This is interesting/ DADT is not dead just yet.

[henryclay]

And here is a letter from a senior military member to the Thomas More aw Center last week. The originators name has been redacted by request since TTMLC has not responded to the letter.:

"......I am writing to inquire if you or any other legal organization may be considering a lawsuit challenging the change in the Department of Defense (DoD) homosexual policy? The reason members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not stand when the president addressed this issue during his State of the Union speech as they did when he spoke about defeating terrorism is because they know the truth, i.e., that the thousands of homosexuals who have been separated from the military were not discharged because of their sexual orientation. I believe you could win a case overturning the policy change if you were granted discovery in regard to the cases involving homosexuals who have been discharged over the past 20 years.

I served as the Deputy Chaplain of the United States Marine Corps from 1991 to 1994. During that period I was asked to comment on a myriad of issues, particularly those that impacted the morale and welfare of military personnel and their family members. One of the issues I was asked for my opinion on was the Department of Defense (DoD) policy on homosexuality.

While I was not aware at the time of the specific aspects of the policy, my initial thoughts were that perhaps the policy should be changed. One of my main reasons for feeling this way was that I, like most people, were influenced by the majority of media outlets that portrayed the issue as one of unjust "discrimination." An excellent example of media bias and one-sided reporting involved an incident in which Marines, returning from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, stopped at a bar in Wilmington, North Carolina to allow a girl friend to use the ladies room. When they discovered that the establishment catered mainly to homosexuals, they attempted to leave only to be confronted by some of the patrons. In the course on an ensuing altercation, one of the homosexuals was injured by a Marine. The media portrayed this as an example of "gay bashing" and made little attempt to discover what in truth actually had happened. When the case went to trail and the Marines were ultimately acquitted of assault charges, many of the same media sources that provided "front page" coverage of this alleged injustice perpetrated against homosexuals failed to provide even "back page" coverage of the final outcome.

When I was asked to comment about the DoD policy, seldom did I read in the media about incidents involving homosexuals who were discharged because of their conduct. For example, when heterosexual soldiers at Fort Hood complained that homosexuals were using a particular latrine for a variety of sex acts, the command had the doors of the stalls removed. However, when complaints continued to be registered, a surveillance camera was installed in the ceiling which was run intermittently over a period of seven days. During that time, several homosexuals were observed engaging in oral and anal sodomy, mutual masturbation, and other homosexual acts. All of those who took part engaged in unprotected sex. Thirty of some sixty homosexuals were ultimately identified. These included 14 soldiers and 16 civilians. Two homosexuals were HIV positive and one had full blown AIDS. While all of the soldiers were discharged because of their behavior, you still had media sources that reported: "Gay men and lesbians expelled from U.S. military each year because of sexual orientation: 1,000." (James D. Wilson, "Gays Under Fire," Newsweek, 14 September 1992, p. 39)

I was not the only person who was initially inclined to support a change in the policy based upon misinformation provided by the media. Another person at the time who was on the verge of supporting a change in the policy was William F. Buckley. Mr. Buckley read an article in The New Republic that reported: "More than 20 sailors...were court-martialed or discharged for homosexuality, although only two of them were found to have committed a homosexual act upon a ship." After reading this, he, like most readers, was given the impression that some 18 homosexuals were separated merely because of their homosexual "orientation." However, before coming out in his weekly column in favor of supporting a change in the DoD policy, he contacted me to ascertain the veracity of The New Republic article.

With the support of the Judge Advocate General of the Marine Corps who consulted with the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, I was given permission to send Mr. Buckley copies of the investigations involving those sailors who were discharged for homosexual behavior while serving aboard USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC 19) homeported in Yokosuka, Japan. The information I provided did not violate the Privacy Act in so far I substituted letters for the names of the involved sailors. When Mr. Buckley received copies of the investigations that presented a behavioral picture of multiple sexual liaisons graphically different from that suggested in The New Republic article, he advocated maintaining the DoD homosexual policy in his “On the Right” column dated December 15, 1992.

When I read studies that indicated that homosexual men averaged 70 different sex partners a year before the AIDS epidemic, but now average 50 different partners a year, I thought that surely these figures were exaggerated. However, when I counted the number of different homosexual partners involved in the investigations I forwarded to Mr. Buckley, I discovered that such numbers are not exaggerations.

The reason President Obama was able to get Congress to vote in favor of repealing the DoD homosexual policy was because the American public was led to believe that the thousands of homosexuals who were discharged over the past years were separated merely because of their homosexual orientation. The DoD “study” that involved polling service members about how they felt about changing the policy was a mere distraction. The people who should have been contacted were those who were actually involved in the discharged of over 25,000 homosexuals the past 20 years. Had they been contacted, they would have disclosed that the homosexuals were discharged because they were either caught engaging in homosexual behavior on ships like USS BLUE RIDGE (LCC 19) or on bases like FORT HOOD, or because they came on to heterosexual personnel who reported them to their chain-of-command.

The idea that thousands of service members who were discharged for homosexuality will now be able to apply to return to active duty is ludicrous because of the truth, i.e. they were not separated merely because of their orientation.

One question that no one has asked throughout this entire debate is: “How many of the ten of thousands of discharged homosexuals are still alive or healthy enough to even serve in the military?” Homosexuals like LCDR John “Matt” Lee who was discharged after it was revealed that he had sex with Midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy and with Marines at Marine Corps Base Quantico while he was HIV positive is certainly not in any position to return to active duty service.

One major reason President Clinton was unsuccessful in allowing avowed homosexuals to serve in the military was because he did not have someone like Admiral Mike Mullen working for him “on the inside” to insure that senior officers would be intimidated not to speak out and that no one would leak the kind of information that I provided to people like William F. Buckley.

If you or any other law firm were to take on this issue, you could easily show with discovery how a change in this policy will truly harm retention, recruitment, unit cohesion, morale, and – ultimately – national security. However, without discovery, the case could never be won and people will continue to believe the lie that homosexuals were unjustly separated merely because of their sexual orientation........"