As a gay Army vet, my prediction of the Pentagon's "study" regarding scrapping DADT.

[Union Yes]

Nov 15th, 2010(conveniently, just after the election)

The Pentagon's 'findings', the results of their so-called "study" regarding DADT....

NOPE, sorry gay people. DADT will remain in full effect.

This second-class gay vet will sit home on election day if DADT is still a policy in November.

[msongs]

1. That's what happens when a president is following orders instead of giving them nt

[RKP5637]

2. Exactly!!! n/t

[Union Yes]

8. Yep, well said!

Sad but true.

[GodlessBiker]

10. +1,000

[zipplewrath]

3. Slightly different prediction

This is an "incremental" president.

DADT will be repealed "in name only".

There will be restrictions on what assignments they can get. Restrictions on access to various services like chapels, barracks, benefits, etc. And any CURRENT member of the military will be in trouble if they filled out any forms (SF-86 and the like) and basically ommitted or concealed their relationships. And, one will be REQUIRED to declare and document their status as part of enlisting, or attending an academy.

But "it'll be a win" for Obama and he'll "have kept his promise".

[nykym]

4. In my eyes

your are a first class American Vet who served his country and should be proud. Staying home on election day will only increase the chances of DADT remaining in force as well as other right wing atrocities the repukes have handed us.

[racaulk]

5. That is my fear also.

I have always thought that giving the Pentagon until December to complete their DADT repeal implementation "study" was simply a way to give convenient cover to the Dems in Congress in November. That is, to show gays and other Dems that want DADT repealed that there is some movement toward repeal, without forcing Congress to do anything substantial, while ensuring that those voting constituencies GOTV (presumably for the Dems) on election day.

"We're going to repeal DADT after December, and we really mean it, but we have to keep control of Congress to do that. Make sure to vote for us!"

I sure hope I'm wrong on that, but the track record of this Administration and Congress on GLBT issues has left me a bit cynnical.

Thank you for your service, Union Yes. :patriot:

K&R

[Unvanguard]

6. They've already said it's about "how, not whether."

And the top leadership has explicitly expressed their view that it's time for it to go.

They are probably considerably more fearful of an electoral backlash from people against gays serving openly in the military than from people in favor of it. The release of the review is scheduled for December, after the midterms; if politics played a part in that timing, it was probably more motivated by a desire to keep DADT from being an electoral issue than by a desire to deceive gay rights supporters.

The delay here is absurd, with their idiotic and homophobic "review" and the new sixty-day concession that Byrd forced on them, but at this point it seems very likely that, if the repeal passes, DADT will be history by February or March. Late--over eighteen years late--but done.

[jeremyfive]

7. This Will Be Remembered

This evil policy, which has generated murders, blackmail and ruined countless promising career and wasted talents, at the cost of billions, will be remembered for generations.

DADT will be a dark chapter in America's history that will be long remembered, even after the policy itself is struck down.

[muffin1]

9. Despite warnings from my best friend - who is gay - I really believed Obama

when he said he was on the side of the GLBT community. My friend was for Hillary during the primaries, but was on Obama's side in the general. I voted Obama in both. I wish like hell I hadn't.

Obama's actions have been utterly disgusting - and that's the kindest way I know how to put it.

I will be sitting home, too, Union Yes. :toast:

[Union Yes]

11. Your gay friend is a lucky person to have a friend like you!

:toast:

[muffin1]

14. You are too kind.

And in my earlier post, I forgot to thank you for your service. :patriot: and :hug:

[nevergiveup]

12. Nope, I think you are wrong.

The House and Senate will come up with balls today to pass this repeal. It will take a few months to totally implement this policy but thanks to some courageous members of congress, especially Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Murphy, DADT will soon become history. The Pentagon study will not be able to sabotage this repeal nor do I think they will want to at this point as they have bigger fish to fry. If the vote goes as I think it will today in the House and tomorrow in the Senate this will be basically a done deal.

[Prism]

13. My cynical take on it

The study will come down sometime during the last two weeks in November. The President will talk about how the findings must be prepared before implementation (read: six months at least).

The LGBT community will be pissed off, raging in the meantime.

When the President needs a quick political pick me up, voila. DADT is over, guys!

Yep. I think he'll keep it in his pocket until it's advantageous to him - not because it's the just and right thing to do. Just like the (not quite) federal benefits and hospital visitation - things he also could've done at any time, but waited until he needed to deflect criticism.

The very fact the President was willing to wait until after the election - when faced with a lame duck and potentially more Republican Congress - showed he wasn't going to do anything he perceived as politically risky. This is large scale manipulation at the expense of scores of LGBT careers, sacrifice, and service.

Underneath all that hope rhetoric is a President possessed of deep pools of cynicism.

That's what I now believe.

[joeybee12]

15. I agree...n/t

[HillWilliam]

16. This gay Army vet is in "wait and see" mode

If the policy is completely - completely - removed, then I might open the gAyTM a crack for those who've returned the favor of my vote, time, effort, and donations with effort on their part. For thirty years of activism, demonstrations, petitions, shoe-leather, phone-banking, whatever it took to get Dems in office who had plenty of fire in the belly when they were on the stump then every single stinkin' time they got elected, I've seen it turned into a bunch of excuses after.

Nuh-uh, hell to the no. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me for a few decades, fuck 'em. My patience has run out. After a long, long, long string of broken promises, they need to put out or be left out.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

17. Thank You For Your Service

I will believe DADT is lifted is when it actually happens. No more empty promises.

[David Zephyr]

18. Rachel Maddow explained the study: it's not whether or not to end DADT, but how to end it.

The directive is to end it. The only thing that is being studied is how to implement it.

The President will receive the study on how to implement the end of DADT from the Secretary of Defense Gates and the the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen. The law that Congress is now preparing and voting on will become law when the study is received.

It's not a matter of if now. When the study is received and if we get the votes in the Senate (it has passed the House), DADT should begin its end in December of this year.

That's how Rachel Maddow explained it.

[Iggo]

19. We may not even have the votes in the Senate right now.

We certainly won't have them in December.

That's what has always been the problem with this "wait for the report" crap.

[cecilfirefox]

22. Actually, I think we can pass it in the Senate. It may be close- but we just have to break cloture

on the Defense Authorization Bill. For one, Robery Byrd is supporting it and so is Jim Webb. Those were some of our potential hold outs, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins will support it and I suspect Scott Brown will to. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[mitchtv]

20. You'll pardon me if I withhold the cheers and champagne

I take after my namesake St Thomas, who needed ample evidence that Jesus was actually dead, before he would believe any bullshit.

[cecilfirefox]

21. Clearly, this prediction is predicated by a lack of understanding of what the study is doing.

One- let me be clear on this, as a person who watched the Senate Armed Services committee hearing on DADT live it was made explicitly clear that Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen(Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) are in COMPLETE support of repealing this law. As many have stated above me this study is explicit- it is not about whether to repeal but HOW. How are they going to make this change happen- NOT whether to make it happen. Learn what the hell your talking about folks.

There are serious questions with this repeal. How do you handle living arrangements? Especially in situations with soldiers, airmen, marines, or seamen that do not want to room with someone like me- I don't think the military should tell them to stick it up and be in an uncomfortable situation, and therefore also put me in an uncomfortable situation. What do you do with soldiers that don't want to shower with you? How do we allow spousal benefits to families and children be conducted? Does the military for instance make it's own form of recognized domestic partnerships for it's gay and lesbian soldiers?

I want to be clear- these are tricky and complicated questions, but they are completely and utterly legitimate ones. It may be, and this may not be ideal for now, that we allow gays and lesbians to serve but that certain assignments will be prohibited to them. It's very possible we may see gays and lesbians being allowed to serve but not on same gender ships or submarines- that would be a mistake, but it's possible. We may see that in countries with laws against homosexuality that certain precautions have to be taken to protect our service members. It's also realistic that any restrictions that are made upon the immediate repeal of this policy will most certainly wash away with time.

I want to be clear- this repeal amendment that Congress is passing is the right thing to do. Gods willing the Senate will be able to pass it- Gods willing. This is going to do what Congress should have done to begin with- repeal the policy and all ow the military to set its own guidelines for its personnel. The lawmakers should have kept their selves far out of something as serious and delicate as how the military handles it's men and woman.

If some of the more ferocious advocates here had their way they'd see this repeal amendment fail, continue to fight for an immediate repeal that has no backing from the Pentagon or DoD and no political possibility of happening- for no purpose other than to wail, scream, protest, make noise, and pretend to be somehow productive. Let me also note that if the worst happens in November and John Boehner is Speaker of the House this will NEVER come up for a vote, let alone serious discussion in the House Armed Services Committee. I cannot express how grave this situation is now- it is now or never folks. Don't shoot your foot to spite your face.

We have to be careful how we do this people- or we could seriously hurt personnel in the transition. But, I believe without a doubt that this is going to happen. There is no possible way that the President, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen are going to get together and decide not to implement the recommendations. This will get done and the country and military will be better off for it.

[donco6]

23. So, in your world, repealing DADT will make things worse.

Instead of gays and lesbians being able to serve honorably on submarines as they do now, once they are open, "certain assignments will be prohibited to them." If this is your version of the "how" it will be implemented, it sounds to me like GLBT servicemembers are going to be PUNISHED for demanding equal treatment.

[cecilfirefox]

24. Allow me to remind you,

That I believe lying on DU is against the code of conduct- I never said repealing DADT would make things worse, please do not make up things and claim that I said them.

Furthermore, I never said LGBT members would be punished for trying to get equal treatment. What I did say though is that any change in the policy that allows people to serve openly, acquire a career, and be a member of the armed services is better than DADT. I will happily take a repeal that has prohibitions now, that undoubtedly will be lifted in time as the brass in the armed forces see that no major backlash has happened, so long as the military is the group that decides the policy for its members- a reality which this repeal puts into practice.

My take on the repeal is that it may not be ideal- but it's going to be fantastic for the people serving. It will give them freedom that is a bazillion times greater than what they had before and great good will come of it. If you actually think Congress should repeal this, leave the Defense Authorization Bill without this amendment on it, and then attempt to do a straight up vote that would pass the House but have serious hurdles in the Senate so you can make a point- and potentially screw to hell and high water the people serving now- well... You are stupid. I support this 100%, it may not be ideal but just like the Health Care Reform passed it's going to do a lot of good.

[donco6]

26. You just agreed with my point. Thanks.

So you're OK with gays being given secondary status while the military administration comes around to the idea that gays might be able to serve with regular folk.

How sad. It's too bad you can't see that gays shouldn't have to be relegated to that status at all, considering they're already in submarines and in barracks. But I guess that's your idea of better off. It's my idea of discrimination.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

29. So you've reiterated that it's fine with you. You'd even support it.

I heard you the first time, really.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

31. Just reading what you wrote.

It's there for everyone to see.

[cecilfirefox]

32. Then go back to school,

I never said I was fine with discrimination- but I gave an honest interpretation(Amazing how people will shoot you down for your opinion then complain about right wingers doing it) about what I think might happen- and said I'd support whatever the President, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen decide. Because whatever they change is most certainly going to be better for people like use serving than what we have now. You are honestly trying to represent me as somehow saying I'm legitimately fine with discrimination- that's not true, and I'd ask you to stop trying to pretend that I've said things other than what I have.

[donco6]

33. I'm sorry that you said them. I really am.

You wrote: "I will happily take a repeal that has prohibitions now, that undoubtedly will be lifted in time as the brass in the armed forces see that no major backlash has happened, so long as the military is the group that decides the policy for its members- a reality which this repeal puts into practice."

So you're OK with discrimination. I get it. It is what it is. You don't have to justify it to me.

[cecilfirefox]

34. Again, totally not what I said- not in the spirit, not in the rest of the posts, and you know it,

If that's what we get- I will take that over DADT. If I am given an option of DADT- the soul crushing, career killing, dream ending, discrimination endorsing workplace policy we have now over what I described that you quoted, than that is FINE. And you'd all be stupid to not support it either- sometimes big steps come first in small steps, that's just the reality of things.

You seem hell bent on trying to prove that I'm some sort of a bigot behind a computer screen- really, it's sad. Why do you obsess so much of your time trying to distort a person online? Get a grip man.

[donco6]

35. Just quoting your own statement.

I'm sorry it's gotten you so upset.

[cecilfirefox]

36. Read the above post, since you seem hell bent on ignoring anything you can't defend yourself against

You are a sad person at a keyboard. I'm done with you, your going on my ignore list. Your unproductive and certainly dishonest in your "interpretation" of me. If you somehow feel a victory here then by all means go find one of those silly posters that says you won the internets.

[donco6]

37. Don't go away mad! n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

27. I have no idea how you got that

from any of my post.

Edit: My bad I thought you replied to mine.

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. The Study is about "How"

Not whether. To be honest I'm not sure what "how" exactly means, but I can say I'm a lot more optimistic than you. I'm a straight male currently serving. Being that I'm not gay I can't say I empathize with what it means to be gay in the military, but I can say I recognize the anti-gay sentiment at every turn.