"Don't Ask" Repeal Deal May be Imminent

CBS/AP

Updated 10:08 p.m. Eastern

Gay rights groups met with White House and congressional leaders this morning to discuss a potentially-imminent repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

The impetus for the meetings is a push in Congress, which passed the measure under President Bill Clinton, to add a repeal of the policy to the upcoming defense authorization bill.

Repeal "had been on a slow track awaiting completion of a Pentagon study at the end of this year," reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. "Gay rights proponents and their Democratic allies on Capitol Hill and in the White House have decided it's now or not for a very long time since the elections this fall are expected to bring in a more conservative, more Republican Congress."

On Thursday, as the Washington Post reports, the Senate Armed Services Committee will vote on adding the repeal provision to the bill; the House may also vote on the matter this week.

While repeal could pass via the defense authorization bill, it would reportedly not go into effect under the pending deal until after the president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff review an ongoing Pentagon study into the impact of repeal. That review is set to be completed by December 1st.

The president and military brass must approve moving forward after the review comes back, and implimentation of repeal could take years.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has already called ending the policy "the right thing to do," and President Obama has vowed repeal.

According to the Advocate, a Statement of Administration Policy on the issue is expected this week.

It is not clear that there are enough votes to attach a repeal to the defense authorization bill. Sen. Carl Levin, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, is believed to be at least one vote short of the 15 votes he needs, though up to six senators are reportedly wavering.

"The Pentagon was caught flat footed by this sudden change in the legislative landscape and officials are scrambling to figure out whether they are for or against the compromise - and whether there are enough votes on the Hill to pass it," reports Martin. 

Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Rep. Patrick Murphy sent a letter today to Mr. Obama urging him to support their "legislative proposal...that puts a process in place to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention."

"It is our firm belief that it is time to repeal this discriminatory policy that not only dishonors those who are willing to give their lives in service to their country but also prevents capable men and women with vital skills from serving in the Armed Forces at a time when our Nation is fighting two wars," they write.

The White House said they support the Democrat's legislative amendment to repeal "Don't Ask" even though it would have been ideal to wait until the review was finished.

"The Administration is of the view that the proposed amendment meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget for the White House wrote in a letter to Lieberman. "The Administration therefore supports the proposed amendment."

[krotec54]

No, Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve in the military.
If they want to serve our country they should work as civilians / military contractors.

[VA_John]

You can still serve, no matter whom you lust after. Your secret is safe with us.

[Perish1]

This policy would outrightly give gays rights and priveleges beyond those of other sexual preference. Right now, the field is equal. Gays or heterosexuals are neither barracked with the objects of their lust or sexual preferences as far as is officially known. This would give that privelege to gays only. It is a discriminatory proposal that supposes that only gays are above want or desire. It also violates the expectation of privacy of those housed with the gay person.Gays are not above others and shouldn't be treated as such.

[VA_John]

No one is 'above' the others in their ranks yet there are those who are more in control of themselves and their desires. You sound jealous that gay people can control themselves and straight people cannot. Maybe it is time for some intensive therapy for all the 'straight' people that cannot keep it in their pants. Tailhook, anyone??>

[ge556]

Being a stay-at-home parent is a lifestyle. Being a long-haul truckdriver, or a soldier, or a homeless person is a lifestyle.
Being gay is not a lifestyle.

[tsigili]

You can't ask other countries to improve their human rights, when you are taking the human rights away from a target group, yourself.

The US is a hypocrite.

[IndepTex20]

"It is not clear that there are enough votes to attach a repeal to the defense authorization bill. Sen. Carl Levin, the chair of the Armed Services Committee, is believed to be at least one vote short of the 15 votes he needs, though up to six senators are reportedly wavering."

Not to worry, the Marxist in the White House and his staff surely have their boots on the neck of those "wavering six"!

[pragmatist1]

Allowing gays in same-gender quarters is no different than advocating or allowing co-ed quarters.

[pragmatist1]

No, that's not what I was saying and please don't try and twist my words, because you'll be wrong. What I'm saying is that there is no difference in having co-ed quarters with quarters where there are straights and gays. It hasn't anything to do with a gay's ability to serve, but it does have everything to do with their sexual proclivities. That is the reason why the military doesn't have co-ed quarters. Having quarters of both straights and gays is the same thing as co-ed quarters.

[Mortar_29]

Pragmatist, that is exactly right.

Is it okay to demand that women sleep and shower in the same area as males? If not, why not?

[ge556]

TVO1CITW said, "Then we could also say that Atheist are religiphobia's."

Then, should we say that many right-wingers are grammatically incompetent?

[TVO1CITW]

If you don't have a good answer, then find something to condemn. That is the way I was taught by my college professor.

[Perish1]

You know. Really, the most fair way to handle this might be to mix all of the gays together in their own units. You wouldn't have to worry about the male/female issue. No one could be excluded from serving their country on this issue. You wouldn't be violating the expectation of privacy of the other service people who are not gay.

[Perish1]

Of course, even with this idea, what if a gay person doesn't like the unwanted attention from another but is trapped in a daily living situation with them. At least they couldn't claim gay bashing when the one feels offended and strikes out at the other. If it is OK for a woman to smack a man who has made an unwanted advance, why isn't OK for a man to smack a man for an unwanted advance. Equality is complicated.

[Mortar_29]

Not the same argument!

Being black is a who you are, not an action.

Sexual activity is an action.

[Perish1]

Considering that all of our brave military personnel are adults. That they all know basic biology. That they know the differences between the anatomies of male and female. If sexual preference is not a factor any more in separating those who may have sexual feelings toward another person. What is the difference between someone being ogled in a lustful manner in the shower by a member of an opposite gender than by someone of the same gender? Inthe interest of true non-discrimination, shouldn't we just go ahead and mix the genders. Otherwise it is all just hypocrisy.
The deal is that if you allow this, then you are really discriminating against all non-gays on the basis of sexual preference and ignoring peoples expectation of privacy in private situations. I am not talking about on the field of battle, but, in the barracks. This would be saying that gays are above all others in that they would never look upon another in an untoward way without invitation. That they have some special level of conscience above all other sexual preferences. I don't believe it.

[TVO1CITW]

A girlfriend took me to Rocky Horror Picture Show once. Before the show began a homosexual ran up on the stage and unzipped his body suite down to his crotch and exposed himself to the crowd. That is what the homosexuals are pushing here, too. They want to shower with the boys and sleep with them and maybe get lucky in the fox hole.

[hakori]

TVO1CITW, I once say a straight woman exposing her breasts on Bourbon Street. That's the straight agenda to force their sexuality on eveyone else and maybe get lucky in a dark ally in New Orleans.

[hakori]

Lawyers-Guns-n-Money06, no it isn't, is yours Beck?