What Congress passed in 1993 was not “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” but a law prohibiting homosexual conduct in the armed services
Kathlene M. writes:
I too have been confused about the after-effects of repealing the misnamed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law. Wouldn’t the military return to its pre-DADT days? What’s the harm of repeal? Information (pdf) from Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness clarifies this point. And this is why the homosexual activists were so adamant about repeal.
It turns out that in 1993 Congress actually rejected Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise and passed Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. The media mistakenly referred to Section 654, Title 10 USC as “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” but it was different from Clinton’s proposal. Clinton wanted to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Because “Clinton’s proposal would be unworkable and indefensible in court,” Congress passed a law clearly stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. This law was technically labeled Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., but has since been mislabeled “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”
So what are the results of the repeal of Section 654, Title 10 U.S.C.?
See the charts on pages 2-6 of this pdf document.
Furthermore, as Donnelly wrote in September,
If this Congress repeals the law with “delayed implementation,” (a meaningless charade since Obama, Mullen and Gates already are on record favoring repeal) all military branches and communities would be required to accept and promote LGBT personnel in living conditions offering little or no privacy on a 24/7, retroactive basis. According to simplistic “road map” plans promoted by LGBT activists, hapless field commanders would be expected to tame the powerful and sometimes unruly force of human sexuality. New issues involving male/male and female/female sexual entanglements would complicate and hurt morale, recruiting, and retention—elements that are essential to maintain our All-Volunteer Force.
Guided by civilian LGBT “diversity training” programs, politically correct Defense Department bureaucrats would issue unrealistic directives wrapped in the ill-fitting cloak of “civil rights” and enforced with “zero tolerance” of dissent. As military officials have admitted in unguarded moments and gay activists never deny, corollary “zero tolerance” policies would deny promotions to anyone who dissents for any reason. Intolerance in the name of “tolerance” would end the careers of thousands of chaplains and experienced personnel who are current and future military leaders.
Unlike racial integration that President Truman ordered in 1948, none of this would improve or benefit the armed forces. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates only talks about “mitigating” anticipated problems.
P.S. The charts come from January 2010 when Patrick Murphy (D-PA) was trying to repeal the misnamed “DADT” and replace it with an LGBT law via HR 1283. I don’t know if the recent December repeal allowed any LGBT law to take its place, but it seems clear that Secretary of Defense Gates and President Obama have plans to re-engineer the U.S. military. After the Nidal Hasan report cover-up, it only seems to get worse. It’s not about military readiness anymore but about the “civil rights” of various victim groups. Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought serving in the military was not a “civil right.”
I wonder if the military will devolve to the point where it reaches a Carteresque “Operation Eagle Claw” catastrophe that could damage Obama’s presidency.
LA replies:
This is stunning information, which makes one wonder, why haven’t the conservative media been aggressively pointing this out, so that we would not continue under the mistaken belief that what Congress passed in 1993 was “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”?
Unfortunately, Donnelly in the above quoted articles gives us her conclusions about the law, rather than quoting or paraphrasing the law so that we can see the actual differences between what she calls Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which she says Congress rejected, and Section 654, Title 10 U.S.C., which Congress passed.
However, Donnelly offers a much fuller explanation in a 2008 article which I have posted in the next entry.
Now, I’ve known all along that the liberals are lying every time they say that the existing law, which they call Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, forces homosexual service members to hide their homosexuality. I knew this was false because I knew that the existing law still prohibits homosexuality in the armed services. That is, the law says that homosexuals are not supposed to enlist in the military; the only difference from pre-1993 policy being that the military will not ask anyone if he is homosexual. So if homosexuals violate the law and enlist in the military, they themselves have improperly put themselves in a situation where they must hide their homosexuality in order not to be dismissed from the service. No one has imposed this situation on them; except themselves. The liberal claim of homosexual victimhood is a complete lie.
However, what I did not know until this morning is the stunning information which Donnelly reveals in her 2008 article which is posted in the next entry, namely that the existing law does not contain any “don’t ask don’t tell” provision. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” provision was added by a regulation promulgated by the Clinton administration, after the Congress passed a law restating the existing policy that homosexuals are prohibited from serving.
- end of initial entry -
Kathlene M. writes:
I was as stunned as you are when I found out this information. I haven’t looked at the actual 1993 law that was passed, but it apparently is at the Center for Military Readiness website.
Ms. Donnelly has another excellent detailed and earlier article (2004) about the history of the 1993 law v. the Clinton regulation. The Clinton and Bush administrations (and she names a couple of people in the article) failed to offer clarity in order to stop the confusion. In fact she states that the media were “allowed” to report the inaccuracy.
She mentions one fact in this article that poses a question for me:
“The 1993 exclusion law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ban on sodomy apply to men and women in precisely the same way, so “equal protection” is not a valid issue.”
Wouldn’t the UCMJ ban on sodomy still be in effect even if the 1993 law was repealed? I would think so. But I think, like Clinton before him, Obama, Gates, et al. will issue pro-LGBT regulations counter to military law.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 20, 2010 11:57 AM | Send