Congress Is Out Of Excuses On DADT

Filed in National by on November 12, 2010

The preliminary results of the Pentagon survey of servicemembers on the repeal of DADT show little to no risk for the military in repealing the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers. So what excuse will John McCain use to block the repeal?

More than 70 percent of respondents to a survey sent to active-duty and reserve troops over the summer said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document. The survey results led the report’s authors to conclude that objections to openly gay colleagues would drop once troops were able to live and serve alongside them.

One source, who has read the report in full, summarized its findings in a series of conversations this week. The source declined to state his position on whether to lift the ban, insisting it did not matter. He said he felt compelled to share the information out of concern that groups opposed to ending the ban would mischaracterize the findings. The long, detailed and nuanced report will almost certainly be used by opponents and supporters of repeal legislation to bolster their positions in what is likely to be a heated and partisan congressional debate.

The document totals about 370 pages and is divided into two sections. The first section explores whether repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would harm unit readiness or morale. It cites the findings of a survey sent over the summer to 400,000 active-duty and reserve troops, a separate questionnaire sent to about 150,000 military spouses, the responses submitted to an anonymous online drop box seeking comments, and responses from focus-group participants.

The second part of the report presents a plan for ending enforcement of the ban. It is not meant to serve as the military’s official instruction manual on the issue but could be used if military leaders agreed, one of the sources said.

Among other questions, the survey asked if having an openly gay person in a unit would have an effect in an intense combat situation. Although a majority of respondents signaled no strong objections, a significant minority is opposed to serving alongside openly gay troops. About 40 percent of the Marine Corps is concerned about lifting the ban, according to one of the people familiar with the report.

Republicans like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins used excuses to vote against the repeal in October. Will they continue to use excuses to deny LGBT soldiers full and equal rights? The Pentagon report is out now, so that excuse is gone. Will it still be because of meanie Democrats? What excuse will mean old man McCain come up with?

Tags: , ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra m says:

    Congress has not run out of excuses. The GOP is still against this change AND there is no incentive for them to change their minds. Why is that, you ask? All of the so-called progressives are bitching at Obama to get a move on instead of camping out at GOP offices to pressure them for votes.

    It’s a neat trick actually. Damn shame that the people baying for the President to do something aren’t trying to round up some actual votes. Because the real obstructers here are getting a Really Big Pass.

  2. anonone says:

    Clearly cassandra_m hasn’t run out of excuses. Which office are you camped out at?

  3. anon says:

    Damn shame that the people baying for the President to do something aren’t trying to round up some actual votes. Because the real obstructers here are getting a Really Big Pass.

    An excellent point.

    Where does Carper, Carney, and Coons stand on DADT? I am pretty sure they have all expressed support for ending it, but now we are down to the nitty gritty, and actions matter.

    It is no longer enough to elect Democrats and know that they have your back on Democratic issues. You have to treat them all as potential backsliders these days.

    It may be time for real Democrats to get on a bus and go to DC not to listen to jokes, but to tell our delegation where Democrats need to stand on the issues.

  4. delacrat says:

    “According to queer anti-war activist and writer Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, the repeal of DADT only makes the [gay rights] movement complicit with our nation’s wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

    “…we should not be propping up unjust systems in order to supposedly be providing access for more people. It doesn’t work that way. When we’re obliterating the entire world, that’s not helping anyone.”

  5. cassandra m says:

    That reaches all new levels of stupid, even for you delacrat.

  6. a.price says:

    Delcrat hits the nail right on the head. We should also exclude women from the military… and Blacks and Hispanics. He sees the truth. It is all just blood thirsty barbarians masquerading as civil rights activists.

  7. MJ says:

    delacrat et al remind me of the socialist workers who would show up at every protest or march in DC claiming to be supporting those marching for equality, yet they were only there for themselves to push their extremist leftist agendas and had no real interest in the people they were there supposedly supporting.

  8. a.price says:

    more useless than the “legalize it” yag-offs who show up at every single protest. Not that i have a problem with their message, mind you…. Counter Protesting the WBchurch Nazis just isnt the place.

  9. delacrat says:

    Comment by MJ @ 12:44 pm:
    “delacrat et al remind me of the socialist workers who would show up at every protest or march in DC claiming to be supporting those marching for equality, yet they were only there for themselves to push their extremist leftist agendas and had no real interest in the people they were there supposedly supporting.”

    So if you’re a “liberal” if you approve of the US warfare state and killing foreigners in general.

    And an “extremist leftist” if you don’t.

  10. anonone says:

    Obomba wins! Continued enforcement of DADT upheld by the Supreme Court!

  11. Johnny Longtorso says:

    “All of the so-called progressives are bitching at Obama to get a move on instead of camping out at GOP offices to pressure them for votes.”

    Five Republicans voted for it in the House. Two of them lost last week. Trying to get Republicans to support gay rights is like trying to get KKK members to support the Civil Rights Act. Democrats are barely any better, given that they can’t pass something that’s favored by a majority of the country, but to suggest that a single Republican is going to change his/her mind on this issue is ridiculous.

  12. cassandra_m says:

    Democrats are not going to be able to pass this on their own. And if the majority of the country approves of the repeal — which they do — that means that there is political pain to be had. But apparently this is not on the agenda. Again.

  13. It’s amazing how Republicans are completely given a pass on this.

  14. a.price says:

    a1 and delcrat want obama to dictate that sucker out of existance so president Romney can fire all the soldier wh come out between now and 2012. Then they will be bitching that Obomba ended it in a way that could be reversed on purpose because he is a secret neocon.

  15. Dana says:

    It would require an act of Congress to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654, Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces. However, as commander-in-chief, President Obama could order the armed services to cease enforcement. In doing that, he would have to promulgate new regulations concerning how the armed services are to deal with open homosexuals serving, concerning fraternization, sexual harassment and discrimination. Even then, President Palin could overturn such an order on 20 January 2013.

  16. Republican David says:

    Only a small minority favor lifiting the ban, but you wish to twist the study to read those who register a concern into not having one. Any valid statistical abstract would put those for and those against on different sides not those for, neutral, and somewhat against on the same side.