Pentagon to announce 'yr long' review of DADT-incl whether DOD will recognize gay marriage

[kpete]

A series of telling stories out tonight, all of them bad. It appears that Secretary Gates is going to announce a special team of advisers at tomorrow's DADT hearings in the Senate, and that team will take a good year or so to think over all the really hard issues confronting us with the potential repeal of DADT, such as gay marriage.

****Their review is expected to look at several sensitive issues, including whether the military should extend marriage and bereavement benefits to the partners of gay soldiers, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

There is no gay marriage at the federal level, and DOMA forbids the federal government from providing marriage benefits. So why is DOD even bringing up gay marriage - and they do in this second story too, so this is clearly part of their prepared talking points - unless they're simply trying to be sensationalistic.

Oh, and in the meantime, they're going to implement the discriminatory policy in a more humane manner.

Funny, but I don't recall that being Barack Obama's promise to my community. To more humanely discriminate us against us. He promised to lift the ban. He promised to get ENDA passed. He promised to repeal DOMA. And none of those are currently being discussed. What is being discussed is another study to add to the pile of studies we already have. What is being discussed is a proposal to "change" DADT, rather than repeal it - just as Joe and I have been predicting.

more:
http://gay.americablog.com/2010/02/pentagon-to-announce-year-long-review.html

[TheWraith]

1. Therein lies the problem for them, and what the REAL issue of DADT repeal is.

Inflammatory AmericaBlog rhetoric aside (seriously folks, if you can't take it at face value when the president says in the state of the union that they're going to let gay people serve openly, nothing will convince you), here lies the complex part of putting DADT to bed. Simply repealing DADT and letting gay folks serve openly is the relatively simple part--the complex one comes when you start talking about benefits.

The federal government (of which the military is a sub-unit) is legally prohibited from recognizing gay marriages. But failing to provide benefits to a legally married couple would violate several other much better laws. The Pentagon could "work around" the problem by beginning to offer benefits to unmarried partners of any sexuality, but then you have the question of how you define partners, what benefits are offered, and a whole host of other bureaucratic reconstruction.

The only truly final way out is that DOMA goes away, either by being overturned in the courts (hard) or by being repealed in Congress (currently harder). The courts are actually the preferable way since that would establish legal precedent to smack down other discriminatory laws. On the bright side, this could be a good test case for shooting down DOMA in the courts, since if the military is prohibited from recognizing the spouses of legally married gay troops, then it would be easy to argue as a violation of the equal protection clause.

[ruggerson]

4. Uh, he never would have mentioned it in the SOTU

if "inflammatory" voices like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and various gay leaders, bloggers and citizens hadn't been so vocal about this issue since he took office, turning their anger into page one news around the country, and organizing what amounts to a fiscal boycott of the DNC.

I realize you don't like democracy, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Closing the GayTM hits them where they live, and you, my friend, owe John Aravosis and others a huge thank you for their tireless efforts on your behalf.

[JetCityLiberal]

7. +1,000,000

Thanks ruggerson, I am too pissed to reply to that post...

Paul

[QC]

8. +10000000000000000

[Toasterlad]

6. "if you can't take it at face value when the president says ..."

Are you fucking serious with this shit?

[QC]

9. Sadly, he is quite serious. n/t

[Smashcut]

2. I'm going to wait for the hearings to start but so far this is looking like more bullshit.

A year (which probably means never) so we can "study" collateral issues like spousal benefits and important practicalities like whether straight soldiers who are brave enough to face bullets can brave the showers w/ their gay counterparts.

Then if we lose seats in Congress...voila. A perfect excuse to drop the issue altogether.

[ruggerson]

3. ,,,

deleted - wrong spot.

[bullwinkle428]

5. I heard "one-year study" this morning on NPR in my kitchen, and

had to resist all temptation to start breaking things! :mad:

Hey...it's not like there's a war or anything like that going on! :eyes:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

10. Nothing but a frickin' bone thrown to libs/GLBT folks.

They're just kicking the can down the road. Again.

[dickthegrouch]

11. Stipulate the benefits the Brits found

Repeal the F'ing travesty of a law

The US is not required to reinvent the wheel on this (or any other) issue.

[Iggo]

12. So STFU for another year and open the goddam GayTM, please.

(Please?)

(Pretty please?)

(crickets)

[bluedawg12]

13. The momentum is behind it so this is a great time to kill it.

It's perplexing they even brought it up only to kill it again with more studies.