DADT: Obama Certifies Repeal, Critiques, and Questions


  • President Obama has certified appeal; September 20th marks DADT end
  • ADF “stands ready to defend” servicemembers with faith, service conflict
  • Pakistan protests US support for homosexuals, even with DADT repealed
  • Washington Times notes “smoking gun,” Executive Branch misled Congress
  • Mixon says military “not ready” for DADT repeal, critics silenced
  • US military now used to “attack” Defense of Marriage Act
  • Multiple-marriage group seeks same respect as homosexuals

President Obama has “certified” that military readiness and morale will not be harmed by the repeal of the policy most commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  In accordance with the law passed last year, the official date of repeal will be September 20th.  The integration of openly homosexual servicemembers was apparently no different than any other ‘completed task.’

Maj. Gen. Steven Hummer, Chief of Staff of the Repeal Implementation Team went on to say, “This is a fine example of how the services can come together efficiently and effectively to perform and complete a task.”

In Admiral Mike Mullen’s released statement he noted

“I am comfortable that we have used the findings of the Comprehensive Review Working Group to mitigate areas of concern…”

Recently confirmed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in his statement:

We will have taken the time to…ensure that service members are properly trained for a change that I believe is essential to the effectiveness of our all-volunteer force.

None indicated how the move would improve a perceived shortcoming in the military’s mission effectiveness.

The Alliance Defense Fund and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL) have objected to the path of DADT repeal. Retired US Army Chaplain (COL) Ron Crews said

“We believe Secretary [of Defense Leon] Panetta has listened to the voices of the vocal minority and failed to listen to the majority of concerned citizens who want our military to continue to be the strongest and most combat ready in the world…[The military] now straining under the burden of years of continued combat,” should not be a place of “social experimentation.”

The ADF made a point of stating they “stand ready to defend” servicemembers who are forced to “choose between” military service and religious faithfulness:

“ADF stands ready to defend service members if they are ever unconstitutionally required to choose between serving their country and obeying their God as result of this damaging policy decision,” Blomberg said.

After President Obama certified the repeal last week, the Defense Department released a statement “explaining” repeal implementation.  Notably, it said

Gay service members will be subject to worldwide deployment.

In a coincidence of timing, Pakistan recently objected to the US embassy hosting “Islamabad’s first ever GLBT Pride Celebration” that also included US military officials.  Pakistan’s Senate “severely condemned” the US conduct, as well as the US embassy’s specific statement of support for homosexual Pakistanis:

The lawmakers condemned the statement of the embassy that announced support for such persons in Pakistan, saying that GLBT activities were against the basic principles of Islam and the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and hence could not be allowed.

It seems the open acceptance of homosexuals in the US military might have some interesting repercussions in regard to such “worldwide” deployments.

Noted at the Religion Clause.

A Washington Times commentary claims there was an intentional effort by the Executive Branch to “mislead Congress” with respect to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Thanks to the release of a previously undisclosed Defense Department inspector general’s (IG) investigation report, recently analyzed by the invaluable Center for Military Readiness (CMR), legislators have the proverbial “smoking gun” revealing politically motivated misconduct at the highest levels of government.

This IG report was previously noted.  Author Frank Gaffney claims this deception was necessary to provide “political cover” for Republicans to support repeal, and that the desired outcome was not only leaked, but also manufactured:

The IG report makes clear that a skewed response was manufactured and leaked to friendly journalists by top Pentagon and White House officials.

The column notes even the DADT survey report said “Our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal.”

Lt General Benjamin Mixon, recently retired, was most recently known for his public comments in opposition to DADT repeal (and the public rebuke he suffered which he said ensured no one would speak up). Mixon spoke recently on the topic, and raised an interesting perspective:

“I think what has happened, quite frankly, is that there has been confusion in the general public with tolerance for homosexual activity versus acceptance,” he told The Christian Post. “Many people in America and many people in the military have grown more tolerant of homosexuals and homosexual activity.”

At the same time, many service members “do not accept homosexual activity and behavior as the norm,” he pointed out.

Mixon also had a critique for the much-vaunted “training” the military has been undergoing for some months.

[Mixon] said the trainings are general in nature and do not specifically address how military personnel are to accommodate homosexual couples married under state law.

Of course they don’t.  Such concerns have been dismissed as irrelevant because of the Defense of Marriage Act — an act now itself being attacked, with the military treatment of homosexuals post-repeal as a rallying cry — as noted in the next summary:

The Alliance Defense Fund says the US military is now being used to “attack” the Defense of Marriage Act.  In a short article that largely reads “we told you this would happen,” the ADF quotes from their original prediction of this course of action, and notes the Executive Branch’s response:  the end of DADT necessitates the end of DOMA.

In a recent letter to Congress, Attorney General Holder cited the move to force open homosexual behavior on the military as evidence that the time-honored and logic-based definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act must be abolished as unconstitutional.

The ADF notes that much of the “reassurances” to those with reservations about DADT repeal have relied on DOMA, which confuses the application of repeal in the military:

Effectively, Congress was told to accept DADT repeal based on DOMA’s authority, all while the President was just a month away from launching an unprecedented attack on DOMA as soon as he secured DADT repeal…

The military’s attempt to brace service members for repeal—via painfully inadequate PowerPoint training slides—still relies on DOMA’s existence to answer many controversial problems.  Thus, our troops are having a radical change imposed on them during a time of war by a Commander-in-Chief who is training them to rely on a law that his administration is actively trying to subvert.

In another largely “told you so” moment, the lead attorney for the multiple-partner family group suing the state of Utah, writing at the New York Times, notes they just want the same freedom as homosexuals:  The ability to do whatever they want in their bedrooms.  Attorney Jonathan Turley said

Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults…There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.

Wonder how long it will be before someone says polygamists shouldn’t be prevented from “being who they are” and “true to themselves,” and of course being protected in the military, because no one should have to “lie” about who they are, or choose between serving their country or having multiple marriage-type relationships.

Via the ADF.


  • It is over. The bigots lost. Soon the US military will be in the same place as other civilized nations and the next generation will wonder what ask the fuss was about. Welcome to the 20th Century. Not long now till you join the rest of us in the 21st

  • If the repeal of DADT was built on the existence of DOMA and it was decided that DADT could not be repealed until it could be officially decided that the repeal would not adversely affect troop readiness, will the defeat of DOMA also be based on the effect it could have on troop readiness?

  • The defeat of DOMA should be based on the fact that it is a bigoted piece of legislation driven by hatred.

  • But could the removal of DOMA conceivably be based on the possible effect removal could have on the military? It’s more a question of whether the logic holds at all, not a commentary on the perceived morality of DOMA.

  • Pingback: God and Country » Moral Confusion, Sexual Behavior, and the Redefinition of Rape