Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a good policy.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DADT, is a good policy. It is not a policy against homosexual orientation. It is a policy against homosexual practices. It is a good policy. Homosexual practices are not in keeping with good order and discipline. Just like in religion, a person can believe anything that they choose. They cannot however practice anything that they preach. DADT cannot regulate what a person thinks, believes, or craves; but it can regulate what he or she does.

It was on Tuesday 29 January 2008, fifteen years ago that President Bill Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against homosexual men and women serving in the U.S. military.

But, by the end of 1993, opponents of the change, led by Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, succeeded in writing into law the ban on openly homosexual men and women in uniform.
(Former Senator Sam Nunn is on a short list of potential Vice Presidential running mates for Democrat Barack Obama. Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich. leads the Congressional Black Caucus. She said on 17 June 2008 members of her caucus asked her to forward the names of John Edwards and Sam Nunn when she met 17 June 2008 with Obama's vice presidential search team. The team, Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder, indicated the two were on the list.)

Barring the pre-enlistment question about homosexuality "was the only compromise Congress let Clinton get away with," says Elaine Donnelly, president of the non-profit Center for Military Readiness which supports continuing the ban. "The law respects the power of sexuality and the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters."

Writing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law meant that no new President can eliminate the ban without first convincing a majority of Congress to go along - a far higher hurdle than Clinton faced.




A new survey of Americans in the military indicates they are not friendly to the idea of junking the ban. A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly homosexual people should serve, while 59% are opposed to having homosexuals in the military.

Maryland's highest court on 18 September 2007 upheld a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that the state's 1973 ban on homosexual marriage does not discriminate on the basis of gender and does not deny any fundamental rights, as a lawsuit filed by same-sex couples had maintained.
It also said the state has a legitimate interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage.
Judge Glenn T. Harrell Jr. wrote the majority opinion.

The U. S. Military still defines homosexual practices as the abominable and detestable crime against nature. Hijacking the term gay, does not make it any the less detestable. It is still a crime against nature and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). DADT is a good policy until something better comes along.
Homosexuals have always been accepted in the military. It is their homosexual practices and their flagrantly immoral lifestyle that are not welcome.
The homosexual lifestyle — particularly among males — is one principally delineated by casual, promiscuous, and yes, often anonymous sexual encounters, so much so that one of the largest homosexual organizations, LAMBDA Legal, essentially calls such public sex a civil right in their "Little Black Book" and walks homosexuals through the steps necessary to facilitate these "hook-ups." The group instructs homosexuals on what to do if they're caught "cruising for sex," thereby encouraging such behavior.
Many "gays" can't imagine why folks oppose men having anal sex in restroom facilities shared by families and children. And to ask — presumptively with a straight face — "what harm is done to anyone physically…" boggles the mind.


In a newspaper interview Monday, 12 March 2007, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. He also said: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
In a statement acknowledging that the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals is a sensitive subject, he said: "I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
Pace, a native of New York City, and a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said in the interview that he based his views on his upbringing.
"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of homosexual behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said, according to the audio and a transcript released by his staff.
Two homosexual advocacy groups strongly condemned Pace's remarks.
In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.
He spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., on 14 June 2007, said he first heard that his expected nomination for a second two-year term was in jeopardy in mid-May. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 8 announced Pace was being replaced.
"One thing that was discussed was whether or not I should just voluntarily retire and take the issue off the table," Pace said, according to a transcript released Friday by his office at the Pentagon.
"I said I could not do that for one very fundamental reason," which is that no soldier or Marine in Iraq should "think — ever — that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield.
"That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind," he added.
Pace, whose current term ends Oct. 1, said he intended to remain on the job until then. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen has been announced as President Bush's choice to succeed Pace, who is the first Marine ever to hold the military's top post.
A Vietnam veteran, Pace indicated in his Norfolk comments that his experience in that war colored his decision not to quit voluntarily.
"The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace," he said. "And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed — that it's not my decision. I need to be told that I'm done.
"I've been told I'm done.
"I will run through the finish line on 1 October, and when I run through the finish line I will have met the mission I set for myself," he said.

Speaking in the Rose Garden Tuesday, 3 April 2007, President George Bush declined to directly comment on the characterization by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of homosexuality as immoral. "Don't ask, don't tell is good policy," Bush said, citing the present military policy on homosexuals.





In an interview with the Pentagon Channel, the military's in-house television station, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to answer a question on his opinion of the policy. Gates said. "What's important is that we have a law, a statute that governs 'don't ask, don't tell."'
He added: "That's the policy of this department, and it's my responsibility to execute that policy as effectively as we can. As long as the law is what it is, that's what we'll do."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said President Bush "has always said that the most important thing is that we ought not to prejudge one another. But when it comes to government policy, it's been in place for a long time and we will continue to execute it according to the letter of the law."

DADT is not discrimination against homosexuals any more than sanitizing our eating utensils can be considered discrimination against germs. Sodomy is just as deadly a germ in a military barracks as a germ would be in someone’s kitchen.
On February 28, 1994, after extensive hearings in Congress, the enactment of a federal statute, and coordination with Congressional Oversight Committees, the Department of Defense instituted its current policy on homosexual conduct in the military. As required by the federal statute (10 U.S.C. § 654), the Dodd policy provides that engaging in homosexual conduct is grounds for discharge from the military. Congress expressly found that service by those who have a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct creates an unacceptable risk to morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion, and that the long-standing prohibition of homosexual conduct therefore continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
The Dodd policy also provides, however, that sexual orientation is a personal and private matter that is not a bar to military service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. It was the sense of Congress that applicants should not be asked about homosexuality as part of the processing of individuals for accession into the Armed Forces. Consequently, under the policy, applicants for military service may no longer be asked about their sexual orientation. Moreover, the services may not initiate investigations solely to determine a member's sexual orientation. Commanders may initiate an investigation only upon receipt of credible information that a service member has engaged in homosexual conduct, i.e., stated his or her homosexuality, committed a homosexual act, or entered into a homosexual marriage.

Professor Erik Wingrove-Haugland’s argument for Cadet Bronwen Tomb is a plea in favor of opening the flood gates of sexual depravity and slouching ever more surely towards the implementation of the Radical Homosexual Agenda. It evidences the absence of a moral compass guided by maturity. This is not an argument about ethics. It is an argument about morals. It was a good thing that Cadet Tomb resigned from the Academy, because bad company corrupts good morals.
We continue, tiresomely, to highlight sexuality in the American culture, because it carries the stamp of approval from the school of political correctness that was established amid the sexual revolution of the 1960s. What we might regard as sexual liberationism and ethical arguments in favor of individually nice homosexuals are on track to roll back the Enlightenment that produced Western civilization as we know it today.
The armed forces, during the early American revolutionary war, treated sodomy (then broadly defined as oral or anal sexual conduct) as grounds for being dishonorably discharged. The first recorded efforts of such a discharge were in 1778 when Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin was dishonorably discharged, with the approval of General George Washington, for a conviction of homosexual sodomy and perjury. The Articles of War maintained the crime of sodomy, but it was not until 1942 that the armed forces considered homosexual status as grounds for being separated from the military through a process of effective recruitment screening or internal investigations that some historians have qualified as being witch-hunts. Thus, homosexuals in the armed forces were subject to criminal sanctions under the sodomy prohibition, or they could be given a dishonorable discharge (often a Section 8) and returned to civilian life where they would not receive veterans benefits and often had difficulty finding employment because most civilian employers knew what a Section 8 discharge meant.
The success of the armed forces in pre-screening out homosexuals from the 1940s - 1981 remains in dispute, and during the Vietnam Conflict some heterosexuals would try to pretend to be homosexual in order to avoid the draft. However, a significant number of homosexual men and women did manage to avoid the pre-screening process and serve in the military, some with special distinction.
Beyond the official regulations, homosexuals were often the target of various types of harassment by their fellow heterosexual servicemen, designed to persuade them to resign from the military or turn themselves in to investigators. The most infamous type of such harassment was called a "blanket party" and involved several other service members during the night in the barracks, who first covered the face of the victim with a blanket and then committed assault, often quite severely and occasionally even fatally. The introduction of "Don't ask, don't tell" with the later amendment of "don't harass, don't pursue" has officially prohibited such behavior.
However, during the 1970s several high-profile court challenges to the military's regulations on homosexuality occurred, with little success, and when such successes did occur it was when the plaintiff had been open about his homosexuality from the beginning or due to the existence of the "queen for a day" rule. In 1981 the Department of Defense issued a new regulation on homosexuality that was designed to ensure withstanding a court challenge by developing uniform and clearly defined regulations and justifications that made homosexual status and conduct grounds for discharge (DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981):
"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security."
The directive justifed the policy and removed the "queen for a day" rule that had prompted some courts to rule against the armed forces. However, the intent of the policy had also been to treat homosexuality as being akin to a disability discharge and thus ensure that gays would be separated with an honorable discharge. The DOD policy has since withstood most court challenges, although the United States Supreme Court has refused to weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy, preferring to allow lower courts and the United States Congress to settle the matter.

DADT has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a recent Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.
(5/26/2009) The Califonia Supreme Court held in a 6-1 decision that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November that outlawed same-sex marriage in California, was not a sweeping change to the state constitution that should have been approved by the Legislature before heading to voters. That was the main argument by opponents of the measure.
Instead, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Ronald George said the 14 words of Proposition 8 were limited in their scope and application.
In effect, the court said gays and lesbians still have strong legal protections – but they cannot claim the word “marriage” to describe their relationship with a spouse.

On Monday, 8 June 2009 the U. S, Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration and refused to hear an appeal from former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The 1993 law, which bars openly homosexual soldiers from military service, relates to "the government's legitimate interest in military discipline," argued Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the administration's brief to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision was just the latest in a series of incidents that have turned the American homosexual lobby against the president. As well as DADT (as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is commonly known) and gay marriage, gay activists are frustrated by slow progress in the fight against AIDS and the ban on visas and green cards for people infected with HIV. For some, these cases confirm the doubts they already had about Obama when he asked the pastor Rick Warren -- who opposes gay marriage -- to give the invocation at his inauguration.

In private, President Obama has asked for patience. In May, he invited representatives of prominent homosexual groups to the White House. Admittedly he did not receive them himself, but White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina discussed "legislative strategies" with them.

President Obama has said that he wants to eventually abolish the "don't ask, don't tell" policy -- but only, according to Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt, "in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security." LaBolt added: "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

The White House apparently wants to first tackle some of the "smaller" issues which concern the gay community, such as the tightening of laws against hate crimes and ending the ban on visas, green cards and naturalization for people who are HIV positive, which has been in place since the Reagan era.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009-
A 1993 law enacted the Clinton’s Administration “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy throughout the military including the Coast Guard. This Bill, H.R. 1283: Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, will repeal that law and enable members to remain with the military as openly gay individuals, but prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Bill proposes:

To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’, with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

When it comes to dealing with homosexual personnel in the military, the contrasts are stark among some of the world's proudest, toughest militaries — and these differing approaches are invoked by both sides of the argument.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, has just launched a campaign for a bill to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He observed British troops in Iraq operating smoothly with a serve-openly policy and bristles at the contention that America's armed forces would suffer morale and recruiting problems if they followed suit.

However, Brian Jones, a retired sergeant major who served in the Army Rangers said "We are the military leaders in the world — everybody wants to be like us. Why in the world would we try to adjust our military model to be like them?"

For those in the U.S. military community who oppose letting homosexuals serve openly, there's a widely shared sentiment that America has nothing to learn from the roughly two-dozen nations that have no bans.

"Who's the only superpower military out there?" argued Maj. Brian Maue, a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy, in a debate in June at the McCormick Freedom Museum in Chicago. "This is hardly convincing to say, 'Ah, the others are doing it. We should too.'"

Maue — who says he's been speaking out on his own, not as a military spokesman — suggests that repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" would prompt straight service members to complain of privacy violations and "dignity infractions."

"An openly homosexual military would be the heterosexual equivalent to forcing women to constantly share bathrooms, locker rooms and bedrooms with men," he wrote in a New York Times online forum.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, another supporter of the ban, contends that some field commanders in nations that allow homosexuals to serve openly have resorted to "tacit discrimination" — excluding them from front-line units for fear that problems would surface in rugged, close-quarters living conditions.

Maginnis also cited America's multiple overseas missions.

"You have a large part of the world with no tolerance for open homosexuality, and if we were to deploy there, it would be a serious problem," he said.

Repealing the ban would trigger the departure of some career service members who object to homosexuality and deter some people from enlisting, said Maginnis. "It doesn't matter what general population thinks — it's what the young people who have a propensity to enlist think."


Nathaniel Frank, a research fellow at the University of California, Santa Barbara's Palm Center and author of a book on "don't ask, don't tell," says his studies of allied nations suggest that lifting the ban in the U.S. would not impair overall military effectiveness.

"There will be some forms of de facto discrimination and prejudice — a policy change is not going to wipe that out of people's hearts and minds overnight," he said. "But more and more people in the military are seeing it doesn't serve them to have this policy in place."

There's no question, Frank said, that the U.S. military is unique — the most powerful in the world. But he said it should be embarrassing that "our allies can tell the truth about gay soldiers and the U.S. stands with China, Iran, North Korea among the nations that can't."

The key to a smooth transition, Frank added, is emphatic direction from top commanders and the adoption of a code of conduct that would deter disciplinary problems by spelling out unacceptable behavior.

Dan Choi, the homosexual lieutenant facing dismissal from the Army, says the current "don't ask" policy is disruptive — forcing the homosexuals who are serving to be furtive and dishonest.

"Closeting is what causes instability," he said. "It's the most toxic poison."

As for the U.S. being different from its allies, Choi agrees.

"We are exceptional — because we take the lead on things," he said. "To me, it's an insult to the idea of American exceptionalism to say we're somehow scared of gays."

Department of Military Correctness:
From Bush's "Don't Know, Don't Care" to this.'Don't Ask' Discharges
As mentioned two weeks ago, Barack Obama announced that he remains committed to scrapping the Pentagon's 16-year-old "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which was implemented in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. The policy itself weakened the military's historic ban on homosexuals serving in the military. One of the arguments used by homosexual activists trying to overturn DADT is that discharging openly homosexual soldiers threatens national security by significantly reducing troop numbers. As so often occurs with leftist arguments, once facts are checked, the argument falls apart.
In examining the latest data on military discharges, it turns out that the number of military personnel discharged for homosexuality was less than 1 percent of the total number discharged for all other reasons. For example, according to Pentagon numbers for 2008, some 634 soldiers were discharged for homosexuality, which is only 0.338 percent of the 187,331 total discharges in 2008. Got that? One-third of 1 percent of all discharges was for violating DADT, and that number has remained consistent over the years. So, while the actual affect of these discharges on the U.S. military is negligible, according to homosexual activists, this loss threatens national security.
What actually threatens our national security is the loss of military discipline, cohesion and moral standing that occurs when agenda driven pressure groups and spineless lawmakers attempt to "normalize" an abnormal behavior in the ranks -- a fact recognized by our Founders. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington had homosexuals drummed out of the ranks and punished; Thomas Jefferson authored a bill proposing castration as a punishment for sodomy; and the Continental Congress directed that American officers "discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices," which included sodomy. Ah, but there's nothing like "evolving standards."
Defense Bill Signed
Barack Obama signed the $680 billion defense authorization bill Wednesday. The bill contains the unrelated provision extending so-called "hate crimes" protections to homosexuals and others with gender-disorientation pathology. The measure had failed on its own for years, so Democrats shamelessly attached it to the must-pass defense bill. That failure is largely due to the fact that it makes certain thoughts a crime. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) summed it up: "Hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom."
(For example, if you quote the Bible or the Book of Leviticus with respect to sodomy, sodomites, unnatural affections, and their consequences you could be found guilty of a hate crime under this legislation.)

Meanwhile, the defense bill contains provisions far more deleterious to national defense, such as terminating production of the F-22. Of gutting the nation's air superiority, Obama crowed that he was being fiscally responsible: "When Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we were going to get steamrolled. Today, we have proven them wrong." He then added, "There's still more fights that we need to win." (Like the fight against bad grammar, maybe?)
Obviously, to Democrats, "defense" means pushing aberrant sexual behavior while leaving the nation defenseless.





With repeal last year of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, many military people, including senior leaders, assumed that married gay and lesbian couples had gained not only job security but also equality in allowances, benefits and access to family support programs. That assumption is wrong.
Since the law took effect 14 months ago, the Department of Defense has kept in place policies that bar spouses of same-gender couples from having military identification cards, shopping on base, living in base housing or participating in certain family support programs.
Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, says Army Lt. Col. Heather Mack, 39, "simply just prevented me from losing my job. It didn't do anything else."
Mack's spouse, Ashley Broadway, also 39, can shop in stores on nearby Fort Bragg, N.C., only in the status of "caregiver" for their son, Carson. Lacking a military dependent ID card, Ashley has been challenged by checkout clerks when her shopping cart includes items such as deodorant that clearly aren't needed by their two-year old.
If Mack is reassigned, the couple will have to pay Ashley's travel and transportation costs out of pocket. Mack draws housing allowance at the higher "with dependents" rate only because of their child. Marriage alone for same-sex couples, though recognized as legal by 11 states and the District of Columbia, doesn't qualify a military sponsor for married allowances or civilian spouses for entry onto bases.
 If Mack were killed during her next deployment, Ashley would not qualify for full "spousal" survivor benefits, even though, by paying higher premiums, she could be covered as an "insurable interest."  And as a surviving widow, Ashley would not qualify for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation from the Department of Veterans or be eligible to receive the folded flag off the coffin in the graveside ceremony, Mack says, because to the military and the VA, Ashley would not be next of kin despite spending a career together.
A heterosexual soldier "who meets someone on a Friday night and Saturday gets married would have full benefits," Mack says. "But you have partners who have been together 15 years or more and they can't even go on base and shop…That's a quality of life issue."
Some disparities of treatment for same sex couples won't end unless Congress repeals the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as solely between a man and woman, or unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules that DOMA is unconstitutional. The high court was expected to announce soon if it will review and rule on conflicting opinions on the constitutionality of DOMA by appellate courts in recent years.
The Obama administration views the law unconstitutional and won't allow Justice Department attorneys to defend it in court. By default, the government's defense of DOMA is being led by the general counsel for the Republican-led House of Representatives.
While the law remains in effect, it prohibits extension of many federal benefits, including military allowances, travel reimbursements and health coverage to same-sex spouses. But Stephen L. Peters II, president of the gay and lesbian advocacy group American Military Partner Association, says the Department of Defense has authority to do much more than it has to date to support service members and spouses of same-sex marriages.
It could give gay and lesbian spouses access to base housing, commissaries and exchanges, base recreation facilities and legal services. It could direct the services to open more family support programs to them and to offer relocation and sponsorship at many overseas duty stations. The services could also extend dual-service couple programs to same-sex marriages thus ensuring these couples too get co-located on reassignments.
No DoD official would be interviewed on this issue. The department instead issue a statement explaining that a work group continues to conduct "a deliberative and comprehensive review of the possibility of extending eligibility for benefits, when legally permitted, to same-sex domestic partners."  Benefits are being examined "from a policy, fiscal, legal and feasibility perspective" and "laws and policies surrounding benefits are complex and interconnected."  The work group, it says, has been striving "to fully understand the scope and interconnectivity."
Life in service is better for gays and lesbians since repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But the department's unresponsiveness to qualify-of-life concerns raised by same-sex married members for the past year, unrelated to DOMA, continue to impact not only families but readiness, Peters argues.
"It's not like the Pentagon doesn't know which benefits it can extend…These have been repeatedly pointed out," he says. "Not only has the Pentagon failed to take action but its silence on the issue is deafening."
Mack, assistant chief of staff for the 1st Theater Sustainment Command at Bragg, is pregnant and due to deliver their second child in January. This time Ashley won't have to pose as her sister to be present at the birth in the post hospital. After maternity leave, Mack expects to deploy again.
She believes commanders would be pressuring policymakers on quality-of-life challenges for same-sex couples if they knew more about them. Mack own boss was surprised before Mack's promotion in October to be told the Army treats married lesbians like her as if they aren't married.
"He said, ‘That's not true. With repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, you get all the benefits.'  I said, ‘No. Any gay or lesbian soldier, regardless of their marital status, is considered a single soldier.'  He had no clue," Mack says.
As a lieutenant colonel, Mack knows she is better able to afford $500 a month in extra health insurance for Ashley, and to cover her travel costs when the family is reassigned. Enlisted members can't afford to handle these disparities, and that's something leaders can't ignore, she says.
If these spouses could at least be issued ID cards, and gain access to base amenities, she says, it would go a long way to improving quality of life.
By Tom Philpott
(Tom Philpott has been breaking news for and about military people since 1977. After service in the Coast Guard, and 17 years as a reporter and senior editor with Army Times Publishing Company, Tom launched "Military Update," his syndicated weekly news column, in 1994. "Military Update" features timely news and analysis on issues affecting active duty members, reservists, retirees and their families. Tom also edits a reader reaction column, "Military Forum." The online "home" for both features is Military.com.)






Judge London Steverson
London Eugene Livingston Steverson (born March 13, 1947) was one of the first two African Americans to graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy in 1968. Later, as chief of the newly formed Minority Recruiting Section of the United States Coast Guard (USCG), he was charged with desegregating the Coast Guard Academy by recruiting minority candidates. He retired from the Coast Guard in 1988 and in 1990 was appointed to the bench as a Federal Administrative Law Judge with the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration.

Early Life and Education
Steverson was born and raised in Millington, Tennessee, the oldest of three children of Jerome and Ruby Steverson. At the age of 5 he was enrolled in the E. A. Harrold elementary school in a segregated school system. He later attended the all black Woodstock High School in Memphis, Tennessee, graduating valedictorian.
A Presidential Executive Order issued by President Truman had desegregated the armed forces in 1948,[1] but the service academies were lagging in officer recruiting. President Kennedy specifically challenged the United States Coast Guard Academy to tender appointments to Black high school students. London Steverson was one of the Black student to be offered such an appointment, and when he accepted the opportunity to be part of the class of 1968, he became the second African American to enter the previously all-white military academy. On June 4, 1968 Steverson graduated from the Coast Guard Academy with a BS degree in Engineering and a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Coast Guard.
In 1974, while still a member of the Coast Guard, Steverson entered The National Law Center of The George Washington University and graduated in 1977 with a Juris Doctor of Laws Degree.

USCG Assignments.
Steverson's first duty assignment out of the Academy was in Antarctic research logistical support. In July 1968 he reported aboard the Coast Guard Cutter (CGC) Glacier [2] (WAGB-4), an icebreaker operating under the control of the U.S. Navy, and served as a deck watch officer and head of the Marine Science Department. He traveled to Antarctica during two patrols from July 1968 to August 1969, supporting the research operations of the National Science Foundation's Antarctic Research Project in and around McMurdo Station. During the 1969 patrol the CGC Glacier responded to an international distress call from the Argentine icebreaker General SanMartin, which they freed.
He received another military assignment from 1970 to 1972 in Juneau, Alaska as a Search and Rescue Officer. Before being certified as an Operations Duty Officer, it was necessary to become thoroughly familiar with the geography and topography of the Alaskan remote sites. Along with his office mate, Ltjg Herbert Claiborne "Bertie" Pell, the son of Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, Steverson was sent on a familiarization tour of Coast Guard, Navy and Air Force bases. The bases visited were Base Kodiak, Base Adak Island, and Attu Island, in the Aleutian Islands.[3]
Steverson was the Duty Officer on September 4, 1971 when an emergency call was received that an Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 airline passenger plane was overdue at Juneau airport. This was a Saturday and the weather was foggy with drizzling rain. Visibility was less than one-quarter mile. The 727 was en route to Seattle, Washington from Anchorage, Alaska with a scheduled stop in Juneau. There were 109 people on board and there were no survivors. Steverson received the initial alert message and began the coordination of the search and rescue effort. In a matter of hours the wreckage from the plane, with no survivors, was located on the side of a mountain about five miles from the airport. For several weeks the body parts were collected and reassembled in a staging area in the National Guard Armory only a few blocks from the Search and Rescue Center where Steverson first received the distress broadcast.[4]. Later a full investigation with the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the cause of the accident was equipment failure.[5]
Another noteworthy item is Steverson's involvement as an Operations Officer during the seizure of two Russian fishing vessels, the Kolevan and the Lamut for violating an international agreement prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in United States territorial waters. The initial attempts at seizing the Russian vessels almost precipitated an international incident when the Russian vessels refused to proceed to a U. S. port, and instead sailed toward the Kamchatka Peninsula. Russian MIG fighter planes were scrambled, as well as American fighter planes from Elmendorf Air Force Base before the Russian vessels changed course and steamed back
Read More