Gates Seeks to Soften "Don't Ask"

Defense Chief Says He is Looking for "More Humane" Ways to Apply Law Prohibiting Gays From Serving in Military

(AP)  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday he wants to make the law prohibiting gays from serving openly in the armed forces "more humane" until Congress eventually repeals it. He said he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced.

"One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law?" Gates said.

The defense chief, a holdover from the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush, told reporters traveling with him in Europe that the Clinton-era ban was written without much wiggle room. The Pentagon general counsel is looking at potential avenues around full enforcement as a stopgap, Gates said.

For example, Gates said, the military might not have to expel someone whose sexual orientation was revealed by a third party out of vindictiveness or suspect motives. That would include, Gates said, someone who was "jilted" by the gay service member.

"That's the kind of thing we're looking at to see if there's at least a more humane way to apply the law until the law gets changed," Gates said, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

Gay rights activists and others have criticized the Obama administration for not quickly following through on a pledge to lift the ban on openly gay military service.

President Barack Obama and his spokesmen say he remains committed to repealing the Clinton-era law known as "don't ask, don't tell," but neither the White House nor congressional leadership has moved swiftly to do so.

There is no timetable for the pending bill to repeal the 1993 law, which was intended as a compromise to get around a full ban on gay military service. Gay rights leaders, however, have said it is an insult.

Obama says he wants to build support for the change among military commanders before urging Congress to move ahead.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff and others have cautioned that repeal of the law must be done carefully so as not to disrupt military cohesion in wartime or to place an additional burden on an already overstretched uniformed force.

Gates said he discussed repeal of the no-gays policy with Obama last week, but he did not detail the conversation.

"We were talking about how do we move forward on this to achieve his objective, which is changing the policy, and the issue that we face is that how do we begin to do preparations and simultaneously the administration move forward in terms of asking the Congress to change the law," Gates said.

Several liberal legal experts and outside groups have urged Obama to issue an executive order that would make the law unenforceable, but Gates appeared to be considering measures short of that.

[Yeah-Me]

You people have got to be kidding...

You're worried about some guy may be checking out your a**? And that it will destroy morale?

Dudes... we're already in the military... living, working and dieing next to you.

Just what makes you think you are so much better than others... as DADT is written... Gays are'nt even allowed to "engage in homosexual acts"... by that very deffinition you are required to live as a celibet let alone are not alowed to regognise your significant other, for FEAR that your would be outted and discharged.

DADT is a bill written to diminish a portion of its loyal armed service men and women. Which is discrimination in my book...

Yeah... "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be stricken from the books.

[ThistlePDX]

1. As another poster pointed out, gays & lesbians are allowed to serve openly in some otherwise conservative-leaning nations around the world. I don't see their societies nor their military organizations falling apart. If our military is so fragile that stepping up to a 21st-century understanding of human rights and human dignity destroys it, should it survive unchanged?
2. Asking others to hide or change essential aspects of their being which do not directly harm you, in order to preserve YOUR comfort (i.e., "You must hide your homosexuality because I find it repugnant") is intellectually dishonest, emotionally manipulative and certainly borders on the immoral. The previous statement does NOT mean someone having homosexual sex in front of me without my permission, or hitting on me after I say no, is OK. But then neither is it OK for someone to have heterosexual sex in front of me, etc., etc.
3. These same oh-my-God-the-sky-will-fall arguments were used to block racial integration of the US military in the 1950s. Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the military and took the inevitable heat because he knew it was the right thing to do. Look, Ma, we survived!
4. "No" means "no"; sexual harassment is sexual harassment and assault is assault no matter what the orientation of the harasser. Can you not simply say "no" if someone comes on to you and you're not interested? Grow up.
5. The military desperately needs multilingual soldiers. Many of those discharged under DODT have been fluent in several languages - Arabic, Farsi, Korean, etc. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, we can hardly afford to be getting rid of people who can communicate with and understand the cultures of both our allies and our "enemies."
6. Obama needs to keep his promise, issue that executive order, let the military deal with it (it IS their job to obey their Commander-in-Chief's orders, after all), and take the heat. It'll all evaporate from the headlines in a couple of news cycles, people who hate O. will always hate him anyway, and the rest of us can move on knowing our country is a little more just and a tad more sane.

[specialty8]

Let them serve on the front line. That would end alot of the problems.

[gravyboat4000]

That comment is what makes you so special.

Biggot.

[creeper00]

This story is a hoot. It wasn't Gates who promised during the campaign to end DADT.

Obama never ceases to amaze me. He knows ending DADT will be unpopular with some, so he's assigning that distasteful task to Gates.

Our president has feet of clay.

[pcevet4]

Do away with DODT; the military is a reflection of our society; we should demand that they act as such. Violence against gay people is unacceptable and needs to be investigated and prosecuted, just as violence against women. The military needs to be brought into the 21st century. I served with gay soldiers. What they did behind closed doors was their own business.

[endurorob]

by saturn05 July 1, 2009 11:19 AM PDT
More humane he says. What are gays and lesbians, your pets that have to be put to sleep. Good god. Is he an idiot? The policy is inherently wrong and should be stricken immediately. But Obama is showing his cowardice to stand up for what is right.


Your disagreeing with it doesn't make it inherently wrong. Don't know that I would go as far as calling Obama a coward, just a politician. A hopelessly misguided socialist politician.

[endurorob]

by vuenbelvue July 1, 2009 11:11 AM PDT
What per centage of homosexuals in the military are female and what per centage or male?


Good luck getting that data since they are required to keep the preference quiet.

[saturn05]

More humane he says. What are gays and lesbians, your pets that have to be put to sleep. Good god. Is he an idiot? The policy is inherently wrong and should be stricken immediately. But Obama is showing his cowardice to stand up for what is right.

[vuenbelvue]

What per centage of homosexuals in the military are female and what per centage or male?

[endurorob]

by gravyboat4000 July 1, 2009 10:16 AM PDT
Being ultra conservative DOES make you wrong most of the time though.

Conservative on this issue but not all unlike some who are conservative or in your case liberal on all issues. Been to Hillcrest lately?

[gravyboat4000]

I'm not liberal on ALL issues.

I haven't been to Hillcrest in years.

Not that it matters much, they don't JUST stay in Hillcrest anymore.

That said, LET THE TWINKS FIGHT!!!

[gravyboat4000]

NO!!!

Don't change DADT!!!

The fairies will start attacking all our fighting boys, and change them into fruit loops as well.

The next thing you know, they'll be wearing panties instead of boxers, and call each other,"mary".

Some of them may even start going,"commando".

[libscrytoo]

OMG, You really are an idiot. I love how you democrats just think you know it all.

[endurorob]

by cs4466 July 1, 2009 9:46 AM PDT
Actually I'm a centrist. If I were ultra-liberal I'd advocate kicking all the bigots out of the military as being unfit to serve protecting the freedoms of the citizens of the United States of America.


Being at the center of the far, far left doesn't make you a centrist.

[gravyboat4000]

Being ultra conservative DOES make you wrong most of the time though.

[endurorob]

by cs4466 July 1, 2009 9:39 AM PDT


You fail to understand that just because someone disagrees with your ultra liberal idealogy that does not make them wrong.

[cs4466]

Actually I'm a centrist. If I were ultra-liberal I'd advocate kicking all the bigots out of the military as being unfit to serve protecting the freedoms of the citizens of the United States of America.

[cs4466]

by cs4466 July 1, 2009 9:28 AM PDT

Ridiculous bigotry. Many countries already have openly serving homosexual members and it hasn't harmed anything at all. You're an old fossil, a confederate throwback to a less enlightened time. And you're wrong - flat out wrong.

Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
2.1 Argentina
2.2 Australia
2.3 Bermuda
2.4 Canada
2.5 Germany
2.6 Israel
2.7 Italy
2.8 The Netherlands
2.9 New Zealand
2.10 Philippines
2.11 Romania
2.12 United Kingdom
2.13 Switzerland
2.14 Uruguay


You fail to understand that this is not one of those other countries
by endurorob July 1, 2009 9:34 AM PDT

You fail to understand that you're wrong, have always been wrong, and will always be wrong on this topic. Your failure to understand does not preclude the fact that gay and lesbian Americans will be allowed to serve openly in the military soon. Your failure to understand does not preclude the fact that gay and lesbian Americans will eventually be allowed to marry legally in all 50 states of the Union. You can either accept this as an inevitable product of freedom and recognition of civil equality for all Americans, or you can remain a bigot. The choice is, and always has been, yours.

[endurorob]

by cs4466 July 1, 2009 9:31 AM PDT
Bigot #2. It doesn't matter how popular bigotry it, it will always be wrong.


You lefties throw around words like bigot as if it were candy and the irony is that your attacks on those who disagree with you are a clear display of your own hatred and bigotry.

[endurorob]

by cs4466 July 1, 2009 9:28 AM PDT

Ridiculous bigotry. Many countries already have openly serving homosexual members and it hasn't harmed anything at all. You're an old fossil, a confederate throwback to a less enlightened time. And you're wrong - flat out wrong.

Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
2.1 Argentina
2.2 Australia
2.3 Bermuda
2.4 Canada
2.5 Germany
2.6 Israel
2.7 Italy
2.8 The Netherlands
2.9 New Zealand
2.10 Philippines
2.11 Romania
2.12 United Kingdom
2.13 Switzerland
2.14 Uruguay


You fail to understand that this is not one of those other countries. If you have the experince of traveling the world you would understand that we are different than most other sountries in the worl and the vast majority of those serving in the military are of a certain type that do not look kindly on homesexual deviant behavior.

[endurorob]

by gramps1941 July 1, 2009 9:26 AM PDT
All posts from folks who have never served. I did, 30 years. A professional military can not exist with openly homosexual members. Despite the propaganda from the 'gay' community, the NORM is heterosexuality and the non norm or homosexual person makes most of the normal personnel uncomfortable at the very least. You cannot have the unity and discipline required of members of the military if there is a morale issue that will not go away.
The PC view is to weep and whine over the discrimination but a military organization is inherently discriminate. It has to be. They dont recruit those who are physically incapable of serving nor should they recruit those who are (I dont like to use morally here, its not a moral issue) by their very lifestyle make the normal man and woman uncomfortable.
Homosexuals (Gays) are NOT normal. They are outside the mainstream of human behavior. They should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military.


Thank you for your service. I quit early and only did 22 1/2 years. That is a very well stated comment. Unfortunatley the PC crowd will have none of it. They feel that gays need to permiate avery crevice of society.

[cs4466]

Bigot #2. It doesn't matter how popular bigotry it, it will always be wrong.

[cs4466]

All posts from folks who have never served. I did, 30 years. A professional military can not exist with openly homosexual members

by gramps1941 July 1, 2009 9:26 AM PDT

Ridiculous bigotry. Many countries already have openly serving homosexual members and it hasn't harmed anything at all. You're an old fossil, a confederate throwback to a less enlightened time. And you're wrong - flat out wrong.

Countries that allow homosexuals to serve in the military
2.1 Argentina
2.2 Australia
2.3 Bermuda
2.4 Canada
2.5 Germany
2.6 Israel
2.7 Italy
2.8 The Netherlands
2.9 New Zealand
2.10 Philippines
2.11 Romania
2.12 United Kingdom
2.13 Switzerland
2.14 Uruguay

[CLoverNYC1]

Serving in the military and serving openly as a homosexual are two different things.

Homosexuals have been in the military for centuries to be sure.

Gramps has a point that heterosexuality in the military is the NORM.

Like it or not, the rest of this nation is not San Francisco.

Most heterosexual men are revolted by open homosexual behavior. Sexual preference is a fact of life, but I don't have to know about it.

Don't ask. Don't tell.

[gramps1941]

All posts from folks who have never served. I did, 30 years. A professional military can not exist with openly homosexual members. Despite the propaganda from the 'gay' community, the NORM is heterosexuality and the non norm or homosexual person makes most of the normal personnel uncomfortable at the very least. You cannot have the unity and discipline required of members of the military if there is a morale issue that will not go away.
The PC view is to weep and whine over the discrimination but a military organization is inherently discriminate. It has to be. They dont recruit those who are physically incapable of serving nor should they recruit those who are (I dont like to use morally here, its not a moral issue) by their very lifestyle make the normal man and woman uncomfortable.
Homosexuals (Gays) are NOT normal. They are outside the mainstream of human behavior. They should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military.

[CLoverNYC1]

*Clover stands at attention, salutes Gramps*

[lloydbest1]

"Homosexuals (Gays) are NOT normal. They are outside the mainstream of human behavior. They should NOT be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Military."

First off, thank you for your years of service. I lasted all of one day in the Coast Guard because of a medical issue that slipped by the prescreening physical a few weeks before.

The problem as I see it is with your last two sentences. The assumption that homosexuality is "wrong" or "abnormal". It is nothing of the sort. As do most straight males, I find gay whoopie rather creepy but it is NOT wrong. From every judgemental standpoint one can think of, homosexuality, in and of itself, has no value. It's not wrong nor is it even right.
Heterosexual men and women now serve together - they may even have done so during your time. Furthermore they sometimes serve under pretty intimate circumstances. The UCMJ is very strict about sexual misconduct. These regulations can equally apply toward any unauthorized slap 'n' tickle between same gender participants. Any harrassment of straight soldiers by cruising gays can be scotched forthwith.
Discipline IS the glue that holds an army together. Our military is as successful as it is because of our strict discipline. Even my brief tenure as a "Coastie" taught me that much. Today's diverse armed forces have as members committed Christians who despise atheists; supremicist bigots who hate blacks (or whites, or others); rich playboys (or girls) who look down their noses at the hoi polloi. Perhaps even more appropriate to one of your years of experience, non-coms who view mid-grade officers with comtempt or senior officers who view anyone below the rank of Major as clueless. A disciplined armed force can and must set all those differences I mentioned aside. I see no reason why the understandable squeamishness straights have toward gay men of arms couldn't be similarily suppressed.
I believe the likelihood of our military weakining as a consequence of gays openly serving in the armed forces is slim at worst.

[dartplayer501]

Every fighting force in Europe has had openly gay members for years. You've probably met a few of your peers from across the pond, did you find them lacking in any respect? Did you feel that you needed to be sepqarated from them? I doubt it - if you'd asked they'd have kicked your a$$.

[cs4466]

I'd have to agree with ABM. If you want to serve, then you must be able to conform. You have to accept the fact that all people are created equally, straight and gay alike. There is no room in the military for bigots and hatred and discrimination. Conform, yes, to equal civil liberties and rights for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. High time, too.