Lawsuit Filed over Deception of Pentagon DADT Data

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Center for Military Readiness:

The purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain records believed to show intentional deception by the Pentagon to gain congressional support for repeal of the 1993 law regarding open homosexual conduct in the military, usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The TMLC alleges the Pentagon has

engaged in a pattern of deception in its efforts to persuade Congress to allow open homosexuality in our military.

The lawsuit centers around the premise the Pentagon leaked information to the Washington Post in 2010 to sway public opinion and Congress — and that the information itself was intentionally misleading.

The basic premise is the numbers of the survey were presented in a way to support an agenda.  The staff writer at apparently didn’t read the survey, when he said

It’s not clear from the survey which response led to the “nearly 60 percent” figure.

It’s not that difficult, actually, as has even been presented here, if one takes the time to look at the survey.  For example:

“When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.

However, using precisely the same numbers, one could also say

When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 62% of Service members predicted it would have a negative or mixed effect.”

It’s all in how you frame the numbers — which is exactly the TMLC’s point.

The lawsuit was filed because the Navy has reportedly failed to provide the documents requested by FOIA.

The TMLC also notes the public admonition of General Benjamin Mixon put “constraints” on those who would publicly and “honestly express their opinion” in opposition to the open acceptance of homosexuality.

The TMLC President and Chief Counsel, Richard Thompson, said

Ever since the beginning of the Continental Army of 1775, homosexuality in the military has been prohibited. President Obama changed all that at the expense of our future national security merely to curry favor with his radical homosexual supporters, and Congress went along with him.

The purpose of our Armed Forces is to win on the field of battle. This new law will eventually have a devastating impact on unit cohesion and the fighting effectiveness of our combat branches. That’s why we must undo this ill- conceived law, and the first step is to discover what went on behind the scenes.

With reference to


  • how will the serving of gay people be at the expense of national security?

  • @Donalbain
    Whether you agree with the position stated or not, surely you would acknowledge that virtually anytime anyone says something negatively affects the military, they say it endangers national security. Rightly or wrongly, most people equate the protections of national security with the military.

  • @JD

    That’s about as lame an answer I have seen on these boards. Let’s call a spade a spade. The long and vicious campaign of discrimination against Gays has been and continues to be led by the Christian Church. One extremist Christian organization, Focus on the Family, alone has spent millions on the denigration of GLBT citizens costing them jobs, housing and even their lives.

    Despite the fact that the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and other medical bodies have completed in-depth studies of Homosexuality and found it to be as natural as Heterosexuality. Their is no choice involved, they cannot be cured by medication or “prayed straight, as some of the more ditsy Christian leaders have said.

    This Christian bigotry is born of misguided doctrines and amplified by overly zealous Christian reactionaries. Gays are legitimate America citizens who are breaking no laws. On the other hand, the Christian church is engaged in a war on Homosexuality with many of their efforts outside lawful protest. But don’t look to get any equity from law enforcement or government as the church has a death grip on the majority. Many American Christians are complicit because of their abject submission to their religious belief.

    Until and unless Christians are made to stop this vicious discrimination against Gays more violence is in the offing. Maybe by letting Gays serve openly in the Military our “straight ” Christian friends will begin to see the light and come around to the fact that Gays are really no different from them. After all, even though it took several centuries, Christians now appear to have accepted African Ameriocans for the most part so there’s hope for GLBT folks.

  • @Richard
    That’s quite the hate-filled monologue having little to nothing to do with the actual topic, which was the DoD’s presentation of data to Congress.

  • @JD
    Hi JD,

    Can defense of the helpless be called a hate filled monologue? Can logic and science be hate-filled? Can human relations be a banned subject?

    As usual you defend the inexcusable acts of Christian supremacists.

    Christianity has become the new Fascism and needs to be nipped in the bud.

    More and more thinking Americans are getting past the threat of damnation and discovering the horror of Dominionist Christianity.

    Christianity has gone awry. It is rotting in it’s own juices. Today’s Christianity is the Christianity of Crusades, Pogroms and witch hunts. Nowhere is the real Jesus. Only sallow agents of dark religion. Your Christianity is one of hate and revenge. A new Christianity will arise from the ashes of Dominionism.

  • Why are men and women separated in the military? Not that they don’t work together, I’m asking about sleeping arrangements. Sleeping. Everyone does it. Why does it matter if the person in the next bed over is a man or a women? It’s not like their in the same bed.

    Best I can figure it’s because of the potential for sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

    If the military has been separating men and women because of potential sexual attraction (everyone was presumed heterosexual until DADT went away), then shouldn’t homosexuals have separate sleeping quarters then the rest of their gender? It would be treating everyone equally. Except, then all homosexuals would have the bonus of their own room, which would not be treating the heterosexuals equally. So really, everyone should have their own room.

    Positive or negative, everyone getting their own room would have an effect on how people work together. And the price tag of renovating just about every base and ship the military has… o_O

  • Richard…you know what Cali is referring to. Although Cali’s statement that everyone is/was presumed heterosexual until DADT was repealed is ridiculous, the merits of boy/girl separation is logical (and not just from a Christian perspective). I will also concede that everyone should have a private room regardless of the cost, except in wartime situations, but we all know that isn’t likely to happen. After my first year in the barracks I was authorized to move off base, and did so, only because I like total privacy. We also had barracks where the women were on the third floor and while they did have rules for visitation most were not enforced or ignored. Never heard of any problems in 1978-80 with this arrangement.

    The potential for sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault exists regardless of sleeping quarters. It may be more more likely for it to occur if they are sleeping in opposite bunks, why attempt fate? There are people who share apartments together and get along just fine, and I’m sure that would fit in some of our troops lifestyles as well and certainly does…off post/base.

    One of the problems we have is trying to legislate boy/girl, boy/boy or girl/girl relationships using the government instead of letting people [adults] deal with it issues themselves. However, the Military does have the right to make [their] rules but not at the level of DADT. Its going to happen regardless, so just leave it alone.

    Repeal of DADT was a good thing. Foremost was “not living a lie” and for the rest, removed the risk of blackmail, damage to personal relationships, stress and anxiety, and mental health problems and I’m sure others. This lawsuit is an exercise in futility, but the TMLC is the opposite of the ACLU and seems to think their way is better…I don’t think so.