Congressional Democrats Push to End 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Rep. Patrick Murphy is pushing a bill to repeal the policy
As a young company commander in Baghdad, Rep. Patrick Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, led troops "who didn't care about your color, creed, race, or sexual orientation—they cared about whether you could fire your M-4 assault rifle and kick a door down."
Today, he is spearheading the House legislative effort to repeal the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bans openly homosexual troops from serving in the military. The first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, Murphy has taken up the cause, he says, because since being commissioned as an officer in 1993, he "saw so many great soldiers thrown out not for any misconduct but just because they are gay." This week in Philadelphia, flanked by former soldiers, Murphy launched a multi-city campaign to talk up his bill to change the law. It is not just the right thing to do, he says, but a matter of national security.
That line has become the rallying cry for a cadre of congressional Democrats intent on overturning the ban, enacted in 1993. It has helped, staffers say, that over at the Pentagon, there has been a notable shift in the tone of senior officials regarding the law, if not the expulsion of gay troops.
Still, since President Obama took office in January, 296 service members have been discharged under "don't ask, don't tell." For this, the president has drawn criticism from fellow Democratswho note that abolishing the policy was one of Obama's campaign promises. This fact has, in turn, become a topic of discussion at the White House, according to Pentagon officials. As a result, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in Junethat Defense Department lawyers are trying to implement the president's policy goals by looking for ways to soften the Pentagon's interpretation of the law until it is repealed, as many senior officials expect. "The issue that we face," Gates explained, is "How do we begin to do preparations" even as the White House asks Congress "to change the law?" Those interim preparations, Gates said, include investigations into whether "there is flexibility in how we apply this law."
He has offered by way of example a gay serviceman who might be turned in by "somebody who may have a vendetta." Gates asks, "Is there a way we cannot focus on those kinds of reports?"
The answer to that question, he added, has yet to be determined. In the meantime, congressional staffers say that behind the scenes, they are exploring their options. New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand recently shelved a plan to add an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill that would have placed an 18-month moratorium on the law. "There's a sense that we can do this, we're just not going to do it as an amendment to a defense bill," says one Senate staffer.
But congressional Democrats face obstacles. Murphy notes that as he works to drum up support for the bill, he privately hears from colleagues, "I want to, but I'm in a tough district." To this, Murphy says he responds that he won his district by 0.6 percent. The moderate "blue dog" Democrat also points to the cost of expelling gay troops, including the $60,000 expense of recruiting and training each new soldier—a considerable waste of taxpayer dollars, he says. With those arguments, he has managed to whip up 164 cosponsors to a bill repealing the ban. "I need 218 votes total to pass this thing," he says. "And we're working every single day to put pressure out there to get it done." Murphy hopes that will happen later this year, after Congress finishes tackling healthcare reform.
Reader Comments
Fighting for Freedom
H. Homosexuality. 1. Basis. a. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the Military Services to maintain discipline, good order. and morale: to foster mutual trust and confidence among servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command: to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of servicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the Military Services; to maintain the public acceptability of military service: and to prevent breaches of security.
32 CFR Ch. I (7-l-93 Edition)
Interestingly enough I am doing a term paper on this subject. I am looking at the legality of the DADT policy; and how the military should face this issue. I have read many arguments for and against this. I have also been looking at case law and how both sides have tried to go about repealing, or keeping the policy. I can see how the homosexual would feel discriminated when they couldn’t bring their partner with them to functions, and how they couldn’t speak freely about their life. I can also see where the military can state that they are looking to keep good order and discipline. We don’t have to look too far into the past and see where there has been violence directed at a homosexual from a fellow military member. We are fighting for the freedom of individuals in the United States, but in this, there is a sacrifice that many have made. Some have sacrificed their lives, while others have sacrificed their own freedoms to do as they see fit, in order for many others to have that freedom. I know when military members go through the process of becoming a member they take an oath. The oath of enlistment, or of an officer, both of them make statements of following what is ordered of you and carrying those orders out. It is due to the laws that we have set for ourselves, and the idea that our military will be the best in the world, that we continue to strive to be above reproach. We continue to police ourselves and ensure that our military does not drink while deployed, and we do not allow for extramarital affairs, and many other things. Other countries do not have such stringent laws, yet they are not seen as the best military in the world. Before we hastily repeal laws or enact them, we need to step back and look at the whole picture, and see what’s best for everyone, not just what’s best for our point of view. We also have to be fair in our approach, not blindly swinging our sword at the enemy, and see why the other side may see things a certain way. Then we need to come together and discuss the issues and see if there is a compromise we can all come to, kind of like what they did in 1993.
Nikki of FL
Nikki of FL, very well said!!
No, David
David you are so funny. You describe in detail your own bigoted behavior then proceed to claim you're not a bigot. Huh?
A bigot is not some far-off ogre who does things you will never do. In this case, a bigot is you. You go on and on with talk of why gay and lesbian Americans should be treated differently than heterosexual Americans. Your reason boils down to: you don't like them on grounds of who they fall in love with. Newsflash David: that is precisely what bigotry is. Dictionary definition: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group and is intolerant of those who differ." Bingo, we have a winner.
No one cares what your personal opinion of homosexuality is. That's not the point. I have a massive dislike for religious nuts and uber-conservatives, but I would never expect they should get treated differently by any part of AMerican law including the military. That would be bigotry.
I'll say it again: the existing military rules of conduct are there to handle any situation that comes up. They apply equally to gay and straight people. If those rules are as ineffectual you say, that's not gay people's fault.
It's just a matter of time. You will lose this battle, and you will look to all America like the bigot you are. Sticking to your guns when you are wrong isn't a good plan in the long run. It makes you look kind of weak.
advertisement
