This past Monday, Congressman Marty Meehan (D-Lowell) spoke at Boston College Law School about the United States military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that discriminates against gays and lesbians. Meehan plans to re-file his Military Readiness Enhancement Act at a press conference this week in an attempt to lift the ban against gays and lesbians serving in the U.S. military.
There were over 200 law students, professors, and alumni at the discussion, which after Congressman Meehan’s presentation turned into a question and answer session that covered not just the military’s DADT policy, but also the conflict in Iraq. Meehan had just returned from his fourth visit to Iraq since the United States invaded the country.
Congressman Meehan focused on the discriminatory nature of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and how it has undermined national security. He talked about the number of experts in the U.S. military, including the area of linguists, who have been forced out of the military by the Bush Administration and the Department of Defense. He emphasized that the military’s arguments that the DADT policy in fact protected national security is “no longer a debatable proposition.”
Many professors and students at Boston College Law School have led the charge against the military’s discriminatory policy, as well as being part of a lawsuit to repeal the Solomon Amendment, which prohibits federal funds to educational institutions that do not allow military recruiters to come on campus. BC Law Professor Kent Greenfield was the driving force behind the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), which was involved in the lawsuit Rumsfeld v. FAIR.
Sadly, the Supreme Court in 2006 voted 8-0 against FAIR, ruling that Congress has the right to withhold federal funds from colleges that ban military recruiters. As a law student and president of the Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF) at Boston College Law School, I remember the organizing that I did with classmates to oppose the Solomon Amendment, and the military’s failed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
There was a great turnout for the event and, given Meehan’s plan to re-file his legislation repealing the ban, there is reason to be hopeful – and reason to get involved. When one law student asked Meehan what else she could to fight the ban, he was encouraging. “You need to keep organizing, sending letters to your congressman and senators, and get law schools in the Red States involved in your effort.” I encourage the BMG community to join in this effort.
Marty Meehan’s comments also reminded me of how important it is for progressives to stand up to conservative values and laws, even if we do not succeed initially. If we do not continually define OUR values and fight for them, the public will neither understand nor accept them.
Well said Jamie.
<
p>
According to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), the legislation will be filed tomorrow. Meehan joined SLDN & HRC’s Joe Solomonese today for a teleconference about the bill. You can listen to that here.
still of interest.
<
p>
(i) Does Marty Meehan plan on staying in Congress long enough to even see it through the House? There have been reports that he is being considered for a high administrative post at (I presume) UMass Lowell. If so, this enthusiasm over his anticipated filing of the bill is a bit premature, IMHO;
<
p>
(ii) Even in the unlikely event that the bill were to get through the House, it would require 60 yeas to get through the Senate, and the likelihood is that it wouldn’t have that many, Joe Lieberman’s rhetorical “rallying round the US war on Iraq” notwithstanding (I’m being sarcastic about Lieberman); and
<
p>
(iii) It would never be signed by the pResident.
<
p>
It’s interesting that BC Law gave Meehan so much attention on this topic, but in the long run, it doesn’t seem to mean a whole lot except for its potential symbolism.
<
p>
On a more somber note, it is also interesting that there is a bit elevated level in ending DADT, at a time when recruitment levels in the US military aren’t exactly healthy. Ending statutory discrimination is nice, but I sincerely wonder why a gay person would want to sign up for the US military at a time when it is clear that the US government doesn’t particularly care about the personnel of the US military, and would merely want them for cannon fodder. And that’s aside from the authority that the US military seems to have to recall, not only reservists and members of the National Guard, but also members of what seems to be referred to as the Individual Ready Reserve, who believed that they had been out of the US military for years.
(i) Fair question. However, there might be someone else in the House willing to take the ball and run with it.
<
p>
(ii) This is tougher, and I have no idea where conservative Dems or less-conservative GOPs will line up. How would Nelson (NE), Landreiu, or McCaskill vote? How about Snowe, Collins, Specter, Coleman, or Warner? How would presidential candidates McCain, Clinton, or Obama react? Lieberman?
<
p>
I could see it getting 30 votes or getting 60 votes.
<
p>
(iii) So let him not sign it. We get a new president in two years. If it passes now, it could just as easily pass again. Don’t let the veto threat stop Congress from passing good bills — it makes the Congress look like they’re not living up to their end of the bargain. Instead, Congress needs to pass these kinds of bills and throw them at the president to sign or veto, effectively letting him have the opportunity to hang himself.
…even if it were to pass the House–fairly unlikely, even if Ms. Pelosi were to allow it to be brought to the floor–Harry Reid wouldn’t bring it to the floor in the Senate for fear of having the likely Dem presidential candidates be put on the record one way or another.
<
p>
Let’s cut to the chase. Neither the pResident nor congress are really interested in national security. They’re only interested in feathering their own nests.
raj, i don’t know the answers to your questions. however, i have observed that legislators frequently offer up legislation even when they know it will not pass. there are at least two reasons apparent to me.
<
p>
the first is, as you say, a nest feathering one. they want to throw a bone to a constituency. it’s a cynical move if they introduce d.o.a. legislation only so they can say to a constituency, ‘see, i worked for you!’. but of course it happens.
<
p>
the second is education. controversial bills require a period of education for the electorate and/or the legislature. introducing a bill gets that conversation going. a good example is that bill introduced this year in maine that would remove clergy from the list of people who can sign a civil marriage certificate. it is a sensible bill, but has no chance of passing this year because it introduces a concept that few people have considered before – that civil marriage does NOT come from preacher Bob. so this year, this is an educational move to introduce this bill. next year, who knows, it might even get our of committee. the year after, passage?
<
p>
thrid, since no one really knows whether a bill will pass until the vote happens, it is worth filing your pet bill each session and have it at the ready should conditions for passage turn favorable. only a dolt would be stuck having to say, ‘gee, the votes were there, but i never filed the legislation because early on it didn;t look that way.’ it took washington state 29 years to finally pass a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing and employment. that legislation was reintroduced each year until the opportunity finally arose, last year, to squeek it through by one vote (a republican!).
as far as (i), the fact this diary was posted by State Rep Jamie Eldridge, a candidate to replace Marty Meehan if he steps down, there is another purpose beyond just talking about this worthy issue, in promoting himself as agreeing with it and implying a desire to carry it on if Meehan leaves Congress.
…I don’t live in that district so I couldn’t vote for Eldridge, but I just posed the question.
<
p>
The Meehan/DADT issue is being discussed over at Pam’s House Blend here. It is a report of a conference call with Meehan that included the diarist there.
One would think that, in a “post-9/11 world” (to use an overused phrase), it would be more important to our Commander-in-Chief to have trained Arabic translators who can help decipher intelligence than it would be to exclude gays from military service.
<
p>
But time and time again (from 2002 here to 2006 here), we let homophobia interfere with winning the war on terror and keeping America safe.
<
p>
Not to employ Bush-Cheney-Rove scare tactics, but, very literally, when we discharge Arabic linguists for being gay, the terrorists win.
<
p>
DADT policy is another form of separate-but-equal, which is always heavy on the separate but light on the equal. It’s a relic that needs to be abolished so that we have the personnel necessary to fight terrorism – from deciphering intelligence to fighting on the front lines.
<
p>
Simply put, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” don’t work.
<
p>
I am pleased to see Congressman Meehan being proactive on this front. And I commend you, Rep. Eldridge, for having your priorities straight and seeing how we can achieve both civil rights progress and national security progress at the same time by abolishing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. This is just another area in which adopting progressive policies makes America more prosperous, more equal for all, and safer.
…and this is a question whose answer I don’t know.
<
p>
The gay arabic translators were fired by the military. Does this preclude them from going to work for the myriad of government contractors that service the military? If not, it’s likely that they’d make more money working for the contractors than the military, given the outlandishly high contracts that the defense department is handing out to contractors.
you are not implying, are you, that it shouldn;t matter that these people are discharged, since they can perhaps get higher paying jobs elsewhere? i will assume not, since that would betray a complete lack of understanding of the principle of liberty and fairness that underlies the whole DADT arguement.
…My only question was whether they could obtain employment as translators with government contractors. I presume that government contractors are not covered by the same DADT statute as the active duty military, but, quite frankly, I don’t know.
didn’t think so, but had to check. i dont know the answer to your q. i would assume there are no restrictions, but then again there are no federal protections either. even if the mega contractor is free to hire an openly gay or bi person, they may decide to discriminate. what is to stop them? nothing, as far as i know.
I’ll be generous and assume that the contractor wants to make a profit. I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of these contracts would be in the form of “cost plus” contracts, meaning that the monies that the contractor receive cover its direct costs, and a “plus” that includes G&A (general and administration) and a percentage for profit. In other words, the more “cost” the more “plus.” If that’s true, I would conclude from that, that they would want to maximize the “cost” (the “burdened” employee cost, which is a term of art, including salary, benefits, yada) part, so that they can maximize their “plus” part, regardless of the sexual orientation of the employee who contributes to the “cost” part.
<
p>
BTW, there is a linguist on the NYTimes gay rights board who concurs that a high percentage of linguists are gay. A very high percentage. So, if a government contractor wants to have linguists on staff, it will probably have a number of gay employees.
<
p>
From what I could tell, the government shot itself in the foot when it discharged the gay linguists. But that wouldn’t have been the first time that this malAdministration shot itself in the foot.
…nobody has been interested in responding to the point mentioned in my last paragraph in the raj @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 at 23:40:27 PM EST comment.
<
p>
Whatever.
your last paragraph asks why anyone, whether heterosexual or L, G or B (T not included because not allowed even under DADT…) would want to sign up to work for our dearly demented president. it is an excellent question, but not really relevant to the DADT discussion. well, maybe it is relevant to this extent: it illustrates nicely that gay people show up in every slice of society, including those who still believe bush’s ongoing chain of lies. so all people with wool-covered eyes, be they straight or LGBT, should have the freedom of volunteering to be cannon fodder in bush’s war on democracy & sovereignty.
…on most comment threads that I’ve posted, people post comments that lead to other comment threads.
<
p>
Whatever. If people here want to be strictly limited to the subject matter of the post on the main page, so be it. I find that a bit boring, though.
i have no problem with discussion branching off in related directions, as long as it doesn’t have to descend into the name-calling mud pits to do it. that is why i decided to respond to your challenge. it is a subject worthy of a diary or ten all on its own.
n/t
Representative Eldbridge: for context and disclosure, I think it would be a very good move to add to you biography description in your profile on BMG that you are both a state represenative in the General Court and that you have formed an exploratory comittiee for the 5th district House of Representatives seat. That said, thanks for a great post!
Disclosure is always a good idea. If you click on Jamie’s name, it takes you to a list of his User Posts, the first of which details the information you requested.
….all branches of the Govt. have been very deferential to the military so how the armed services comments on this will be very important to the outcome. As of late there has been a significant, if not seismic shift in the way the concept of gay people actively and openly serving and the reality of gay people actively and openly serving (which despite DADT does occur-not everyone gets ratted out to the brass for being gay)is viewed by both enlisted troops and the officer corps. Some reports suggest that support for DADT and exclusion is now the (narrow) minority position. If there is enough support from the military for the repeal there is a slight chance it could make it through and even be signed by the president, especially if the repeal is framed as being troop supportive. In the unlikely event that the military rubber stamps the repeal it stands a very good chance of passing.
<
p>
In addition, there is a chance that the DADT policy could be altered or amended in some regard. If that were to happen it could again be newly challenged on a constitutional basis. The more narrowly tailored the DADT policy becomes the more likely it would be that it might not survice judicial scrutiny, although admittedly that is a slim chance considering that it would be reviewed under rational basis. The courts are extremely deferential to the military but if there is equivocation in the military’s position regarding a more narrowly tailored regulation perhaps the courts might be swayed, although again, not likely.
<
p>
the most recent round of litigation challenging the legality of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has made its way to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (which is headquartered in Boston). The case is called Cook v. Gates (formerly Cook v. Rumsfeld). You can read all the pleadings, including numerous friend-of-the-court briefs, at this link. It is set for argument next Wednesday, March 7, at the federal courthouse in Boston (arguments are of course open to the public). My friend Stuart Delery, with whom I worked at the Supreme Court, is counsel of record for the plaintiffs and will be arguing the case on their behalf. Go Stuart!!
<
p>
Much more at ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Revisited
<
p>
(first seen at the NYTimes gay rights message board)