Sen. Nunn: Time to revisit military policy on gays

Wednesday Jun 4, 2008 13:17:45 EDT

The former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who forced President Clinton to back down in 1993 from plans to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military said Tuesday that it could be time to revisit the issue.

Sam Nunn, the former Democratic senator from Georgia who left politics in 1996, said Tuesday that after 15 years on the books, the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy he helped to enact could stand to be reviewed.

“It is appropriate to take another look at it, see how it is working, ask the hard question, hear from the military,” Nunn said at a national service seminar held in Atlanta.

Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a nonprofit group that works to reduce the threat of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, an issue he was heavily involved in during his 24 years in the Senate.

He has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., but Nunn said he does not expect to re-enter political life.

Obama, who has called the current policy on homosexuals in the military “counterproductive,” has said he would work with Congress and the Pentagon to repeal restrictions and to offer people who have been discharged for homosexuality a chance to rejoin the ranks.

Nunn’s comments came just days after the death of retired Northwestern University sociology professor Charles Moskos, who helped craft the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and aided Nunn in garnering support from lawmakers, military leaders and the Clinton White House for a messy compromise that allows gays to serve in the military — a goal of President Clinton — but does not allow them to serve openly, which military leaders argued is necessary to maintain good order and discipline.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which covered Nunn’s remarks Tuesday, quoted Nunn as saying a review of the policy could begin with a Pentagon study about whether attitudes of military members about service by homosexuals has changed.

“I’m not advocating anything, except I’m saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change. It’s appropriate to take another look,” Nunn said, according to the newspaper.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit gay-rights group, said Nunn is coming late to the conclusion that the law needs a fresh look.

“A hundred and forty-three House members are ahead of him,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the group’s executive director, referring to the co-sponsors of a bill, HR 1246, which would allow homosexuals to serve in the military without restrictions.

One of that measure’s sponsors is Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., chairwoman of the House Armed Services personnel panel, which oversees military personnel policy. Davis may have a hearing on the bill later this year, but she has not attempted to force a vote on the issue.

Moskos, who died May 31, had a long association with Nunn on national service issues before the 1993 debate over gays in uniform.

Moskos never intended for the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they do not tell anyone about their sexual orientation and are not found to engage in gay sex, to become permanent. He pitched the idea to military leaders and lawmakers as a temporary compromise after Clinton announced he wanted to lift the ban on open military service by homosexuals.

In a statement issued after Moskos’ death, Nunn called him “a valuable adviser to the Senate Armed Services Committee” and said he will always be grateful for Moskos’ “guidance and wisdom.”

“He was a tremendous resource to me over the years on issues ranging from military personnel issues to national service,” Nunn said.

“Charlie Moskos was the pre-eminent military sociologist of his era. His detailed understanding and sound judgments about our military personnel, and particularly the all-volunteer force, helped both the Pentagon and members of Congress make better, more-informed decisions. The all-volunteer force and the U.S. Army, specifically, are much stronger because of Charlie’s involvement,” Nunn said.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/06/military_dontask_donttell_060408w/

OMG, now that is a major breakthru, Senator Nunn has seen the light.

Amazing.

Maybe he really is on the VP short list. His age is actually a bonus, because it blunts some of McCain's experience talking points (ala Cheney) and a young VP would piss off Clinton.

Yes it is amazing to say the least. The list grows longer and longer almost daily of those that have opened or changed their minds concerning DADT and the names on this list are impressive.

I have said all along that education is the key factor to understanding and change.

Perhaps in generations to come they will look back on the 2008-2010 era as their “Stonewall” of when gay’s finally obtained equality. These are very interesting and exciting times we live in and I am more encouraged now than ever before.

More on Sen. Nunn

The Times They Are A-Changin'

"Times change," Sam Nunn said Tuesday.

Boy, do they ever! The former Senator offered this less than startling observation by way of explaining that maybe the ban on openly gay military service members that he was instrumental in passing in 1993 when he was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, that maybe the policy deserved "another look." He did not go so far as to say that the policy was flat-out wrong and Congress should repeal the law, but hey, it's progress of a sort.

"See how it's working," he said, "ask the hard questions, hear from the military. Start with a Pentagon study."

A Pentagon study! We need another Pentagon study? How many studies have there been? The Navy commissioned what is known as the Crittenden Report in 1957. Thirty years later the Defense Security Research and Education Center (PERSEREC) confirmed the Crittenden findings and found no data to support the ban on gays in the military. The Pentagon didn't want to hear that and ten years later they sent PERSEREC back for another look. The second report went even farther than the first, finding that "gay service members fared better than their heterosexual counterparts in most areas of adjustment, including school behavior and cognitive ability." Because the first report caused much hand-wringing in the corridors of the E-Ring, the second report was never submitted.

The Pentagon asked the independent Rand Corporation to take a look at the issue in 1993, between the two PERSEREC reports and after President Clinton signed a memorandum directing the military to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. Rand produced an exhaustive analysis from outside. Their researchers visited seven countries and the police and fire departments of six American cities. They reviewed the scientific literature. They focused on what happened after President Truman signed the executive order ending racial segregation in the military. (Essentially nothing.) They sampled public opinion. They interviewed active-duty military personnel -- and on and on. God knows what all this cost the taxpayer. You'll never guess what Rand concluded: "sexual orientation [is] not germane to determining who may serve in the military."

I was in the Army for three years -- sometimes, as Senator Nunn used to say, "in tight quarters" - and I could have told them that. It would have cost them nothing.

Nonetheless, and despite the mounting pile of favorable reports, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell and Senator Nunn decided they needed their own report. Thus another Pentagon "study." That fore-ordained report took the position that allowing homosexuals -- openly gay men and women -- into the military was just too nervous-making. For them if no one else. They ignored the independent Rand report. They ignored all the other independent reports, finding it easier just to fall back on their old, familiar, comfortable prejudices. And so, with the backing of Senator Nunn and General Powell, most of Congress, and yes, President Clinton, we got the patently discriminatory law making every homosexual American a second class citizen of his country. They pronounced the law a compromise and called it "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The passage of DADT was not a moment that will be viewed with pride in the history of this land.

So no, Senator Nunn, no more of those Pentagon "studies." But we agree on this, Senator: "times change."

Sixty years after President Truman signed the executive order ending racial segregation in the military, an African-American is the Democratic Party's nominee for president. Our next president and commander in chief may well be black. Considering where we were sixty years ago, that is nothing short of astonishing. (And let's not forget that his chief rival in the contest was a woman. Ninety years ago she wouldn't have been allowed to vote.)

One of the conclusions the Rand study came to was this: ""Implementation is most successful where the message is unambiguous, consistently delivered, and uniformly enforced. Leadership is critical in this regard."

We do not need another Pentagon "study." We need men and women at the top to lead us to what is clearly right. We need a president who will lead, and we need members of the Senate and the House to stop cowering in their closets (coat closets only, people, nothing sexual intended) and explain to their constituents why DADT must go. If recent polls are any indication, most of their constituents are ahead of them on the issue anyway.

After signing his executive order integrating the armed forces, and after letting everyone have their say, Truman called the none too enthusiastic Joint Chiefs together. Gentlemen, the president said, now it's about leadership.

And it's still about leadership. Senior military leaders must speak up. The military stays out of politics, that is true, and rightly so. Every member of our armed forces swears to carry out the policies of the president and the congress, and therefore -- at least in theory -- the will of the people. But as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, wrote in a remarkable open letter published in the forthcoming issue of Joint Forces Quarterly, "We defend all Americans, everywhere, regardless of their age, race, gender, creed, and, yes, political affiliation." And although he did not mention it, sexual orientation.

The military defends all of us, regardless of whether we favor the opposite sex, the same sex, or no sex. And the converse is equally true: lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are among those fighting our wars. They are defending us. They just can't tell anybody.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aubrey-sarvis/the-times-t...a-chan_b_105666.html

Of course now that 90%+ of America is ready for repeal, politicians are changing their minds in droves.

What a shocker.

Why has it taken this long?

I believe that everyone is going to sit tight until after the election. They all know that Bush would veto anything that doesn’t have “bubba” written all over it. After the election, regardless of who wins, I feel their will be some significant changes. I’m saving a 60 year old bottle of cognac for the occasion.

That was sarcasm, but thats okay, its kinda hard to read that on here. But yeah, its good to see that people are finally taking their heads out of their....seeing the bigger picture and understanding that this has got to go.

I caught the sarcasm, but I just couldn't pass up a "bubba" opportunity.