Executive Order of Gay Troops

[JonLP24]

How to End “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

A Roadmap of Political, Legal, Regulatory, and
Organizational Steps to Equal Treatment

by Aaron Belkin, Nathaniel Frank, Gregory M. Herek,
Elizabeth L. Hillman, Diane H. Mazur, Bridget J. Wilson

May 2009
University of California • Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9429 • [phone] • www.palmcenter.ucsb.edu

Executive Summary
President Barack Obama has stated his intention to end the Pentagon policy known as
“don’t ask, don’t tell,” and allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
The federal statute governing this policy, Section 571 of the FY1994 National Defense
Authorization Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 654, is titled “Policy Concerning
Homosexuality in the Armed Forces” and has come to be known as “don’t ask, don’t
tell.”

While strong majorities of the public, and growing numbers within the military, support
such a change, some political leaders and military members have expressed anxiety about
what impact it will have on the armed forces. Scholarly evidence shows that lifting the
ban on service by openly gay personnel is unlikely to impair military effectiveness or to
harm recruiting, retention or unit cohesion. Yet questions remain as to how best to
execute and manage the transition from exclusion to inclusion of openly gay personnel in
a way that takes into consideration the concerns and sensitivities of the military
community. In this report, we address political, legal, regulatory, and organizational steps
that will ensure that the implementation process goes smoothly. We begin by suggesting
six key points that should be kept in mind as policymakers consider the change.

1) The executive branch has the authority to suspend homosexual conduct discharges
without legislative action.
The process of lifting the ban on service by openly gay personnel is both political and
military in nature. While research shows that the planned policy change does not pose an
unmanageable risk to the military, how the transition is executed politically can affect
how smoothly the change is implemented. The President has the authority to issue an
executive order halting the operation of "don't ask, don't tell." Under 10 U.S.C. § 12305
(“Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Laws Relating to Promotion, Retirement,
and Separation”), Congress grants the President authority to suspend the separation of
military members during any period of national emergency in which members of a
reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty. We believe that issuing such
an order would be beneficial to military readiness, as it would minimize the chances of
replaying a debate that is already largely settled but could still inflame the passions of
some in the military. Once gay people are officially serving openly in the military, it will
become clear to those with concerns about the policy change that service by openly gay
personnel does not compromise unit cohesion, recruiting, retention or morale. This in
turn will make it easier to secure the passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act
(MREA) in Congress, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” While it would be
optimal to see lawmakers embrace repeal by passing MREA, it may not be politically
feasible to do so, despite overwhelming public support and Democratic control of
Congress. Conservative Democrats in Congress may oppose MREA, and the White
House may not wish to expend the political capital necessary to overcome their
resistance. The executive option may end up costing the President less in political capital

than the effort needed to push repeal through Congress. And it could help avoid the
emergence of split military leadership which could make the transition bumpier than it
has to be.
2) Legislative action is still required to permanently remove “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Since MREA was first introduced in 2005, it has remained a stand-alone, unicameral bill.
Passage of the bill would be the best way to permanently eliminate “don’t ask, don’t tell”
for the following reasons: First, since the current policy is based on a statute passed by
Congress, its permanent elimination will require legislative or judicial action. Second, the
legislation as currently written would establish a uniform code of conduct across the
military for all service members, gay and straight, without regard to sexual orientation.
Evidence from foreign militaries indicates that this is one of the most important steps for
the successful transition to a policy of inclusion. Finally, articulating the new policy in a
federal statute will give the policy the imprimatur of broad public support and will create
a clear set of standards and policies for service members and commanding officers. As
stated in #1, above, pushing MREA through Congress may best be done after an
executive order first halts discharges for homosexual conduct.@?

<snip>
6) Equal standards and leadership support are critical to a successful policy change.
Any legal or regulatory change should heed the two most important lessons from foreign
militaries that have transitioned to open service. First, the military must adopt a single
code of conduct for all service members, gay and straight, without regard to sexual
orientation. Second, military leaders must signal clearly that they expect all members of
the armed forces to adhere to the new policy, regardless of their personal beliefs.
http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops%20-%20final.pdf

Long article, 30 pages long but great detailed information. What I posted was just a portion of the summary.

[valerief]

1. Every soldier should pull a Spartacus. What are they gonna do? Fire them all? nt

[JonLP24]

2. Basically what I got from it

The President has the authority to stop the discharges but it is completely up to congress and Obama's pen to change the law.

[keepCAblue]

4. But it is the executive order which serves to push Congress to act...

Congress will have little argument against repealing DADT if Obama stops all discharges via exec. order and the Congress is forced to admit that the world didn't end due to gays allowing to serve openly. Such an executive order will put a pin in the objection balloon of Congress, exploding the lies used to justify DADT. The ball is in Obama's court. He has the power now, TODAY, to save the careers, livelihoods and futures of thousands of gay and lesbian men and women who have already been or will potentially be unfairly discharged under DADT, and at the same time, send a no-nonsense message to Congress that the time for full repeal of DADT, by passage of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA), is at hand.

[JonLP24]

6. I agree with you 100%

He is using the argument it is the congress and not the President to discontinue the ban but he can discontinue to the policy atleast temporarily. It is time to act now for a Dem Congress and POTUS.

[WeDidIt]

3. Okay, this is clearer.

In the other thread, the inference I took was an overarching EO that ended the criminality of being gay in the military.

Under his powers for stop-loss, he most certainly can stop seperation via EO.

He cannot singlehandedly end the law regarding homosexuality in the military, but so long as we are engaged in conflict, he can stop seperations.

[JonLP24]

5. Yes, it made it clearer for me too

It is still up to Congress to change the law as well as Obama's pen. He can stop the discharges but that is only a temporary thing. I guess we call it one of those things where we were both right. :) :hi:

[whistler162]

7. WOW.... why didn't Bush the younger think of

issuing Executive Orders when he didn't want to obey the law!

OH WAIT.... He did!

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. 2) Legislative action is still required to permanently remove “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

And after Obama stops discharges by executive order, thus solidifying opposition within the military and - by extension - the MIC (you know, the BIG campaign donors) HOW is he going to get the support in congress to overturn DADT?

It would be a pre-emptive strike that blows up in his face, costing the democrats the majority in '10, and the White House in '12.

The move MUST come from PUBLIC pressure on Congress, so they understand that they must do what is right despite what the military and the MIC campaign contributors say - because if they don't they will lose their seats.

You don't remember '94 at all, do you.

[JonLP24]

9. I included that

And worrying about elections does nothing for the 200+ servicemember that have been kicked out in the past 6 months.

Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gay men and lesbians serve openly:
The U.S. military functionally suspended the gay ban during the first Gulf War by halting
the gay discharge process. There have been no indications of any detriment to unit
cohesion or readiness during that war. In fact, the cohesion and readiness of the troops
during the first Gulf War have been widely praised. Researchers have followed units in
which American troops worked with and even took orders from openly gay foreigners in
integrated multinational units under the auspices of NATO, the United Nations, and other
multinational organizations. They found no negative impact to cohesion and readiness.
More recently, a survey was administered to 545 service members who fought in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Respondents were asked about the presence of openly gay
members of their units, and about their units’ cohesion and readiness. A majority of
respondents said they knew of, or suspected, gays in their units. Statistical analysis of
results found that there was no relationship between the presence of openly gay troops
and the cohesion or readiness of the unit.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. And failing to overturn DADT while at the same time losing control

of congress and the white house doesn't help them or ANYBODY else.

Which target would the Republicans prefer? The President, a single person who can be the focus of every complaint they have, or 300 house members and 60 senators spread out across the country in widely varying political situations?

If Obama were to do as you suggest, HE would be that focus, particularly if he did it without KNOWING he had the support of congress. It's like how lawyers are taught to never ask a question in court unless they already know the answer. To be blind-sided would be fatal.

If, OTOH, we can push congress to pass it first, CONGRESS will take the heat, which will be diffused by their very numbers, and Obama WILL sign it.

[JonLP24]

13. I'm not worried about what Republicans will target

They target anything and everything so I really don't care and besides only 24% of the people that voted were self claimed republicans so they are in the minority. You know they are already running ads on bible TV saying Obama is already overturning it so they already got the head start and again I don't care what the republicans think. They're irrelevant. He needs to stop the discharges of perfectly qualified individuals that some of them were in control of entire battalions and then that gives congress plenty of time to enact policy because we will be at war for the foreseeble future and we have already halted discharges in the Gulf War without incident.

[riderinthestorm]

10. We're 15 real-time years, but 50 light years from 1994

and the attitude the public holds towards gays today in 2009.

If gays serve openly in the military, that alone will be enough to puncture every single stupid argument that gays in the military are demoralizing, destabilizing etc. fucking etc. The argument will be made de facto and Congress will be forced to act, especially if Obama would get off his ass and exert just a wee bit of pressure.

[JonLP24]

11. I later edited my post to include this

Data about what happens in the U.S. military when gay men and lesbians serve openly:
The U.S. military functionally suspended the gay ban during the first Gulf War by halting
the gay discharge process. There have been no indications of any detriment to unit
cohesion or readiness during that war. In fact, the cohesion and readiness of the troops
during the first Gulf War have been widely praised. Researchers have followed units in
which American troops worked with and even took orders from openly gay foreigners in
integrated multinational units under the auspices of NATO, the United Nations, and other
multinational organizations. They found no negative impact to cohesion and readiness.
More recently, a survey was administered to 545 service members who fought in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Respondents were asked about the presence of openly gay
members of their units, and about their units’ cohesion and readiness. A majority of
respondents said they knew of, or suspected, gays in their units. Statistical analysis of
results found that there was no relationship between the presence of openly gay troops
and the cohesion or readiness of the unit.

Besides it won't be the whole e'fing military, I was last in the Army in 2008 and there were atleast 2 bisexuals that I knew of and they weren't snitched on or weren't bothered by it. The ones expressing undesire is a minority. 54% of the military support an overturn of the policy.