March 28, 2010 2:51 PM

Casualties of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

By
CBSNews
DON'T ASK whether Congress will repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" ban on gays in the military . . . it's still far too soon to know. What we DO know is that attitudes are changing on that question, including among some of those at the highest levels of the Pentagon. Our Cover Story is reported now by Kimberly Dozier:


"Today I have approved a series of changes to the implementation of the current statute."

His words were measured, but they'll have a big impact. On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made the biggest change since 1993 in the military's policy toward gays.

He introduced new, more stringent regulations, which will slow - or could even virtually stop - the explusion of gay servicemembers.

"I believe these changes represent an important improvement in the way the current law is put into practice," Gates said, "above all by providing a greater measure of common sense and common decency, to a process for handling what are difficult and complex issues for all involved."

It's another step on the path taken by President Obama since assuming office.

Having criticized "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a punishment of patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve their country, Mr. Obama said in his State of the Union address that he would work with Congress and the Pentagon to "to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."

It's a path that might seem straightforward, but that has historically been filled with political and social landmines.

It's another step on the path President Obama has taken since assuming office.

"I will end 'Don't ask, don't tell,' that's my commitment to you," said President Obama.

Don't ask, don't tell - the policy that's led to the discharges of more than 13,000 gay servicemembers, at times an average of one every day.

Servicemembers like Lacye Presley and Holly Tomson.

When we talked with them, they were setting up house in a small town in south Texas.

Full disclosure: I have a personal interest in Sgt Presley's story. I first met her in 2006. She helped keep me alive when our CBS News team was hit by a car bomb.

"You kept asking, 'When are we getting out of here? When are we getting out of here?'" said Presley, who was a medic.

"I just, 'Just hold on. We're getting out,'" she said.

Sergeant Presley was honored for her work saving lives that day.

"The Army gave me a bronze star for my actions in that incident," she said. "And this is what they gave me for being gay."

"This" was an honorable discharge, given during her second tour in Iraq, after she reported a superior commander for suspected drug dealing . . . and someone struck back.

"I was called into my first sergeant's office," Presley recalled. "And he told me that there was allegations that I was participating in homosexual conduct and that there were pictures that had been sent to my battalion commander."

(CBS)
The pictures were of Presley and her girlfriend, Sergeant Holly Tomson (left). Sgt. Tomson was serving in another unit stateside handling bomb-sniffing dogs, a decorated soldier in her own right. She was NCO of the Year.

She was also discharged.

"I was planning on having a career in the military, 'cause I like it," said Tomson. "I love the Army."

The cause of gay servicemembers has been picking up quite a bit of support lately. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, made his personal views clear just a few weeks ago.

"It is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do," he said. "No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

And there is gathering momentum in Congress, where the drive to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" has a number of new champions, some of whom might surprise you.

"We had a saying when I was a young cadet: Lead, follow or get out of the way," said Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., the first Iraq War veteran elected to Congress.

On the House floor last October 6, Murphy said, "The 'Don't ask don't tell' policy goes against the very fabric of what makes our country the greatest country on Earth, the fact that we're all created equal."

Murphy told the House, "It has cost the American tax payer $1.3 billion dollars to throw these young American heroes out of our military, just because of their sexual orientation."

"Yeah, a lot of people ask me, you know, why is an Irish Catholic former altar boy taking a lead on this, who happens to be a Blue Bog Democrat, a fiscal conservative?" said Murphy. "And I tell them, one, for national security, the fact that we need every able body, qualified American to serve right now because our troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That's an argument that President Obama has found cuts both ways.

"The president has to walk a very careful line on 'Don't ask, don't tell,'" said CBS News political analyst John Dickerson. With a military under stress, Dickerson says many in Congress will be loath to change the controversial policy.

"He's asking a lot of the military on two war fronts. He's also trying to move the military along here, but he's also trying to provide cover for Members of Congress who won't do anything brave on this question until they feel like they can point to the military and say, the military is going along with repealing 'Don't ask, don't tell.'"

History teaches that it's an issue studded with land mines.

In 1993 gays were prohibited from serving in the armed forces. President Bill Clinton vowed to let them serve openly.

"The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status," said Clinton.

"He somewhat glibly, I think, promised that he would lift the ban, and at one point said he would do it with the stroke of a pen, echoing President Truman's 1948 decision to integrate the military racially by executive order," said Nathaniel Frank, a scholar at the University of Santa Barbara's Palm Center. He opposes "Don't ask, don't tell."

"When Clinton took office, he found that he had underestimated the resistance of some in the military and of social conservatives in particular," Frank said.

So a military working group looked for another path.

Bob Maginnis, who helped craft that deal, which he supported - known as "Don't ask don't tell" - described it as "a political backroom deal. Nobody was happy.

"The military pretends that homosexuals aren't serving, and the homosexual has to pretend they're not homosexual. So all of a sudden if by chance you're discovered, then under the law you have to discharge him through a process that's been in place for a long time."

In their debate they heard warnings about the spread of AIDS. (Keep in mind this was 1993.) And AIDS was devastating the gay community.

And they considered the often-mentioned fear in conservative military circles that gay men would make unwelcome advances toward their heterosexual peers.

"Because the same-sex attractiveness is hard to control, perhaps, or predict, that the easy thing to do is to discriminate against a group of people who bring a behavior characteristic that we think is going to undermine the cohesion, the trust and confidence of building those fighting forces," said Maginnis.

That's essentially the reason given in the discharge papers for Lacye Presley and Holly Tomson: "If the soldier were to remain in the service, her conduct would only continue causing her to be a disruptive influence in this unit and the United States Army."

"So being gay would be 'disruptive'?" said Dozier.

"It would, yes," said Tomson.

(CBS)
"How's that make you feel?" asked Dozier.

"I think this is ridiculous."

We asked two members of Presley's former platoon, Sergeants Rebecca Myers and Michael Cabaday (pictured, left, with Presley receiving their rank promotions to Sergeant), what they thought.

"What was she like to work with?" asked Dozier.

"She was a professional," said Cabaday. "I've known quite a few medics since I've been in, and I'd say she's one of the most knowledgeable ones I've ever known. She knew her job in and out."

"I would serve with Sergeant Presley any day, no doubt about it," said Myers. "She's one of the best medics that I've ever seen in my 18 years of service."

In at least 25 countries, gays are now serving openly, including U.S. allies like Britain, Canada and Israel's defense force, the IDF.

"If the Americans' policy is 'Don't ask, don't tell,' I think what this can be described the IDF policy as 'You can tell, but we really don't care,'" said Major Yoni Schoenfeld, who has served in the Israeli army since he was 18. He spoke to us from a base in Hebron, on the West Bank.

(CBS)
"My partner Noam comes to visit me and my unit twice a week, and my soldiers really like him and respect him," said Schoenfeld (left)).

And in this country, public opinion has changed markedly over the past two decades. A CBS News poll shows that 59 percent now support allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. That's up from 42 percent in 1993, the year "Don't ask, don't tell" was created.

On the other side, more than a thousand retired officers signed a statement saying don't touch "Don't ask, don't tell."

And a number of top active military officials, including Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, have lined up in the cautious camp.

"I've got serious concerns about the impact of the repeal of the law on a force that's fully involved in two wars and has been at war for eight and a half years," Gen. Casey told the House Armed Services Committee February 25. "We just don't know the impacts on readiness and military effectiveness."

The Pentagon plans to report by the end of the year on how to undo the policy.

"The military is a very different culture," said Maginnis, who is now a Pentagon consultant. He still opposes changing "Don't ask, don't tell."

"You think it still applies," Dozier asked, "even despite all the cultural changes, despite the societal changes, despite the public polls that say the public's asking why this is still on the books?"

(CBS)
"The military hasn't changed that much," Maginnis said. "The country has. The culture of the United States has changed. I don't think anybody denies that. But the cold realities of what the military is trying to accomplish hasn't changed."

Under the military's new rules, Lacye Presley and Holly Thomson most likely would not have been dismissed from the military.

It's small solace: They no longer have Army careers. But they do have a family.

Last summer Lacye gave birth to a baby girl, Ava Marie (left).

She's taking care of her, while Tomson has returned to Iraq, doing the same job as before . . . but this time as a civilian contractor.



For more info:
Center for Military Readiness
The Palm Center
Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.)
Robert Maginnis
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
"Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America" by Nathaniel Frank (St. Martin's Press)

Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.
Add a Comment See all 59 Comments
by Ron_in_WA May 11, 2010 11:34 AM EDT
I applaud the Defense Department's cautious approach to lifting DADT. A 2003 Military Times poll shows only 7% of military members classify themselves as liberal. Until more liberal Americans fill the ranks, forcing a policy conservatives despise could decimate recruitment and lead to a mass exodus by those know serving. My recommendation: those who are liberal should join the military. Another thing to remember, you're not hearing what military members think because they CANNOT speak out.

Military policy bars members from going on strike for a policy they don't like. It bans them from rallying or marching in protest. Policy prevents them from openly supporting a political issue or candidate and letting the public know they are military. They can't even come to this blog and post their viewpoints while identifying they are in the military. Most are petrified that if they do post, even if not telling anyone they're military, their superiors will find out and reprimand them. Goodness knows people have 'ratted them out' in the past and effectively shut down their viewpoints.

For those who feel the military is so wrong in this policy, enlist and gain true understanding into the issue.
Reply to this comment
by qwertyclockwork May 6, 2010 1:59 AM EDT
I'm a bisexual man, 17 years old. I was actually set to enlist next month to be deployed from Boot Camp in the summer of '11, after my junior year (I was under the assumption that I was able to graduate, but even with more than enough credits, I still need another year-long course of english), but now I have to wait until 2012. I'm going to enlist in the Army, active duty, Infantryman. I was also planning on participating in Ranger training (special forces) until I would pass. I also will volunteer for Afghanistan duty. Now while I'm not fond of the policy, I actually want it to stay. I don't fear for myself or anything, but I know that this will effect cohesion. And I realize that will it the heterosexuals that can't work with gays that are the truly unprofessional one, and we shouldn't have them in our military if something like that can affect their service, but they'll stay if gays are allowed to serve openly. They'll stay and they'll make it as much of a living hell for gays as much as possible. Its just the sad way it is. Until these numbers of people are much lower (they're currently anywhere from 10%-33% of the military, depending on your source), I just can't allow this to be repealed. I'm worried that if there's a firefight or something that some jackass is going to get my whole unit killed because he wanted me to die. I'm less worried about it affecting me as how it indirectly affects others. I know other service-members feel differently, but I might as well plug my opinion
Reply to this comment
by Scrivener5 March 31, 2010 2:42 AM EDT
Discrimination against military fighting men and women is so anachronistic as to be no more than a vestigial limb on the body of the American military. Unlike President Obama, who never served a day in the military, President Harry S Truman WAS an American fighting man who displayed qualities of leadership, bravery, and courage under fire.

It is difficult for President Obama to stand up to the neanderthals under his command because the president lacks military experience...and credibility. That is why he often looks to be bumbling, stumbling, unsure, and clueless. That is why the idiots under his command treat him like a naive sissy who can be routinely pimp-slapped.

After President Obama finishes his first (and only) term, it would seem as though the next president will have the military cred to completely dismantle the archaic practice of discrimination against gay military members.

When fighting two simulaneous wars, every able man and women is gratefully welcomed by all liberty-loving Americans who realize that freedom is not free...and that freedom costs blood.
Reply to this comment
by athletejmc March 29, 2010 4:16 PM EDT
I don't know if you all have noticed something, but the irony to all of this is that there obviously an abundance of homosexual service members living without causing undo attention to themselves. These two have obviously had to have purposely caused unnecessary attention to themselves hence this article being written and their discharges; they only have themselves to blame. However, keep your sex life to yourself, that's not something that should be easily flaunted by photographs if you conduct yourself appropriately/wholesomely/professionally in the eye of the public as a disciplined Soldier. Most people are very accepting of homosexuals until it starts being pushed on to them or becoming a distraction. Obviously it was a distraction for this article to get so much attention and to even be written. Don?t ask don?t tell already embraces homosexuality, it?s called keep your sex life to yourself and come to work to focus on the mission.
Also, another point to hit on is there will be no more point to separate living quarters for men and women to discourage and easily ready sexual engagements leading to the rapid spread of STDs etc. The military consists of close quarters in which it immunizes for lots of diseases etc. However, if the line is not drawn on the seriousness of the matter, go ahead and spread the love/disease. After all, if something feels good (e.g. smoking metaphorically), it must be good for you, it's my right...
Also, don't ask don't tell is a loophole for Soldiers to get out of the military. If they don't want to be there, than they shouldn't be there as it's not conducive to successful and motivational environment. That was the whole point in prolonging the draft with the current war. When people are forced to do things they realize aren't for them, un-kosher things tend to happen. It's reality. These are just some random thoughts to expand on...
Reply to this comment
by jadugan April 5, 2010 8:37 PM EDT
The irony of your response to this article is that you have completely missed the point of accepting the gay soldiers who are currently still enlisted. They shouldn't HAVE to hide who their partner is, regardless of gender. They should be able to share pictures and letters with their fellow soldiers. It's not a sex life, it's a relationship. The straight soldiers are sharing stories of home and the gay soldiers have to pretend the person they love doesn't exist. That's wrong. Being gay is appropriate and wholesome and sharing that love is just as professional as sharing love between a man and a woman.
Gay love is not a distraction, I'm appalled that you can say that it would be. That's the whole point of banning DADT. Being openly gay doesn't make you less of a soldier. Just because a gay man shares a tent with a straight man does not mean that the gay man is going to try to advance on the straight man. That's absurd as saying that you would advance on your co-worker just because you worked together. Not to mention it would be against the sexual harassment laws already in place in the US military.
How dare you consider DADT a way out of the military. These men and women took the same oath that a straight soldier did and they are just as committed to the mission at hand. Your response was rude and close minded and as a straight woman that is proud of the US Military, I am ashamed of you.
by NowBeWithThat March 29, 2010 3:31 PM EDT
by Clouseau2 March 29, 2010 1:01 PM EDT
There is a huge problem with women being raped ... in the military right now
______________________________

Females in the military have been raped for decades. It's just that now you hear about it more often as there are more opportunities for women to be heard and receive justice than they were years ago.

Wonder what the stats are on gays/lesbians who are victims of rape in the military, and if DADT is repealed, will those numbers increase?
Reply to this comment
by Clouseau2 March 29, 2010 1:01 PM EDT
The perceived "damage to unit cohesion and morale" for allowing gays to openly serve is far, far lower than it was for women joining the military and for an integrated military at the times those policies were being proposed. Letting women join and mixing the races in the military was going to destroy the military, everyone was going to resign, etc., and none of those things happened. There is a huge problem with women being raped by heterosexual men in the military right now, maybe we should replace them with gay soldiers to solve that problem.
Reply to this comment
by NowBeWithThat March 29, 2010 12:56 PM EDT
The true homophobes are gays/lesbians who fear voter referendum and the will of the people.
Reply to this comment
by NowBeWithThat March 29, 2010 12:49 PM EDT
There are two shadowy issues at play.

One is the meaning of 'serving openly.' If sexual fraternization is grounds for discharge, whether **** or hetero, the only way anyone would know would be for a gay or lesbian servicemember to flout their sexuality in violation.

The other shadowy issue is the repeal of DADT is a smokescreen. It isn't about gays and lesbians serving openly in our military. Nobody really cares about sexual orientation, if a servicemember does his/her job with excellence.

The repeal of DADT is another brick in the wall, the political will to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation by using military law as precedent. If the millitary recognizes same-sex couples, they have to extend marriage benefits reserved for hetero couples to gays/lesbians on a federal level.
Reply to this comment
by NowBeWithThat March 29, 2010 12:58 PM EDT
Geez, I forgot to put a dash after '****-' It wasn't an attempt to degrade or offend anyone.
by prwagner3 March 29, 2010 10:42 AM EDT
I can only hope that the homophobes who took time to spout their bigotry in this thread will someday have a gay child. Let's see how your convictions hold up then!
Reply to this comment
by tronking March 29, 2010 10:42 AM EDT
They don't need to get kicked out for being gay. If they are gay and ever admit to having performed any sexual act with someone of the same sex they should then be given the full punishment of Article -125- of the UCMJ which they swear to uphold in their oath of service. This would give them the same rights as anyone else and the same punishment as anyone else who commits this crime.
Reply to this comment
by AOCGUY March 29, 2010 3:04 PM EDT
And how many straights are kicked out for violating Art 125? Not many if any. I'm all for applying the rules equally. DADT doesn't do that.
See all 59 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook