Below:<\/p>\n
US Army General Carter Ham, one of two co-chairs responsible for the DADT survey\/report<\/a> last year, has said he expects the response to DADT repeal on Tuesday will be “pretty inconsequential<\/a>.”<\/p>\n Gen. Carter Ham said he expects civilians who strongly oppose the move \u2014 and some gay-rights advocates \u2014 will voice their views when the repeal takes Tuesday. But inside the military, the prevailing attitude likely will be business as usual, with no call for further debate about the merits of repeal, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cMy hope, my expectation, my belief is that it will be pretty inconsequential,\u201d he told the Associated Press in a brief interview. His comments echoed the prevailing view among senior U.S. military and civilian officials at the Pentagon, who think repeal largely will be taken in stride.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Also via the ADF<\/a>.<\/p>\n US Navy and World War 2 Veteran Mel Dwork has had his discharge changed from “undesirable” to “honorable.”<\/a>\u00a0 Dwork was dismissed from the Navy in 1944, even as the world war raged, for his homosexuality.<\/p>\n The “Battleland” blog of Time Magazine <\/em>has an interview with Aaron Belkin<\/a>, director of the homosexual advocacy Palm Center and author of How We Won<\/em>, which purports to explain lessons from the repeal of DADT.\u00a0 The short transcript reveals some interesting, and incorrect, perspectives held even by those who claim to be leading this effort.\u00a0 For example, the article leads in with talking about the “Pentagon’s 17-year old policy banning openly gay men and women from serving in uniform,” when its actually the US military’s 200+ year policy banning homosexuals from serving in uniform that is changing.\u00a0 Within the interview itself, the author is asked<\/p>\n How much turbulence do you think the repeal of DADT will generate in the military?<\/em><\/p>\n Zero…70% of the troops, including combat troops and Marines, say that they already work with gays, and of those, 90% say that they don’t have problems.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a non sequitur<\/em>.\u00a0 For one thing, the survey asked only if people thought <\/em>they worked with someone who might <\/em>be homosexual, which is slightly different than having someone be openly homosexual.\u00a0 (Who’s to say that they weren’t wrong, and the people they thought were homosexual, in fact weren’t?)\u00a0 For another, it trivializes the issue that actually matters.\u00a0 No mainstream personality claimed a homosexual was unable to drive a tank or shoot a gun.\u00a0 The question was always one of institutionalizing acceptance of homosexuality — in a society in which a specific code of behavior is not only prized<\/a>, but required<\/a>.<\/p>\n Thus, the “turbulence” to two people who show up to work on Tuesday, 20 September 2011, may very well be “zero.”\u00a0 The “turbulence” generated in the military institution<\/em>, however…well, that’s another thing altogether.<\/p>\n Belkin also said<\/p>\n Unlike some other issues that require 60 Senate votes, President Obama had the option to suspend DADT via an executive order. Once the public learned this, a lot of heat was directed his way, and this pressure helped rededicate the White House to a legislative solution.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is error by omission.\u00a0 Yes, President Obama could have ended the military policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by executive order.\u00a0 However, had he done so, the only guidance the military would have had would have been the US law that said homosexuality was incompatible with military service.\u00a0 Thus, if Obama had pulled the military policy, he would have effectively outright banned homosexuals from serving (and it would have allowed, or required, the military to reinstitute screening for homosexuality at enlistment).<\/p>\n This supposed expert on DADT fails to understand the basic concept that the law passed by Congress made homosexuality in the military illegal, and an “executive order” cannot simply vacate laws passed by Congress.\u00a0 The military policy known as DADT was the Executive Branch’s way of enforcing the law. \u00a0The military adhered to the law insomuch as it discharged those whom it discovered to be homosexual; however, it banned ‘asking or telling,’ thus minimizing the possibility it would make such a discovery.<\/p>\n An article at the Air Force Times <\/em>says changes have already occurred<\/a> in the military environment with regard to homosexuality.<\/p>\n Air Force Capt. Diane Cox…said she got into heated debates with service members vowing not to take showers and share rooms with gays before Congress voted to repeal the law, but after the military held sensitivity trainings to explain the new rules \u201ceverybody just shut up.\u201d<\/p>\n Jokes are still told about gay people but the harsh remarks have stopped, she said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The article fails to note that “dissent” was largely squelched<\/a> long before the military conducted any briefings on repeal.\u00a0 It also fails to note that jokes “about gay people” would likely be actionable, “harsh” or not.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n