GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' costs military nearly $200 million

• 8643
  

  President Clinton signed into LAW the 1994 Defense Authorization Bill that states "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." A military member is discharged for breaking the LAW, many other members are discharged for breaking different LAWs and YES it cost a lot of money, but it is necessary.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 7, 2005 7:43 AM
• 8625
  

  Polly: The liberal/Hollywood influence mentioned is in reference to their increased portrayal of how popular, cool and great it is to be gay and also to be open about it. This may have influenced some of the enlisted individuals to let their guard down. The legal costs referenced is costs required to cover costs of assault etc. toward gays once allowed to admit their sexual preferences.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 4, 2005 7:59 AM
• 8605
  

  When will the media get the facts straight on this matter?? "Don't ask, Don't tell" is NOT a law. President Clinton signed into LAW the 1994 Defense Authorization Bill that states "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." His POLICY for implementing the law is DA-DT. The courts have ruled the policy is "politically expedient fiction" and "extraconstitutional" (see Terry v. Perry). Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations or the Congress have the political will to change policy or enforce the law. I've been disappointed that an organization full of people who swore to "support and defend the constitution" continue to implement and enforce a policy that the courts say is illegal.

  That said, using dollars and cents as an argument for or against an already defective policy is nonsense. Shame on you for printing this.

  Phil Candreva Posted March 3, 2005 9:44 AM
• 8598
  

  I think it's unfair that we discharge those individuals who are gay. They might be the most productive workers in the unit, but yet we let them go. Then we talk about how much money we've lost, the government has done that to themselves. So long as they are a good worker and their sexual preference does not interfere with their job or the mission, then let them be. It only hurts the overall mission to lose good, qualified, trained personnel.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 3, 2005 6:46 AM
• 8593
  

  Dear previous poster: Gays can't serve openly in the military. So how are Hollywood liberals imposing their agenda? Seriously, could you explain this to me?

  Also, it's not clear to me how letting gays serve openly would cost anything (in contrast to the current policy, which apparently costs $200 million). If anyone can explain this I'd be curious, I'm writing a paper on the topic.

  Polly Posted March 2, 2005 8:26 PM
• 8568
  

  As to one's response that these people are faking it, I think the military would require proof. "Excuse me but show me". As to the Clinton law, seems like a dumb idea anyway, but guess who signed off on it? Let's see the gays could be guilty of don't ask, don't tell and don't pursue but as to the non gays could they be guilty of any e.g. asking "are you gay"? And if so would they be ousted? Curious about what appears to be a stupid law. Also if the law is repealed, how much would it cost the taxpayers in gay related issues once they come out of the closet? Maybe we ought to segregate the gays into all gay units to avoid most of the conflictive issues. The liberals and Hollywood should be proud.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 2, 2005 8:25 AM
• 8546
  

  Re: "About 750 of the service members forced out of the military during the past 12 years because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" held critical jobs, including those skilled in languages such as Arabic, Farsi or Korean, the report (GAO-05-299) stated."

  I read about this -- seems a group of enlisted soldiers taking Arabic out at beautiful Monterrey CA Language School got wind of the upcoming Iraq War... and then announced... en masse... that they were all gay! (Looking at the possibility of 2-years boots on the ground in IZ or saying you're gay... hmmm)

  I also read recently that - surprise - with lack of recruits for Iraq, Army not pursuing this much any more. I'm gay! La la la... I can't HEAR you! But I'm... La la la... sorry, can't HEAR you!

  Mac Posted March 1, 2005 3:41 PM
• 8536
  

  I am not quite sure whether your story had a "slant" or not, but let's keep one fact clearly in mind: those folks who were discharged broke a law, in some cases, such as the ones who wanted same-sex marriages, they may have broken several laws. The government cannot be a haven of employment for law breakers.

  GovExec.com reader Posted March 1, 2005 12:11 PM