when the status quo frustrates.

Interesting

I went to a wedding of a friend of mine’s this weekend. The party was fun, the bride and groom looked gorgeous like they always do.

But, this is not about the wedding. This is about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

I was sitting next to a very nice lady who had been in the Navy for awhile. We were joking that the military is great job security- “short of doing drugs” she said. I laughed and quipped back “Or, you know, being homosexual”. She smiled and said “Nope, not any more. I was just in a meeting that they informed us, in no uncertain terms, that starting January first the military was not allowed to discriminate based on anything. Not even being gay.”

“Really?” I asked

“Yep.” she said. “They hid it in the military pay raise bill. You can’t get kicked out for being gay anymore.”

“Huh,” I said. “You think there’d be more fan-fare for that”.

“I get the impression that they’re trying to keep somewhat of a lid on it. But, the people who have already been in can stay in.” she said.

I searched on the internet for such a bill. I came across the latest military pay bill- HR 3326, that looks like it’ll be completed shortly Obama has signed into law but couldn’t find anything in the bill about any non-discrimination policies.

The last bill I could find was signed in last July, and as near as I can tell, had no non-discrimination policies in it either.

Any one else in the military tell me anything about this? Political junkies, have you heard of anything?

4 Responses to “Interesting”

  1. ACW says:

    Everything I’m finding says it’s proposed for the 2011 budget bill, not 2010.
    Search term “Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2011″ doesn’t even yield a draft of the bill, though. Neither does “Bill” instead of “Act”. :(
    I think this is misinformation for January 1, 2010… but maybe we’ll see change in the following year.

  2. ACW says:

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
    “H.R. 2517: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009″
    Maybe this is the Act to which she referred?

  3. Could be an urban legend. It’s well-documented that people, when telling stories, cut out the middle man in order to improve the narrative. So it’s possible she heard from someone who heard from somewhere, and by the time she cleaned it up for you, she heard directly from the source.

Leave a Reply