Don't ask, don't tell

Part of a series on
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights
Laws around the world Recognition of relationships Same-sex marriage LGBT adoption Military service Immigration issues Violence against LGBT people Legal aspects of transsexualism LGBT rights organizations Opposition
LGBT portal

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces.

As it exists, DADT specifies that the "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue.

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment^[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness.^[2][3] On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act.^[2] The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010, and the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on its version in the summer.^[4] The Washington Post has stated that if the bill is approved by Congress and signed by the President, any change to don't ask, don't tell would likely not happen before 2011.^[5]

The study described above is intended to indicate how repeal would be implemented along with associated costs. Concerns include impact on recruiting and morale.^[6] A controversial survey of 400,000 military personnel is under way to help guide this effort.^[7][8][9] Questions include anticipated problems sharing common areas, living areas, and bathrooms with people identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Post-repeal rules for sexual conduct are not described in the survey.

Background

The U.S. Army training guide on the homosexual conduct policy gives official guidlines on what can be considered credible information of someones homosexuality.

Sodomy has been considered grounds for discharge from the American military since the Revolutionary War, but the LGBT-related policies have changed over the course of the 20th century. The subject remains a debate in Congress, the topic of political campaigns and activism, presidential speeches, and popular opinion polls. According to records, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was the first soldier to be discharged from the U.S. military (at that time, the Continental Army) for sodomy in 1778.^[10] Starting in 1916, neutral blue discharges were often given to gay personnel, and as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II, the military added psychiatric screening to its induction process. At the time, psychiatry labeled homosexuality as an indicator of psychopathology, and this notion was added to military practices. The first time “homosexual” people were differentiated from “normal” people in the military literature occurred in a set of revised army mobilization regulations in 1942.^[10] In 1947, the blue discharges were discontinued and instead labeled "general" and "undesirable". Under such a system, a servicemember found to be gay but who had not committed any sexual acts while in service would receive an undesirable discharge. Those who were found guilty of engaging in sexual conduct were dishonorably discharged. From the 1940s through the Vietnam War, some notable servicemembers who were incidentally gay avoided discharges despite pre-screening efforts, and when personnel shortages occurred, homosexuals were allowed to serve. In the 1970s, the gay and lesbian rights movement emerged in the U.S. and chose the anti-gay military policy as one of its main targets. Partially as a response to this movement, the Department of Defense issued a 1982 policy (DOD Directive 1332.14) stating that homosexuality was clearly incompatible with military service.^[10] The policy garnered public scrutiny through the 1980s and 1990s, and it became a political issue of the 1992 U.S. presidential election with Bill Clinton and others citing the brutal murder of gay U.S. Navy petty officer Allen R. Schindler, Jr. After Bill Clinton won the presidency, Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. After Clinton’s election to the presidency, he introduced Congressional legislation to overturn the ban, but it encountered intense scrutiny by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the U.S. public. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” emerged as a compromise policy.^[10]

History

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.^[11] At the time, per Reagan's Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were discharged.^[11][12] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual service members.^[13]

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.^[12] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993^[14] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.^[12] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

The full name of the policy at the time was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” “Don’t Ask” mandates that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. “Don’t Tell” states that a member may be discharged if s/he says that s/he is homosexual or bisexual or makes a statement indicating that s/he has a tendency towards or intends to engage in homosexual activities. “Don’t Pursue” establishes what is minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. “Don’t Harass” was added to the policy later. It ensures that the military will not allow harassment or violence against servicemembers for any reason.^[10]

Beyond the official ban, gay personnel were often the target of various types of harassment by their comrades, intended to compel them to resign or confess to investigators. An infamous version of this harassment was called a blanket party; at night several service members would cover the face of their victim with a blanket then beat the victim. Often these beatings were severe and occasionally even fatal, as in the case of Allen R. Schindler, Jr.. In defense of his DADT policy, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse".^[15] DADT has officially prohibited such behavior, but harassment continues.^[16]

In the midst of the 1993 furor, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment.^[17] It concluded, in measured language, that "circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention"^[18] if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.

In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued on behalf of full repeal. After Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, President Clinton backed off on his campaign promise to repeal the ban in favor of the DADT "compromise."

In 2005, member of Congress Marty Meehan (third from left) unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the policy

In September 2005, the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military – a think tank affiliated with the University of California, Santa Barbara, and renamed the Michael D. Palm Center in October 2006 – issued a news release revealing the existence of a 1999 FORSCOM regulation (Regulation 500-3-3) that allowed the active duty deployment of Army Reservists and National Guard troops who say that they are gay or who are accused of being gay. U.S. Army Forces Command spokesperson Kim Waldron later confirmed the regulation and indicated that it was intended to prevent Reservists and National Guard members from pretending to be gay to escape combat.^[19]

DADT has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept military recruiters in violation of university nondiscrimination policies.^[20]

Echoing the events of 1992-3, Barack Obama also campaigned on a full repeal of the laws barring gays from serving in the military.^[21] As president, Obama said in his first State of the Union Address, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."^[22]

On March 25, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced new rules mandating that only flag officers may initiate discharge proceedings and imposing more stringent rules of evidence be used during discharge proceedings.^[23]

Gay activists have accused President Obama of stalling.^[24]

Responses to DADT

Scientific community

In 1993, Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D., associate research psychologist at the University of California at Davis and a national authority on public attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, testified before the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by Representative Ron Dellums. Dr. Herek testified on behalf of the American Psychological Association and five other national professional organizations; the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, the American Nursing Association, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Dr. Herek testified: "My written testimony to the Committee summarizes the results of an extensive review of the relevant published research from the social and behavioral sciences. That review is lengthy. However, I can summarize its conclusions in a few words: The research data show that there is nothing about lesbians and gay men that makes them inherently unfit for military service, and there is nothing about heterosexuals that makes them inherently unable to work and live with gay people in close quarters."^[25] In his testimony, Dr. Herek reviewed existing scientific research concerning issues of unit cohesion and effectiveness and the fitness of lesbians and gay men for military service. He concluded that straight personnel can overcome their prejudices and adapt to living and working in close quarters with gays. Furthermore, he said gays are not inherently less capable of military service than are straight women and men. "The assumption that heterosexuals cannot overcome their prejudices toward gay people is a mistaken one," said Dr. Herek.^[26] Dr. Herek stated in 2008: "Today, as then (1993), the real question is not whether sexual minorities can be successfully integrated into the military. The social science data answered this question in the affirmative then, and do so even more clearly now. Rather, the issue is whether the United States is willing to repudiate its current practice of antigay discrimination and address the challenges associated with a new policy."^[27]

American Psychological Association states:

Empirical evidence fails to show that sexual orientation is germane to any aspect of military effectiveness including unit cohesion, morale, recruitment and retention (Belkin, 2003; Belkin & Bateman, 2003; Herek, Jobe, & Carney, 1996; MacCoun, 1996; National Defense Research Institute, 1993).

Comparative data from foreign militaries and domestic police and fire departments show that when lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are allowed to serve openly there is no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness (Belkin & McNichol, 2000–2001; Gade, Segal, & Johnson, 1996; Koegel, 1996).

When openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals have been allowed to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces (Cammermeyer v. Aspin, 1994; Watkins v. United States Army, 1989/1990), there has been no evidence of disruption or loss of mission effectiveness.

The U.S. military is capable of integrating members of groups historically excluded from its ranks, as demonstrated by its success in reducing both racial and gender discrimination (Binkin & Bach, 1977; Binkin, Eitelberg, Schexnider, & Smith, 1982; Kauth & Landis, 1996; Landis, Hope, & Day, 1984; Thomas & Thomas, 1996).^[28]

Public opinion

Peaceful protest by a civil rights group in New York.

Public opinion polls have been widely varied in their results. A national poll conducted in May 2005 by the Boston Globe showed 79% of participants don't oppose openly gay people from serving in the military.^[29] In a 2008 Washington Post–ABC News poll, 75% of Americans – including 80% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 66% of conservatives – said that openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military.^[30]

An April 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 48% of Americans approved of the DADT policy, 8% believed that the policy was too lenient on gays, while 37% believed that the policy was too harsh.^[31]

A February 2010 Quinnipiac University national poll shows 57% of American voters favor gays serving openly, compared to 36% opposed, and 66% say the current policy of not allowing openly gay personnel to serve is discrimination, opposed to 31% who see no discrimination.^[32] A CBS News/New York Times national poll done at the same time shows 58% of Americans favor gays serving openly, compared to 28% opposed.^[33]

Military personnel opinion

A 2006 Zogby International poll of military members found that 26% favor of gays serving in the military, 37% opposed, and 37% expressed no preference or were unsure. 66% of respondents who had experience with gays in their unit said their presence had either no impact or a positive impact on their personal morale, while 64% said the same applied to overall unit morale. As for respondents uncertain whether they had served with gay personnel, 51% thought gays would have a neutral or positive effect on personal morale, while 48% thought that they would have a negative effect. More generally, 73% of respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel.^[34]

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili (Ret.)^[35] and former Senator and Secretary of Defense William Cohen^[36] spoke against the policy publicly in January 2007: "I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces," General Shalikashvili wrote. "Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job."^[37]

In December 2007, 28 retired generals and admirals urged Congress to repeal the policy, citing evidence that 65,000 gay men and women are currently serving in the armed forces and that there are over 1,000,000 gay veterans.^[37][38] On November 17, 2008, 104 retired generals and admirals signed a similar statement.^[38]

On May 4, 2008, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen addressed the graduating cadets at West Point, a cadet asked what would happen if the next administration were supportive of legislation allowing gays to serve openly. Mullen responded, "Congress, and not the military, is responsible for [DADT]." Previously, during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2007, Mullen told lawmakers, "I really think it is for the American people to come forward, really through this body, to both debate that policy and make changes, if that's appropriate." He went on to say, "I'd love to have Congress make its own decisions" with respect to considering repeal.^[39]

In an interview on CNN's State of the Union broadcast on July 5, 2009, Colin Powell said he thought that the policy was "correct for the time" but that "sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." In the same program, Admiral Mullen said the policy would continue to be implemented until the law was repealed, and that his advice was to "move in a measured way... At a time when we're fighting two conflicts there is a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families."^[40]

Several gay service members have written novels and nonfiction works about life in the military under DADT. In 2005, Rich Merritt released his memoir Secrets of a Gay Marine Porn Star,^[41] and in 2008 Brett Edward Stout released his first novel, Sugar-Baby Bridge.^[42] Openly gay service member Dan Choi, a founder of West Point's LBGT group Knights Out, made an appearance on the web-based documentary series In Their Boots, criticizing the U.S. military's neglect of service members families.^[43] As a linguist, Choi was among 59 gay Arabic speakers discharged by the military, along with 9 gay Farsi speakers discharged by the military up to June 2009,^[44] despite a shortage of translators for these languages.^[45]

In September 2009, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash sharply criticized the policy in an article published in Joint Force Quarterly. He argued that it is unsound for several reasons, including the complete lack of any scientific basis for the proposition that unit cohesion is compromised by the presence of openly gay personnel.^[46][47] The article won the Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition for 2009.

Speaking in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2, 2010, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen denounced the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.^[48] A March 2010 poll by the Military Times asking over 3000 servicemembers "do you favor or oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?" resulted in 51% oppose votes, with 24% in favor and the remaining neutral or declining to answer.^[49]

Barack Obama

During his presidential campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama stated in an open letter^[50] that he "called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell".^[51] During 2009, President Barack Obama advocated a policy change to allow gay personnel to serve openly in the armed forces, agreeing with General Shalikashvili and stating that the U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops expelled from the military, including language experts fluent in Arabic.^[52][53]

Nineteen days after his election, Obama's advisers announced that plans to repeal the policy may be delayed until as late as 2010, because Obama "first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress."^[54]

Obama's current position is that Congress has exclusive authority to change the law. In May 2009, a committee of military law experts at the University of California at Santa Barbara^[55] concluded that the President can issue an Executive Order to suspend homosexual conduct discharges."^[56]

In July 2009, the White House and other Democrats reportedly pressured Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings to withdraw an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647) that would have prevented the military from using federal funds to expel gay servicemembers.^[57]

President Obama's Justice Department continues to defend the gay ban in court, citing a "traditional" duty to enforce and defend all laws.^[58][59] Regarding the first reference, the government had argued before the Federal Appeals Court in San Francisco that the policy should have a blanket application, therefore negating a requirement for an expulsion review based on merit. Obama administration lawyers let pass the May 3, 2009 deadline to appeal, and the case reverted to the district court.^[60] In court documents, government lawyers agreed with the ruling of the Federal Appeals Court in Boston that DADT is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion." An appeal of this case brought by Captain James E. Pietrangelo II, Pietrangelo v. Gates 08-824, was subsequently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.^[44][61]

On the eve of the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., October 10, 2009, Barack Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the ban, but he offered no timetable.^[62][63]

In January 2010, the White House and congressional officials started work on repealing the ban by inserting language into the 2011 defense authorization bill.^[64]

During President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, 2010, he claimed that he would work with Congress and the military to enact a repeal of the gay ban law. He had made similar statements during other speeches; however, his State of the Union speech was the first in which he definitively committed to repealing the law on a set timetable. In response to President Obama’s State of the Union pledge, the Human Rights Campaign announced the Voices of Honor Campaign to make the President’s call for open military service a reality.^[65]

Letter of support for maintaining DADT

Citing a letter signed by "over one thousand former general and flag officers who have weighed in on this issue," Senator John McCain of Arizona claimed that "we should pay attention and benefit from the experience and knowledge" of these officers. At the February 2, 2010 congressional hearing of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, McCain read directly from the letter, saying "We firmly believe that this law, which Congress passed to protect good order, discipline and morale in the unique environment of the armed forces deserves continued support." Servicemembers United, a veterans' group opposed to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," issued a subsequent report on the letter’s legitimacy. They found that the letter’s claimed signees included officers who had no knowledge of their inclusion, who had refused to be included, and even veterans who had died before the survey was conducted, including one instance of a widow signing the letter in the guise of her husband, a former general. The average age of the officers listed in the letter was 74, the oldest was 98, and Servicemembers United noted that "only a small fraction of these officers have even served in the military during the 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell' period, much less in the 21st century military."

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

A lawsuit challenging DADT filed by the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest Republican gay rights group, has gone to trial, presided by Judge Virginia Phillips in federal court. According to plaintiffs the policy violates the rights of gay military members to free speech, due process and open association.^[66] The government was forced to argue that Don't Ask, Don't Tell was necessary to advance a legitimate governmental interest.^[67] Plaintiffs introduced several admissions by President Barack Obama. The President has said, among other statements from prepared remarks:

• that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell "doesn’t contribute to our national security";
• that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell "weakens our national security"; and
• that reversing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is "essential for our national security".

According to plaintiffs they alone satisfy their burden of proof and compel judgment in favor of Log Cabin Republicans on the due process claims. In response to the amount of evidence, the government presented no evidence to support its position that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell furthers an important government interest and that it is necessary to further an important government interest. The government offered no witness to testify about any benefits of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It offered not one expert witness to counter plaintiffs' seven expert witnesses or to provide any opinion about the value of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It offered no testimony from any service member to counter the testimony from plaintiffs'. It offered no report, no study, no analysis, no book, no article in a peer-reviewed journal, not a single document showing that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell advances any government interest. In a written order, judge gave the government the opportunity to present evidence on the Witt factors and it chose not to do so. There is the absence of any such evidence from the defendants. Instead, the government relied exclusively on snippets from the 1993 legislative history.^[68]

Statistics

In the fiscal years since the policy was first introduced in 1993, the military has discharged over 13,000 troops from the military under DADT.^[38][69][70] The number of discharges per year under DADT dropped sharply after the September 11 attacks and has remained relatively low since. Discharges exceeded 600 every year until 2009. Statistics on the number of persons discharged per year follow:

*Breakdown of discharges by service branch not available

• 1994–2003, 2006, 2007 from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network – Annual Gay Discharges Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass"
• 2004–2005 from 365Gay.com – Military Discharging Two Soldiers Per Day For Being Gay Despite War Group Says
• 2008 from Continued discharges anger 'don't ask, don't tell' critics The Boston Globe, Bryan Bender – May 20, 2009
• 2000–2002 individual service numbers from Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, "Freedom to Serve"
• Not accurate numbers of discharges under DADT due to some soldiers not disclosing their discharge. These statistics are only from those who came forward to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Financial impact of policy

In February 2005, the Government Accountability Office released estimates on the cost of the policy. Cautioning that the amount may be too low, the GAO reported $95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.^[71]

In February 2006, a University of California Blue Ribbon Commission including Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary during the Reagan administration, former Defense Secretary William Perry, a member of the Clinton administration, and professors from the United States Military Academy at West Point concluded that figure should be closer to $363 million, including $14.3 million for "separation travel" once a service member is discharged, $17.8 million for training officers, $252.4 million for training enlistees and $79.3 million in recruiting costs.^[71] The commission report stated that the GAO didn't take into account the value the military lost from the departures.

Military Readiness Enhancement Act

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act is a bill introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives with the stated purpose "to amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as 'Don't ask, don't tell,' with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Situation outside the United States

Most Western military forces have now removed policies excluding individuals of sexual orientations other than heterosexual (with strict policies on sexual harassment). Of the 26 countries that participate militarily in NATO, more than 22 permit gay people to serve; of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, three (Britain, France, Russia) permit gay people to serve openly, and two (United States, China) do not. Besides Greece, which bans homosexuals from serving, all other members of EU permit gay people to serve openly. The Greek discrimination policy has become the object of criticism by the European Union, as EU law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.^[72] The Canadian Forces lifted the ban on gay members in 1992. (See LGBT policy in the Canadian military.) In 2009, Argentina, Uruguay^[73] and Philippines allowed gay men to serve openly in the military.^[72] Israel Defense Forces policies allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly and without discrimination or harassment due to actual or perceived sexual orientation, including special units.^[74] Consul David Saranga at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, stated, "It's a non-issue. You can be a very good officer, a creative one, a brave one, and be gay at the same time."^[75]

In the Obama Administration

Then Sen. Obama campaigned for the president on a platform that included allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Almost immediately after taking the oath of office, President Obama acknowledged that repeal would not happen immediately and that he needed to confer with his civilian and military advisers before any change was made. On October 10, 2009, President Obama stated in a speech before the Human Rights Campaign that he will end the ban, but he offered no timetable.^[62] President Obama did offer a time table in his 2010 State of the Union Address when he declared: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."^[76] This statement was quickly followed up by testimony from both Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen, where they voiced their support for a repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' ban.^[77] A repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was adopted as an amendment to the FY 2011 Defense Bill by US House of Representatives on May 27, 2010. This amendment provided for the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy following a study conducted by US Army General Carter Ham.^[78] A similar amendment was adopted by the US Senate Armed Services Committee later that week. On June 20, 2010 Secretary of Defense Gates stated that President Obama may veto the FY 2011 Defense Bill even if it does include a don't ask, don't tell repeal due to concerns over waste and over spending by Congress.^[79]

See also

• Margarethe Cammermeyer – a retired colonel in the Washington National Guard and a gay rights activist
• Holmes v. California National Guard
• Darren Manzella – an Army medic and gay activist
• Timothy R. McVeigh – the first person to win a case against DADT
• Right to Serve Campaign – an organized effort to bring attention to DADT
• Barry Winchell – an American soldier who was murdered by other soldiers while serving because he was thought to be a homosexual

Notes

References

Further reading

External links

• Pub.L. 103-160 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
• Department of Defense Directive 1332.14
• Center for Military Readiness
• 10 U.S.C. § 654 – the policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces
• Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding Gays and U.S. Military Policy
• Human Rights Campaign
• Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
• Chronology of "Don't ask, don't tell"
• Michael D. Palm Center
• Blue Alliance – LGBT Alumni of the US Air Force Academy
• Knights Out – LGBT Alumni of the US Military Academy
• USNA Out – LGBT Alumni of the US Naval Academy
• Thomasson v. Perry – The first test of "Don't ask, don't tell" to reach the Supreme Court was turned down without comment and without setting a precedent.
• - OutServe – An Underground Network of Active Duty/Guard/Reserve
• Pte. Bethany Smith, lesbian denied DADT Discharge – the first gay american soldier to seek Canadian refugee status on the basis of sexual orientation

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics   Academic fields · Discourse Gender studies · Lavender linguistics · Lesbian feminism · LGBT literature · LGBT/Queer studies · Queer theory · Transfeminism   Community · Culture Coming out · Drag king · Drag queen · Gay bar · Gay village · Gay icon · Lesbian utopia · LGBT-affirming religious groups (LGBT-affirming churches) · Pride · Pride parade · Gay rodeo · Literature  · List of LGBT-related organizations · Periodicals · Same-sex relationship · Slang · Slogans · Symbols · Tourism · Category:LGBT culture   Gender identities · Sexual identities Sexual identity Bisexual · Gay · Lesbian Gender identity Transgender · Transsexual Other Intersex · Queer · Third sex / third gender · Two-Spirit · Non-heterosexual   History LGBT history History of lesbianism · LGBT History Timeline · Social movements · History of Christianity and homosexuality · History of same-sex unions · Pederasty · Category:LGBT history Pre-modern era Adelphopoiesis · Homosexuality in ancient Greece · Homosexuality in ancient Rome · Homosexuality in ancient Egypt · Homosexuality in ancient Peru 16th to 19th century Mollies · Urnings 20th century Gay Liberation · Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust · Inversion · Sea queens · Stonewall riots · Festival of Light action · White Night riots 21st century   Rights · Legal issues LGBT rights by country or territory Africa  · Americas  · Asia  · Europe  · Oceania  · List of LGBT rights articles by region LGBT rights topics Adoption · Civil unions and partnerships · Hate crime laws · Legal aspects of transsexualism · Military service · Parenting · Same-sex marriage (Status · Timeline) · Socialism · Sodomy laws LGBT rights movements Gay Liberation · LGBT rights groups · LGBT rights activists   Sexual orientation Sexual orientations Homosexuality · Bisexuality Medicine, science and sexology Biology and sexual orientation · Demographics · Environment and sexual orientation · Homosexuality and psychology · Neuroscience and sexual orientation · Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine · Heterosexual-homosexual continuum · Kinsey scale · Klein Grid   Social attitudes · Prejudice · Violence Social attitudes Heteronormativity · LGBT rights opposition · LGBT stereotypes · Religion and homosexuality · Transgenderism and religion Prejudice · Violence Corrective rape · Biphobia · Gay bashing · Heterosexism · Homophobia · Lesbophobia · Transphobia · Racism in the LGBT community · List of unlawfully killed transgender people · Violence against LGBT people Category:LGBT · LGBT portal