GOP Pols Seek to Delay Sept. 20 DADT Repeal

Congressional Republicans have made an eleventh-hour attempt to delay the Sept. 20 final repeal of the anti-gay federal law "Don't Ask Don't Tell," which since 1993 has forced gay and lesbian servicemembers to conceal their true sexuality or face involuntary separation from the Armed Forces, ThinkProgress reported on Sept. 15.

A letter from two Congressional Republicans, House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon and South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson, sought to convince Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to put off the scheduled Sept. 20 repeal of the anti-gay law, arguing that "certain regulations regarding benefits to same sex couples have not been revised," Fox News reported on Sept. 14.

"Mr. Secretary, we trust that you will see the risk of moving forward with repeal without giving service members and their leaders adequate time to study, understand and prepare themselves to implement the revised policies and regulations they will need to be successful," the letter, dated Sept. 12, said.

But the Pentagon has no intention of pushing back the date.

"The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell will occur, in accordance with the law and after a rigorous certification process, on September 20," stated a spokesperson for the Pentagon. "Senior Department of Defense officials have advised Congress of changes to regulations and policies associated with repeal. We take that obligation seriously."

Congress trailed the American public when it voted late last year to repeal the anti-gay law. Americans had long since supported the repeal by an overwhelming majority. The repeal bill specified that DADT would be repealed 60 days after the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that America's fighting men and women were ready for a fully integrated military.

That certification was issued on July 22.

But McKeon and Wilson sought to portray the certification as incomplete, and the Sept, 20 repeal date as premature.

"Since [July 22], [Committee on Armed Services] officials have requested, but not received, copies of the revised regulations and a summary of all the specific policy changes, especially with regard to benefits, that will take place upon repeal.

"The failure to meet the committee's requests leads us to conclude that decisions on the policies and regulations to implement repeal are not complete and that your certification and those of the others were inaccurate," the letter added.

"Furthermore, we find it unconscionable that the policies and regulations that provide the guidelines and procedures to be used by service members and their leaders to implement repeal, as well as to protect the interests of all service members, including gay and lesbian members, remain unpublished," the letter continued.

Anti-gay lawmakers such as Duncan Hunter had resorted to various maneuvers in attempts to thwart the repeal. Hunter proposed an amendment to the repeal bill that would have required certification not only from the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, but also from the heads of the four branches of the military.

Hunter also sponsored a bill that would have shielded anti-gay troops engaged in homophobic expressions that could conceivably lead to the moral and discipline problems that skeptics have long predicted, but that supporters said the troops were too well trained and disciplined to allow to occur.

Similar predictions preceded the repeal of anti-gay bans in the militaries of America's Western allies. In Britain, critics said that the military would be decimated by the acceptance of openly gay and lesbian soldiers, and foresaw straight soldiers leaving the service in droves while recruiters faced a sudden dearth of willing candidates.

No such nightmare scenario took place, however, and the British military -- like other militaries globally where gays have been openly integrated -- saw a smooth transition in 2000. No meltdown in either discipline or morale has taken place.

Moreover, pre-repeal training went without a hitch, and a major survey conducted by the Pentagon found that most servicemembers were untroubled by the thought that closeted gay and lesbian colleagues would be allowed to serve openly.

Despite the military's overall readiness to embrace openly gay and lesbian troops, Hunter, a Marine veteran, authored the so-called "Don't Pressure Me!" bill, which purported to ensure that "members of the Armed Forces are not pressured to approve of another person's sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of that member."

"Essentially, this would mean that military people have to accept the presence of gays in the military but they would not have to like it, said an aide familiar with the legislation," an Aug. 30 article in the Army Times reported.

Since it is impossible to legislate people's feelings, the bill is generally seen as protecting the right of homophobic servicemembers to voice anti-gay beliefs and sentiments aloud without facing disciplinary action.

"It is a legitimate concern, under the circumstances, with the services working on disciplinary policies for people who don't agree with this decision," an unnamed House aide told the Army Times. "The military always falls in line, but that doesn't mean that the men and women who serve in its ranks should suddenly be forced to personally accept something that is contrary to their own principles," the aide went on to say.

Critiques -- And Sound Advice

The bill drew heavy criticism from ThinkProgress in a Sept. 8 article.

"The biggest objection to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the prediction that it would somehow hurt unit cohesion, because apparently heterosexual men are brave enough to risk their lives for their country but not enough to take a shower next to a gay guy," the article read.

"Though the argument intended to paint gay troops as predatory, it essentially expressed distrust in the non-gay troops, that they wouldn't have the fortitude to fight next to someone who wasn't equally as straight. Hunter's bill not so subtly encourages that predicted decay in unit cohesion by promoting dissension, urging those who are homophobic to prioritize their 'principles' of disapproval over the stability of their unit.

"Opponents of DADT repeal want to be able to say it was a bad idea by making their own argument comes true," the ThinkProgress article added.

DADT's repeal is still on track for Sept. 20. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a support organization for GLTB troops, has released a handbook for gay and lesbian troops to refer to in the wake of the repeal. The handbook offers a complete account of how military law will accommodate gay troops -- and punish any transgressions, just as straight troops are held to account for upholding military policies.

The newly released "Freedom to Serve: The Definitive Guide to LGBT Military Service" is available as a PDF download at the SLDN website.

"The information contained in this legal guide will help service members, prospective service members, their families, and friends make informed decisions about how to serve successfully as we move beyond 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' It will also assist them in understanding how to protect themselves when necessary and how to respond if they are targeted in any way for their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity," the group's legal director, David McKean, said at the time of the guide's release.

The new guide includes information on topics such as "Going to Gay Oriented Events and Venues," "Deployment or Moving Overseas," "Standards of Conduct," and many others.

"The armed forces have many rules, regulations, policies and standards of conduct," the "Standards of Conduct" section notes. "Service members are
responsible for complying with them, and all should be applied without regard to sexual orientation."

A section on "Addressing Harassment or Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation" advises, "Harassment can take different forms, ranging from a hostile command climate filled with anti-gay jokes and comments to direct verbal and physical abuse to death threats. Military leaders have stated publicly that they do not tolerate harassment. In fact, the DADT Repeal Policy Guidance states 'harassment or abuse based on sexual orientation is unacceptable.'

"Service members have the right to make complaints either through military channels or outside military channels about improper treatment or harassment," the guide adds.

"Service members who are the target of harassment have some avenues within the military to try to stop the harassment," the guide continues. "Service members facing the threat of immediate physical harm may also report the threat directly to the military police. Although some chaplains have been outspoken in their opposition to gay military members as a matter of policy, if a military member's physical safety is at risk, that is another matter. Chaplains can offer a safe space, especially on deployed ships, where there may be nowhere else to go."

The guide makes clear that even when the repeal of DADT is officially complete, gay and lesbian servicemembers may wish to be careful about whom they come out to. With specific regard to chaplains, the guide notes, "The Military Rules of Evidence makes conversations with chaplains privileged when service members seek their spiritual guidance. However, there is no privilege when service members speak to chaplains for reasons other than spiritual guidance.

"What constitutes spiritual guidance is not always clear," the guide adds. "Conversations about a service member's sexual orientation may not be considered spiritual guidance depending on the religious views of the chaplain's denomination."

Moreover, the guide points out ways in which gay servicemembers might find the military's rules used against them by homophobic fellow servicemembers.

"In order to be charged with 'Wrongful Sexual Contact' a service member must engage in 'sexual contact' without 'legal justification or lawful authorization,'" the guide notes, in clear and direct language. "'Sexual contact' is defined as any 'intentional touching' either directly or through clothes, of the 'genitalia,' 'breast,' 'buttocks' or other personal areas. LGB service members need to beware that an accidental collision with another service member could be mistakenly perceived-or purposefully misrepresented-as intentional 'sexual contact.' "

A charge of committing an "indecent act," the guide goes on to note, could arise from " 'observing' another person without their consent and 'contrary to that other person's reasonable expectation of privacy' in their naked body or while engaged in a sexual act," the guide points out. "LBG service members need to beware that an 'indecent act' charge could result from someone making a false allegation about leering in the showers or watching a roommate change."

The guide also serves as a reminder of one crucial omission: The repeal of DADT makes it legal for gay, lesbian, and bisexual troops to serve openly. But the repeal does not similarly liberate transgender servicemembers.

Overall, the new guide provides clear answers, in plain English, to a number of questions that troops of all sexual orientations might have.