Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:27 PM ET, 12/ 6/2010

Gates 'not particularly optimistic' about 'don't ask' repeal

By Ed O'Keefe

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is joining a growing chorus of skeptics who doubt that Congress will end the ban on gays in the military this year.

Asked Monday aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln about Congressional efforts to end the "don't ask, don't tell" law, Gates said, "I'm not particularly optimistic that they're going to get this done."

"I would hope that they would," Gates said, according to a pool report of his first visit to a deployed air craft carrier. The vessel is in the Arabian Sea, off the coast of Oman, where Gates met Sunday with Sultan Qaboos bin Said, a longtime U.S. ally.

His statements put him at odds with President Obama, who has promised to work with Congress to end the ban during the lame-duck session.

The White House remains committed to doing so, according to a senior administration official. "This is a priority for the President, and are we confident that the Congress will be able to address this issue this year," the official said.

Despite his skepticism, Gates said a change in the law is inevitable, and should be handled by lawmakers -- instead of the federal courts -- to ensure a less risky end to the law. He said the much the same when he testified last week with other top military leaders after the release of a Pentagon study that found a majority of troops either support ending "don't ask, don't tell" or don't think it would be a big deal.

The annual defense policy bill with language ending the ban passed the House in May. There appear to be enough votes in the Senate, but with only about two weeks left in the lame-duck session, senators are set to consider other priorities, including a possible extension of Bush-era tax cuts and a new nuclear disarmament treaty with Russia.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | December 6, 2010; 3:27 PM ET
Categories:  Military  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Troops have until Dec. 18 to apply for back pay
Next: Local legislators urge changes to federal pay freeze plan

Comments


Well, well Dims: Gates is telling you what leftist WaPo hacks will not. [Though Ed O'Keefe is about the only decent reporter on the WaPo staff these days.]

Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is not going to happen.

Dims did not have the votes back in September and they have fewer votes today. There are four of five Democrat senators who will vote against Repeal, plus now where are 42 Republicans instead of 41.

Does Barry have the votes? No.

Posted by: screwjob22 | December 6, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Shifting the oppression from the small minority to the vast majority is not American either. DADT is a generous compromise.

Men have no right to be in women's locker rooms. Women have no right to be in men's locker rooms. Gays and lesbians are not super-citizens who are granted the royal right to view the naked bodies of those to whom they are sexually attracted, like masters at a slave auction.

From their earliest years, children are taught to respect the privacy of the opposite sex. When they grow up, they learn why it is so important -- because each person is (usually) sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Logically, if a person is attracted to the same sex, then he or she must not violate the privacy of others by sleeping, bathing, and dressing in the same areas. He or she can certainly not be granted a right to view the naked bodies of those to whom he or she is sexually attracted.

Under DADT, gays pretend to be straight, and straights pretend their privacy is not violated. I agree it isn't perfect. If gays want to declare their homosexuality, then they can't sleep, bathe, and dress in the same areas as heterosexuals. Gays and lesbians have no right to view the naked bodies of anyone of the same sex, not just the 30 or 40 percent who oppose open service, not just the 1 percent of the population that is more handsome or beautiful than the other 99 percent. There is no right to view even one.

Maybe DADT is wrong because it makes liars of gays about who they are. If so then it is also wrong because it makes liars of straights who pretend that their privacy is not being violated.

There is no possibility of the courts repealing DADT. For two centuries, the Supreme Court has said Congress runs the military. It takes five votes to overturn that stipulation of the Constitution, and repealers just don't have them. There's probably less chance of DADT being overturned by the judiciary than there is of an atomic bomb going off in the courtyard of the Pentagon.

Gays and lesbians can serve openly if every soldier and recruit is provided with his or her own private area for sleeping, bathing, and dressing. Each of these peronsal areas must be as secure as the barriers that segregate men and women today.

Fair and equal is what is fair and equal to each and all.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 6, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Congress, you'd better act. You've been warned that the courts will do it and not in a manner to your liking. Why drag your feet on a policy that is destined to be abolished?

Posted by: rcvinson64 | December 6, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Blasmaic:

You do realize that gay people already see naked bodies all the time.

At the gym. At the pool.

In various work and living settings currently.

Just because a gay person sees a naked body doesn't mean they are going to jump the person.

Are you really saying that the US military is so soft and so poorly trained that they can't handle someone possibly seeing their little heinies naked in the shower?

Really? That's how little you think of our military?

As always, though, you conflate being gay with being all about sex.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 6, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

TheHillman,

I do realize that gays view the bodies of naked males all the time, and I believe it is an immoral act on their part. You know, on those few occasions in life when a woman's naked body has been viewable to me without her knowledge, I've always turned my eyes away.

Gays who feast their eyes on other unwitting males are who they are. I do not however give any person who is sexually attracted to males permission to view my naked body (male or female), and the military sex segregates men and women to prevent this from happening. Were I in the military and a person told me he was gay, then I would take action to assure he was removed from my sleeping, bathing, and dressing areas. I don't much care if the gay man wants to "jump" me or not. He has no right to look at my naked body, or to be where I sleep or dress.

Do I believe the military is "soft and poorly trained"? Nope. I believe the military is concerned for the welfare of all its members, and that integrity is an essential part of military life.

I don't believe being gay is all about sex. What else it may be about, provided it does not impinged on my rights, is not a topic of great concern to me. I have recently become persuaded that in addition to being about sex, being gay is largely about being extremely immature.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 6, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't it be adapted to "don't swish, don't sashay"?

Posted by: FireWashington | December 6, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Gays in the military? Just two words:

Bradley Manning.

Posted by: john_bruckner | December 6, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

So, the way to force action on repeal of DADT is to threaten undemocratic, judicial activism if it is not acted upon.

The tyranny of the courts is the radical leftist's favorite weapon. It is despicable and it reveals them for what they are, democracy hating despots.

Just like their pals Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

Posted by: battleground51 | December 6, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Blais, it is a big deal to you. You seem to be fixated on gay sex. You post in nearly every chatroom I've ever seen on the subject.

If it's no big deal to you, why your endless posting on the subject.

As for anyone 'feasting their eyes on you', methinks your softcore porn language is misplaced.

I see naked dudes all the time. It's not sexual to me. Why? Because I'm a professional.

It's just that I don't have your hangup on the naked male body like you so obviously do.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 6, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Blasmaic:
You have a very narrow-minded and ignorant perspective about something you obviously know nothing about.
Thanks for sharing your hate and ignorance.

Posted by: Gary12 | December 6, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I'm surprised to see so many homophobic comments here.
A lot of ignorance and hate.
Go figure.

Posted by: Gary12 | December 6, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

TheHillman - you are the one who seems obsessed with gay men staring at your body. You certainly have fantasized about scenarios where that happens.

Also - people have the right to look at what ever they want to. Just because you congratulate yourself for having false morals doesn't make you the sex police.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | December 6, 2010 7:41 PM | Report abuse

sorry - meant blasmaic.

Posted by: johnhunsaker4 | December 6, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse

hello everyone,im wholesale supplier online

Welcome to our website

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ =======

accept paypal and free shipping

We need your support and trust!!!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps

To our website Walk around A look at

Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth

You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.

===== http://www.1shopping.us/ ========

Posted by: shoestrade05 | December 6, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse


I see naked dudes all the time. It's not sexual to me. Why? Because I'm a professional.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 6, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

------------------

TheHillman, Gary12, johnhunsaker4,

Where did I say that gays and lesbians cannot serve in the military?

You three provide a shining example of the pathetic immaturity too frequently seen in those who wish to repeal DADT.

TheHillman, I don't find anything professional about a person who views without permission the nakedness of those to whom he or she is sexually attracted.

Gary12, not everyone who disagrees with you is homophobic, but I agree that the extreme immaturity some gays display does make them frightening, for all the worst reasons.

johnhunsaker4, you do not have the right to view women in the female restroom at any time (assuming your are male). Your belief that you have a right to look at whomever you choose would seem to be your fantasy.

Under DADT, gays pretend they're straight, and straights pretend their privacy is not being violated. If gays want to be honest about who they are, then heterosexuals should be honest about the invasion to their privacy. It's that simple.

Now all this silly talk about my fantasy scenarios and all the thought I've allegedly given to gay sex is reprehensible. If you read what I write, you'll see there's almost nothing about the sexual practices of anyone.

It does serve as a particularly good example of how gay and lesbian activist attempt to silence the opposition by any means possible.

Gays and lesbians must be the most emotionally immature political constituency in the entire spectrum, left, right, and center.

Grow up, guys.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 6, 2010 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Marines prepare for combat in Iran - circa 2015. "Ok men, first squad tops circle and attack from the rear. 2d squad bottoms, blind the enemy with your laser lights. Signal to begin attack: pink smoke. Time for one last kiss. Now move out.

Posted by: texas234 | December 6, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Re-start the draft for "ALL MEN AND WOMEN"
so the cowards can serve!

Vietnam Vet

Com-on cowards let's see if you have the stuff to serve!
My bet is you're republicans!

Posted by: knjincvc | December 6, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Ed O'Keefe writes yet another article abut Homosexuality. Which is about article number 2,528 for the paper.


I guess the Washington Post is obsessed with what kind of sex people have.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | December 6, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

blasmaic, I wish you could read your own words as they appear to others. I wonder why you can't.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | December 6, 2010 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Congress, you'd better act. You've been warned that the courts will do it and not in a manner to your liking. Why drag your feet on a policy that is destined to be abolished?

Posted by: rcvinson64
____________________________

So the judges do the dirty work and the losers, I mean the Senators, can run for reelection by constituencies filled with the "blasmaics", "screwjobs", and "formerdemocrats" of the world.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | December 6, 2010 11:38 PM | Report abuse

It's not a religious thing or a moral thing...it's a medical thing. The male genitals go with the female genitals. A man is not suppose to fornicate with another man, much akin to the concept that a father is not suppose to fornicate with his daughter.

Posted by: robert_curley_jacobs | December 7, 2010 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Ed O’Keefe: “Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is joining a growing chorus of skeptics who doubt that Congress will end the ban on gays in the military this year.”
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you see a problem with this first sentence?

Actually Ed, there is no BAN on “gays in the military”

The existing policy, a proven and workable compromise, prohibits witch hunts and allows members of the military to honorably serve their country. This policy only becomes an issue when a soldier’s behavior becomes a disruptive influence. It is the infotainment media, desperately seeking a righteous cause du jour, who have manufactured a controversy.

Nothing in our society requires a person to reveal the intimate details of their personal life. You gullible media dupes are being played as unwitting pawns in a cultural nihilism campaign.

Posted by: dcn1 | December 7, 2010 2:36 AM | Report abuse

Gates : " Not optimistic about don't ask, don't tell " You want an answer booby ? No qu**rs in the Military , period. No same sex marriage . Period. No Abortion, period . When the Hell did America lose it's senses ? Do the misfits in power now think that all who made laws before them didn't know what they were doing ? Well, this administration and so many of recent times think that a college diploma is the answer . Hell, you can't get common sense from a book. You're either born with it, or spend a lifetime chasing it . And what has transpired over the last 60 years , surely wasn't guided by common sense.

Posted by: puck-101 | December 7, 2010 5:18 AM | Report abuse


CLARIFICATION - AND
WHAT THE BEHAVIOR OF PVT
BRADLEY MANNING FORETELLS

dcn1 says, "Actually Ed, there is no BAN on '[homosexuals] in the military'"

Contraire. Actually, there is a BAN on homosexuals in the U.S. Military. The ban is codified in Title 10, Section 654 of the U.S. Code. The law clearly states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. And directs the Dept. of Defense to discharge any individual for which there is EVIDENCE of homosexuality. And it spells out what constitutes evidence under the law.

The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy itself, is not part of Title 10, Section 654. “DADT” is the Clintonian fig leaf behind which homosexuals can serve, as long as they keep their state of moral depravity to themselves.

Yes, DADT policy is Clinton era DOD ADMINISTRATIVE policy which seeks to defy the law. That policy says, look, we don't think this law is worth the paper it is written on. So, we will not put a lot of effort into following it. We won't set any more rat traps. We won't put out any more rat poison. We will put the cats in their cages. We will allow the rodents to live in the bilges, as long as they don't come out. If they come out, only then we will grab em. After all, we must obey the law.

The Law itself (Title 10, Section 654), expresses a spirit of no-tolerance for homosexuals. On the other hand, DOD policy expresses a spirit of sympathy and respect for homosexuals. And in this respect, service members have been brainwashed to toe this sympathy and respect line since 1993.

How did this contradiction come into being? Those who supported the traditional ban against homosexuals in 1993 had only enough votes to enact the anti-homosexual wording into the law as we see it, Title 10, Section 654. But they did not have the votes to put language into the law that would have explicitly reversed the Clinton DOD policy directives.

And this is the situation today. Any President, could issue directives, at any time, that would do away with DADT, as these are, as noted, DOD policies only. That would basically allow the military to return to the hard line as set forth in Title 10, Section 654. Under the law, they could go into a pursue mode, and sweep the services clean of any suspected homosexuals as Section 654 requires.

And the infamous behavior of Private Bradley Manning, who is quickly becoming the most famous homosexual in military history, will provide fuel, at least on the Republican side, to have those DADT policies swept aside. Vote Republican in 2012. A Republican President could sweep those policies aside, and go straight into a no-nonsense execution of Title 10, Section 654, removing all homosexuals from the military on national security grounds.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 7, 2010 6:13 AM | Report abuse


Private Bradley Manning is the Poster Boy for the Validity of the Findings of Congress embodied in Title 10, Section 654, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 7, 2010 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Good.

We should listen to the only really competent person in the administration.

And whether or not you agree with me that DADT should be repealed, thank you to ALL our soldiers and veterans for your noble service to the Republic!

Posted by: andrew23boyle | December 7, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

"TheHillman, I don't find anything professional about a person who views without permission the nakedness of those to whom he or she is sexually attracted."

What does that even mean? Say for instance I go to the gym. Am I supposed to walk around with my eyes closed in the shower so I don't accidentally see someone's butt?

My point is that a naked environment is not automatically sexual.

I've got a lot of straight friends, in sports clubs. We change in front of each other all the time. They all know I'm gay. It's not a sexual environment, because I respect them and know that it's not a hookup scene.

So, yes, I see my buddies naked butts. And yet somehow we all live to see another day.

It's only in a repressed society that we (you) automatically assume that even casual nudity must be fraught with sexual overtones.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 7, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

"Private Bradley Manning is the Poster Boy for the Validity of the Findings of Congress embodied in Title 10, Section 654, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

You conveniently leave out the fact that Adrian Lamo, the guy that turned Manning in, is gay.

And you of course conveniently leave out the fact that nearly every major spy and traitor in US history has been straight.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 7, 2010 7:37 AM | Report abuse

In fact, Mano once worked for San Francisco's Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force.

You don't get much gayer than that.

Yet he was first a foremost a good American that carefully cultivated a relationship with Manning in a very clever effort to expose Manning to federal authorities.

Funny how you forget to mention that.

If it weren't for a gay man the Wikileaks debacle could have been far worse.

And of course the annoying leader of Wikileaks is a notorious heterosexual.

Funny how you leave that out also.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 7, 2010 7:39 AM | Report abuse


Why doesn’t Gates do something more important with his time, like WINNING THE WARS WE’RE FIGHTING!

Posted by: nuke41 | December 7, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Merry Christmas!!!

Posted by: nicholjo1 | December 7, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

My point is that a naked environment is not automatically sexual.

I've got a lot of straight friends, in sports clubs. We change in front of each other all the time. They all know I'm gay. It's not a sexual environment, because I respect them and know that it's not a hookup scene.

So, yes, I see my buddies naked butts. And yet somehow we all live to see another day.

Posted by: TheHillman | December 7, 2010 7:14 AM | Report abuse

------------

As I've written earlier, what your being gay entails is not of interest to me, provided it does not impinge on my rights. If you and your buddies want to strip and shower together, it makes no difference to me.

Men have no right to be in women's locker rooms. Women have no right to be in men's locker rooms. Gays and lesbians are not super-citizens who are granted the royal right to view the naked bodies of those to whom they are sexually attracted, like masters at a slave auction.

Other than a slave auction, can you name any other place where a person has a legal right to view the naked body of a person to whom he or she can be sexually attacted?

Even in American prisons, the guards for males are male, and the guards for females are female. We don't force the most anti-social members of society to strip in front of people who can be sexually attracted to them. And of course, the epidome of immorality is the prison guard who sexually abuses prisoners, of the opposite sex or same sex.

Under DADT, gays pretend to be straight, and straights pretend that their privacy is not violated. If gays and lesbians want to declare their sexuality, then they cannot violate the privacy of heterosexuals. Openly gay and lesbian soldiers and recruits cannot be billeted where other same-sex people sleep, bathe, and dress.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 7, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse


MORE ON THE MOST FAMOUS
MILITARY HOMOSEXUAL IN
THE HISTORY OF THE U.S.

That's right, the one that was at the root of the single most devastating theft of U.S. Classified information in the HISTORY OF THE NATION. Yes, Bradley Manning, Homosexual.

Responding to my assertion that, "Private Bradley Manning is the Poster Boy for the Validity of the Findings of Congress embodied in Title 10, Section 654, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service . . ."

TheHillman says, "You conveniently leave out the fact that Adrian Lamo, the guy that turned Manning in, is [homosexual]."

No, I don't think you are right on that one. No article associated with Adrian Lamo says anything about his sexual orientation. If he were homosexual, you would expect that to be reported. Wikipedia shows he is a heterosexual, was married to a FEMALE.

If he was a homosexual, Wikipedia, that bastion of homosexual zealotry, would have found a reason to say so. In fact you can look at the discussion page associated with the Adrian Lamo article, where the editors tried to pin down his sexuality, and they admit there is NO evidence for the assertion that he is a homosexual. (See item 18)

My statement stands ...

"Private Bradley Manning is the Poster Boy for the Validity of the Findings of Congress embodied in Title 10, Section 654, that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. This homosexual is at the root of the single most devastating theft of U.S. Classified information in the HISTORY OF THE NATION.”

Posted by: GoldenEagles | December 7, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

I've always wondered about the logistics of what to do with outed homosexual soldiers, especially in combat units and naval vessels at sea, where everyone lives in extremely close quarters. Right now the military segregates male and female soldiers which is already extremely difficult in the above mentioned combat and naval vessel situations and in the case of femal and male segregation you have the benefit of that fact that theoretically the males aren't sexually attracted to the males and the females aren't attracted to the males. In the case of the gay soldier you can't segregate them from the group they're sexually attracted to and you can't throw them in with the opposite sex because it'd make the hetrosexual soldiers uncomfortable. If you follow the logic of some of the posters here that there's no big deal about mixing homosexual soldiers and hetrosexual soldiers then the military should also do away with gender segregation.

Posted by: RobT1 | December 7, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Well I've said a lot about dadt it's not what you say its what you do. Do you know that in any relationship there's male and female. I don't want to be in a relationship if you don't know what part of the relationship you're in. What if we put you back in the services and say you are the female part but we put you in the male part. How are we to know are you going to sign up as male or female.I'm just saying this is confusing stuff. What do you want from the people. Are you man or woman. I just want to have an understanding of this matter. Will you be the man and pick up the gun or be the soft side like a woman and run i don't want to face this delima. Be who you are leave sex appeal in the closet and let real people face real deals. I still think we should investagate these options more. If you sign up as a man be that. We don't need all that soft stuff and we are facing war on both sides. We need you to concentrate on what and how you going to act.If we let this rule go thru. We need man and woman that won't let their sex get in the way that we all get killed. Cause i don't think you make rational decision.If you are face with a craices what will you do. We need to know whether you think the decision is right or wrong that comes from the top officials, will you follow thru and try to save us all. The service comes first not your sex. Are you ready to put your life on the line for whats the right thing to do. Follow commands and stop thinking of yourselves. Tell us what are your plans.Or are you just trying to say I want to get married and raise somebody else childrens. To do what you want and live in the unnormal life. Always looking over your shoulder to see if someone likes or not why put this burden on our soilders unless is a true marriage of love and respect for one another. When it comes to the military it's an important job. Will you handle the task at hand. Think on these things. They are of true thoughts.Suppose the woman is the male part where do we put them. I'm just saying. How do you handle these matters.

Posted by: rochpenrr | December 8, 2010 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company