Text of DADT repeal legislation

Here is the legislation being discussed.

dadtlanguage http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

After talking to a number of sources, it seems that what was proposed by the Hill, and agreed to by the White House, is the following – I’m summarizing the document above, which is the latest version of the compromise being discussed

The House and Senate will pass legislation this year that provides that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will be considered repealed if and when the following happens:

1. The Secretary of Defense receives the “study.”
2. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that:
– They have considered the recommendations in the study
– DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations needed to implement a repeal
– The implementation of the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

Current policy will remain in place until the above conditions are satisfied. And if the above conditions are never satisfied, the current DADT policy will remain in place.

There is nothing in the legislation that says the repeal must happen.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

157 Responses to “Text of DADT repeal legislation”

  1. Linda says:

    DADT: I read the proposed legislation but did not see if gays are allowed to serve if DADT is reversed.

    Are they?

  2. caphillprof says:

    It takes extraordinary effort to hide ones sexual orientation.

    Obviously you’ve never been in situation where you had to hide yours.

  3. Reality Check says:

    I would like one gay person to tell me why they feel the NEED to openly tell their sexual orientation in the military.

    The military is about protecting the United States, not pleasing everyones problem about acceptance.

    Gays cans serve in the military, not openly. This is not grade-school.

  4. Truth says:

    I thought the repeal was for knowing (since they have to TELL) who will be the next recipient of “friendly fire” will be.

  5. Kind of a stacked question, isn’t it? Tell you what I’m going to do with my money. I’m going to spend it the way I like. But any time you get the urge to define me in the future, I’d love to hear all about it. I’m into fiction.

  6. Butch1 says:

    Thanks, I wasn’t aware of that.

  7. Zoe_Brain says:

    “At least DADT is being repealed”.

    Er… no. Look carefully. Very carefully. Sections b, c and d are being repealed (maybe). Section a is emphatically not.

    And this is what part of section a says:

    (13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
    (14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies
    that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
    (15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who
    demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

    That bit is being kept. It’s only the prohibition on asking that’s being repealed.

    Get the feeling we’re being played for suckers?

  8. caphillprof says:

    How’s your appeasement of the Democrats working out for you?

  9. Ha! Spoken like a “sympathetic supporter.”

    Thanks for buttressing my point. Cheers!

  10. chicagotist says:

    Oh, please! If the GOP actually offered something comparable. But it doesn’t! Even the trans female candidate in Florida is a joke with the usual Republican refrain of “rights for me, but not for you” – “I don’t support same-sex marriage”. And that’s a member of our own community… And McCain meeting and endorsing some of the biggest homophobes in this country that daily spew their venom via every channel possible? Seriously, you expect me to vote for them?

    I may be disenfranchised by the Democrats, but it’s not to the level of going crazy and voting for the ex-mavericks.

  11. chicagotist says:

    Please, provide proof of Democrats actually doing something about that stuff that they allegedly support? And the money, part of which could be going to the Democrats, is instead going to pay my partner’s and my taxes… which are higher than my married heterosexual friends, once again because of Democrats’ refusal to stand up for those rights that they allege they support.

  12. Big words coming from you considering how much you’ve moaned and groaned during this article. Whether you want to admit it or not, LGBs are getting most of what they want/need if this Amendment passes. Look at history to see just how many times rights civil rights have been repealed once given.

    Again, stop being so fucking fussy and work with what you are likely to get. As you have so “graciously” stated, a number of other issues aren’t even being addressed even though they have a similar impact as to what DADT has. I have no problem with being under the LGBT umbrella and helping my LGB brethren, however I also have the right to criticise when all that some parts of the community do is “moan and groan” instead of get in and make the best of things, or try to make them better. Wake up to the fact that not everybody is as fortunate as you are, politically.

    As for your other comment. While Obama and Rahm may disregard Liberals a lot, they absolutely adored the campaign financing that liberals dropped into their coffers in 2008 by the bucket-loads. The closer that we get to 2012, do you really think that they’ll want to risk that cash-flow? Money is life during any campaign, and Obama will have a VERY big one on his hands in 2 years and 3 months time.

  13. Gridlock says:

    Says little ms. “my issue isn’t being paid enough attention, wah!”

    Yeah it is, under the LGBT umbrella. Either be part of it or take the T and be separate. You can’t have it both ways.

  14. Gridlock says:

    1) If you insist on bitching at me, get YOUR facts straight. Obama isn’t interested in liberals. he views them as a liability. He trotted out Rahm at every opportunity to deride liberals as “fucking retards” during the health “reform” fiasco and fatuously declared that anybody who wanted a public option was a “left of the left fringe pajama wearing whacko”.2) Obama and his DOJ have been defending DOMA and DADT in court quite vociferously even though they are under no duress to do so unless they find DOMA and DADT constitutional, which they apparently do. In those awful birefs, we were compared to incestuous pedophiles and determined not to be worthy of full rights as citizens.3) Just because I’m not pounding away about Trans rights (considering I’m not trans), i’m suddenly NOT a defender of said rights being inclusive in all LGBT equality legislation? The fuck? I’ve consistently said that the T belongs and that anything less is but a crumb. Sorry I’m not pounding the trans drum to your satisfaction, but in all honestly, go fuck yourself. Try to call my support for legislation inclusive of trans rights into question again and I will flay you alive where you stand with words.

    4) Woe is me attitude? No, woe is US. All of us. Either you’re part of LGBT or you aren’t, make up your damn mind.

    5) DADT is receiving political attention because we’re agitating on it, but unfortunately that agitation is STILL seeing nothing but lies, spin, bullshit and “compromise” from the powers that be. I wouldn’t call that a freaking victory. Whynot help out, instead of criticizing everyone else (through omission no less!) of not being supportive?

    There’s a fucking thought.

  15. Zooterist says:

    This bullshit is NOT acceptable. How would Mr. Black President Obama react if such an absurdly patronizing approach were taken with respect to allowing blacks in the military for the first time? As a citizen who is equal to every other citizen in this country in every way, I resent like hell that he wants to make DADT conditional on whether the “study” finds us “compatible” with military service. What a freaking outrage. What a way to deliver on a campaign promise.

  16. JamesR says:

    So cutting and pasting the same reply you gave to Cowboy above, [and to Crustybastard, twice,] – with the same “rationale” and everything, perhaps even cut and pasted from somewhere else? – This is a proper response to being called on cutting and pasting?


    Your points are lame and tired, and not helped by your use of them as a cudgel on your betters.

    Go away.

  17. If you weren’t acting like a spoiled brat with your comments, maybe I would.

  18. If you insist on whining in regards to this legislation, at least get your facts right then.

    If any of you had even bothered to analyse the Amendment properly, you would have noticed that the requirements of Obama, Sec Def and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are procedural, rather than based on perspective. That means that as soon as the Report is received, that the 3 assigned individuals must abide by the context of the Amendment if it passes, which in turn means that they are required by Law to tick the relevant boxes off, adjust relevant policies and sign off on the repeal. The language in this Amendment all but puts a noose around Obama’s neck from Liberals, because it’d offer them undeniable proof that Obama isn’t a ‘progressive’, which is something that Obama can ill-afford given the changing demographics in the US. Obama knows that refusing to follow through on high-profile issues such as DADT will cost him a lot of campaign financing if he reneges if this amendment passes or he vetoes it, so given the nature of “Washington Politics”, it will be a directive that he can’t break if he wants to win in 2012.

    As for Transgender rights, if people are so supportive, why haven’t people on this forum been calling for measures that will guarantee that Trans-people can’t be re-banned on a whim by Doctors in the Pentagon, if and when the current medical ban that’s currently present is ever lifted? Where’s all of the outrage for the servicemen and women who will still get kicked out once DADT is repealed, just because they are Trans? What about those that get refused even basic medical treatment by the VA? How about Transgender and Intersex people receiving the same level of discharge as convicted criminals and drug users?

    If you are a “Defender” of Trans-rights in regards to the military, then why haven’t you been asking these questions at the same time that similar questions are being asked as a part of the DADT debate? If you were such a “defender”, you’d be going “Well, at least I’ve gotten something out of this that’s firmer than what other parts of the LGBT community have received”. Its the unwarranted “woe is me” attitude that people are showing on here that is pissing me off, especially since DADT is at least receiving political attention when other issues aren’t.

  19. It’s the idea that’s important. You nailed it.

  20. Gridlock says:

    Apologies for butchering his actual quote :P

  21. Gridlock says:

    1) uh, I’ve actually defended trans rights thanks. Where the hell did you get THAT from?

    2) DADT is getting repealed? Really? Please, let me look through your amazing crystal ball so I can be assured of such a momentous future event. I trust this crystal ball sees through all the crap like the administration defending the hell out of DADT, DOMA and otherwise in court, using “studies” that have been done 20 times before to push this back beyond the point of no return (midterms), and a host of other horrors that will see absolutely nothing happen? Man, where can I get one?

  22. Under this “compromise,” they must craft new policy while the current law remains in place. The current law says the presence of gays is detrimental to the military.

    Crafting the new policy under those rules will be the Mother of All Circlejerks.

  23. Why apologize? He’d be with us.

  24. If you insist on presenting my opinion, please try to get it right.

    (edited for typo)

  25. Everything in your last paragraph which you characterize as “politically untenable” has already happened.

  26. ATL Guy does have a point. At least DADT is being repealed, even if it’s a slower process than expected. Other military policies that affect the Transgender and Intersex communities aren’t being even talked about at all, so the claim that Gays, Bi’s and Lesbians are only getting “Crumbs” is kind of moot.

    Gates will be retiring within the next 12 months, while Mullen is within the last 18 months of his career as well due to age-restrictions. Hillary Clinton and Gen. Petraeus are two of the top candidates to succeed them both, while they have more progressive perspectives on this issue than the current occupants of the Pentagon. Who knows, if the report recommends that no special changes need to be made to accomodate open LGB’s, DADT could be repealed the day that the report comes out if this bill passes. One way or another DADT will be completely repealed within 18 months if this Bill passes.

    As for the frustration about “Sympathetic Supporters” that the crustybastard, Gridlock, Louisk and a few others are going on about…. seriously, get a life you lot. It’s been “Glass half-empty” people like you who have complained every time someone has slightly raised a concern about Transgender rights, so I find the way that you are all carrying on both humorous and sad. I dare say that if a provision that ordered the Military’s doctors to allow Trans-peeps to serve once the American Psychiatric Association (APA) remove Gender Identity from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the future had of been included, that you guys would be going: “The Trans-folk are going to sink the repeal! Why should YOU be included in OUR Bill?!!?!!” >_>

    If you want sympathetic supporters, be willing to be sympathetic to other people’s concerns and perspectives as well, because the way that you guys are carrying on at the moment when your problems are at least being addressed (albeit slowly), really pisses a lot of people off who aren’t as fortunate and have supported Lesbian, Gay and Bi causes for years.


  27. The King of Copypasta has spoken.

  28. Repeating it doesn’t make it true, you chuzzlewit.

  29. Tell that to the powerless whiners who insisted on sitting down at segregated lunch counters.

  30. “Moran” is an internet meme.

  31. First, understand that “DADT repeal” has unfortunately become a synecdoche. DADT is a policy modification of the “Homosexual Conduct” law enacted by Congress. Repeal regards the “Homosexual Conduct” law — not the DADT policy.

    The proposal says IF the Military Triumvirate “certifies” their endorsement of new policies, the “Homosexual Conduct” law — the current legal basis for the ban — disappears. While they decide (and if they don’t certify) the law stays in place.

    POTUS always retains the Constitutional power to implement military policy within the bounds of the law. So, for example, Clinton’s DADT policy modified the federal law’s absolute ban to allow gays to serve as long as (1) they’re willing to lie and mislead everyone about their personal lives, and (2) their terrifying secret isn’t discovered by anyone with bad intentions.

    If a Defense Directive can include gays despite a federal law to the contrary, I imagine a Defense Directive can also exclude gays (particularly where other federal law and federal courts allow and encourage such discrimination.)

  32. ezpz says:

    Not good.

  33. If our “sympathetic supporters” cannot understand our frustration, they’re not particularly sympathetic, are they?

    Then you state as if it’s a fact that we don’t participate in the political process, then top it off with the “b-b-but the Republicans” trope.

    You’ve only convinced me of one thing: you’re an idiot.

    Well done.

  34. Gridlock says:

    Fair weather friends retard progress by paternalistically thinking they can set the timetable for the freedom and equality of others.

    With apologies to MLK

  35. Gridlock says:


    “Stop rocking the boat or you’ll drive away your allies”.

    ie: “sit down and be glad you got on the bus, even if you have to sit in the back.”

    We don’t need fairweather “friends” like you.

  36. Gridlock says:

    LOl call Boxers office and ask her about a number of LGBT issues and enjoy the blank stares and “I’m not sure” answers of the staff.

  37. Luke Maffei says:

    I think betraying the labor movement is a bad idea.

  38. Luke Maffei says:

    Political advice from Norman Rockwell? No thanks.

  39. Reinaldo says:

    She isn’t the only one in the Senate. Barbara Boxer would do it in a second, if she could, but there are a bunch of Dinos as well as a handful of Rethuglicans who will vote the other way. Boxer is on our side.

    Do you really want Carly Fiorina? This witch sent 20,000 jobs overseas and destroyed HP, one of the few companies that had decent labor policies, when she became the CEO.

  40. Allisson says:

    Alas, it is with fair-weather supporters that elections are won and progress is made.

  41. Luke Maffei says:

    Barrack Obama does not deserve to have sole discretion over whether DADT gets repealed. He’s already proven that we won’t use it. And if Barbara Boxer is willing to hand that discretion over without any requirements or assurances, I won’t vote for her!

  42. Butch1 says:

    What flavor is the kool-aid you’re drinking? I hope it came with cookies. The A-List House Faggots at least get cocktails and a visit from the president. What are you getting?

  43. Butch1 says:

    ” It’s simply foolish to think that gays, lesbians, et al are going to vote Republican.”
    I can see you’re an “either, or” type of person. Who said they were voting GOP? Many may not vote at all or vote third party like I plan to do unless this president and the DNC come to their senses.


    “I mean, seriously, are any gays going to vote GOP? Are any gays going to stay home from the polls and allow GOP to take back the House?”
    You bet. They have a name; Log-Cabin Republicans.

    Yes, many gays will stay home and if the republicans succeed, it will be the democrats fault for not supporting its base and gay voters. When your party doesn’t support you, why should you support your party? You do not seem to comprehend that. I do not vote blindly and I expect something for my vote. This party has had a oneway street with the gay and lesbian community and has had to be forced to do anything for us. Why continue to support those who are passively doing nothing for you or are actively working against your equal rights like the president’s Attorney’s General Office regarding DOMA defending the status quo instead of the propaganda and lies we continue to hear from this president regarding his “fierce advocacy.” I have never been more sure of this decision as I am now.

  44. Louisk says:

    ATL–you have your opinion. Try not to silence those of us who aren’t satisfied with crumbs. And frankly, if our complaining “turns off sympathetic supporters”, I suggest they are fair-weather supporters.

  45. Butch1 says:

    Well, you must be a “tea-bagger,” since all of you seem to have a problem spelling “Moron.”

  46. ATL Guy says:

    It bothers me when disadvantaged groups fuss and complain about progress yet do not participate in the political process. Repealing DADT is a process; it will take babysteps to undo historical discrimination. Quit complaining because you will turn off sympathetic supporters. Applaud the progress so far because if we had McCain/Palin this wouldn’t have been on the table. Every day, thank God for small mercies.

  47. Butch1 says:

    What worries me is that The Secretory of Defence, the person in charge at the Pentagon, and the President all get to decide “equally” what the outcome will be. I thought the president was the Commander in Chief and not on equal ground as his supposed subordinates. Obama doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing or he wants to share the blame when they all decide that they should continue DADT. We do not have a president that has the cojones to be in charge of the Armed Forces.

  48. Butch1 says:

    I would respond but, “the crustybastard” said my exact thoughts.

  49. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps, not. That should make our decision to withdraw support and votes much easier to decide.

  50. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps, I’m a bit cynical when it comes to the government standing by their promises, especially, this present administration. In little more than a year they have developed quite a track record of using people up and throwing them to the curb ( or under the bus, if you will ).

    I expect them, after this period of time, to have come up with reasons why they should not implement the destruction of DADT. It is in their nature and seems predictable to me.

    Your last quote of Lt. Choi, rings true with me and others who want to see this unjust legislation totally rescinded.

  51. Gridlock says:

    K, i call for a ban on this moron simply cutting and pasting the same shit over and over again.

  52. Gridlock says:

    You’ll never get an answer. vv1 doesn’t do actual debate. It just spits out propaganda and then fucks off to cheerbot land.

  53. Gridlock says:

    More finger wagging from the DNC robot

  54. Gridlock says:

    Your jaw must be tired from fellating Obama 24/7. Have a rest before you cramp up.

  55. gayinmilitary says:

    So, you endorse the study that is including vehemently anti-gay voices like Tony Perkins (Family Research Council) in direct discussions with the study group? What other hate groups do you suggest participate in a study on allowing open service by gay and lesbians?

  56. mtiffany says:

    “And if the above conditions are never satisfied, the current DADT policy will remain in place.”

    Well then it’s pretty f*cking certain that the requisite conditions will never be satisfied. They never are…

  57. Robert Rhea says:

    If this passes and we get all of these absurd signatures, the law goes back to the way it was in 1993 before DADT. There are absolutely no protections for LGBTQI soldiers. They will be at the mercy of whatever president wants to legislate via Executive Order or whatever reg the Pentagon wants to put in place.

  58. huffy2001 says:

    Yes, there will be gays who vote republican. Just like there are blacks, hispanics, muslims, women and members of every other disenfranchised by the GOP group who vote republican. It doesn’t have to make sense…it just is. Frankly, after the past 8 year nightmare I can’t understand why anyone (except for the most steadfast right wing loons) would vote for them. But here they are talking about a Republican sweep in November. Go figure.

    Why is it that everyone thinks that the president, once he gains office, can just go in and clean house? It isn’t possible. Out government is a huge beaurocracy. It’s like turning a ship and I think O has been doing a pretty good job. If we could all get behind him and support him things might actually change for the better. Or, we could go back to the way it was. Bismarck said politics is the art of the possible, and it’s true.

  59. Robert Rhea says:

    This is Worse Than Nothing:

    Please read this whole statement before thinking I am defending DADT.

    Does anyone recall what DADT was put in place to stop? We have been given almost 20 years to forget the reason it seemed palatable in 1993. Pre DADT, Gays and Lesbians were hunted in Crucible like investigations by Military investigation agencies like the CID, NCIS, etc. Subjects would be held for hours, threatened with decades long sentences, forced to give up other men and women as homosexuals, terrorized into signing confessions, and then given a dishonorable discharge. This medieval session could be initiated by nothing more than having a bodybuilding magazine. Suspicion is all it took, not even reasonable suspicion.

    This is what we will gain from the language in this compromise. This is a Faustian compromise at best giving political cover to the Democrats while making it seem like we are moving forward. Without the anti-discrimination language this “compromise” is nothing more than a sign reading “FAG HUNTING SEASON OPEN”.

    I would ask that SLDN, Aubrey Sarvis, and the like look into their archives and post some of those stories. Let the world know just what is going to happen AFTER this law passes and AFTER all of the certifications are signed. Repealing DADT is not enough. We MUST include anti-discrimantion language in any repeal. If we don’t, the light at the end of the tunnel is the doorway to the gallows.

  60. RWG says:

    We already have ‘gay rights’, and they are significantly inferior to the rights enjoyed by non-gay Americans. We don’t need more ‘gay rights’. We need and are entitled to Equality Under the Law, in all matters, in other words, Equal Rights. As far as this DADT proposal is concerned, its stinks. It’s a cheap political trick. Without an explicit repudiation in law of the long held principle that ‘homosexuality is inconsistent with military service’ any change is meaningless. The proposal is a formula for continued discrimination, plain and simple.

    The Democrats have screwed us again. No votes, no time, no money.

  61. kujhawker says:

    Can someone answer me if this passes and the pentagon adn the president sign off on it, is there anything to prevent a future president or pentagon from putting the ban back in place. From my understand this isn’t even barring the discrimination just lifting the ban, but can the ban be put back into place with a stroke of the any Administrations pen?

  62. Anon. says:

    Respectfully, this is one comment where I’ll just flat out say “You’re completely wrong.”

    Congress is an inchoate mass, a “beast with no brain and 535 stomachs,” as one political scientist said. Presidents have been blaming Congress for all sorts of stuff or inaction on stuff for centuries.

    But the Secretary of Defense and the Chair of JCS serve at the pleasure of the president. I agree with the point someone made above that there’s a small chance this language is makes repeal conditional on Obama being re-elected (although another two years of study following the December study seems like a long time).

    But it’s politically untenable for his own SecDef and JCS Chair to just endlessly slow walk this for more than two years, not only from a GLBT/progressive base front, but also from a general view of the strength of his own admin. What would it say about a president that his own cabinet members are so openly insubordinate and Obama just sits there helplessly?

  63. vv1 says:

    It is the policy of this administration to make substantial polcy changes by studying the impact of the change and by including all stakeholders in the study. Change is not made by impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip rash moves. That was the style of the previous administration and resulted in an ill-advised adventure in Iraq.

    And change is certainly not made because a bunch of powerless whiners are demanding it, without rationale thought.

  64. vv1 says:

    It is the policy of this administration to make substantial polcy changes by studying the impact of the change and by including all stakeholders in the study. Change is not made by impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip rash moves. That was the style of the previous administration and resulted in an ill-advised adventure in Iraq.

    And change is certainly not made because a bunch of powerless whiners are demanding it, without rationale thought.

  65. vv1 says:

    It is the policy of this administration to make substantial polcy changes by studying the impact of the change and by including all stakeholders in the study. Change is not made by impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip rash moves. That was the style of the previous administration and resulted in an ill-advised adventure in Iraq.

    And change is certainly not made because a bunch of powerless whiners are demanding it, without rationale thought.

  66. vv1 says:

    It is the policy of this administration to make substantial polcy changes by studying the impact of the change and by including all stakeholders in the study. Change is not made by impulsive, shoot-from-the-hip rash moves. That was the style of the previous administration and resulted in an ill-advised adventure in Iraq.

    And change is certainly not made because a bunch of powerless whiners are demanding it, without rationale thought.

  67. Steve_in_CNJ says:

    shorter reality: you guys are getting really uppity. get back in the closet and leave my bff alone.

  68. gayinmilitary says:

    As a career military person, I suppose I’m just the exception to your reality. This legislation is appalling.

  69. gayinmilitary says:

    The study is going to find the “unforeseen problems” of gay military service that were brought up by Tony Perkins in his interview with Sen. McCain last week. When you have the Family Research Council working with members of the study group, it’s not likely that the outcome will be favorable to gays and lesbians.

  70. In theory, George W Bush could have issued a Defense Directive abrogating DADT. He didn’t.

    Regardless, I expect the new policies and regulation would be founded within the body of administrative law, not Defense Directives. There’s a subtle tipoff to that effect in the bill.

    The standard of judicial review of administrative law is even more deferential to the government than rational basis, if you can believe it.

  71. Well, if we’re playing Gay Democrat Match Game:

    If it looks iike horseshit, and it smells like horseshit, it must be…progress.

  72. You’re not right, but your confusion is entirely justified.

    They are NOT discussing repeal of DADT policy no matter how many times you hear it from no matter how many directions. On the table is repeal of the federal “Homosexual Conduct” law (10 USC § 654).

    Try as I might, I cannot seem to persuade anyone to use the accurate terminology.

  73. The flaw in your logic is your presumption that Congress wants to do teh gheys a great big favor.


  74. A. I’m going to give you $10,000 this year.

    B. I’m going to loan you some money eventually.

    C. I might consider cosigning your loan one day.

    Look closely — can you spot the difference between the three?

  75. The Study itself took one year of thinking about doing, and another year of doing.

    You think they’ll knock out the three-step certification process in a year?


  76. If we don’t accept this compromise, then it is very likely that nothing will happen on DADT for several years to come.

    If you read the text, you’ll see that if you do accept the compromise, it’s just as likely that nothing will happen to repeal the gay ban for years to come.

    What an astonishing coincidence that either choice requires that Obama to win a second term.

  77. Reading that made me dumber.

  78. JamesR says:

    You’re a goddamned troll – posting the same partisan shit to more than one person here, verbatim, not addressing the specific points of their responses, not respecting them, us nor this forum.

    Why do you post if you do not listen nor engage in individual debate?

  79. So you’re okay with “repeal this year” becoming little more than a promise to implement new policies that will prospectively trigger repeal sometime in Obama’s second term…or if there is no second term, never.

    You’re confusing stalling for progress.

  80. Don’t forget about North Korea! Anti-submarine “exercises” with South Korea are already planned.

  81. Who forgot to flush?

  82. cowboyneok says:


    I guess there is a need to remind you we are talking about the lives of GAY SERVICEMEN and THEIR FAMILIES and what they have at stake by this supposed “compromise” versus promise to GET RID OF DADT?

    It sure as HELL hasn’t taken other countries like Great Britain and Israel this kind of public policy circus to implement integration of their troops. We are a LAUGHING STOCK considering they, and many other countries, ALREADY allow their gays and lesbians to openly serve.

    While England celebrates TEN YEARS of allowing their gays to openly serve? You call that progress?

    “While repeal could pass via the defense authorization bill, it would reportedly not go into effect under the pending deal until after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff review an ongoing Pentagon study into the impact of repeal. That review is set to be completed by December 1st.

    The president and military brass must approve moving forward after the review comes back, and implimentation of repeal could take years. “

  83. cowboyneok says:


    I guess there is a need to remind you we are talking about the lives of GAY SERVICEMEN and THEIR FAMILIES and what they have at stake by this supposed “compromise” versus promise to GET RID OF DADT?

    It sure as HELL hasn’t taken other countries like Great Britain and Israel this kind of public policy circus to implement integration of their troops. We are a LAUGHING STOCK considering they, and many other countries, ALREADY allow their gays and lesbians to openly serve.

  84. reality says:

    Naturally the folks who are hopeful about this latest development are either in the military or on the cusp of joining up.

    Those most “outraged” are typically people whose closest encounter with an armed forces recruiting station happens when they pass one while heading to Starbucks. Go figure.

    Get a grip, a life, a job. Not necessarily in that order.

  85. Reality says:

    Shorter AmericaBlog: “Waaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!”

    But it’s not being repealed tonight!!. Waaaa! And it’s probably never going to happen. And even if it does happen, who would want to serve now, with Obama’s horrible foreign policy?? Nevermind…Waaaa…

    And if DADT is repealed, too little, too late, right? The fact it took so long shows Obama hates the gays. Fucking evil Rahm! Waaaa….Waaaaa…..Waaaaa…..

    In the wake of DADT’s repeal it will actually be a perfect time for some more Obama bashing. Maybe even a FoxNews appearance, or a fund drive!

    It’s a wonder the White House gives a damn what the gay lobby thinks anymore.

    Oh wait, I forgot….he should have used the “Bully Pulpit.” Got it.

    Now go back to watching “The West Wing” and “The American President” and deluding yourself about how real public policy works, just the same way the right- wing deludes itself with “24” and “Red Dawn.”


  86. vv1 says:

    As I have said before, there is real progress being made:


    And I think all of the whining on this and other gay activist blogs is because the gay bloggers are not part of the ongoing process.

    But responsible, thoughtful representatives of the gay community ARE involved and are helping move it forward.

    Jealous much?

  87. vv1 says:

    As I have said before, there is real progress being made:


    And I think all of the whining on this and other gay activist blogs is because the gay bloggers are not part of the ongoing process.

    But responsible, thoughtful representatives of the gay community ARE involved and are helping move it forward.

    Jealous much?

  88. FunMe says:

    Who are you? Are you part of the Democrat Party? HRC?

    “Dude”, join us in the 21st Century.

    The days of “where are they going?” and “oh the republicons are worse” are OVAH!

    Ignore your base, your base will ignore you!

  89. FaceIt says:

    No more Pam House Blend spaulding! I don’t care what that N.C. hick has to say. She wanted John Edwards along with her man-hating cohort Amanda Marcotte.

  90. FaceIt says:

    They don’t care if gays are with them or not.

  91. ezpz says:

    Or could the timing have something to do with the imminent expansion of the war into Iran?“U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Military Acts in Mideast Region”

    WASHINGTON — The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate….”


  92. HtW says:

    So… Congress “needed” to enact this “repeal” because the President and the Pentagon had no power to act on DADT and the action they want Congress to take is to abdicate that power to the President and Pentagon who have steadfastly refused to take any steps in their power towards repeal. Niice. No wonder the White House is stepping in at the last minute to make sure what gets passed by Congress is what suits the White House and not what’s good for the country.

  93. ezpz says:

    Sorry to be cynical, but I wonder if what looks like a worthless piece of non legislation (to me) has something to do with the recent report that Afghanistan is basically falling apart,
    and there is NO exit strategy
    Obama is asking for a war supplemental.

    Maybe the administration thinks that by promoting this piece of non legislation, no one will notice the very VERY bad Afghanistan (old) news.



  94. FunMe says:

    After HRC told their supporters that DADT would be repealed this year AND Obama started getting scared of the gays, or better yet, worried whether we would vote for the Democrats this fall (thanks to the pressure from Dan Choi and GetEqual), these 2 “had” to do something to ensure they did not lose us “the gays”.

    Too late!

    Obama is so transparent, it’s not even funny.

    DADT was already a “compromise”.
    A repeal of of DADT is what we need. FULL REPEAL THIS YEAR.
    Nothing less!

    So repeal that damn thing!

  95. Jophus says:

    Sure, it counts. You know how to tell when the military is lying? Their mouths are moving.

  96. devlzadvocate says:

    And, BTW, that’s NOT DADT repeal legislation.

    That’s just as much DADT policy remains in place legislation.

  97. Jophus says:

    Are you willing to compromise your liberty? Welcome, btw.

  98. devlzadvocate says:

    And the check is in the mail.

  99. Jophus says:

    Can you show me how the democrats support gay rights? I don’t mean what someone happens to “believe” in, but some actual progress. It’s assumed, like how the GOP is for small government.

  100. Jophus says:

    I am not voting republican, but I am not voting democratic. Is it still scary that people like me will split the vote? Meh, I don’t really care for an answer, because I can give a shit about the response. I’m doing it regardless. The DNC is an afterthought. I’m sure as fuck not going to vote for a party who is licking BP’s balls, allowing corporate personhood with free $peech, torture, and repealing any personal liberties (be it pot, marriage, or using the phone). Don’t fool yourself into thinking we aren’t going to vote for him specifically because of a wedge issue, friend.

    Something else said in Chicago: “In most places in the country, voting is looked upon as a right and a duty, but in Chicago it’s a sport.” and “The customer is always right.”

  101. Zoe_Brain says:

    No, now he gets to blame the Pentagon. Because Congress tied his hands you see. He has to get both SecDef and the Chairman of the JCS to sign off that the Pentagon’s bureaucracy have got ALL of their ducks in a row, every single one.

    Which will never happen. And I do mean never. Not this year, not this century.

  102. Alexander2 says:

    I’m new to gay politics. Is this how it works? We have organizations representing gay service persons speaking glowing about the compromise. Lt. Choi endorses it. I’m scratching my head, what am I missing? Where does this defeatism and nihilism come from?

    We aren’t even debating the merits of a compromise that no one seems to know much about? I’m trying to understand.

  103. FunMe says:

    Exactly! You go Henry!This so called “compromise” (which it is NOT), might actually make it WORSE.Check out what Pam has to say:http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16227/read-…“Do they think we cannot see the political jiu-jitsu at work — it’s repeal with no teeth, as in it gives the administration and the LGBT groups the ability to claim “victory” in 2010, without actually freeing the members of the military who will continue to serve in silence. They have to wait for 1) the study to reach completion (what was likely to happen regardless) and a new wrinkle — 2) an arbitrary time when the President, Gates and Mullen decide they know how to implement it without any ill effects, and the president signs an executive order signaling “go forth” with anti-discrimination measures. That’s a pitiful half-measure. How about “it’s an order?”
    The Obama administration has left the fate of service members in the hands of the Pentagon as the final arbiter — and whoever was present working on our behalf as a community thinks this is palatable. Remember that.”

  104. Thomas J. Coleman says:

    Yes I do believe them, but “strange as it may seem” those polls show 20-30% still go republican, even in places like Texas where the state Republican party platform speaks of “homosexuality” literally like the Nazis used to address the “Jewish Question.” How may Jews voted for Hitler? Likely a lot less than 20-30% I’d say.

    Strange as it may seem any group that would vote even 20-30% (self identified) for a political party that officially all but wants them dead, but they may find another big excuse to go that way (and bring others with them) should an opposing politician who gets elected promising to be their “fierce advocate” proves himself day in and day out to be anything but–in fact, in his court filings, a fierce advocate for the worst kinds of homophobia and betrayal.

    You don’t think the Log Cabinites will have a field day with it, just quoting the briefs, along with all the well documented lies from the Prez, and a chief of staff who’s still proving his “manhood?”

  105. Yes. It was pretty much take it or leave it, and try your luck for a full repeal on your own this year, and next year.

  106. Right, I think the point here is to put the onus flatly on the President. Now he can’t say that he’s waiting for Congress. Congress will have acted, and given the President the authority to fully repeal DADT “if he so chooses.” That permits us to beat him up, a lot, until he does so.

    As for the non-discrim language – what it really is, is language telling DOD that it won’t do anything like DADT in the future, won’t discriminate against gay troops in hiring, firing, recruitment, advancement, etc. Yes, that will have to be done through executive order, and yes, it can be overturned by a future administration since it won’t be in law. Again, the question is, what alternative do we have? Would this White House fight for legislation including the non-discrim language? Doubtful, I suspect.

    I’d rather have full repeal, with non-discrim language. But we didn’t get it. So is this better than nothing, and does it still preserve the option for full repeal? Those are the questions that I think folks have to answer for themselves. But yes, I agree, it’s not a good thing that the non-discrim language isn’t in the bill. But it seems we couldn’t get it.

  107. Alexander2 says:

    You addressed this to me. It is my understanding that we don’t have the votes to overturn DADT this year. This compromise was viewed by a number of gay activists as the only way to get conservative democrats to vote for a repeal of DADT in the appropriations bill that is being debated this week. That’s right. This week.

    No one knows the details of the compromise. I don’t think they have been ironed out. In my humble opinion, the outrage is premature and totally unwarranted.

  108. FunMe says:

    Sounds like we are being CORNERED once again.

    I refuse to accept crumbs. Once again.

  109. Yes and no. It also hinges on whether we think we could get anything better this year or next year. I’m not convinced we can. So we may have a choice between walking away, and accepting that we won’t get repeal next year because we’ll likely get decimated in the fall elections and thus won’t have the votes, or we take this deal and at least preserve a way to get repeal next year, while acknowledging that we may have to beat the bejeesus out of the administration to get it. But at least the option is preserved.

  110. No, the law isn’t being repealed. Nothing is happening until the certification takes place. If it takes place. The law is staying on the books. But this option permits a repeal next year IF the certification takes place. Without this option, I don’t think you’ll see repeal this year, next year, or the year after that – because of the fall congressional election results.

  111. Alexander2 says:

    Did you read John’s post?

    “Not accepting it pretty much kills repeal next year, and for years to come.”

    Again, I’m new here. But your rant sounds like a victimization fetish.

  112. gayinmilitary says:

    What were the other options besides the compromise? Punting on the issue entirely until after an uncertain mid-term election season?

  113. Thomas J. Coleman says:

    The Republicans are opposed to gay rights de jure–it’s written into their platform. The Love Me I’m a Liberal Democrats say they’re for us but make endless whining excuses why they can’t repeal a bigoted, discriminatory law that’s oppsosed 2 to 1 by the electorate and REPEAL IT NOW. They oppose us de facto. Apart from Nancy Pelosi they have PROVEN themselves gutless liars, political homophobes and unworthy of support.

    No I won’t give them money and will be very selective about voting because they said they were our friends and then they BETRAYED us coming and going. They wouldn’t even have reached this contorted “compromise” had we not kicked their asses into to it. No more; anything more just encourages them.

  114. Henry Gerber says:

    Exactly HOW does this “preserve the opportunity to repeal next year”?

    With NO deadline forcing an end to discharges, we are right back to the 1993 policy without the law, and contrary to the numbskulls distracted by word games the goal was NOT just to repeal the law but to STOP THE GODDAMN DISCHARGES!

    There has been a six month window to do that in the House bill since it was written five years ago! WHY was even that thrown away?


  115. Alexander2 says:

    I’m a black gay man. What does the GOP have to offer me? Rand Paul? I love myself as a gay American, but I also see myself as much much more than that.

    Is this typical of discussions here? There isn’t much weight to the arguments.

  116. tomtallis says:

    John, I think it all hinges on how much we do or don’t think that Obama is on our side. Do we believe his words or do we take our guidance from his actions. Hmmmm…

  117. Anon. says:

    Two points I would make:

    1) I know we’ve been let down many times before by this White House the past year and a half, but it’s pretty ridiculous to argue that this preserves the possibility DADT won’t be repealed – once this passes, and there’s no “Well Congress needs to go first” excuse for Obama to use, they won’t be able to do anything but repeal it.

    2) More worrisome to me is the lack of a non-discrimination policy – that this becomes an issue of rulemaking/executive order that PalinPawlentyEtAl get to bat around in a campaign or (forbid) a Republican wins the presidency.

    How do you feel about that second piece?

  118. We’ve all talked about how foreign militaries have integrated gays successfully. No one in the US government cares. The facts have been on our side for 17 years, plus.

  119. John:

    Why isn’t anyone commenting on the fact the British are celebrating 10 YEARS of LGBT military integration. Here is a link to Proud2serve. Proud2serve is the UK LGBT military group this is their link http://www.proud2serve.net/

    This is the link to the UK ministry of Defense http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/Personnel/EqualityAndDiversity/LGBT/MinistryOfDefenceLgbt.htm

  120. According to surveys, if you choose to believe them, gays have supported the Dem presidential candidate to the tune of 70% to 80% of our community in the past several elections.

  121. caphillprof says:

    Where is any evidence that the Democratic party actually supports gay rights?

  122. Thomas J. Coleman says:

    You’re false on two counts.

    In fact, many gays vote republican, strange as it might seem and this just gives them more ammunition. And there are other options, strange as they may seem, like not voting at all and not sending in any $$ to the eternally cash starved, predatory congressional politicians, especially since the the Prez, his Dancer Boy and military “subordinates” caused most of the trouble here by promising to be a “fierce advocate” in the campaign, promising repeal this year with the DoD Sec. and the Joint Chiefs testifying they were against DADT and then, in the twinkling of an eye, revealing themselves all to be not only liars but cheap, low rent liars by opposing repeal now when it’s in our grasp.

    If the Prez “fully supports repeal of DADT” with 70% of the electorate agreeing with him, it could and would happen now except the Prez doesn’t really “fully support repeal” without all the delays and all the if ands and buts that go along with his “full support.” The plain facts have proved the Prez’s claim that he would be our “fierce advocate,” like your claim that he’s in “full support” of DADT repeal, to be patently absurd.

  123. caphillprof says:

    Gay folk must vote GOP if the Democrats are EVER going to respect us.

    You are a fool, and self hating gay, to do otherwise.

  124. David S. says:

    It goes back to the status pre-DADT only in the sense that it becomes a matter for the Executive Branch to determine. The “witch hunts” and discharges pre-DADT happened only because every President before Bill Clinton and every Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted that to be the policy. Today, if the DADT law goes away, the policy will be non-discrimination. So this really is a good compromise. The only fly in the ointment is that a future President could reverse the policy and return to witch hunts. However, I think that would be unlikely since the military would have had non-discrimination in place for 2-3 years if a conservative wins in 2012 and 6-7 years if one wins in 2016. It will be hard to change it at that point.

  125. vv1 says:

    Really? There’s two political parties. One of them, GOP, is opposed to gay rights. The Democrats support gay rights. Are you really going to make a misguided, supposedly principled stand and let the GOP win? You’ll vote Democratic. And you’ll donate money. You know it’s the right thing to do.

  126. vv1 says:

    Really? There’s two political parties. One of them, GOP, is opposed to gay rights. The Democrats support gay rights. Are you really going to make a misguided, supposedly principled stand and let the GOP win? You’ll vote Democratic. And you’ll donate money. You know it’s the right thing to do.

  127. chicagotist says:

    I have said it before. If ENDA is not passed (including the T protections), I won’t be voting D in national elections. With this proposal of DADT repeal, I need to think, ’cause I’m torn (like J.A. explained above). However, if ENDA is not passed before the elections, the Democrats will make that decision for me.

  128. I never would vote Republican. I might, however not vote at all. And I most definitely won’t be giving any money (which I used to do) until both DADT and DOMA are history. There’s no way I will ever contribute another penny of my money while those laws remain on the books. That ain’t gonna happen.

  129. rocki14 says:

    Here is the deal: My partner and I vote Democratic and we donate to the Democratic party when we “certify” that that DADT does not exist either in law or fact.
    How about that for a compromise?

  130. vv1 says:

    Thie presdent fully supports repeal of DADT. And he knows that in the November elections, he can count on the support of the majority of the GLBT community. It’s simply foolish to think that gays, lesbians, et al are going to vote Republican.

    In fact,, it’s likely that key members of the mainstream gay community will continue to raise funds for the election of Democrats.

    I mean, seriously, are any gays going to vote GOP? Are any gays going to stay home from the polls and allow GOP to take back the House?

    As they say in Chicago — it ain’t gonna happen.

  131. patb2009 says:

    one glitch.
    t won’t provide benefits for gay domestic partners for gay servicemembers

  132. Alexander2 says:

    Can someone explain something? If the folks who represent gay military personnel like the compromise, shouldn’t their opinion count for something? I don’t know the behind the scenes politics.

  133. patb2009 says:

    well it moves it from statute to a 3 person executive call.

  134. Joe and I are still talking to various folks, behind the scenes, to try to figure out what we think of this. At first blush, I will make one point. If we don’t accept this compromise, then it is very likely that nothing will happen on DADT for several years to come. Simply because we are going to lose seats in the fall congressional elections, and possibly even lose the House. Both scenarios mean nothing will likely happen for years to come.If we do accept this proposal, it at least preserves the option for repeal next year (via administrative action).I’m still thinking this through, in terms of how much I do or don’t support this proposal. But I do know that this proposal preserves the option to repeal next year. Not accepting it pretty much kills repeal next year, and for years to come. And the administration would probably like nothing better than for us to walk and just let this die.

  135. This feels to much like Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football. Or Like NBC giving Conan the Tonight show. They should just adopt the UK study. The Brits have been integrated for years.

  136. Alexander2 says:

    Lt. Daniel Choi, who is being discharged from the Army for being gay and has become an activist fighting for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, tells NEWSWEEK that the news leaking out of today’s meetings “just shows that the pressure we and all activists have putting on the administration cannot be ignored.” Choi says that moving forward with the repeal, even if all the details are not immediately in place, “is the same thing that happened with the integration of blacks and women. You start with a moral decision.”

    “This is a good thing,” says Choi. If it happens. “I’m not going to be happy until people stop getting fired.”


  137. Howard says:

    This disgusts me beyond words. I’ve been a Democrat my whole life, never missed an election, even local stuff! My voting days are OVER. The party has left me. I hereby officially renounce any and all ties to the Democratic party.
    Spineless, simpering COWARDS!

  138. tomtallis says:

    A simple solution would be a deadline for Obama and the Pentagon to approve repeal or else repeal takes effect without them.

  139. Butch1 says:

    Perhaps, the President and this Congress need an ultimatum: repeal DADT with the assurances of no more gay baiting and throwing them out or absolutely no votes, ever. We will actively work against you and hope to vote you out of office.

  140. tomtallis says:

    Repeal returns things to the way they were before DADT was passed. Repeal means anti-gay witch hunts. There needs to be repeal and the Commander in Chief needs to give orders that NO service member will be discharged or otherwise discriminated against on account of sexual orientation.

    Mere repeal, is worse than the status quo.

  141. Butch1 says:

    “DADT at least provides some protections for gay servicemembers against anti-gay witch hunts.”
    It wouldn’t surprise me if our government is doing this to make us settle for DADT. This is disgusting.

  142. Butch1 says:

    “There is nothing in the legislation that says the repeal must happen.”
    This is no repeal of the discharging of soldiers. No moratorium on the discharges, and there certainly is no repeal during this interim. The very same thing would happen if we would have sat on our hands and let the DOD do their silly report which is supposed to be due in December. ( not really a sure thing as it could take a few more months of dragging their feet and stalling before it is done. ) Soldiers would still be drummed out of the service even up until that time, so, how is this bill a good thing? What happened to just rescinding the bill completely. There was never this much hoopla when blacks were integrated into the Armed Forces. Why now? This is complete bull shit and nothing is being done.

  143. tomtallis says:

    This is horrible. DADT at least provides some protections for gay servicemembers against anti-gay witch hunts. If this compromise is passed, then even those minimal protections will disappear (don’t forget that is Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t PURSUE). Now we’re looking at a “trigger” that poison pill beloved of politicians (and lobbying groups) to make it look like they’re doing something when they’re really doing the opposite.

    The trigger is that Obama (and who trusts him to do the right thing by GLBT people given his record thus far?), the Secretary of Defense AND the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have to sign off before the repeal takes effect. And even if they do, then it goes back to the way it was pre-DADT. This is horrible and a real betrayal of our GLBT servicemembers.

  144. Thomas J. Coleman says:

    So many if ands and buts here we’ll have to stay on their butts, every day, until DADT is officially, legally, morally, ethically, physcally, spiraitually, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably DEAD, as they say in the Wiz. Why? Cuz we now know we can’t trust the Prez, his Dancer Boy or any of the Brass. Either that or just wait for a house to fall on them.

    Of course as a showing of good faith they could suspend discharges in the interim. But as we know they have none to show.

  145. David Kaib says:

    This does seem like it achieves nothing other than giving bigots a platform for authoritative spouting of nonsense.

  146. PeteWa says:

    if it looks like horseshit
    and it smells like horseshit

    you know the rest

  147. gayinmilitary says:

    If you think this is disappointing, wait until you see the results of the study. The evangelical christians have already infiltrated the study group and are manipulating it to suit their bigoted needs. I suppose the only saving grace is that the foot dragging by DOD has given us at least 6 months to put the heat on anyone with any connection to the study group and uncover all of the biased and untoward things they are doing to skew their results and recommendations.

  148. cali says:

    No Deal Just Repeal!!!

  149. cali says:

    Stalling tactic! This is baloney
    A proposal to step up the repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military but still allow the Pentagon time — perhaps even years — to implement new policies won the White House’s backing on Monday after administration officials met with gay rights activists.

  150. David S. says:

    This is the front page story on the Washington Post site. I was dismayed to see that the very first quote from a gay spokesperson in this headline piece is from Solomonese. Why WaPo would go to the least effective, but best dressed, activist is beyond me. You can be sure that HRC will be claiming most of the credit for this deal if it goes through.

    On the deal itself, it is legislation that repeals the 1993 law but does not actually impose a new policy of non-discrimination. That returns the issue to the status it enjoyed prior to 1992, i.e., it is a matter for the President and the DoD. So in theory, if a Republican won in 2012, he could reverse the policy of non-discrimination and re-impose DADT. A future GOP President would then be upending existing policy and would cause more disruption that if it were simply left alone. Of course, a a President Gingrich or Huckabee would probably do it anyway.

    Given that time may be running out on this Congress, we should take this deal and be happy.

  151. FunMe says:

    What a crock of baloney!Is there another “champagne and caviar party at the White House” promised once again?This is another insult to our community. THANK GOODNESS there are a good number of people who won’t fall for their bs.DADT was already a compromise.Now repeal the damn thing!Without a complete REPEAL, then I say continue with the:DON’T ASK, DON’T GIVE.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS