A new study about the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy questions the assumption that allowing openly gay and lesbian military personnel to serve in the U.S. armed forces could harm military readiness.

The study surveyed military personnel who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found that having a gay or lesbian colleague in their unit had no significant impact on their unit’s cohesion or readiness. The study, by researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida, was published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.

“Service members said the most important factors for unit cohesion and readiness were the quality of their officers, training and equipment,” said Laura Miller, study co-author and a sociologist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Serving with another service member who was gay or lesbian was not a significant factor that affected unit cohesion or readiness to fight.”

Since the law prohibiting open service of gay and lesbian military personnel is based on the premise that open integration would harm cohesion and readiness, the findings suggest that the U.S. military should revisit the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, said Miller and study co-author Bonnie Moradi, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Florida.

The study found that just 40 percent of the military members surveyed expressed support for the policy, while 28 percent opposed it and 33 percent were neutral—less support than seen in previous surveys.

About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.

The study, “Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members,” will appear later in the print edition of Armed Forces and Society. The study was commissioned by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Although RAND has done other research on this topic, this study was the product of a contract directly with the researchers and not through RAND. It is available online here.

Miller and Moradi examined information from a 2006 voluntary online poll conducted by Zogby International of 545 U.S. service members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The survey sample was pulled from a national panel composed of more than 1 million members and screened to select service members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The survey sample included personnel from all service branches and from a mix of ranks and occupations. The majority of respondents were on active duty at the time of the survey, but the sample also included reservists and military veterans.

Researchers found no significant differences regarding attitudes toward gay and lesbian military members among members of the different services. Other findings from the study include:

Compared to previous studies of military members, support for the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban continues to decline. The earliest polls in 1993 showed 75 percent agreed with the ban, 8 percent unsure and 16 percent were against it.

The important factors for cohesion and readiness were officer/non-commissioned officer quality, training quality and equipment quality. Beyond these factors, knowing a gay or lesbian person in the unit was not associated significantly with ratings of unit cohesion or readiness.

The most frequently endorsed arguments in support of integrating gays and lesbians were those that prioritized performance and qualifications over exclusionary practices.

Moradi and Miller noted that further research is needed to explore these and some of the other findings of the study, such as the general pattern that high-grade enlisted personnel and officers were more supportive of the ban than low- and mid-grade enlisted personnel. Those who reported prior training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment also were more favorable of the ban than those who had not had the training.

The American Medical Association also voted to declare that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

Both gay-rights policies were adopted Tuesday at the AMA’s interim policy meeting in Houston.

The AMA says the ‘don’t ask, don’t-tell’ law creates an ethical dilemma for gay service members and the doctors who treat them.

The other measure declares that marriage bans leave gays vulnerable to being excluded from health care benefits, including health insurance and family and medical leave rights. The new AMA policy stops short of opposing the bans.

He said the administration “will take the necessary steps” to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, which bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to pensions, health insurance and other government benefits. The administration is also committed to getting rid of the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy applying to military personnel.

That probably doesn’t mean much to you, but it should. That particular Under Secretary presides over the implementation – or repeal – of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, according to Politico’s Ben Smith.

Said SLDN in an email to Smith:

“There were indications of seriousness of purpose on DADT repeal today by this White House with its intent to nominate an Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Dr. Stanley is likely to be the President’s key Pentagon player in the DADT debate and will be critical for the President in getting military uniform buy-in. Historically, the position of Under Secretary of Defense provides oversight of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

There is speculation that Stanley, whose wife was shot by a sniper because of the couple’s race and who has expressed satisfaction that the military changes over time, may opposes the military ban on the open serving of gays and lesbians. Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand (D-NY) told the Advocate:

“”I expect that the hearing on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will take place next month after the confirmation hearing for marine general Clifford Stanley. There is a lot more support in Congress for full repeal of DADT than people realize.”

 

This sign from the White House, along with the recent anti-discrimination policies coming from HHS and HUD, seem to indicate that the White House is taking real steps on our issues.

No one here needs to be convinced, at least I don’t think so, but now an article in the Pentagon’s top scholarly journal says its time to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Air Force Colonel Om Prakash, who works in the office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, wrote the essay for Joint Force Quarterly; he studied the topic as a student at the National Defense University and his findings give no wiggle room for those who still believe in DADT.

“After a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly,’’ the colonel writes. “Based on this research, it is not time for the administration to reexamine the issue; rather it is time for the administration to examine how to implement the repeal of the ban.’’

It would be easy to be dismissive of Prakash’s article, but that would be foolhardy. It wasn’t published in a “gay rag.” While you might not see Joint Force Quarterly next to Out or GQ, it is the reading material of military personnel who make policy. Secondly Colonel Prakash knows the deal. He admits getting rid of the gay ban will cause issues in some units, and violence to some gay and lesbian soldiers. However, like all military problems, one word will be key: leadership.

“No doubt there will be cases where units will become dysfunctional, just as there are today among heterosexual leaders. Intervention will be required; such units must be dealt with just as they are today – in a prompt and constructive fashion.’’

“A prompt and constructive fashion.” Hopefully a general will pass this article along to the Obama White House.

The legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service comes as Democratic lawmakers push legislation to repeal the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that blocks gays’ military service if they disclose their sexual orientation.

“Unsettled legal questions remain as to whether a discharge based solely on a statement that a service member is gay transgresses constitutional limits,” concluded the CRS report, dated Sept. 2. A copy of it was obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The report cites two conflicting Supreme Court cases, and noted that lower courts have struggled to reconcile them.

In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that consensual homosexual sodomy is a not a fundamental right. Seventeen years later, the court overruled itself in Lawrence v. Texas, declaring in 2003 that a Texas law prohibiting sexual acts between gays and lesbians was unconstitutional.

The Lawrence ruling gave gay-rights supporters the legal grounds to challenge the Pentagon on “don’t ask, don’t tell” by arguing that the policy limits the privacy rights of gay members of the military. However, the CRS report concluded, there’s still a question whether the ruling provided a standard for judicial review that would give challengers the right to press in court.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly turned down requests to hear challenges to “don’t ask, don’t tell,” most recently in June.

President Barack Obama signaled during last year’s election campaign that he supported repealing the law. But to the chagrin of his gay-rights supporters, he has made no move to do so since taking office in January. The White House has said it will not stop the military from dismissing gays and lesbians who acknowledge their sexuality.

Last year, 634 members of the military were discharged for being gay, or .045 percent of the active-duty U.S. force, according to an Aug. 14 CRS report. The largest number of gays who were ousted under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy came in 2001, when 1,227 were discharged, or .089 of the force.

The House is considering legislation to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow people who have been discharged under the policy to rejoin the military. The law is being pushed chiefly by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., a former captain in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division who served in Bosnia and Iraq.

  Most media spotlights are on health care. It is the Obama administration’s self-selected showdown against the federal government’s tendencies toward what the president calls “inertia” when it comes to helping people who can’t afford health care

Passage of some meaningful health care bill will either make or break the Obama legacy for all time, according to many pundits. But while that’s the sort of hyperbole necessary to get most people to read real news, the eventual bill could have real significance to the LGBT community. For instance, some of the current versions of health care reform bills include provisions to collect data concerning sexual orientation and to provide better for early treatment of HIV

  “We have provisions that have survived committee [votes], but they still need to get all meshed together in whatever bill comes out,” says Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is widely recognized as the LGBT community’s voice on Capitol Hill

Herwitt says HRC is “hopeful” that, when leaders of the Democratic majority in Congress sit down with White House staffers this month “and figure out what they want the final bill to look like,” those LGBT provisions will survive.  

“They’re very much a priority for us,” said Herwitt

So is a defense spending authorization bill. That’s because the Matthew Shepard hate crimes legislation, adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the existing federal hate crimes law, has been attached to that funding bill in the Senate. Because the House passed a stand-alone hate crimes bill, a House-Senate conference committee must wrestle this month to come up with a final version of the defense funding bill to send back to both houses. Herwitt and others seem pretty confident that the Democratic leadership will fight to keep the hate crimes provisions in the defense bill.

Originally, the president had threatened to veto the defense bill because it included provisions such as funding for F-22 jets. But the objectionable provisions have reportedly been mitigated and “there is a strong will in the leadership and the White House,” said HRC policy vice president David Smith, to pass the hate crimes legislation.

That sort of “robust” support is imperative, says former White House staffer Richard Socarides, who said he thinks the hate crimes legislation will become law this year.

“I think the mood in the country and Congress is pretty good for a robust gay civil rights legislative agenda,” said Socarides. “But you need to put the force of the president behind it. You need to put some vigorous advocacy behind it. A sort of agenda that gets a lukewarm push to it or doesn’t have a lot of firepower behind it is going to go nowhere.”

The strength of Obama’s firepower behind LGBT-related legislative goals lingers as a bit of a rub between the LGBT community and the Obama administration. Candidate Obama promised much for the LGBT community; and President Obama reiterated many of those promises to quell a growing chorus of impatience in June.

At a small Oval Office ceremony, calling for federal agencies to provide whatever benefits they could to the partners of gay federal employees, President Obama gave a verbal nod to a bill seeking to ensure equal benefits for the partners of gay federal employees — The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBOA). The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Tammy Baldwin, said the bill “really got a boost by [the president’s] strong endorsement.”

Baldwin could not be reached for this article, but HRC’s Herwitt said the DPBOA bill might get a floor vote this fall in the House and a committee vote in the Senate. That puts it right behind hate crimes for likely action this fall.

Everything else tends to look more uncertain –with “maybe” hearings this fall or as-yet-unidentified sponsors to introduce them.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been introduced in the House and the Senate and Rep. Barney Frank thinks the all-inclusive bill could get a committee hearing this month and a vote on the House floor this fall. The Senate is less promising. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) took over championship of the bill from the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He says hate crimes has to come first, then ENDA supporters need to “check in with” senators who haven’t weighed in on the legislation in four years.

“Then we’ll work with senators and try to put together a plan,” says Merkley. Merkley says he has not yet had a conversation with the White House about ENDA but signals from the staff have been “very supportive” and Merkley says he will ask President Obama to “support the bill in a public manner.” But HRC’s Herwitt is hopeful a Senate hearing could take place sometime this fall.

Four other bills are languishing far behind, with no one in the Senate lined up yet to introduce them and prospects in the House fairly uncertain:

* Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repeal has not yet been introduced in either chamber, though Herwitt says she hopes a bill will be introduced in the House this month;

* “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (DADT) repeal has been introduced in the House and may be introduced in the Senate this fall, says Herwitt. But Rep. Frank and HRC say they don’t imagine DADT will get a floor vote in the House before next year. Rep. Alcee Hastings announced in August that he was withdrawing an amendment he had prepared seeking to prohibit the Defense Department from spending any federal funds to enforce its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against gays;

* Reuniting Families immigration legislation has been introduced in the House only and is pending some effort to address immigration issues overall, an effort that is waiting in line behind all the other urgent matters of Congress;

* and Family Leave inclusion legislation, an effort to ensure that LGBT families are covered under the federal Family Leave law has also been introduced in the House only. No one has come forward in the Senate to introduce the bill.

And so the chorus of LGBT complaint is beginning to warm-up again.

Speaking to a gay Democratic event in San Diego August 22, the Obama campaign’s openly gay deputy Steve Hildebrand said “all of us need to put pressure on [the president] and put pressure on Congress to do the right thing.”

Clinton White House staffer Socarides said he thinks “we can get hate crimes, an inclusive ENDA, and end to “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” before mid-term elections [in November 2010],” said Socarides, “but not without an aggressive push by the administration. And so far I don’t see it.”

“Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) says the Senate is swamped and has little time on the schedule for this fight. The Pentagon brass is reticent and wants a go-slow strategy, while a majority of the rank and file in the military opposes changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. With no Republican co-sponsors for a repeal, key moderate Democrats such as Sens. Jim Webb of Virginia and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas remain uncommitted.

And the Senate’s patron saint of this cause, Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), died before being able to introduce long-promised bipartisan legislation to overturn “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

And absent a big push from the Pentagon and Obama, key Senate Democrats are signaling that there is little appetite to anger some of their more socially conservative voters at a time when election forecasters are signaling a tough 2010 election cycle for the party.”

Still, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on the ban this fall – the first since 1993, thanks to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, the NY Senator who has become one of our most stalwart supporters after taking over Hillary Clinton’s seat.

Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who fought for equal rights for gays on many fronts and was an early defender of people with HIV, died late Tuesday night, Aug. 25. He had been suffering from brain cancer.

“Our community has had no greater champion in Congress,” said David Smith, who worked as the senator’s Director of Communication from late 2003 to early 2005.

Smith, vice president for programs at the Human Rights Campaign, said credited Kennedy with taking on some of the community’s worst adversaries, including the late Senator Jesse Helms, during its toughest battles.

“From early days of AIDS crisis, he was there for us,” recalled Smith. “He was battling for us, taking on a then very powerful Jesse Helms, who wanted to see us in concentration camps. God only knows what would have happened if Senator Kennedy hadn’t been there.”

Elizabeth Birch, who was HRC president during many of those battles, recalled a “very intense” meeting with Kennedy and staff in which LGBT leaders “talked about the importance of having transgenders included” in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

“He said, ‘We never intended to leave anyone behind and we won’t leave anyone behind’,” said Birch.

“The other hallmark of who he was,” said Birch, “was he supported gay marriage ahead of any of his peers –and, frankly, ahead of people a generation or two behind him in Congress. He was a man who, whenever he hit the limits of something, he would just keep trying.”

Kennedy was one of only 14 senators who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. He did not argue for same-sex marriage, but rather against the attack on same-sex marriage.

“We all know what is going on here,” said Kennedy on the Senate floor during the DOMA debate. “I regard this bill as a mean-spirited form of Republican legislative gay-bashing, cynically calculated to try to inflame the public eight weeks before the November 5 election.”

“This bill is designed to divide Americans, to drive a wedge between one group of citizens and the rest of the country, solely for partisan advantage,” said Kennedy. “It is a cynical election year gimmick, and it deserves to be rejected by all who deplore the intolerance and incivility that have come to dominate our national debate.”

As author of ENDA, he led the debate in 1996 when the Senate came within one vote of passing the bill.

“We know that discrimination against gay men and lesbian women exists in this country today, Number 1,” said Kennedy. “Number 2, we know that there are no laws to protect them. Number 3, we know that the whole issue of gay men and lesbian women is an immutable condition. It is a condition of life.

“What we are trying to say is when Americans want to work and can work and do a job, they ought to be able to be judged on the job that they are going to do and not on one of these other factors,” said Kennedy. “We can free ourselves from discrimination against those gay men and lesbian women in the employment place.”

Chai Feldblum worked closely with Kennedy on ENDA, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to prohibit discrimination against people with HIV, and the Ryan White CARE Act, to provide needed care to people with HIV.

Feldblum recalled that, during the work on ADA, he held a meeting at his house with several of the key people working on the legislation and said he was “very focused on protection for people with HIV.”

“The bottom line,” said Feldblum, “was that he was our ‘go-to person’ with anything to do with gay rights. He was that person both because of who he was and the position he held.”

Current HRC President Joe Solmonese released a statement calling Kennedy the “greatest champion and strongest voice for justice, fairness, and compassion.”

“The loss to our community is immeasurable,” he said. “There was no greater hero for advocates of LGBT equality than Senator Ted Kennedy.”

A number of gay leaders said it would be difficult to fill the void in leadership on LGBT-related issues that has been left by Kennedy’s loss.

“We have our work cut out for us in terms of working with other [members of Congress], nurturing relationships with other champions,” said HRC’s Smith. Even as recently as the current fight to pass the Matthew Shepard hate crimes measure as part of the defense authorization bill, said Smith, Kennedy’s efforts have been critical.

“When it passes,” he says, “it will be because of Senator Edward Kennedy that for the first time, sexual orientation and gender identity will be part of a U.S. Civil Rights Code.”

© 2009 Keen News Service

Read what the gay blogosphere has to say about Kennedy.

One big switch? Sex is no longer a big deal on the front lines:

“Opponents of integrating women in combat zones long feared that sex would mean the end of American military prowess. But now birth control is available — the PX at Warhorse even sold out of condoms one day recently — reflecting a widely accepted reality that soldiers have sex at outposts across Iraq.”

Also:

“[Women] have changed the way the United States military goes to war. They have reshaped life on bases across Iraq and Afghanistan. They have cultivated a new generation of women with a warrior’s ethos — and combat experience — that for millennia was almost exclusively the preserve of men. And they have done so without the disruption of discipline and unit cohesion that some feared would unfold at places like Warhorse.”

All of this is interesting for gays and lesbians who are seeking to be out while serving in the military, because many of these same concerns – that open gays will lead to rampant sex on bases, that unit cohesion will be frayed, that soldiers will leave the Army in droves – have not come to pass.

Indeed, commanders have found women to be excellent soldiers, and have found male soldiers to eventually accept them without comment.

Our soldiers are more resilent than politicians make them out to be. We don’t have to protect them from open gay and lesbian soldiers any more than we needed to protect them from women.