flawed it begs a retort. Does the military discriminate against women, based on their sex? NO. Does the military discriminate against minorities of color, based on their color? No. So please stop with the thumbnail picture of why it is o.k. to keep gays out of the military saying that the military discrininates. Also it IS the role of congress to tell the military what, when, who, why, how much, where, and many other functions. Congress decides how much money the military gets. Congress decides which weapons are going to be funded. Congress declares war. Congress decides who gets promoted to highest rank, (Generals) Congress decides the joint chiefs. So again you are completely wrong. If it was up to the military we would still bar blacks, and women.
The President could in fact issue an executive order to stop DADT. That order would be challenged by the congress before the ink was dry on the paper. So the President has decided to have the rule challenged in court by constantly revoking lower court orders. This issue has to make it all the way to the Supreme Court to be diecided once and for all. Once it gets decided by the Supreme Court it will be nearly impossible to have it revoked. There have been studies after studies. Poll after poll. Soldier after soldier has said it does not matter to them. So there is no real reason to keep this rul other than Homophobia.
05:59 AM on 12/01/2010
Greetings customgreen

The military does discriminate against women. Each service has a separate fitness/strength scales for men and women. Women are restricted from certain combat units. Women are treated differently when they become pregnant. All of these things are 'discrimination." They are recognized differences that are important to the sole mission of the military. The military has one mission: Defense of this country and pursuit of security interests using the violent means of warfare.

No thumbnail picture is necessary. Here is the full size one: Homosexual CONDUCT is not consistent with military service. It is detrimental to unit cohesion and combat efficiency. There is absolutely no military Necessity in allowing OPENLY HOMOSEXUAL conduct in our military. End of story.

Oh, by the way. You really should get a dictionary and look up what a phobia is. Correctly applied ELIGIBILITY requirements (which have been in place since George Washington's time) are not unreasonable fears :)
11:52 AM on 12/01/2010
I am sorry but,
They do discriminate against women.
You do not get inducted into the Joint Chiefs when you are elected to congress.
The president is the Commander and chief and an executive order from him is LAW while he is in Office.
DADT, Rendition, Gitmo, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. make great campaign issues but seem to get voted for first and then slammed later to appease the base.
As far as the military being too close minded to handle it by themselves you are kidding yourself. They are quite capable of making this decision without it being political.
photo
ewldest
I don't care "whose" war it is - end it now
02:26 AM on 12/01/2010
Time to fhedemcra, and what could be done or should be done about human rights is irrelevant.
Ask exxomobile what they want. they're the bosses here.
12:26 AM on 12/01/2010
Greetings Senator Gillibrand

As eloquent as you appear to be, you certainly display an alarming lack of knowledge about which you write. Where to begin??? How about this recent "survey?" I, along with many military members I serve with accessed the online methodology used in the data collection phase. We were all very puzzled that the survey NEVER ONCE asked if we thought repeal of the current law "The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993"; Section 654, Title 10 (commonly mislabeled Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell). NEVER ONCE did the survey asked us if a change would harm unit effectiveness or combat efficiency. No. It was very clear from the start that the survey was not developed to ascertain the level of support of repeal or non-repeal. The survey began with the ASSUMPTION that repeal is a forgone conclusion. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The Secretary of Defense, and Chairman JCS are political appointees of President Obama. They directed the survey in a transparent attempt to show support for repeal when there simply is no ground swell within the military. In your Constitutional mandated role, you should be calling for extensive study of the IMPACTS that repeal would have, not whether currently serving members would do what we expected them to do IF the policy is changed. And what about the other 30%??? Are we to simply ignore their concerns all in the name of advancing a radical societal agenda??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Battista II
01:00 AM on 12/01/2010
How on earth is not kicking openly gay soldiers part of a radical agenda? There's tens of thousands of gay servicefolk. More than half of them probably never bring it up, because at bottom it is nobodys goldurned business what someone does in their romantic lives. I was in the military, and I cringe at the thought of what some of the straight folks were doing to each other...
04:49 AM on 12/01/2010
Awww...don't get all hurt that the majority of your fellow military (me included) have decided that there is no harm in allowing gay service members to serve openly. Most of us have known all along that gay people are here. Now they'll serve freely beside us and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elijah24
Ubuntu
10:51 AM on 12/01/2010
and me
NeapTide
My micro-bio is empty. OH NOooo
11:55 PM on 11/30/2010
The study is in - the one McCain was dragging his heels over. It is the opinion taken of those now serving, and its pretty clear - time for a change. The military has lost far too many highly trained personal who wanted to serve, and were doing so very well. The service chiefs want to repeal it,
Sec Gates, Adm Mullin, and so many others high ranking officers. Now the study confirms the view is shared largely by those further down from the top. The Brass also fears the turmoil that would be caused by an instant change via court action, which is highly probable. Yes - lets listen to our military.
05:45 AM on 12/01/2010
Greetings NeapTide

The study never asked personnel if they supported or opposed a change in policy. How do I know? I took the survey that was sent to me. I also viewed the online survey.

Also, the claim that Homosexual Conduct discharges have hurt the military are false. Homosexual discharges account for only .2% of all discharges. Far more folks are discharged for exceeding weight standards, pregnancy, marriage, drug use and rule violations. Why are proponents of repeal not concerned about those discharges?? Something else to think about: Why in the world would we allow someone to serve in our military who believes that broadcasting their sexual preferences is MORE important than following the well-known rules?

Finally, every service chief has either come out against change or cautioned change. Not one single service chief (save for Adm Mullens--a political appointee) has come out in favor of change. As a matter of fact, 1100 former flag and general officers joined in a statement addressed to President Obama AGAINST repeal of the law.
11:28 PM on 11/30/2010
You are being dishonest. The report also says that 48% of combat soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq strongly oppose repeal, 58% of Marines in both countries strongly oppose and 38% said they'd quit.

I'm for repeal...AFTER this terrible war that has screwed so many soldiers over, is over.
To push this unwanted thing on them, to force it, at a time when they've been pushed beyond limits is really unfair, and it goes way beyond the right or wrong of repeal.
Too bad it wasn't done before invasion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ron Battista II
01:09 AM on 12/01/2010
Quit? A) You can't quit a hitch, B) you don't seem to understand that quit is not one of the Marines' strong suits. They may say that in an anonymous survey, but a sliver will actually do it. This whole issue is a tempest in a teapot. The minute anyone steps out of line with this policy, their career is OVER. Everyone will toe this line, do it quietly, for to do otherwise will cause a political scandal that this military can scarcely afford after the scandals that have preceded it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
elijah24
Ubuntu
11:09 AM on 12/01/2010
We've been at war for 9 years with no end in sight. Frankly we are always at war somewhere. The military industrial complex will continue to see to that. I get the argument that it shouldn't happen in a time of war, but if we are in a perpetual state of war, at some point you have to say "right is right" and get it done.
10:29 PM on 11/30/2010
Senator, I'm a very conservative Republican and I seriously doubt that there will ever be much that we agree on, but this is one time that I heartily agree with you. This policy has been unconstitutional from the day it was instituted and anyone in the Tea Party or Republican Party that believes in a government founded on the principles of the Constitution can't support a law that violates said Constitution. My only objection would be based purely on religious beliefs and I could make a case there, but that cannot and should never be a reason for making law and policy for this country - ever.

Repeal this thing. Get on with what really is holding this country back. The military doesn't object. Most democrats don't object. A lot of conservative, like myself, don't object. What are you waiting for, Senator? And yes, I have told both my Senators, Boxer and Feinstein that I support repeal, though I don't think I needed to mention it.
12:13 AM on 12/01/2010
Greetings BraxtonC

"...unconstitutional from the day it was instituted..." ???

Oh, you mean the United States' long standing historic prohibition against homosexual behavior? Ever since George Washington's Continental Army? Sure has been around a long time for to have been unconstitutional :)

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Constitution and the history of discrimination in this country also knows that homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually
protected by civil rights laws. Protection against private “discrimination” has historically been
offered only for characteristics that are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in
the Constitution. Homosexual conduct is none of those things.

Once again, for those who missed it... This is all about ELIGIBILITY. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. The military is very discriminatory in it's eligibility criteria. There are hundreds of disqualifying items/topics that potential members are tested/investigated for. Not one single one of these criteria is driven by bigotry or discrimination or whatever other hot potato political correctness term of the month you might want to use.
05:00 AM on 12/01/2010
Homosexuality is a condition of birth, not choice.
05:51 AM on 12/01/2010
Nothing more than religeous blah, blah, blah.
photo
YoungProg2010
Student, New Yorker, & Proud Working Class Liberal
09:32 PM on 11/30/2010
Senator, it's articles like these that remind me why I voted for you.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
josephRoehl
RainbowHumanityRising, 600 million
09:23 PM on 11/30/2010
Men and women who serve our country deserve to do so openly and proudly. Thank you for your sensible perspective Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand )) May repeal of DADT be done before Christmas. Jesus was gay and further harm to gay men and women is a disservice to him and our country's evolution towards universally protected individual and family human and civil rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
10:27 PM on 11/30/2010
Agree! Happy Holidays Joe!
photo
SparkyDash
Save a pretzel for the gas jets.
09:16 PM on 11/30/2010
Senator I respect you greatly. The Administration, Democrats, most of America, are with you on this. In fact, I will venture to say even the Repubteaparty is okay with it, but refuses to admit it because to do so would give a victory to Obama...that is the one and only issue they are running on at this time (that and greed).

No need to write a whole article; we get it. But I ask that you and other good leaders call out GOP for exactly what they are and the appalling and dangerous direction they are trying to take this nation. Take a stand with dignity and I have no doubt we would see DADT repealed as well as tax cuts continued for middle class America, DREAM Act, and a New START Treaty.

We know where the real problem is, Senator.
11:32 PM on 11/30/2010
Fine, but you know who is against this? Those serving combat in Iraq/Afghanistan...48% Army, 58 % Marines and 38% said they'd quit over it.
What about their voice...the ones doing the dirty, terrible work with multiple tours and risking life and limb.
REPEAL AFTER this crappy war is over.
01:47 AM on 12/01/2010
That isn't how it works. You don't bend to the bigots, that's no way to treat the law. Waiting for this war to end is just one more excuse to continue discrimination.

More than likely, if this law is repelled most of the gays serving in a homophobic troop aren't going to start coming out just because they can. Would would they when their fellow solider apparently feels so strongly set against them? But even beside that point, most of the soldiers will just continue on as they were before. When we desegerated the whole army didn't collapse because of racism, and that was a much bigger deal for it's time.
05:48 AM on 12/01/2010
I don't believe those numbers at all. Prove it!
photo
kimbanyc
LIBERAL NY DEMOCRAT
07:23 PM on 11/30/2010
We're with you Senator.

Now what are we doing about getting that money New Jersey didn't want. Your hard work to get in an EARLY appeal for the UNWANTED federal funds was GENIUS!!!!! Get It Done Senator!!

fanned from nyc