Tweet
Update: Wow, check this out from the Department of Defense’s website. Yes, the DOD website (emphasis added):
Leaders Can Pave Way for Openly Gay Troops, General SaysWASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2010 – A change in the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military can be implemented without irreparable harm, the co-chair of a Pentagon working group that studied the matter said yesterday.
“It’s my belief, having now looked this matter extensively over nine months, that the leaders of our services — all services, all components — are so good today, so experienced today, that they can effectively implement this change, maintain unit cohesion, and a strong focus on mission accomplishment,” Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe, said. [snip]
If the law is overturned, they said, the services will need to increase costs in training and education, but should not incur the high cost of creating separate facilities, as has been discussed.
“We strongly recommend against establishing separate facilities,” Ham said. “We think that is the wrong direction for the Department of Defense.” [snip]
Johnson said Congress should change the Uniform Code of Military Justice to remove language forbidding consensual sodomy. The change should be made regardless of whether the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law is overturned to put the UCMJ in agreement with a seven-year-old Supreme Court decision, he said.
The report further recommends that all servicemembers who were discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be permitted to re-enlist. “The fact that they were separated pursuant to this law should be set aside as irrelevant,” Johnson said.
My raw report from a press call this morning with SLDN. Getting this to you asap then dashing to work! -Lurleen
UPDATE FROM PAM: Here is Rachel on the report.
——————————–
Seventeen years ago this very day President Clinton signed “don’t ask, don’t tell” into law. This morning briefers from the Pentagon briefed Senate staffers on the forthcoming Comprehensive Working Group Report. And executive summary of the will be released at 1 pm today with a press conference expected at 2 pm.
According to a Aubrey Sarvis at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, the expectation is that the report will be overwhelmingly positive and very constructive and one of best tools repeal advocates can use during the next 2-3 weeks in the Senate. The findings have been described as “exhaustive”. SLDN is confident that the report will indicate that after repeal, implementation is needed quickly and leadership needs to move quickly on education and framing.
So what happens next? The Senate Armed Services Committee will be holding hearings this Thursday and Friday (details below fold). SLDN expects the hearings to be positive and a great catalyst for Majority Leader Reid to revisit the National Defense Authorization Act to which it is attached bill early next week. Pockets of resistance are expected during the hearings when service chiefs testify on Friday, but SLDN’s Sarvis emphasizes that without exception each chief is on record having said that if repeal happens they will implement it.Once the NDAA comes up for reconsideration next week, Sen. McCain is expected to object. Sen. Reid has already indicated that Sen. McCain will have the ability to offer an amendment that would strip repeal language from NDAA, but this is not a concern because Reid doesn’t believe that McCain can get the 51 votes he would need.
NDAA still the preferred vehicle for repeal because the clock is running out on this congress and NDAA has to move more than other bills. We want to be on the bill that’s moving.
To get needed buy-in from some Republicans, Majority Leader Reid has to allow a number of amendments to be offered by on each side. The number is still under discussion (10-20?) but needs to be fair given the limited time left in this session. Since the elections there is more pressure from the Republican caucus to view this as a caucus issue and to maintain discipline and not allow anything to happen during lame duck. But, says Sarvis, there are some Republican senators who won’t go along with that as long as they feel there is fair play by Reid concerning allowing a reasonable number of amendments to be offered.
The White House: There was recently a “very productive” meeting with key players from the White House and Sen. Reid’s office. Sarvis described it as “Aggressive White House participation on how to move this in lame duck.” Sarvis says that the President “=deserves a lot of credit for what taking place today. He did engage Mullens and Gates and got the initial process going. In SLDN’s view the process has been too protracted, but in terms of what we’ll hear today they anticipate it will be quite extraordinary. The president, says Sarvis, is very process-oriented and has every reason to be proud, but of course SLDN though a more compressed time frame would have been best and as an advocay organization would always like to see the President do more.
In terms of a good-faith effort from Majority leader Reid there are encouraging signs. For example he won’t try to attach the DREAM act to the NDAA and has assured Sen. McCain that there will be time for his amendment to strike. The number of allowed amendments is still being worked out, but Reid is not expected to allow Sen Mitch McConnell to say anything was unfair. People with Republican senators should call them and ask “What do you think constitutes a fair process? How many amendments do you need to vote to proceed?” We don’t want to allow senators to use the process as excuse not to be with us. A list of key senators is below.
Direct participation from Secretary of Defense Gates is not expected, but he has twice called upon the Senate to act to repeal DADT during lame duck. In addition, Sen. Collins has requested a one-on-one meeting with him regarding the report being released today. Gates would likely be similarly available to others senators if they make such requests.
All Democrats who voted yes last time are still there although Sen. Webb wants to see the report before making decisions. Sen. Kirk from IL also wants to see the report first and it it looks favorable he should be with us, but he has said previously that nothing should happen in the lame duck session so nobody is taking his vote to bank yet. Blanche Lincoln will be there on the question of taking the NDAA bill back up. Pryor probably not there. Repeal will not happen unless a few Republicans stand up and say “repeal”. This won’t happen without some Republicans.
Since it would be difficult to effect DADT repeal in the next congress, SLDN is pushing to get the job done now during the lame duck session. However, they are not waiting for the outcome of the lame duck session and are pursuing a dual track in the courts. Early next week SLDN will probably file litigation in 9th Circuit in northern California on behalf of discharged servicemembers like who want to be reinstated and get their their jobs back.
SLDN also plans to file two other lawsuits, one on behalf of discharged servicemembers who don’t want their old job back but who would like back in the military, for example as reservists. The other on behalf of young people who would volunteer for service if DADT weren’t in place.
Sen. McCain continues to repeat the assertion that the military is not violating the “don’t pursue” provisions of law. In an attempt to try to correct that mis-perception, Former Major Mike Almy who was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 2006 made daily attempts in September to contact Sen. McCain, to no avail. Others, including two flag officers living in AZ have similarly tried and been unsuccessful in gatting a meeting with Sen. McCain to discuss his views. Sen. Lindsay Graham, a retired Air Force JAG sat silently next to McCain during the September interview where McCain blew up at The Advocate‘s Kerry Eleveld. Graham has been similarly unavailable for constituent meetings on this subject. According to SLDN this issue of the military never being held to account for transgressing the “dont pursue” part of the DADT law may come up in the hearings this week.
And what of “religious liberties” of anti-gay military chaplains? The report, says Sarvis, recognizes that the military is currently made up of servicemenbers of differing values and religious views. Open service for LGBs wouldn’t change that in any way. The mission is paramount. Open service won’t threaten that mission. Unlike the debate 17 yrs ago some of the chaplains haven’t gotten traction this time around, says Sarvis, who believes that this issues is addressed in report and largely dismissed.
On a final note, Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, USAF, says that in the report we will see that 70% of active duty military support repeal of DADT and 92% know they’re serving with LGB soldiers. His own experience as an out, active duty soldier is that there is 100% support for open service in real life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Thurs, DEC 2: Hearing by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on the report begins at 9 a.m. in SD-G50/ Dirksen Senate Office Building;
* APPEARING DAY 1: Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense; Honorable Jeh C. Johnson, General Counsel, Department of Defense and Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group; Admiral Michael G. Mullen, USN, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Carter F. Ham, USA, Commander, United States Army Europe and Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group;
* Fri, DEC 3: Hearing by the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on the report begins at 9 a.m. in SD-G50/ Dirksen Senate Office Building.
* APPEARING DAY 2: General James E. Cartwright, USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Chief of Staff of the Army; Admiral Gary Roughead, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; General James F. Amos, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps; General Norton A. Schwartz, USAF, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
Key senators who need to hear from repeal supporters!
–Harry Reid (D-NV);
–Susan Collins (R-ME);
–Olympia Snowe (R-ME);
–Mark Pryor (D-AR.);
–Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
–Richard Lugar (R-IN);
–Judd Gregg (R-NH);
–Scott Brown (R-MA)
–George Voinovich (R-OH);
–Kit Bond (R-MO);
–Joe Manchin (D-WV)
–Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
–Mark Kirk (R-IL)
–James Webb (D-VA)
23 Comments
more info out – presser w/b laterWaPo has more details.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
The report’s websitehttp://www.defense.gov/home/fe…
AP Report: Pentagon study dismisses risk of openly gay troopshttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201…
WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Pentagon reporters on Tuesday that existing policies such as housing and spousal benefits for military service members “can and should be applied equally to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.”
Gates says he does not expect the Pentagon would have to rethink those policies to accommodate gays if they are allowed to serve openly in the military.
He said a majority of concerns associated with repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision against gays serving openly could be addressed through increased training and education.
Is it finally true? DADT Repealed! Military discrimination, harassment and violence ended! Clinton and the other bigots humiliated!Not really.
If there’s movement on DADT it’s because Obama and the Pentagon are going to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until they suffer another humiliating defeat like Vietnam. Causalities are going to continue rising as they trade the lives of GIs for oil company profits.
Iraq GI fatalities to date are 4423, with over 30,718 wounded, half of them with severe injuries. The suicide rate for returning vets is in the thousands. Afghanistan fatalities to date are 1411 and 9256 wounded. Civilians murdered during by the US invasions and occupations are 1.4 million in Iraq and high but not reliably counted in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
For now Obama and the POentagon have decided that cannon fodder is more important than making military bigotry legal. The brass remember Vietnam and they’ll do anything to avoid a draft.
Repeal of DADT is not a victory if it leads to continued mass murder of civilians and the deaths of more GI’s.
Secondly voters in the recent election clobbered the Democrats. 30 million former Obama voters, many of them LGBT voters, abandoned them in disgust because of their endless betrayals. They’ll need our votes to prevent a repetition of that in 2012.
Cannon fodder + votes = attempts to repeal DADT.
The truth is that repeal of DADT will not end the tyranny and bigotry of the christer military brass and will lead to more dead and maimed GLBT soldiers, sailors, air crew and marines. We lose no matter what they do.
Will they end DADT? Maybe, but they’ll have to get around the Democrat and Republican bigots who infest Congress. Republicans are crowing about the elections and Democrats are doing what they do best – cowering. It’s a crap shoot in a game we can’t win.
The only principled and honest response to this has to be: Don’t enlist. Don’t fight. Don’t translate. Don’t murder civilians.
Notes of cautionPg 13:
We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program.
pg 15:
Here, we recommend that, where justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint, the benefit be refashioned to become a member-designated one-in other words, to give the Service member, gay or straight, the discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as beneficiary. An example of a benefit in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance office, and it may be suitable for this member-designated approach. Military family housing is another prominent benefit in this category. However, we do not recommend at this time that military family housing be included in the benefits eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating whomever he or she chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and a system of member designation would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.
pg 145:
Also, we do not, at this time, recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of extending benefits eligibility.
pg 149:
We also considered whether the Department of Defense or the Services should adopt a policy to provide monetary compensation and/or other non-monetary redress to Service members previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We recommend no change in policy.
pg 151:
Based on this assumption, the Working Group estimated the annual cost of changing these benefits to a member-designated system for all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, to be $40-$50 million. These benefits costs constituted approximately 80% of the total estimated annual cost of $50-$60 million. The Working Group estimated approximately $20 million in cost savings, for a total net annual cost estimate of $30-$40 million.
So they’re telling us quite clearlythat even if DADT is struck down–and I do mean IF–they intend to continue discriminating. Good gosh, what a surprise.
What is the policy at present for opposite-sex committed relationships?
Do service members have to be married to receive most of the benefits for dependents or family members?
YesNote that I have no relevant background in these matters, and could have easily missed something major but non-obvious.
There are also some sections, like Moral and Religious Concerns, Duty Assignments or Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data, where I don’t know enough to judge how positive or negative something is. Also, it notes in multiple places that a bunch of things are blocked by the Defense of Marriage Act.
On the other hand, there are apparent positives:
pg 139: In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, regardless of sexual orientation.
pg 140: We do not recommend segregated housing for gay or lesbian Service members.
pg 141: we are convinced that separate bathroom facilities would do more harm than good to unit cohesion and would be impracticable to administer and enforce.
pg 149: The repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 will not affect the medical readiness of the Armed Forces. Further, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not require a change to any medical policies.
pg 150: We recommend against a policy allowing release from service commitments and voluntary discharge of Service members based on opposition to living or serving with gay or lesbian Service members after a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Also, they suggest revisiting some of these issues later, including a review 1 year after implementation.
pg 151: Finally, we recommend that one year after any repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell takes effect, the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to monitor and assess effectiveness of implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended actions that are adopted.
yes, i believe they must be married
My understandingA lot of things require marriage (by law), which, in their view are excluded by the Defense of Marriage Act (although they acknowledge Gill v. Office of Personnel Management may change that).
Some things don’t presently require marriage – all of those should be available to same-sex partners as soon as repeal occurs.
Some things presently require marriage, but there’s no reason for them to – and there, they mostly recommend changing to re-write the regulations to allow same-sex partners.
pg 145: Our recommendation is that the Department of Defense and the Services review benefits in this category and assess whether they can be extended to same-sex partners in accordance with the former approach-that is, to refashion the benefit to become a “member-designated” one. Where it is legally permissible to do so under current statutory definitions, and where justified by policy, fiscal, and feasibility considerations, DoD should redefine the eligibility criteria for benefits in this category to allow Service members-gay or straight-to designate a beneficiary of their choosing, which could be a same-sex partner.
However, from later on in that page:
We do not, however, recommend that military family housing be included in the benefits eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating whomever he chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and such a system would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.
Probably the most complex portion is on Duty Assignments. There are legal limitations here due to the language of certain Status of Forces Agreements.
pg 147:
The Department of Defense and the Services also have policies that allow for “dual-career military married couples” to apply to be assigned to the same geographic area.…if the Department of Defense and the Services were to extend the co-located assignment policy to Service members in a committed same-sex relationship with another Service member, it would need to rewrite the relevant regulations to refer to same-sex partners (or some other term), instead of only “spouses.”
pg 148:
In short, we recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services not, at this time, rewrite their regulations to specifically accommodate same-sex committed relationships for purposes of duty assignments. However, gay and lesbian Service members in committed relationships- with either a civilian or a military partner-should be able to make an individualized, hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment. Additionally, to account for the differences in the treatment of same-sex partnerships and family relationships in various U.S. jurisdictions and foreign countries, the Services should make available voluntary counseling to gay and lesbian Service members on these issues.
We live in exciting times.And don’t forget the Prop8 appeal hearings on CSPAN next Monday, Dec 6th.
Encouraging!Even with all the caveats noted, it’s still a positive enough report that it gives plenty of ammunition to Senators who want to change their minds.
Thanks for sharing!
The devil is in the details.Thanks for combing the report and giving us these details. Very helpful and informative.
I’ll second that.Some very valuable posts from Zimbel.
some other matters“Moral and religious concerns” at pp. 134 et seq. One interesting point is that none of the “endorsing agencies” (denominations accrediting military chaplains) indicated, their objections notwithstanding, that they would not revoke the endorsements (i.e., withdraw their chaplains).
However:
This may mean their chaplains might take license to berate servicemembers whose orientation or associations are not to their taste. However, the First Amendment may be limited by some service regulations already, same as with other free-speech vs. service customs matters. See Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), which was specifically about military limitations on religious observance (here, over wearing a yarmulke).
I’m also not entirely sure whether the report envisioned, or discusses, limitations on MOS as with servicewomen (e.g., no combat arms MOSs, limitation to areas like ammo handling or mess stewards, etc.). May be in there, but I haven’t found it yet.
we shall seeWorth remembering that DoD commissioned a report the last time around, in 1993, from the RAND corporation. The Senate and the Joint Chiefs waved that aside and trumped up their own reports (see, e.g., the 1993 “Military Working Group”, cited in this report. No hits, no runs, one error, no one left on.
Still, it’s worth reviewing the 1993 RAND report. The 2010 Comprehensive Review apparently did draw some lessons from it, and research, so it turned out not to be a complete waste after all.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monog…
Some of the 1993 report findings are echoed here, most esp. that leadership is crucial. If the chain of command, from the National Command Authority down, seems to mean it, the reform will hold.
RAND updated their study this yearSee pages 43-44 of Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”:
http://www.defense.gov/home/fe…
RAND Study Update
As directed by Secretary Gates in the Terms of Reference, the Working Group engaged RAND to update its 1993 study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy. RAND’s update provided us with an additional source of input for our assessment and recommendations. For its updated study, RAND’s research centered on the following nine areas:
The updated RAND report:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monog…
Quote from the summary (I haven’t read the updated RAND Report):
Respondents attributed a range of personal problems to DADT, including risk of blackmail, damage to personal relationships, stress and anxiety, and mental health problems. About two-thirds thought that repeal would be a change for the better with respect to unit performance; the rest thought that there would be little or no effect. Respondents viewed clear leadership commitment, clear conduct standards for everyone, and zero tolerance for harassment as critical for successful policy change.
Re:They may not quite go as far as they could in some areas with regards to benefits, but there is a clear undertone of “this is mostly with regards to DOMA. We’ll monitor the evolving legal situation and change our rules accordingly”. You can see that they are making an effort and sometimes even try to provide alternate solutions or advice in cases where they can’t offer anything directly. The implementation plan document offers some case examples in that area.
A lot of those benefits indeed require people to be married. There is already a sizable amount of tension in the military over the benefits between married and unmarried people. It’s probably one of the reason many service members get married so early. They don’t want to upset that even more by introducing new categories or open up the system to potential abuse.
No restrictionsIt’s in there somewhere
WRT the sodomy statuteThe report (pp. 138 et seq) brings up Art. 125 UCMJ and urges repeal of that as part of DADT repeal. Worthwhile, though the two cases it cites are Lawrence v. Texas and U.S. v. Marcum, 60 M.J. 198 (U.S. Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (USCAAF), 2004). I’m not sure that the Marcum court dealt with Lawrence analysis unambiguously, as the report seems to think. The case involved forcible sex and chain-of-command fraternization, and the court’s analysis of Lawrence was somewhat speculative, if not dicta.
Check it out, since this case will come up in discussion.
http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov…
What does seem to be clear is that a military challenge to Art. 125 on its direct merits — consensual sex — may overturn the statute. Better that Congress deal with that as the report suggests: repeal Art. 125, and incorporate the necessary changes to Art. 120 (sexual assault), Art. 92 (breach of regulations) and Art. 134 (conduct prejudicial to the service, e.g., fraternization.
They need to do something, because if Congress does repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 and leaves Art. 125 (10 U.S.C. § 925) in place, we’ve gained nothing. But expect that debate in Congress to get nasty.
RAND studyThe 1993 RAND study (and it’s 2010 update) is featured very prominently in this report. It’s referenced repeatedly and extensively. That surprised me positively.
PETER SPRIGG WILL TESTIFYCan you believe it? Ugh.
EasilyDidn’t Tony Perkins also mentioned in some hearing lately?