Gates to stop military from discharging gay troops who are outed by ‘third parties or jilted partner

[kpete]

Gates to stop military from discharging gay troops who are outed by ‘third parties or jilted partners.’

Tomorrow, Congress will be holding its first hearing in 17 years on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the 1993 law that bars gay men and women from serving openly in the military. LGBT leaders expect that Defense Secretary Robert Gates will announce that while Congress and the administration work on a permanent repeal of the law, the Defense Department “will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law.” Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen aren’t, however, “expected to offer a specific legislative proposal to repeal the law.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/01/gates-dadt-third/

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. glad to hear that

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Wasn't the wole rationale of DADT to prevent the following from occuring:

>>>>“will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law>>>>>

Wouldn't the military have to "ask" the subject if a third party "informed" on them? In what sense, then is the policy "don't ask, don't tell"?

I'm adding this idiocy to my ever-lengthening "list of things I'll never understand".

[TheWraith]

3. The current implementation has little to do with the original policy.

The original principle of DADT was basically that the military would ignore sexual behavior as long as it was kept private. No inquiries, no disclosures, no investigations. Hands off. In theory it represented a major step up from the old system where it was legal for a superior to ask someone if they were gay, if they lied court-martial them for disobeying a direct order, and if they told the truth throw them out of the service anyway.

In current practice, however, the military doesn't follow the original intention of not pursuing investigations. It depends heavily on the circumstances and the personal attitudes of the people involved. Sometimes they investigate, sometimes they don't. Sometimes people can walk in to their CO's office, declare that they're gay, and have their CO tell them to quit being an annoyance and get back to work. Sometimes vindictive officers use that discretion to go out of their way in finding and persecuting gay soldiers under their command. Besides the policy itself being repressive, the casual enforcement standards play havoc with the entire idea of equal protection.

[donheld]

4. Why not stop enforcing ALL parts of DADT