Something to point out about DADT....

[Skidmore]

First, it is not an executive order for Obama to rescind. Second, it is encoded in federal law and Congress must repeal it. I fully support an act of Congress to repeal it. I just don't understand the gnashing of teeth and excoriation of the President demanding that he strike it out somehow. I fully believe he will sign a law enacted by Congress to do away with this policy. Until such time such a change in the U.S.C. takes place, it is the law of the land. Let's get to work on Congress, where the real change must begin.

[TheWraith]

1. Kicked and recommended, with an added note...

The problematic portion of the law is the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which makes homosexuality a crime within the armed forces. This would have been over years ago if the Supreme Court had struck that down along with the rest of the sodomy laws in Lawrence V. Texas, but they tend to give military law very wide leniancy compared to civilian law.

[ClarkUSA]

2. Thank you. When I speak similarly, I get attacked. Let's see if a different messenger helps.

[GodlessBiker]

3. So, the President never sends legislation to the Hill? He can't propose it?

[SpartanDem]

10. There is already bill in Congress HR 1283

yet most of DU seems unaware of this and the attention is focused on what Obama is or isn't doing

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01283:

[vaberella]

14. It's the way they roll...get used to it. n/t

[JamesA1102]

4. Please don't confuse the issue with facts

or some might not be able to beat their chests in self-rightous indignation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Obama haters argue that Obama has the authority to stop it.

Under a power that grants the CinC the power to halt the termination of soldiers in times of war. But that power only applies to issues of national security, and has to apply on a case by case basis. So one might be able to argue that an important officer or translator might be essential to national security, but it wouldn't be a very good argument. And a gay Army cook, for example, wouldn't be important to national security at all. So you wouldn't have equal protection. And you'd still have the unequal law on the books, which would still be an inequality, like having civil unions but gay marriage.

It's up to Congress, they've got a bill in committee, with intent to push it through in 2010, as per Barney Frank.

[GodlessBiker]

7. I don't hate Obama. I voted for him. But his relative silence on this issue is deafening.

He should speak out about this issue. Advocate for its passage.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. He has spoken out on the issue.

He is advocating for its passage.

[vaberella]

16. He's spoken on this all the time.

He's had Gibbs speak on this, his site speaks on it and his WH site speaks on it. How much more speaking do you want. You just want to be angry if you use that statement as your argument because it has no foundation but just lies; because he just doesn't say what you want when he has said over and over he is focused on repealing DADT for the long haul...not short term.

[ruggerson]

43. and some people loosely throw around inane terms like "obama hater"

to try to marginalize people who certainly don't hate Obama, who voted for Obama, and who are pushing Obama to do the right thing.

[LooseWilly]

6. If you support repeal, why do you seem to refuse to acknowledge that Obama could halt firings...

... until Congress takes up a bill on the subject?

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops.pdf (page 11).

10 U.S.C. § 654 (“Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces”) states that a
“member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made
and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations”: (1) “the
member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a
homosexual act or acts”; (2) “the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or
bisexual, or words to that effect”; or (3) “the member has married or attempted to marry a
person known to be of the same biological sex.”

The President of the United States has authority under the laws of the United States and
the Constitution to suspend all investigations, separation proceedings, or other personnel
actions conducted under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations.

So, if he's a "fierce supporter of equal rights"... why not "suspend all investigations, separation proceedings, or other personnel actions conducted under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654"?

Once the investigations are suspended, I would suspect that there would be more pressure on Congress to do... something. In the meantime, I'll gnash my teeth and figure that any who don't understand are being willfully ignorant.

Edited for clarity.

[grantcart]

13. He cannot simply stop prosecutions and leave a gaping vacuum in place.

Once it is not prosecuted there will be litigation on all of the related issues, too numerous to list.

What is the regulation on married same sex servicemembers and their dependents and on and on.

An entirely new code of conduct will need to be written on 'fraternization'. What will be considered acceptable fraternization and what will now be against regulations.


It is a huge gordian knot that has to have a 'global' solution and cannot be solved by simply taking out one aspect and not prosecuting.

[LooseWilly]

23. Yes, he can. (ohh, the irony)

The "gaping vacuum" to which you refer is what Congress is supposed to deal with. Right??

So, create a "gaping vacuum", and make Congress deal with filling in the vacuum. What's the difficulty in that?

You make it sound so difficult... but it's really not. "What is the regulation on married same sex service members and their dependents and on and on"?... Are you kidding me? How about: The same as for married not-so-same sex service members?

"An entirely new code of conduct will need to be written on 'fraternization'. What will be considered acceptable fraternization and what will now be against regulations." Why?? Just alter the wording so that same sex and not-so-same sex "fraternizations" are treated the same.

Presto! Alexander's solution to the gordian knot... the marines still carry cutlasses on their dress uniforms, no?

[struggle4progress]

33. The Palm Center actually proposes the President use 10 USC § 12305 to suspend 10 USC § 654

The Palm Center paper contains a number of arguments against DADT, indicating why 10 USC § 654 is wrong-headed and damaging and should be repealed ASAP. I generally find these arguments strongly convincing

The Palm Center further proposes an Executive Order under 10 USC § 12305 to suspend 10 USC § 654. There may be good reasons not to adopt that view. 10 USC § 12305 was used by the Bush administration to enforce a "back door draft" through "stop loss" orders. Although many people disagreed with that, as a misuse of the statute, the courts to date have unfortunately upheld it. The Bush reading of 10 USC § 12305 undermines the idea that Congress can pass any meaningful law whatsoever regarding separation or retention. Under Obama, the "stop loss" practice has largely ended, and it is undesirable to reinforce the Bush misuse of 10 USC § 12305 by establishing further precedents for misuse. Moreover, it is strange to use 10 USC § 12305 to waive separation, because 10 USC § 654 explicitly contains its own national security waiver language: 10 USC § 654 explicitly states that the separations may be suspended only in accordance with promulgated regulations. It is my understanding (and I am not certain of it) that the referenced regulations leave the decision to initiation DADT separations with local commanders

The underlying political problem, of course, is that the Republicans will attempt to use DADT to re-energize their base, and as a result Congress would prefer to defer taking a stand on the issue. In particular, White House action could produce enough reaction to silence Congress on the issue, so that repeal of 10 USC § 654 became impossible. On the other hand, the justice arguments for quick action are rather convincing. Since 10 USC § 654 explicitly references promulgated regulations, the natural short-term goal might be a short preliminary rule-making and regulatory guidance document, consistent with the Administration's rhetoric that it intends to study the matter and consistent with the need to determine the national security implications of the proposed separation. In particular, the preliminary rule-making could require, for each separation action, extensive factual documentation regarding:

(1) the actual effect of the service member in question on "morale, order and discipline, and unit cohesion" and "bonds of trust among individual service members" and
(2) the effect of the proposed separation on the ability of the military "to prepare for and to prevail in combat" and whether separation is "in the best interest of the armed forces"

The quoted language is lifted directly from the statute and thus reflects Congressional intent. Independent documentation and recommendations for (1) and (2) could be required from several levels of command. Both local command issues and general defense matters could be considered for each such termination. Adding a substantial documentation requirement to separation proceedings would discourage unnecessary proceedings in cases where the service member had no untoward effect on the local unit or served an important national security role. But direct repeal of 10 USC § 654 would still be required

[LooseWilly]

34. I never intended to get into a discussion of legal merits...

As I frankly find the gears and cogs of the law rather tedious.

As long as you are going to lob this one to me though... I guess I'll grab a bat and take a swing.

I am also not comfortable with the idea of using 10 USC § 12305 (which I will presume is the National Emergency clause that Bush used for his Stop Loss back door... you have a habit of quoting legal precedent as if this were a law school/practicing lawyer discussion board... a habit that will almost certainly start to earn you more than a little enmity, in case you didn't realize that fact a priori...) to nullify 10 USC § 654. I think that solution smacks too much of a "jury rigging" solution... and is liable to come back to politically haunt the President (while leaving Congress unduly off the hook).

What I am proposing is that the President should use 10 USC § 654 to simply stop the investigations that are a pre-requisite of the dismissal of military personnel under DADT. "Just Say No", as it were. Ostensibly (and factually) it would be a measure pending the examination of the issue by the Congress... it would be an act like a court "staying" the enforcement of a law pending its review for constitutionality... or staying the enforcement of a ruling, pending the outcome of an appeal.

If Congress never has the guts to deal with the issue, then some other President who has the nerve can "un-suspend" the investigations... and in the meantime, no one was dismissed. If Congress can't fix DADT, well then it's just a band aid... but Obama will have done what he could.

The question is just a matter of will and political calculation, as far as I can tell.

[struggle4progress]

38. Thanks for a thoughtful response

[LooseWilly]

39. I'd say my pleasure... but as I said... the cogs and wheels of law leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Nonetheless... it felt like a thought processing that had to be done... so I did it.

Judging by your response... I suspect that you can't think of any argument to the use of 10 USC Sec 654 to suspend terminations/dismissals while Congress dithers on the merits of considering the bill to repeal/deal with DADT? Would I be correct?

It is a move that would actually reassure a vocal segment of Obama's base, and soundly drop the issue into the lap of Congress. It would be morally correct and politically expedient, in my view.

The only argument against doing so, that I can think of, would be that Obama doesn't want Congress to have to deal with the issue either... and he's not taking any action to really press Congress because he's asking for some political favors from Congress in exchange for not doing so... which means he's basically selling GLBT folks out in exchange for more political favors on other issues.

I will jump for joy and donate $100 to the DSCC on the day that Obama proves my theory wrong by using 10 USC Sec 654 to suspend investigations pending action by Congress.

I suspect I'll not be parting with my $100 though...

[struggle4progress]

41. I would distinguish between (1) morality, (2) good constitutional practice, (3) the

pragmatic power of the Executive, and (4) political considerations

(1) From a purely moral POV, DADT is offensive and should be suspended/repealed ASAP

(2) Constitutionally, the Executive ought to be checked by law, like any other civic entity. I came of age during the Nixon era, when the President advanced the notion that his office gave him the power of an absolute monarch, and both Congress and the Judiciary properly stood up and loudly said No! This period was followed by legislation restricting the Executive somewhat, but with Reagan came more regal illegalities, some coordinated secretly from the White House basement. Now we have just survived two terms of perhaps the most lawless Presidency in our history. As a matter of good constitutional practice, one should like to see the President recognize the authority of Congress to restrict his hand, and one should like to see Congress insist somewhat on its right to do so. DADT was a compromise forged when Clinton tried unsuccessfully to abolish military discrimination based on sexual preference: Congress refused to grant him permission to do so, and 10 USC Sec 654 is the result. Thus from the POV of good constitutional practice, one should regard 10 USC Sec 654 as restricting the freedom of the Executive. For the President simply to assert that his administration will not enforce 10 USC Sec 654 hardens the lawless precedents of the Bush era, making it more likely that future Presidents will be even less controlled by Congress, which is undesireable. The statute does allow the President to stay the discharge of anyone for national security reasons, provided this is consistent with regulations -- and of course regulations are promulgated by the Administration. One temporary solution could therefore be this: the Administration promulgates a preliminary rule making the DADT discharge process extremely tedious for everyone involved, with the practical effect that such discharges slow to a crawl

(3) From a pragmatic POV, of course, the power of the Executive is limited only by the politics of rivalries between the Executive and the other two branches. After the Bush years, the current Administration may indeed have the pragmatic ability to suspend DADT by Executive Order, whether or not one regards such an Executive Order as disregarding the plainly stated intent of Congress in 10 USC Sec 654. So Obama may have the power to issue such an Executive Order without necessarily having the right

(4) The final question is what political consequences will ensue from any action. The rightwing in 1994 had the ability to use "sexual preference and the military" as a major organizing tool, and Congress remembers this. It is the essential nature of political animals to travel in packs, with everyone trying to hide in the center of the pack. Thus Congress may not want to deal with this issue if it can avoid doing so -- and Presidential action potentially gives Congress an excuse to hand the whole issue to the President as his baby

Summary: DADT is an immoral law, and Congress should repeal it. Morally the President should not enforce it, but under our constitutional system he does not have the right not to enforce it; he may, nevertheless, have the power not to enforce it. Should he choose not to enforce it, there is some possibility that the rightwing will organize around his non-enforcement, terrifying an already timid Congress into complete inaction.

So we differ at the last point: you believe decisive action by Obama will encourage Congress to act; I suspect Congress could seize upon a high profile action by Obama as an excuse not to act by arguing the issue had already been addressed

[LooseWilly]

45. I'm not sure I agree with your point about the right/power issue.

As I see it, this would be a suspension of the enforcement of 10 USC Sec 654 pending Congressional revision... again I liken it to a judge suspending enforcement of a law/court judgement pending the outcome of an appeal.
There is no metaphysical wrong in the Executive suspending enforcement of a law pending legislative review of the law. And, theoretically, if Congress really wanted to they could just re-pass the law without any changes, at which point Obama would be expected to begin re-enforcing the bad law.

As for Congress using activity on the part of the Executive to dodge doing anything themselves... I had thought of the possibility... but it seems to me that Congress doesn't need any Executive activity to spring to inaction. If Congress is going to do nothing, they'll do it whether or not Obama suspends the investigations under 10 USC 654.
On the other hand, if Obama suspends investigations under 10 USC 654, then suddenly all attention on the subject, from both sides of the issue, will focus on the Congress... making it harder to remain inactive.

It seems to me, on balance, that it's the right move. And now, with Megan McCain and Dick Cheney saying that they're pro-Same Sex Marriage... the idea that the Congress should tremble over the issue begins to sound ludicrous. If anything... the way this issue is evolving in the minds of the Public, they should begin considering Not Doing Anything tremble-worthy...

[dgibby]

8. I am fully aware of the law; however, is it not within his purview to place a moratorium

on discharging those who are caught up in DADT?

I'm just asking for info..not arguing your point or blaming the Prez.

[Skidmore]

11. I would say that regardless of what he does or does not due, the

law still remains on the book and need to be repealed.

[dgibby]

12. I agree completely.

I'd just like to find some way to keep those caught up in this mess in the service. We are losing some great talent, and their lives are being ruined in the process. It's a lose-lose situation. It's just sad.

[vaberella]

15. We're not losing them because they could always be reinstated until the law is passed.

Obama seems to be working to get this done in the next 4 years. Yes, for a period of time which is rather long the individuals will not be part of the military. But I sincerely think things can change. I'm also not to sure of the dynamics of the condition which allows Obama to stop the dismissal but I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't use it and it's not because he wouldn't want too.

[Cha]

17. That's good

to know.

[dgibby]

18. One of the guys on the chopping block is a LtCol with 18yrs active duty.

He's losing his retirement, health care, etc. Not likely in this economy that any of them can afford to wait until Congress gets off it's ass. Depending on the military skill set, it may be quite difficult to find another job. And then what? If reinstatement is an option later, would they still be physically able to return to service? Still in the eligible age group? Still able to step back into the service and be competitive? Willing to give up a job if they're lucky enough to find one? Lots of variables there.

[vaberella]

28. Understood...and I agree.

I have problems with the set back in DADT, however---I hate the Senate and I'm have no love for Congress. There's enough people around to fuck him over.

[LooseWilly]

27. You're not sure of the condition which allows Obama to stop dismissals? See Post #6.

I won't bother to re-paste it here.

"I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't use it and it's not because he wouldn't want too." I'm sure that you're sure... but your faith does not inspire me with Hope.

The only answer that seems consistent with the rest of the reality that I perceive is that Obama doesn't want to mess with the political ramifications of going anywhere near the Gay Rights issue. He has, it seems to me, made a political decision to stay away from Gay Rights, presumably in order to save up his political capital for something that he apparently has decided is "more important for the nation". He is President of all the people blah blah blah

This decision may be ok with you, but I disagree. I view it as a human rights issue. And I view it as relatively easy to solve... if the government were willing to stand up and just do it. They are obviously not interested. You can argue about priorities and political tactics as much as you'd like... but from where I sit, it looks like a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress... and, in my judgement, if they would just take care of this "pesky" un-equality issue, then we could move on to all the stuff that even the homophobes like... and in a year and change, when repealing of DADT has not impacted anyone particularly... the voters really won't care enough to be "outraged" and throw all the (nearly useless anyway) Blue Dawgs out of office.

In the meantime, I'm glad that you have faith. I suspect that it's Democratic PTSD induced political cowardice that you're placing your faith in... but I might be wrong. The Democrats might not be suffering from PTSD.

[vaberella]

29. I did not write what you stated.

I said I'm not sure of the dynamics that are preventing Obama to utilise the right. Or why he has not utilized it. I said that very clearly in my post.

I never stated that I agree with his position and you can read what you want. However, I don't think O is a man who would want to see those in his army in the total of 200+ of soldiers everything, especially when they gave their lives to our country suffer. You may believe that, but I do not. I do think he may have reasons we are not privy too---I would like to privy to it. Until then, however, he has stated on multiple occasions and they are found on his personal website and WH website that he is committed to work in favor of GLBT and he has proven that in past actions against prop 8.

So I am not about to give up on him now. Yes, I have faith and I will continue to do so because there is nothing out there sufficient to state he will not follow through.

Lastly, I'm tired of people making comments about political cowardice and that pisses me off. He went toe to toe with the Israeli's and said things to both Jews and Muslims to get them on track---so give me a bloody break on "political cowardice." I can tell you that from my perspective GLBT is not as hot as something as that issue. I think he's working towards it, I have seen him work towards GLBT rights, and I will push that he addresses them.

That being said, he has 4 years to follow through on this and I'm giving him that time. I hired him to do a lot in 4 years and I'm giving him that time. I might want it in 5 months but I can damn well wait even if I don't like it.

[LooseWilly]

36. Firstly, congratulations on your latest graduation.

I can't remember if you said what your newest degree is on or not (I want to say health policy, but I suspect that that would be incorrect).

That said, I think you might still be tired from the finals and whatnot. You may not've said what I said you said... but that would only be because you didn't say what you thought you'd said... and there wasn't a whole lot of "said that clearly" in that post... nor even in this one.

I'm not trying to be snide, and I wasn't trying to be insulting before.

Maybe I did misread, but the headline: "We're not losing them because they could always be reinstated until the law is passed." doesn't make any sense. "reinstated until the law is passed"?... isn't that the same thing as the suspension of investigations that I mentioned in post #6? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't they have to wait until after the law is passed to be "re-instated"? Until DADT law is changed... they can't be "re-instated" because they are in violation of... DADT (10 USC Sec. 654... blah blah blah).

As for the post itself... let's explore what you clearly stated. "Obama seems to be working to get this done in the next 4 years." Ok... that makes sense. I'm not sure what exactly provides you with the evidence that he "seems to be working"... but I'm also willing to give him some benefit of the doubt.

"Yes, for a period of time which is rather long the individuals will not be part of the military." Ok... I can either be confused, or take a bit of a guess. You are taking for granted that they will all ("come one come all... you gay service people) be re-instated? Personally, I can't help but suspect that the "period of time which is rather long" might be forever for a whole lot of these folks. And, are you sure that the discharge under DADT (10 USC Sec. 654 for those who feel like poring over legal tomes... I think) is so easily "reversible"? Are you sure that Congress wouldn't have to pass another law?... which might take another 4 years (or 20)?

"But I sincerely think things can change." Well, that is certainly re-assuring. I think they can too. Or, I think that they can stay the same. I think it depends on some agency actively pushing some change. I'll cross my fingers.

"I'm also not to sure of the dynamics of the condition which allows Obama to stop the dismissal..." Which I quoted and responded that you should "see #6". I interpreted this sentence to mean that you weren't sure of the dynamics of the "condition"="legal mechanism" which allows Obama to stop the dismissal. If you were instead referring to some sort of "dynamics that are preventing Obama to utilise the right."... well then I'm sorry I misinterpreted (though you can hardly call that clearly stated in your post). I did go on to speculate on my theories of the "dynamics that are preventing Obama to utilise the right." but I will presume that you are now rejecting my theories... and perhaps properly so.

"... but I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't use it and it's not because he wouldn't want too." Again, I quoted you... literally cut and pasted your statement... and then I shared some theories I have which seem to make sense to me... but which you are again unwilling to embrace. Not that I blame you.


As you can see, you did, in fact, say what I said you said. You may've meant to say something else... but you didn't.

I did not mean to misrepresent you, however. I merely meant to provide you with a quote that explains how he could suspend enforcement of DADT, and I then merely meant to point out to you that you had made a statement of faith in Obama, which, in this instance, I find evidence compelling me to have doubts.

You say: "I never stated that I agree with his position"... but you also said "... but I'm sure there is a reason why he doesn't use it and it's not because he wouldn't want too." suggesting that whether or not you "agree with his position", you are nevertheless not going to "question" it... because you are "sure there is a reason"... even without him telling you what it is... which, I admit... I jumped to the conclusion of equating with agreeing with his position, even though you suggest you aren't really sure what the position is.

I'd be curious to know what position you do agree with?


To go on with the analysis (and further support my theory that you need to take some rest after your finals...) I'll quote you yet again. "However, I don't think O is a man who would want to see those in his army in the total of 200+ of soldiers everything, especially when they gave their lives to our country suffer."

I don't even know where to begin analyzing that sentence. I'm not even going to bother. I'm going to assume you've been doing some celebratory drinking (quite justified, if you ask me) and that you're on a different time zone than I am, so I'm behind in my drinking... and that that sentence was meant to mean what I suspect it was meant to mean.

In fact, I'm going to forego all other confusing syntax, and jump to "Lastly, I'm tired of people making comments about political cowardice and that pisses me off. He went toe to toe with the Israeli's and said things to both Jews and Muslims to get them on track---" Firstly, the political cowardice that I mentioned was meant to also cast aspersions on the Congress, every bit as much as upon the President. Secondly... if you won't use a majority in a "democratic" government to end discrimination against a constituency bloc... what would you call it other than cowardice? And as for Obama going "toe to toe with the Israeli's"?... when they refuse to negotiate the settlements and Obama cuts off military aid to Israel, then he'll have gone toe to toe with them. This was a fine speech and a fine outline showing that Obama not only had a grasp of both sides of the dispute, but that he was willing to acknowledge both sides' points of view in public. No mean feat, I will admit. Standing toe to toe and cutting off funding will be something else entirely. Something to make suspending DADT dismissals (10 USC Sec 654) pale into a summer stroll on the White House grounds.

And finally: "I can tell you that from my perspective GLBT is not as hot as something as that issue. I think he's working towards it, I have seen him work towards GLBT rights, and I will push that he addresses them." Thank you for being the first one I've seen say it. "GLBT is not as hot as..." so basically equality of rights for a section of the political base of the Democratic Party (to argue it from a practical point of view, rather than an idealistic/idealogical one that posits that human rights are important for their own sake) is not as important to you as Israeli/Palestinian peace. Aside from the fact that that is, from a GLBT point of view, even more idealogical/idealistic a position than prioritizing GLBT rights... it seems to me that it is a (surprisingly honest) admission of your own personal priorities.

I just have to respond by saying that I disagree. While I do heartily and vociferously support a peace process in Israel/Palestine... I don't think that equal rights for the GLBT community should just be put on hold in the meantime. It seems to me that that would then justify putting them on hold for the next thing, and the next... and the next... until (to make it strictly practical) the Republicans think to (as perhaps Cheney and Megan McCain have already thought to) include Gay Rights in their platform... and bammo... the Gay Voters abandon Obama who has done nothing but postpone their interests in preference of those of others... Think it couldn't happen? Remember Nader in '00.

Ohh yeah, and that sentence was a syntactic mess too. Get some rest vabarella... or have a couple more drinks and put the DU down....

Edited to include a word that I, erroneously, thought that I'd typed.

[jgraz]

19. Yes, he could stop the firings with a phone call

THEN we can change the law. But in the meantime, the President needs to stop firing people for being gay.

[Thrill]

20. Where is the so called Progressive Caucus everyone up here loves so much?

Where is the legislation to repeal? Why hasn't Pelosi scheduled it for debate? Try to pin this on Obama all you want. But he's made it clear he supports it.

Where is the Democratic Congress. Get it on his desk and he'll sign it. They have no problems getting other things they through

[struggle4progress]

37. H.R. 1283:Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009

Mar 31, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1283


HR 1283 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1283

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 3, 2009

Mrs. TAUSCHER (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ANDREWS, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. COHEN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR of Arizona, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SARBANES, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SESTAK, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WELCH, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. WU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL
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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to institute in the Armed Forces a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF 1993 POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.
The following provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 654 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Subsections (b), (c), and (d) of section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES.
(a) Establishment of Policy- (1) Chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation
`(a) Policy- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or against any person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces.
`(b) Discrimination on Basis of Sexual Orientation- For purposes of this section, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is--
`(1) in the case of a member of the Armed Forces, the taking of any personnel or administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation, selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and
`(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the Armed Forces, denial of accession into the Armed Forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.
`(c) Personnel and Administrative Policies and Action- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, may not establish, implement, or apply any personnel or administrative policy, or take any personnel or administrative action (including any policy or action relating to promotions, demotions, evaluations, selections for awards, selections for duty assignments, transfers, or separations) in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation.
`(d) Rules and Policies Regarding Conduct- Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, from prescribing or enforcing regulations governing the conduct of members of the Armed Forces if the regulations are designed and applied without regard to sexual orientation.
`(e) Re-Accession of Otherwise Qualified Persons Permitted- Any person separated from the Armed Forces for homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct in accordance with laws and regulations in effect before the date of the enactment of this section, if otherwise qualified for re-accession into the Armed Forces, shall not be prohibited from re-accession into the Armed Forces on the sole basis of such separation.
`(f) Sexual Orientation- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived, and includes statements and consensual sexual conduct manifesting heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended--
(A) by striking the item relating to section 654; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new item:
`656. Policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation in the Armed Forces.'.
(b) Conforming Amendments- Title 10, United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 481 is amended--
(A) In subsection (a)(2), by inserting `, including sexual orientation discrimination,' after `discrimination' in subparagraphs (C) and (D); and
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting `and sexual orientation-based' after `gender-based' both places it appears.
(2) Section 983(a)(1) is amended by striking `(in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws)'.
(3) Section 1034(i)(3) is amended by inserting `sexual orientation,' after `sex,'.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of `marriage' and `spouse' and referred to as the `Defense of Marriage Act').

SEC. 6. NO PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DAMAGES.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to create a private cause of action for damages.

SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall revise Department of Defense regulations, and shall issue such new regulations as may be necessary, to implement section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a). The Secretary of Defense shall further direct the Secretary of each military department to revise regulations of that military department in accordance with section 656 of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a), not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such revisions shall include the following:
(1) Revision of all equal opportunity and human relations regulations, directives, and instructions to add sexual orientation nondiscrimination to the Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policy and to related human relations training programs.
(2) Revision of Department of Defense and military department personnel regulations to eliminate procedures for involuntary discharges based on sexual orientation.
(3) Revision of Department of Defense and military department regulations governing victims' advocacy programs to include sexual orientation discrimination among the forms of discrimination for which members of the Armed Forces and their families may seek assistance.
(b) Regulation of Conduct- The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, shall ensure that regulations governing the personal conduct of members of the Armed Forces shall be written and enforced without regard to sexual orientation.
(c) Definition- In this section, the term `sexual orientation' has the meaning given that term in section 656(f) of title 10, United States Code, as added by section 4(a).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h1283:

[Captain Hilts]

21. As a popular president he can drive policy. If it were a priority with him, it would be on The Hill.

[ClarkUSA]

22. He's always said that his top domestic priorities this year are healthcare reform & the energy bill.

It'll take a little longer to fix Bubba's DADT and DOMA fuck-ups.

[solstice]

26. He just issued a Gay Pride Month Proclamation. Surely he could have snuck in a line about DADT and

DOMA among the window dressing.

[sandnsea]

30. He did

At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=250

[LooseWilly]

32. I thought it was McCain who believed he had to drop everything else to deal with the economy.

As I recall, Obama said that he can handle a number of things at once. Maybe I'm just getting senile?

[vaberella]

35. He is dealing with several things currently.

The economy is one of many...and he's currently stated he's working on DADT.

[LooseWilly]

40. But he doesn't want to interfere with dismissals in the meantime?

10 USC Sec 654... I've got the friggin legal code memorized at this point... will allow him to suspend all dismissals pending Congressional action.

Dropping the ball in Congress' lap, and then saying that "he's working on DADT" is... weak. He may be trying to talk about it with Congress... in fact several guests on... Chris Matthews... today said that the whitehouse was working with congress on a bill for next year (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#31111399)... but the question is, why doesn't he use 10 USC Sec 654 to suspend dismissals in the meantime?

[ruggerson]

44. bingo

n/t

[FreeState]

24. Obama should be using his Bully Pulpit to end this - like he promised in the primaries n/t

[solstice]

25. Obama could speak out if he wanted to. Why doesn't he want to?

[progressoid]

31. If only Democrats controlled the Senate and the House.

[ruggerson]

42. Then this should not have been a signature campaign promise

which it was.

Presidents can, and do, lobby congress hard for certain pieces of legislation.

They use the bully pulpit, they ask congress to enact legislation, they push, they cajole, they lobby.

THis is what Presidents do when they want a piece legislation passed.

The argument that DADT is suddenly now all Congress' responsibility is pure nonsense.