I've been saying it for years. Shut off the gAyTM spigot and then they MIGHT move. It's infuriating.

Posted by: frank | Jul 3, 2009 7:28:30 AM

Continuing nonsense about the charade that is DADT aside, there’s very good news in this—and some pretty astonishing implications.

First, it's transparently clear that the threat to continue to deny lavender money to the DNC, the public embarrassment of having even straight mainstream media repeatedly calling bull on the administration re DADT, and the call to do something “administratively” by Senate Milquetoast Leader Harry Reid is working. Recall it was barely three months ago that Gates demurred that they were just so overwhelmed with two wars and, well, stuff at the White House and Jurassic Park er Pentagon [“My chiffon is wet. My wig is wet. I am tired. I am exhausted from all this.”] that even TALKING about DADT had to be pushed down the road. At the time, it was obvious that, by “down the road,” the consummate inside power player across multiple presidencies, former Chief Spook, and aging poster boy of straight white male orthodoxy meant “into the next decade”...at best.

Second, it’s equally clear that the case of Lt. Col. Fehrenbach triggered this specific astonishing development because he was "playing by the rules" for 18 years, not only not out to any of his Air Force peers but also not out to his family, until he was outed by “a civilian acquaintance.” His military combat record serving his country combined with how butch modern he looks standing next to his jet bomber and how articulate he is on TV makes them look like pantywaist fools and medieval villains for even considering discharging him.

Whether we yet have them sufficiently on the proverbial run to actually DO SOMETHING FAST or merely pretend to be serious only time will tell. In the interim, even as they try to do damage control they are simultaneously cracking more eggs on their own faces.

With a doctorate from Georgetown, Gates is no dummy, so the abysmal ignorance about DADT he's showing [note, so far, he's only speaking about the policy generally not Fehrenbach specifically] reveals that over the two+ years he’s been Secretary of Defense, he's never cared enough about DADT before to actually understand how it works, and, apparently, neither have the “senior military and legal counsel” advising him.

Employing a girly word like "jilted," he suddenly wants to be “more humane,” but "What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility."

Not a lot of "flexibility," Mr. Secretary? NOW HEAR THIS: in addition to the existing power of the Defense Department to change how and when discharges are implemented, the choice of investigating anyone whom someone else has accused of being gay is ALREADY ENTIRELY up to the servicemember's commander AND is supposed to take into account the nature of the source.

"DoDD 1332.30, enclosure 8-1" — “A commander may initiate a fact-finding inquiry only when he or she has received credible information that there is a basis for discharge. Credible information exists when the information, considering its source and surrounding circumstances, supports a reasonable belief that a Service member has engaged in homosexual conduct. It requires a determination based on articulable facts, not just a belief or suspicion.”

While not intended to, the subjective judgment built into determining what is “credible information” and "MAY initiate a fact-finding inquiry" NOT MUST permits huge flexibility. If the commander says it isn't "credible," CASE CLOSED! If he/she doesn’t want to initiate an inquiry, he/she won’t. The loopholes give commanders who either personally like and/or professionally need the servicemember accused of being gay the option of looking the other way.

Of course, for whatever reasons, Fehrenbach's commander did choose to initiate an inquiry after receiving the accusation more than a year ago. [Why, in relation to the kind of servicemember who very typically would be discretely given a "pass," will be extremely interesting to learn.] PLUS Fehrenbach, trusting in Obama's promise to start working to overturn DADT the moment he took office, then “told”—eventually admitting that he’s gay to the world.

The most remarkable aspect is that apparently the powers that be on his base also believed Obama and graciously postponed Fehrenbach’s discharge hearing until after he took office. In April, they found that his “continued presence was inconsistent with morale, good order and unit cohesion,” and their recommendation for honorable discharge is moving through the chain of command to the Secretary of the Air Force who apparently has the power to retain him.

And, here’s where the egg facial curdles. The black and white rationale behind DADT and the non statutory policy that preceded it, is that the mere knowledge of one’s service peers that you’re gay, regardless of any variables such as continued acceptance by such peers, military record or “mission critical skills,” damages “morale, good order and unit cohesion.”

The case of the first person to challenge the ban, Leonard Matlovich, was initially focused on a vague “exception” clause in the policy of the same branch Fehrenbach’s in, the Air Force. But despite his Bronze Star and Purple heart, despite that clause [since eliminated] and surprise testimony by “prosecution” witnesses that they would gladly work with him again which briefly forced a recess in his hearing, he was discharged, as thousands have been since then.

The moment Gates stops just talking about a new kind of exception and actually allows one, whether of Fehrenbach or someone else, the insistence that others must be discharged is going to blow up in their faces...both in terms of credibility and igniting a forest fire of reinvigorated lawsuits. For decades, courts have simultaneously acknowledged the Constitutional contradictions of the ban while ruling that the “special circumstances and needs of the armed forces” justify overriding them. Such blatant arbitrariness asserting that the manner in which the military learns that a servicemember is gay is exonerating in one instance but not in another is the kind of legal and intellectual insult that would be hard for even a Justice as rabidly homophobic as Scalia to ignore.

Candidate Obama built a trap for himself with his aggressive promises of immediately fighting for repeal upon taking office that sprung the moment Gates said, “push it down the road.” In their desperation to calm the rebellious natives, Gates has now built a bigger one...for himself and his boss. Add to that the fact that on Monday the President unintentionally admitted to "weaken[ing] national security" by continuing to prevent "patriotic Americans from serving their country" through this “unjust law” and, in the words of Palm Center political director Christopher Neff, “This is a crack in Humpty Dumpty, and it gets the ball rolling for a political solution since it gives cover to lawmakers who have been waiting for a nod from the Pentagon.”

While the administration has avoided using the word even in denial with the ferocity of a child terrified of the dark, they are painting themselves deeper and deeper into a corner from which their only escape is a freeze.

I’m praying for an early winter, and "nobody cares how you wear your hair, darling" Secretary.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 3, 2009 11:31:01 AM

So, let me get this clear, this simply ups the ante on the severity of the lies the official position encourages people to engage in to save their careers. If I'm closeted (a lie by ommision but not dishonorable) I can serve honorably, but if I'm outed, I will be encouraged to openly and overtly lie in order to save my career. Either by current enforcement, or under the more "humane" approach now being floated, the official policy of the United States Government is to encourage the dishonorable practice of lies and deceit. I'm confusing myself just trying to make sense of it and commit it to words.

Or, in other words, it appears that an outed person is more worthy of protection than someone who serves openly and with integrity.

Posted by: Al Strasburg | Jul 3, 2009 4:40:20 PM

Yes, Al, the Charade Masters are at it again. While substantively DADT is merely old wine in new bottles with a catchy label it came with a "marketing" package that is the statutory equivalent of "the Emperor has no clothes."

Even men of integrity in other areas such as William Cohen have said in the past, "It's working." Pretense, myths, lies, self-loathing, institutionalized bigotry is "working."

After watching him publicly and deliciously roast ruthless homohater and sexist Elaine Donnelly at last summer's House DADT hearing, and now that he's taken lead sponsorship of the repeal bill since Ellen Tauscher resigned last week to go to State, I can't wait to hear what Rep. Patrick Murphy will say next Wednesday, along with Eric Alva, Jarrod Chlapowski, and Alex Nicholson, at the National Press Club during the kickoff of another cross country tour to encourage repeal.

As I recall he did a lot of campaigning for Obama among fellow vets, and has greater institutional expectations of respect, but one hopes for at least some of the same bluntness that longtime Obama family friend and big gay cheese in the campaign Stampp Corbin has been courageously launching.

After watching him publicly and deliciously roast ruthless homohater and sexist Elaine Donnelly at last summer's House DADT hearing, and now that he's taken lead sponsorship of the bill since Ellen Tauscher resigned last week to go to State, I can't wait to hear what Rep. Patrick Murphy will say next Wednesday, along with Eric Alva, Jarrod Chlapowski, and Alex Nicholson, at the National Press Club during the kickoff of another cross country tour to encourage repeal. As I recall he did a lot of campaigning for Obama among fellow vets, and has greater institutional expectations of respect, but one hopes for at least some of the same bluntness that longtime Obama family friend and big gay cheese in the campaign Stampp Corbin has been courageously launching.

The self-made trap with the Presidential Seal on it tightens.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 3, 2009 7:53:33 PM

It's just so bizarre. I'm reminded of Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Alabama) who, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, asked Anita Hill: "Are you a scorned woman?" Does Gates realize that is the kind of question commanders will have to throw at gay servicepeople (as well as those doing the outing)? Can't we all just let them do their jobs and defend this country instead of plunging everybody into soap opera? Like sand thru the hourglass, these are the Days of Our Lives...(cue music)

Posted by: Gary Belis | Jul 3, 2009 10:52:55 PM

It's also reminiscent of when the Clinton White House was frantically back-pedaling on its campaign promise to lift the ban on gays in the military and came up with segregated barracks as a compromise. I believe Rahm was behind that one. And this one as well, perhaps?

Posted by: Gary Belis | Jul 4, 2009 9:14:41 PM

"frantically backpedaling" is an exaggeration of what was going on at that point, at least [it wasn't "not lift the ban" but lift the ban adding some type of indefensible segregation that no one on our side had ever imagined], but, nevertheless, there have been many stinking parallels between what Clinton Inc. did and what Obama Inc. has been doing that the failure of the mass of gays to smell either reflects pathetic ignorance of history or pathological denial and wishful thinking about Lord Obama. The most specific parallel has been the soporific "trust us...be patient...it's going to happen."

It's understandable that many gays believed them in 1993, including experienced Washington insiders like Cong. Gerry Studds, because we'd never before gotten so many black and white promises from a candidate, then President.

And the ignorance/denial above has empowered Obama Inc. to CONTINUE TO get away with The Big Lie they started spreading last fall: "Obama just wants to avoid Clinton's mistake of moving too fast."

The truth is that, faced with mutiny led by Gen. Asshat Powell at the Pentagon [and we learned nothing by what a phony "Magic Negro" he was] and rebellion led by Dole and Nunn in the Senate and betrayal by his own Defense Secretary, rather than immediately issuing an executive order and THEN letting things sort themselves out, Clinton was convinced to reverse the two with a six month "cooling off period" during which time the "Military Working Group" was supposed to put together a gay integration implementation plan. While they were doing the opposite, Nunn, Powell, and the American Taliban convinced the majority of Americans that the sky would fall and Sodom would rise from its own ashes if out gays were allowed to serve.

Just today on CNN, after lying outright to Rachel Maddow weeks ago that he was never asked by Clinton to get rid of the ban, Powell insisted that DADT was a good thing but is singing his absurd and insincere "time to review" tune again, but, of course, adding that there are "complicated issues" that must be addressed.

I guess he still has an eye on some job with Obama Inc. ...even if he has no integrity.

Posted by: Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | Jul 5, 2009 2:18:04 PM