DADT Update: HASC Testimony and Continued Opposition
The House Armed Services Committee recently held hearings on the proposed repeal of the policies known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos, and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz joined Roughead in reporting to the committee about how implementation is going. All said training is going well.
While the testimony was interesting, it was largely overshadowed by the budget debate. Suffice it to say that while some consider repeal a “done deal,” there is still opposition both within the government and without to allowing homosexuals to serve in the military:
Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., pleaded with the military leaders: “You are the last force to stop this onerous policy.”
Much of the questioning focused on Chaplains and their ability to preach against what the military permits, as well as the “double standard” of segregating gender but not “sexual orientation” in berthing. Another point of interest was the military’s inability to articulate how DADT repeal had or would improve the military; at best, they said it will have “little impact” on the military’s ability to win wars and will have “minimum adverse” effects.
Another important point:
Chiarelli…said the Army has not completed enough training to say repeal of the law doesn’t come with some risk to readiness.
That’s fairly important, because the law signed by President Obama specifically says repeal cannot occur until the government “certifies:”
That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations…is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces
Should they be unable to make such a statement, the law clearly states;
If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.
Thus, DADT would remain law.
At least four external groups, Coral Ridge Ministries, the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, the Alliance Defense Fund, and the Center for Military Readiness continue to lobby for Congress to oppose repeal, consistent with the repeal law as written.
See prior updates.
Well, despite objections from a few government people that really don’t know what they are talking about and these four external groups, seems like the repeal, training and “respect” are going well. We’ve had our training last week, and as I expected there is no change to the way gay persons will be treated, except to serve openly.
It’s still early to see how this will all work out in long run, but from all indications and small talk down here in the bible belt most seem ok with it, if not fully supportive.
@watchtower – i am in the military and have observed one of these “training” sessions and I too have come away with the same perspective – that there is really no change to the way gay persons are treated. In fact, if nothing else good comes out of it, the call back to respecting all people that the military has made should do the trick. this is something the military should have always done. We don’t need this repeal to sound off on respecting all people.
However, with that said, I also came away with a great headache, wondering if there was something more subtle, more hideous occuring beyond our view. We here in the Bible belt can be duped to believe anything under the guise of ‘truth,’ ‘repect of persons,’ etc. I am concerned that even though this might not have immediate repercussions it will in the long run set us up for complete moral and spiritual collapse and “most will believe a lie.” My perspective is this – this is not for a greater, long run ‘good,’ but another crack in the dam that holds back God’s wrath upon this nation. May God, in wrath grant mercy for who can survive when His wrath is seen?
My favorite part of DADT: my base commander responding to a question about the repeal. Included were the words that the DADT repeal “will have no effect” on military effectiveness. That reminds me of every squadron commander who says “our squadron will be the best!”
Draw your own conclusions.
Richard — I do not see a moral or spiritual collapse happening, I see wonderful things happening, all over the world. The more we let people be who or what they are the better life can be, even if its not what you or I believe to be wonderful or better; but for each individual, free to choose their own destiny. The only “wrath” I’m seeing is MAN’S wrath (and judgement) upon others. If the god of christianity has a problem then let it be between that god and the individual, not other men.
Dealer — when someone can fully explain what the repeal of DADT will have on military effectiveness, then they are just words without meaning. How effective “Militarily” is it when our female soldiers wear headscarfs “to mingle with the natives” instead of helmets in what everyone says is a war zone (and third world countries) where America is the infidels of the world?
Every Squadron can [try to] be the best, but its up to everyone in the Squadron to make that happen, not just the Commander…just like its up to everyone to ensure Military effectiveness under any circumstance. For me, that includes discharging troops that cannot adapt to military life and I’ll bet pickles to navy beans there will be slight upswing in that if every supervisor is doing their job properly.
watchtower:
If you can show me ONE civilization that accepted homosexuality and survived please do.
Also, what is your opinion regarding the fact that the previous generations did not accepted this “lifestyle”? Was it something that they just pulled out of nothing? Or was it the lessons from thousands and thousands of years of the process of trial-and-error? What is your opinion?
And what is your opinion about the fact that such a tiny minority causes this much havoc, and this resource and time wasting?
Zeka — as far as I know there is but one civilization on this planet, so survival so far has been pretty good.
Previous generations did not accepted this “lifestyle” because they didn’t understand, in so far as earlier generations thought it was some kind of disease or other abnormality. We have come a long way since. I will stipulate to something that they just pulled out of nothing, how else can you explain it?
I can’t really comment to “thousands” of years of a process regarding trail and error, for one, we have evolved for many thousands of years and now we are here, for some reason not letting people choose to be or do what they want to in a free society. There will always be bad people, so I don’t assume everything in this world is all hunky-dory.
It is NOT a tiny minority causing “much havoc”, it is a very big majority attempting to impose their will on others.
watchtower,
I’m glad you don’t want to learn from other civilizations. Something about the Romans rotting from within and the collapse of the core family come to mind. Sparta’s demise against Athens has learning points too.
I’m still trying to figure out what you stand for. If you stand for individuals doing whatever they want, then we (as a country) have no anchor. If you stand for logic above all else, then explain emotions and how reasonable people can disagree. If you stand for individual rights, then explain to me why it is against a homosexual person’s rights to define marriage (as compared to civil unions) as 1 female and 1 male.
You seem to think that we are different now after thousands of years than we were before. I don’t see how: homosexuality isn’t new; people doing what they want regardless of whether it is good for them isn’t new; some people standing on principle isn’t new. I’m not in a position to condemn other people, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t condemn their actions.
For the record, explain how you are not attempting to impose your will of blind tolerance on others.
Peple don’t have to accept and approve of gays, in and out of the military. If someone wants to detest another human being because they happen to be attracted or in love with someone of the same sex, they are perfectly fine to do that To me, it is very weird to have such an emotional reaction to someone because of their sexual orientation, but a free nation cherishes that right.
Now, for thousands of years women were thought of as property, the government was whatever the king, chief or local priest said. The appeal to traditon as a defense of injustice fails time and time and time and time again in our nation’s history. It is an awful argument that future generations always see as nothing more than to justify hostility against an unpopular group.
Those who say they want to define marriage as only opposite sex, I must ask, why? Does a gay marriage harm you? No, nobody will force you to go to a wedding or even shell out money for a wedding present. These are the same arguments that were used at one time to oppose interracial marriage, after all, let’s just define it as a man and woman of the same racial group. After all, was the defense, it is traditional.
Jerome,
Do you allow marriages to any consenting adult, regardless of the current definition and legacy of marriage?
@Jerome
The status of woman in a society always varied according to location or time.
What is a FACT is that ancient Greece and Rome pioneered womans rights but when those civilizations became de facto homosexual/pederastic civilizations woman were treated like trash just like the effeminate homosexuals (when they were no longer useful).
The anti-homosexual stuff, at least for me, comes from some basic understanding of History.
BTW…you do know that Ernst Rohm, Hitler´s mentor, was a proud in-your-face homosexuals and that the infamous Brown Shirts were notorious for their violence, homosexual perversion…and woman+effeminate-homosexual hating right?
People that associate homosexuality with femininity know nothing about History and/or watch too much TV.
PS – And i agree with the request: If anyone can point out a civilization that accepted homosexuality and lived free and prosperous please do…
…there is a reason why homosexuality was never accepted, there is a reason why the Japanese or the Russians or the Chinese or the Africans or the Koreans (etc) dont accept this. The only societies that accept this is the dying suicidal West.
Dealer —
I stand for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States.
And we are very different from thousands of years of evolution, although I can agree that some things are the same because that is what made people happy, secure or better. People from previous generation were far more fearful or their rulers (and with good cause) and some people believed what their priests told them to fear or what was unacceptable. We are no longer mindless automatons just accepting anything and everything that people say or believe themselves.
I’m not sure how I can impose my will of blind tolerance, but if it is in reference to defending a persons right to do what they want to (without breaking laws) how can that be blind tolerance?
watchtower,
Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is the right to not get offended and the right to not discriminate against a person for the actions they commit. Additionally there is a right of free expression of religion, which I do exercise when not in an official position.
Dealer — I never said the Constitution or Bill of Rights doesn’t give you (or me) a right to get offended or discriminate against actions. You asked me what I stood for, and likewise, those documents are my anchor (after my family).
We have a right to freedom, not control. We are one nation “under laws” and most of them are reasonable (tax laws excluded of course). Those not so reasonable, are challenged in the appropriate forum, reversed, modified or re-codified.
I totally agree with you that anyone has a right to the free expression of religion, just like anyone has a right to object to the free expression of religion.
watchtower,
I missed your answer about blind tolerance, which happens to tie into your point about a nation of laws. You’re right, we are a nation of laws. That nation has a (federal) law that specifically defines marriage as 1 woman and 1 man. You may consider that law to be unreasonable, yet I have yet to hear why you think it is unConstitutional. In that regard I want to define marriage as 1 woman, 1 man, am I breaking a law?
Sorry to bring some facts to the table, but Sparta defeated Athens, not vice versa. The Roman Empire did not become a homosexual society, leading to its collapse. And as for God’s wrath at allowing gays to serve, where is the wrath on Israel, the UK, Australia, Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland and the dozens of other countries with gay soldiers?
Don,
I stand corrected on Sparta v. Athens; but I never said that the Romans were a homosexual society. I said they lost family values, which lead to its collapse. I see a loss of principle and a gain in self-entitlement in our country and I don’t like that trend. What do you see going on?
Dealer…I recall Rome falling predominantly due to excessive taxation, inflation, and over-regulation. Basically, the rich found ways to evade taxes, creating smaller societies around them or withdrawing from society all together (I wonder if they sent their money to Swiss bank too…lol). Roman head of house (man) could force a marriage (for money), sell his children into slavery and severely punish or kill family members. Marriage was often regarded more as a financial and political alliance than as a romantic association. I can see why they collapsed.
I agree there is a trend in this country wrt self-entitlement, but I’m not certain how to fix this. My heart goes out to the homeless and helpless, but I’m not even sure if these folks can be helped in todays society and economic dilemma. I’m also afraid that if the government subsidies go away, we might see the worst of people come out just to survive.
I do not find marriage (one man one woman) to be unconstitutional nor do I find it constitutional. Traditional marriage (like at a church) can be between one man and one woman. However, if gay gay people want a civil union to share their lives together I don’t see why not either.
watchtower,
I’m confused. Do you think restricting marriage to traditional marriage is Constitutional? Either it is or is not. I have no qualms against homosexual civil unions (as a legal device), but I support the Defense of Marriage Act in reserving ‘marriage’ for 1 man and 1 woman. Do you?
Dealer —
No it is not Constitutional to restrict traditional marriage to one man or one woman. Marriage is a contractual (and consented) obligation between two people. Marriage or bearing children are not mentioned in the Constitution as a right. DOMA is another law that takes away freedom (choice) and I find that unconstitutional.
watchtower,
thanks for clearing that up. Do you define any law that takes away choice unconstitutional? That’s impressive, because I don’t know of any laws that don’t restrict freedoms. Taking your definition of unconstitutional to the logical conclusion, you support consented incest and polygamy. Is that accurate?
Dealer —
Incest is a crime, and for good reason. Not sure why or how you can compare entirely different issues with desiring a freedom to choose something that is not a crime (marriage) where as incest is a crime and obviously not a reasonable persons choice…AND certainly not a logical conclusion at all…taking my definition out of context don’t you think?
As far as polygamy goes…government should not regulate marriages, but I would not do it knowing that it could cause relationship problems, like jealousy or other issues when more than two people are involved…and holy cow would it be expensive! Other cultures have different views as well as different views in the bible, but not commonly practiced during the common era.
Watchtower,
I agree with you that there are problems when the government ascribes a legal definition to marriage. I also agree with you that polygamy is likely to cause relationship issues. Where we differ is that you think it’s acceptable, even if unwise, for someone else to enter that relationship. I think it’s unacceptable.
Incest is not an unrelated issue. The biggest part of the marriage license process in my state was to check that each person was who they said they were, they weren’t already married, and that they were not related closer than a certain amount. That last section is a regulation on marriage aimed directly at preventing incest. Should my state remove said restriction and allow any consenting adults to marry each other?