War Movies, Gays and the Military, and a Sorry Show of "Patriotism"

I do not want to give heartless, opportunistic politicians too much sought-after publicity.  But I have to comment on what caused a big stir at last night's Republican Presidential debate.  Just a day after"don't ask don't tell" law had been lifted, a question was asked, via video, by a gay American soldier (Steven Hill).  Hill, who is serving in Iraq, was booed by some members of the Fox News audience.

And the question, which was given to hapless candidate Rick Santorum to answer, was this: whether the candidates, and the Republicans, would work to circumvent the repeal of the discriminatory law that forbade gay personnel to be open about their sexuality. 

Santorum began with:
"I would say any type of sexual activity has no place in the military."  Which is exactly the point...no place in the military.  And sexuality should not be made an exclusionary matter either. 

It makes me crazy that the party that wants to abolish government controls entirely, supports the most intrusive government controls when issues block the narrow view of the world they want to see.

*   *   *   *

I have always had an ambivalent attitude toward the military.

My father was in Germany right after WWII to assist in the reconstruction, just before he went to college on the GI bill.  He speaks with affection of his year in Munich.

My attitudes about war and the armed forces were shaped in part by images from the movies.  Everything from "The Best Years of Our Lives" and "The Longest Day", to "Patton, "MASH", "Coming Home", "Apocalypse Now" and "The Deer Hunter", among others, wrestled for my heart and mind.

Of course it wasn't that simple: Context was everything.  Unless you know the social climate and political environment that produced a work like "Hair", for example, you would not understand the deep emotional chord that is struck within those who absorbed the anxiety of the time.

Those movies did not look too closely, nor raise the possibility that any of their characters might be gay---except, of course, in a derisively satiric way (like Painless the Dentist in "MASH").

And so I adopted a vast array of opposing thoughts and emotions about military service, about honor and camaraderie and, later, about the suffering and madness of war.

I learned to respect the hard work of earnest people who honestly believed they were defending the lives, and the best ideals, of America.  I also began to question, and then disdain, the hypocrisy, bureaucracy and outright dishonesty practiced by the military, which some of these movies sought to portray.  I ceased to buy in to the heroics, the unquestioning patriotism that was the order of the day in early Hollywood war pictures.

And so I had a personal tug of war with the issue of gays serving in the military.  Of course, I loathed the reasons that gays were banned from service, and then allowed to serve as long as they lied about their lives and loves (while straight boys were encouraged to make vulgar displays of their heterosexual "prowess"). These same reasons were used as arguments against allowing a racially integrated military, or allowing women in combat positions.

But while I wholeheartedly supported the rights of gay people to serve openly, I also questioned why gay people (for whom I retain a romanticized, even stereotyped view as especially intelligent and sensitive, ) would want to be a part of an organization that reduces thinking people to blind obedience, preserves a culture of macho violence, and asks its soldiers to risk injury or death on often dubious pretexts.

I would not dream of denying anyone their life's passion or fulfillment, and if serving in the armed forces provides that, then one should pursue that path.  However, I think there would be poetic justice if gays suddenly, deliberately, boycotted military service. 

End of an Era: Gays Can Now Serve Openly in US Armed Forces

At 12:00 this morning (September 20), "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", the US military policy that prevented gay and lesbian personnel from serving openly, officially ended.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will discuss the repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law today at a news conference

More here in subsequent posts.  (Read the Reuter's article here.)

DADT Repeal Clears Senate...A Guarded Celebration

Last week, the Senate killed a vote to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. 

But today, after clearing some procedural hurdles, the Senate finally voted to repeal that 1993 law which allows gay military personnel to serve as long as they hide their sexuality, but allows the military to discharge openly gay servicepeople.

The vote is an historic one, and President Obama will sign the legislation into law.

After listening to years of debate and philosophical discussion, after fighting for repeal, and after the disbelief with which we watched the political wrangling on this issue,why didn't the news of the repeal feel more like a victory?

I AM happy that this step was taken.  And yet, I don't find myself engaged in unbridled celebration. Not yet.

Because after today's bit of political theater, (the results of which were delivered on Saturday when most people are not paying much attention to the news), Don't Ask Don't Tell is STILL enforceable.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, in a statement, that he'll "approach this process deliberately, (making changes) only after careful consultation with the military service chiefs and our combatant commanders...
Gates warned that court challenges to "don't ask, don't tell" could force an abrupt repeal of the policy, rather than the process in the legislation that would allow the military to manage the change on a longer timetable.
(From CNN Politics Wire Staff)

So the repeal wouldn’t take effect immediately. Obama, Gates, and Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, would have to certify to Congress that they have reviewed the Pentagon report on the impacts of repeal, that the Defense Department is prepared to implement repeal and that doing so would not harm military readiness, troop morale, and recruiting and retention.
 The policy would be repealed 60 days after the president submits the document.

Before that document is submitted, the timetable for the certification process has "yet to be determined".


"It is therefore important that our men and women in uniform understand that while today's historic vote means that this policy will change, the implementation and certification process will take an additional period of time,” Gates said in a statement. “In the meantime, the current law and policy will remain in effect...."
(From POLITICO)

And so, we have yet another "certification" process of undetermined length.  What is unclear to me is what could happen if Congress decides not to accept the review presented by Obama, Gates and Mullen; or if  the Defense Department somehow determines that there are sticking points in its implementation of repeal. 

In the meantime, military personnel can still be discharged for coming out of the closet. 

But suppose a U.S. District Court Judge, like Virginia Phillips back in October, issues another injunction that the law is STILL unconstitutional?  Will the Obama administration once again be obliged to defend the law until the certification and implementation are in place, plus 60 days? 

I would love to see a judge take up this legal issue...

In the end, there is hope that the last bastion of institutionalized homophobia will divest itself of its irrational prejudice and continue to function better than ever. When I allowed myself to fantasize about this day, I thought it would be a seismic reaction, with ticker tape parades, world news bulletins, and immediate repeal.

Let's hope that cynicism has not prevailed.  Let's hope that the repeal of this bill is a sincere movement toward real change, and not simply a desperate effort to score political points before the advent of a new conservative Congress.  Let's hope that a new congress will not find a legal or procedural way to undo this work.

Ranting in Short takes: A Thursday Journal

~

GAYS IN THE MILITARY
--Well, the Justice Department asked to stay a Federal Judge's ruling to cease military discharges under Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Government lawyers also said they will appeal District Judge Virginia A. Phillips's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

To me it is all political theater, and it's immoral, because it hurts innocent military personnel who serve honorably.  And Mr. Obama and his administration can get away with it, because there is no well-funded, well-organized, powerful gay voting bloc.  So the President can pay lip service to his belief that the law is wrong, and yet hide behind legal procedures to avoid taking a leadership role to actively repeal the ban.
  
It is confusing: Many, many commentators declare that Obama has had the authority, since Day 1, to reverse the law through Executive Order.  Some point out that because the law was a Congressional decision and not a statute (as military segregation was in the 1940's), it can only be overturned by an act of Congress.  But then again, Mr. Obama IS the Commander-in-Chief...can he not give an order?  The Military is civilian-run, and it is not a Democracy.  What do you think?


GAY MARRIAGE
--To add more salt to the wound, the Obama administration decided recently to "appeal Boston district judge Joseph Tauro's ruling that the federal Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional.   Judge Tauro made the ruling back in July on the grounds that DOMA violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights and grants equal protection. The lawsuit was filed both by the state of Massachusetts and by gay couples seeking health-care coverage for their spouses." 

Democratic leaders (like Mr. Obama) must maintain the appearance of sympathy with the right of gay couples to marry, and yet must also wish this issue (like DADT) would go away until after the midterm elections. 

The Dems' urgent appeal to voters (with Mr. Obama leading the charge) is that a loss of Democratic seats in Congress will undo the work that has already been done....  Yet, can anyone tell me if a so-called Democratic majority has made much difference?   Rather than appeal for votes based on the ideals for change that were convincigly laid out during the last campaign, the Dems threaten supporters with the likes of "there's nowhere else for you to go, and to sit on the sidelines would be irresponsible." 

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
--Groups like the American Chamber of Commerce, which because of their tax-exempt status are technically forbidden to engage in political activity, are committing huge sums of money to fund candidates that would seem to protect their special interests.  After the disastrous Citizen's United Supreme Court Decision,  other shady groups with dubious memberships are funding many campaigns, and they are not required to disclose the sources of their funding.  And these groups are supporting Republican candidates over Democratic ones 9 to 1.

The problem with the hateful campaign ads is that they work.  They appeal to the fears and ignorance of voters who feel helpless.  That's why politicians aren't so enthused about having a truly educated electorate.

BUSH TAX CUTS
--It's astonishing and insulting when I hear politicians claim that not re-extending the tax breaks on the wealthiest citizens is a job-killer and will add to the deficit.


WHY doesn't anyone point out that the during the tax breaks, which have been in effect for years, more jobs have been lost than any time since the Great Depression, and the deficit is due in large measure to unreported budget spending on defense?  Perhaps the media don't discuss this because it hits many of them in their own pocketbooks.  Tax the lot of them.

PUPPY MILLS AND THE TEA PARTY
--I will devote an entire post to this outrage soon....


In short, there is a ballot measure, Proposition B, in Missouri to criminalize the cruel treatment of animals in puppy mills, in effect phasing out this horrible business and leaving the breeding of dogs to responsible professionals. This is the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. You can read the whole measure on this link.

Puppy mills are kennels in which female dogs are bred repeatedly to produce as many puppies in their lives as possible, before they themselves are destroyed.  Conditions are horrendous: dogs are sick with fur and skin diseases, and internal infections of all kinds; food and water are contaminated with vermin and bacteria; mother dogs live their whole lives in uncomfortable and filty cages; and the puppies are taken from the mothers too young, shipped to pet stores, with inherent health problems.


To my screaming shock, it was recently reported that John McCain's old "common man" campaign supporter, Joe the Plumber, has joined with his Tea Party cronies TO OPPOSE THE BILL, along with other animal breeding groups.  He claims that by enforcing measures such as adequate shelter, clean food and water, and limiting the number of animals an owner can breed, it violates the basic rights of business, and the cost would make it more difficult for the average American family to own a dog.


Every bone in my animal-shelter-volunteering body shuddered with rage.
It occurred to me then that my disgust for the Tea Party movement was rooted in a basic disregard for the suffering of the innocent, in a blatant infantile preoccupation with self-satisfaction (under the guise of "self-reliance"). And as long as the Republicans (who MUST regard this movement with contempt) keep the anger level of the Tea Partiers high, candidates are sure to reap the benefits of  the"voter enthusiasm" gap,  get elected, and then brush the Tea Partiers aside until the next election cycle.

Congressional failure...Ugly Political Campaigns....Discrimination...The Tea Party.... If I can distill all of this corruption into one image,   a modern Dorian Grey-esque portrait of the our current American political situation, it would be this picture of these unfortunate creatures....And these are by all means not the worst I have seen....To me, this is the face of the Tea Party, and of all of corrupt politics....

I will take this image with me to the ballot box.

~

~

Lady Gaga Confounds: Gay Rights vs. Compassion for Animals?

When someone tries, sincerely, to support you and defend a dearly held belief, but in the process does something else that offends you, how do you respond?

I was torn by the recent appearance of Lady Gaga in Portland Maine, delivering a passionate (even strident) speech calling for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Because of her huge popularity, her influence on pop culture, and her undeniable creativity and talent (whether or not you are inspired by her music or outrageous grabs for attention),  I was happy to hear her verbalize my feelings against this policy, and turn up the heat on the issue. 


But her speech came soon after her appearance on the MTV Video Awards, where she wore an abominable dress made of raw beef.  In her speech in Portland, she compared American rights to choice cuts of meat, to Prime Rib.  She argued that gay people have not been entitled to the Prime Rib of American rights, and asked (rhetorically, I think) "Doesn't everyone deserve to wear the same meat dress as I do?"


When I saw her on the Video Awards (and also her cover on Vogue), draped in the flesh of an animal who died for her self-promotion, all I could think of was the undercover video I saw in May (and posted here) in which cows on a dairy farm in Ohio were terribly abused**. The dress looked like the thoughtless flaunting of some animal's suffering.

Lady Gaga said she meant no offense; she may have sincerely believed in the comparison she was making.  But it made me uncomfortable, and in spite of agreeing with her position on Don't Ask Don't Tell, I was embarrassed to be associated with her message; I didn't want to wear her "meat dress",  and if she sought to convince those who could make repeal happen, I thought she was doing more harm than good.


I was conflicted and confounded. 


To deal with my confusion, I sought clarity from the very organization that moved me to change my thinking about livestock, Mercy for Animals.  I sent an email of inquiry to Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of the Organization.  He responded immediately and heroically, with a link to his own blog, in which he posted a letter he sent to Lady Gaga applauding her stance on Don't Ask Don't tell, yet explaining the disappointment of the message sent by her grisly attire:

"My heart also sang Sunday night as you made a bold and powerful statement on behalf of gay rights...taking a thoughtful stand against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I sincerely admire your dedication to pursuing justice on behalf of those of us who are still marginalized for simply being who we are. For that, I am sincerely grateful.
...Your work on behalf of gay rights is truly helping push our society out of the dark ages and into a more enlightened time.
Yet, as someone who has dedicated over half my life to advocating on behalf of animal rights, as well as gay rights, my heart sank Sunday night when you revealed “the meat dress.” Although you explained that your intention was “not to offend vegetarians or vegans,” the unintended consequence of this “fashion statement” was the promotion, and glamorization, of cruelty and violence toward animals.
As a style icon, your attire has entertained and inspired countless fans. And, in such a position, I hope you would agree that fashion should be fun and creative, not fatal and cruel...."

(See Nathan's entire letter here)

It took courage and integrity for Nathan Runkle to speak his heart and disagree with a high-profile individual whom he admired.  I appreciated the position taken by Nathan and Mercy for Animals, applauding Lady Gaga's support for an important social issue, while taking exception to, and seeking to correct assumptions about, displays of careless cruelty.


Even Ellen Degeneres, a well-known vegan and animal rights (and gay rights) advocate, appeared uncomfortable with LGG's dress, and her explanation of it: that if we don't stand up for our rights, we will have as few rights "as the meat on our bones".  To her credit, Ellen diverted discomfort by offering an alternate garb to make a statement: an outfit made entirely of kale:

Lady Gaga tries hard--maybe too hard in this case--to convince her fans that she is truly behind them.  If she wants to be politically relevant and not simply shocking; if she would use her influence to persuade naysayers to her point of view, rather than simply preach to the choir; then, perhaps she can channel her passion through her strong voice and considerable songwriting talent.  She has the ability to use her music in powerful ways she may have yet to imagine.  And she is influential enough to put it over.

She is a generous and abundant performer, strikingly, visually voluptuous.  With her fashion instinct, her imagery conjured from a cauldron of her and her designers' unconscious, her sense of fun, and her incidental Italian background, she could well become the Fellini of modern popular music.

And I hope she takes Nathan's letter to heart, and uses her considerable influence to join celebrities like Ellen to help protect the truly helpless creatures who depend on us 100%.

In any case, where Don't Ask Don't tell is concerned, she needs a new metaphor. 

______________________________________________________________

(**POSTSCRIPT: The Ohio dairy farm worker who was accused of the abuse of the dairy cows seen in the undercover video pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals.

He was sentenced to eight months in jail, ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, and is barred from contact with animals for three years. He must also receive counseling through a program that specializes in treating individuals involved in animal abuse cases.
The conviction was a victory of course...but wow....this kind of mistreatment is considered only a misdemeanor....)

First the Soldiers, Now Their Families: The Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal "Survey"

Sunday, August 15, is the deadline for Active-Duty Military Personnel to complete the survey about gays in the military that was distributed after the House voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. (The complete survey can be found here.)

Soon thereafter, family members of Military Personnel will also be surveyed.

All of this is overkill, and it's offensive. 

As I wrote soon after the House vote included a provision for the pentagon to complete a "comprehensive study" on the effects of DADT vs. allowing gays to serve openly, this is a stall tactic, designed to give members of congress who oppose the repeal a way to excuse their lack of support.  Meanwhile, gays who "come out" are still being discharged.

The survey does not ask the respondents if they themselves are gay. It asks nothing about whether the discharge of over ten thousand openly gay service people has harmed unit efficiency or morale.

The idea of a survey in itself is offensive.  This policy could have been ordered to be repealed, just as a racially segregated military was ordered decades ago.  A survey about attitudes toward serving with any other ethnic or religious group would not be tolerated. And, as if they understood the outright waste of time and money of the survey, the response rate as of two weeks ago was only ten per cent.

Here is a sample of the questions in the early part of the survey, which appers to be relatively objective:

Throughout this survey, "gay or lesbian" and "homosexual" are used interchangeably.

Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?


Yes


No


In answering the next few questions, think about all of the units you have served with during your military career.


In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a leader you believed to be homosexual?


Yes


No


In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a coworker you believed to be homosexual?


Yes


No
 
Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance, how much did the unit members’ belief that this coworker was gay or



lesbian affect the unit’s performance?


A lot


Some


A little


Not at all


No basis to judge

But by the time the following questions are posed, it is apparent that the whole slant of the survey is to stigmatize the idea of "homosexuals" as members of a unit: 

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do? Mark 1.


Take no action


Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves while sharing a room, berth or field tent


Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation


Talk to a leader to see if I have other options


Something else


Don't know


If you selected 'Something else', please specify below:






If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay
or lesbian Service member, which are you most likely to do? Mark 1.


Take no action


Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves while sharing a room, berth or field tent


Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation


Talk to a leader to see if I have other options

No one asked any Active Duty member or their families what they would be likely to do if a wartime situation made it necessary to kill someone....or risk being mutilated or killed...or witness the fatal wounding of a friend.....  Apparently, serving with openly gay personnel is so much worse, so much more stressful, that for the first time in its history, military brass is afraid to give a simple order.

Prop-8 Struck Down In California--Weekend Journal

I am reminded of the final line in Part 1 of "Angels in America", delivered by the Angel as s/he descends on Prior Walter in visitation:


"The great work begins."


Judge Vaughn's ruling effectively overturning the ban on gay marriage in California is the end of a trial, but the beginning of a struggle that could decide the future for same-sex couples for generations.


With the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the US Supreme Court, the split along ideological lines would seem to be intact. 


And therein lies an insidious irony:


Conservatives argue that Judge Vaughn should have recused himself because, as a gay man, the judgment he rendered could not be impartial.  They also insist that Supreme Court Justices be completely impartial, with no opinions whatsoever; and so they refused to support Kagan's nomination on the basis of potential "activism" and "bias" in her court decisions.  The irony here is that the SCOTUS is a partisan as ever; there is so little expectation that the current Justices will rule in a case except according to party lines, that most assume that the Gay Marriage appeal to the Court will be decided by the swing vote of one judge: Anthony Kennedy.


Although I believe Judge Vaughn's decision is a milestone, and will be a necessary and measured piece of thinking during the appeal, I remain, as always, cautious.


Just as the House of Representatives' vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell has not yet stopped military discharges (Lt. Dan Choi is the latest high-profile victim), there is no guarantee that the nation's highest court will overcome its ideological blinders in the gay Marriage case.  Ideally ( and idealistically) however,  the court has a duty to protect the Civil Rights of citizens beyond the irrational thinking and superstition of the electorate, the "tyranny of the majority".  This is not an issue to be decided in the voting booth. 

As far as the Executive Branch, Mr. Obama has a tricky line to walk.  A large segment of voters who supported Prop. 8 are the same minority voters the President needs to have any hope of winning a second term.  He is inextricably linked to these voters, and they represent a voting block larger than the gay and lesbian constituents who nevertheless fought hard to elect him.  It's unfortunate, but Obama is doing the politically expedient thing by keeping his response to the California trial muted. 


It's no wonder many of Obama's gay supporters feel confused and betrayed:

Asked for White House reaction to Wednesday’s ruling, spokesman Ben Labolt pointed out that President Barack Obama has publicly opposed the same-sex marriage ban “because it is divisive and discriminatory.” However, he said the President “will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.”
Nevertheless, Obama has also publicly opposed same-sex marriage, and a White House aide said the president’s position has not changed.
“He supports civil unions, doesn’t personally support gay marriage though he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and has opposed divisive and discriminatory initiatives like Prop. 8 in other states,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

It's unfortunate, to say the least, that Mr. Obama may not have to do much more for gay and lesbian constituents except ride out the present controversies over gay marriage, DADT and Employment Non-Discrimination with empty promises and platitudes.  Because in 2012, what other choice will we have?  Mr. Obama knows that, and sadly, so may we.


But it need not be so.  We can be aggressive, be more vocal...keep on writing....gathering....marching....

We can't rest satisfied simply because "it could be worse".  Gotta push a little....

Preview: Prop-8 and Don't Ask Don't Tell; "Inception" and the Generation Gap; Animal Notes

As the weekend approaches, I'll assemble more material for my Blog Pipeline.  Some new films hold interest, including documentaries on nuclear weapons ("Countdown to Zero") and Afghanistan ("Restrepo", if I can find it); and maybe a second visit to "The Kids Are All Right" in honor of Judge Vaughn's decision to declare the gay marriage ban in California, Prop-8, unconstitutional.

Here's what's coming up on this Journal...And your comments are always welcome:

Prop-8: Thoughts on the decision, and the appeal on both sides.  I need to sound out on the claim that the judge's decision wrongly overturns the wishes of the people.

Don't Ask Don't Tell: While the Prop-8 decision is a battle won, there is another battlefield being ignored--and military personnel are still getting discharged for their honesty about being gay.  What's new with the survey the military has distributed to military personnel and their families?  I'll look at this, and why the survey is offensive.

"Inception"--is there a generational divide over those who like or dislike the film? I'll respond to a Chicago Tribune article published this week, and frame the issue in a different way....and argue that this is not at all a new phenomenon...

News from the Buddy Foundation:  A happy ending for a troubled dog...and my emotional reaction...

Other Animal items, including how a terrier "diagnosed" his owner's diabetes in a really bizarre way, and a tragic story of puppies traveling by air.....

A long-promised review of more Chicago architecture...without "Transformers"!

Forgotten Oscar Nominees...."The Dresser"..."Cries and Whispers"..."Secrets and Lies".....

Time to rest up...I have a lot of writing to do!  Thanks for visiting....

Don't Ask Don't Tell has NOT Been Repealed Yet--Tuesday Journal

dadtlanguage



Okay.  It may be a move in the right direction.  But I think some folks are too enthusiastic about the House vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, which forces gay military personnel to lie about themselves in return for not being discharged from their military careers.


And I worry that many people will be too satisfied, too placated, by this gesture to ask what it really means.  Some might even scorn those (like myself) who suspect this could just be lip service, and would continue to speak out for repeal.


The Amendment the House passed (printed above) is simply a rhetorical, political statement to outline a way the military can, in its judgment, rescind its policy of discrimination against openly gay military personnel, conditionally.   But although many pundits are declaring this an historic victory, I maintain that this amendment might not guarantee a repeal.

The document as written provides for a "review" that lists a number of conditions to be met first.  But really, this could all be much simpler.  State that openly gay military personnel will no longer be discharged from the military, and immediately end the practice.   To do anything less strikes me as merely mollifying the homophobes in the ranks. 

Instead, we have a proposed list of procedures that don't immediately address discrimination, and that continues to assume that gays are a problem that need to be solved.   Not only that, the review carries NO TIME TABLE for completion.  At the top of p. 4, it all but states that if these conditions are not met, Don't Ask Don't Tell will remain in force.


Look--gay people are already serving. What will change by conducting a drawn-out review?  All this amendment does is allow politicians to claim that they addressed the issue; and those who secretly wish that it be forever caught up in bureaucracy can easily "support" it,  knowing it may never actually come to pass.


Soon after the House vote last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a direct appeal to military personnel and their families:

"Every man and woman in uniform is a vitally important part of this review. We need to hear from you and your families so that we can make these judgments in the most informed and effective manner.....So please let us know how to do this right."

This seems to me to be a stall tactic, an attempt to manufacture controversy.  Does anyone really think Gates' statement is directed toward gay personnel and their families? 

One would think that the military was preparing to place its personnel in harms way, even asking them to risk death! 

One might even think that military brass can no longer give an order and expect it to be followed. This repeal could have been ordered BEFORE a review was commenced.

I think we should be very cautious in our praise of this proposed amendment to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell.  I will support any real effort to end this shameful discrimination, by all means; but I can't sit back and wait patiently--or silently-- for a "review" that may well conclude that a repeal is not feasible.