...and Obama should really live up to his promises on this issue. This discrimination of civil rights must not be allowed to continue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy (codified as federal law) is un-American and morally obscene. Under this legislation, any declaration by a gay servicemember to the effect that he or she is gay is grounds for "separation" (discharge) of that servicemember. Should a gay servicemember tell his or her mother that he or she is gay, that servicemember has violated DADT. Should a gay man tell his best friend that he is gay, he has violated DADT. ANY declaration of that person's sexual orientation is grounds for involuntary discharge of that person -- regardless of any expectation of privacy that the individual concerned may have had.

Under the law, a mother can be interrogated, under oath, about her son's sexual orientation. A sister can be interrogated about her sister's sexual orientation. The hard drive of a servicemember suspected of being gay can be seized (and this has happened) and scanned for "incriminating" evidence (gay pornography, love letters between same-sex partners, etc.). The private letters of a "suspect" can be opened; the telephone calling patterns of that "suspect" can be monitored; and the emails sent to and from that person may be intercepted and read for "evidence" of that person's sexuality.

Few people realize how onerous and disgusting this policy really is. It lends a patina of legitimacy to proceedings that are utterly inconsistent with American notions of decency and fair play. Many activists seeking equality for gay Americans would prefer a return to the old policy, which prevented gay persons from joining the armed forces and which mandated the discharge of any gay person, regardless of whether or not he or she maintained secrecy pertaining to his or her sexual orientation. The full hypocrisy and ugliness of the old policy was self-evident, whereas conservatives frequently claim that DADT is merely intended to prevent gay servicemembers from "flaunting" their sexual orientation.

Keeping a picture of one's partner on one's desk at work is hardly "flaunting" one's sexual orientation. Nobody would ever claim that a straight man who keeps a picture of his wife on his desk is "flaunting" his sexual orientation -- yet this is PRECISELY the claim made when a gay person keeps a picture of his spouse on his desk. The definition of "flaunting" is so all-encompassing as to rob gay servicemembers of every vestige of privacy and self-sexpression.

The federal courts have been complicit in maintaining this policy, on the tired old grounds of "deference to the military". Only the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has objected to this policy -- under the terms of a decision handed down last year (Witt v. Department of the Air Force, 2008), each decision to discharge a servicemember must be treated individually, and must be justified before a federal judge in terms of its impact on the armed forces. The more conservative judges on the Ninth Circuit attempted to convene an en banc panel to review the three-judge decision, but failed to receive the necessary number of votes -- several of them wrote angry, blistering dissents, but this decision now stands within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

To claim that the Administration has "enough on its plate" is no excuse for permitting this policy to stand. Repeal thereof is long overdue, and we should place sustained and unrelenting pressure on both Congress and President Obama to end this travesty of justice.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This policy is even more disgusting because it applies only during times of peace. During the Gulf War, many gay servicemembers were permitted to complete their tours of duty -- and then discharged upon returning to the US! The same situation obtained during the war in Viet Nam. This fact alone makes it clear that this policy is motivated by nothing less than animus directed towards gay persons -- and the US Supreme Court has long held that animus towards an unpopular group of people can NEVER constitute a legitimate state interest for the purposes of rational basis review (see United States Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973), Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)).

Clearly, concerns about "unit cohesion" and morale only come into play when gay persons are not needed by the armed forces. When gay persons ARE needed, these concerns are suddenly abandoned, and gay persons become cannon-fodder on the same terms as straight persons.

Christ, what a disgusting travesty!

I sincerely hope that all men and women, both gay and straight, will boycott the armed forces until this policy is either repealed or overturned.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shame on the military. When are people going to treat people with respect and see the inherit dignity and worth in every person ... without judgement?

sad

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"These partners have made great sacrifices, along with all other military families, and must be given the rights to which they are entitled"

Rights are inalienable, owned, and enforced by those who have them. One is not "GIVEN" one's rights.

Don't wait to be given anything cause you are wasting your time. Demand and enforce your rights NOW.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While the situation is obscene in the military, it does not improve much in civil service, where even if you won't lose your job these days I don't know of many places except San Francisco where you can be comfortable with putting a picture of your spouse on your desk without risking a hostile workplace that will obviously be detrimental to your career. And discrimination due to policy is an added layer that can be ruinous financially. In addition to health care considerations, when career advancement includes moving expenses and real estate buyouts, you can count on the government only covering your half of the buyout, effectively nullifying the promise of a buyout. Marriage is intimately woven into the fabric of most if not all federal and civilian personnel policy. While some private companies are quite progressive, most are not and the reality is that in most parts of the country, gay life is 40 years behind San Francisco, most gays are pathologically closeted and this is due to the fact that their jobs and lives still depend on them putting on a happy hetero face every day. Most heterosexuals have no clue how complex the issue is and the effect it has on gay spouses, so no one should be permitted to condescendingly dismiss the issue because "they have too much on their plate." My partner and I served in the military, I retired from a career in civil service and we recently considered contributing a few years in the Peace Corps. We listened to a webinar about being gay in the Peace Corps. The most often asked question had to do with spousal relationships and all they could offer was, "Current policy is based entirely on the current legal definition of marriage between a man and a woman" therefore no consideration will be given to gay partners when overseas assignments are given out. The Peace Corps just lost two potentially valuable volunteers simply because we are not heterosexual. Corporate america, the insurance industry and the federal government, and especially President Obama should all be ashamed of themselves. This is a complex civil matter and we have to insist that religious biases be put aside to deal with it. Government officials have a public responsibility to be able to make reasonable and sound public judgements regardless of their religious upbringing. John Kennedy thoroughly understood that and I'm disappointed that neither Clinton nor Obama benefited from that wisdom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Listen...go be gay on your own time and in your own space and GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY OF THE MILITARY!!! We're not here to make every damn body feel good, we're here to FIGHT AND WIN WARS!!! All this shit is doing is creating NON-MILITARY issues within the military. If you're so damn committed to your gayness....JUST STAY THE HELL OUT OF THE MILITARY!!!! It's just that simple...GOUT THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!!! I'm a 20 year veteran, NOT a homophob by any stretch of the imagination, Black with gay friends and relatives so I'm NOT trying to offend but I'm sorry there's just WAY too many serious ACTUAL MILITARY RELATED ISSUES to deal with then to waste time on this crap. I say GET OUT AND GO BE A GAY CIVILIAN!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]