Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Tags ››› Don't Ask, Don't Tell
  • Here Are The Big Players In The Inevitable Smear Campaign Against Judge Merrick Garland

    ››› ››› PAM VOGEL

    As President Obama reportedly prepares to announce Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court, media should be prepared to hear from several right-wing groups dedicated to opposing the nominee, no matter who it is. These advocacy groups and right-wing media outlets have a history of pushing misleading information and alarmist rhetoric to launch smear campaigns against Obama's highly qualified Supreme Court nominees, using tactics including, but not limited to, spreading offensive rumors about a nominee's personal life, deploying bogus legal arguments or conspiracy theories, and launching wild distortions of every aspect of a nominee's legal career.

  • No, Fox, There Isn't A "Reverse Don't Ask Don't Tell" Targeting Christians

    Blog ››› ››› LUKE BRINKER

    Fox News hyped a far-right organization's trumped-up charges of Christian persecution in the military, asserting that the country could be witnessing the beginning of a "reverse Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in which gays and lesbians can openly serve but "Christians now have to be closeted."

    On the August 16 edition of Fox & Friends, the network's Shannon Bream began a segment on a case brought by the extremist Liberty Institute where she reported  the organization's allegations as fact. The segment, titled "The Fight For Faith," opened to ominous music:

    BREAM: Well he served 19 years in the Air Force and has an impeccable record. But when a senior master sergeant refused to agree with his openly gay commander about gay marriage, he was relieved of his duties and reassigned. So is this a reverse Don't Ask Don't Tell? Do Christians now have to be closeted in order to serve?

  • Fox's Starnes Laments That The Military Doesn't Allow Anti-Gay Insubordination

    Blog ››› ››› LUKE BRINKER

    Fox News Radio reporter Todd Starnes hyped the story of a Utah National Guard technician who was reprimanded by his superiors after his anti-gay views became the source of repeated insubordination.  

    In a July 11 story for, Starnes sensationalized the case of Tech. Sgt. Layne Wilson, who wrote an email in December protesting a same-sex wedding at West Point's Cadet Chapel. Wilson's email prompted the Air National Guard to reprimand him for "fail[ing] to render the proper respect to a commissioned officer." Wilson - a noncommissioned officer - also had his reenlistment contract reduced from six years to one year.

    Starnes - who has called military policies protecting gay soldiers a sign of "the end of days" - baselessly framed the story as a tale of stifling Wilson's religious freedom, rather than a stark case of insubordination. Disregarding longstanding military rules, Wilson condemned his superiors for allowing the ceremony to go ahead:

    "This is wrong on so many levels," Wilson wrote. "If they wanted to get married in a hotel that is one thing. Our base chapels are a place of worship and this is a mockery to God and our military core values. I have proudly served 27 years and this is a slap in the face to us who have put our lives on the line for this country. I hope sir that you will take appropriate action so this does not happen again."

  • When Will The Media Stop Treating FRC Like A Serious Policy Organization?

    Blog ››› ››› CARLOS MAZA

    This month marks the one-year anniversary of the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Unsurprisingly, not a single one of the Family Research Council's (FRC) doomsday predictions about the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" have come true in the past year, which is just the latest example of FRC's inability to produce credible and unbiased policy analysis. So why do media outlets keep taking the group seriously?

    In the months leading up to DADT's repeal, FRC officials issued countless warnings that allowing open service would undermine unit cohesion, increase the rate of sexual assault, bring back the draft, and risk millions of lives. The group also dismissed a comprehensive survey by the Pentagon which found that repealing DADT would not hinder military performance, calling the study "suspect."

    It's not the first time FRC has made wildly inaccurate claims about policies that advance LGBT equality.  Some examples of FRC's "expert" policy analysis:

    • Non-discrimination laws would make it a "civil right" for a "temporarily cross-dressing male" to enter women's restrooms and expose himself
    • Hate crime laws "suppress free speech" and respond to a "phony 'crisis'"
    • The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) "would require every employer in America to open every position to homosexuals... and 'transgenders'"

    FRC's inability to provide credible policy research might have something to do with its sources of "expert" analysis. FRC's Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, for example, is Peter Sprigg - a man who spent 10 years as a "professional actor" and served as an ordained Baptist minister before joining FRC.

    The group also has a history of relying on discredited and junk research to make disparaging assertions about LGBT people: gay people are more likely to be pedophiles, homosexuality can be cured, etc. FRC's propagation of known falsehoods about gays and lesbians is the reason the organization was labeled a "hate group" in 2010. 

    Given FRC's record of wildly inaccurate "policy analysis," it's unclear why the clearly biased organization remains relevant in policy discussions. FRC president Tony Perkins regularly appears on all three major cable news networks to provide commentary on a wide range of political issues. Fox News' Mike Huckabee referred to FRC as "one of the most respected family organizations in America." And the Washington Post's Dana Milbank recently referred to the group as a "mainstream conservative think tank."

    As the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) noted in a recent report:

    To make the case that the LGBT community is a threat to American society, the FRC employs a number of "policy experts" whose  "research" has allowed the FRC to be extremely active politically in shaping public debate. Its research fellows and leaders often testify before Congress and appear in the mainstream media. [emphasis added]

    In a column earlier this month titled "Why Must We Take the Family Research Council Seriously?", Daily Beast correspondent Michael Tomasky highlighted the media's double standard when dealing with right-wing groups like FRC.  Discussing the groups' ties to anti-Muslim speakers, Tomasky wrote:

    All right, this is crackpot stuff. But according to the Serious Men and Women of Washington, the FRC is not a crackpot outfit. Can you imagine if the Center for American Progress, say, or Jim Wallis's group featured a speaker who alleged that Romney had a secret plan to convert everyone to Mormonism and force Christians to reject all they'd been taught and embrace Joseph Smith's teachings? I know I said last week I generally steer clear of analogies, but this one is pretty precise.


    FRC can do this and still be accorded respect. Why? Because we just take it as a given and accept that the right wing is full of nativist and reactionary and racist cranks. And this, remember, is a religious organization.

    A similar analogy can be made with regards to FRC's anti-gay politics. Mainstream media outlets just assume - and accept - that FRC's extreme homophobia is par for the course when it comes to conservative Christians organizations. 

    It's not just that FRC is an anti-gay hate group, though; it's a hate group that's consistently flat-out wrong about its policy analysis, especially when dealing with LGBT issues. The Family Research Council continues to be viewed as a "think tank" despite overwhelming evidence that its "policy analysis" is really nothing more than baseless horror stories motivated by extreme anti-gay animus.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, but when it comes to the media's treatment of FRC, wrong after wrong (after wrong after wrong) makes a right-wing "think tank."

  • Wash. Times' Knight Again Fearmongers Over DADT Repeal With Homophobic Rant

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    In an April 5 Washington Times column headlined, "Marching in lockstep with homosexual agenda," Robert Knight fearmongered over the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," writing that GOP congressmen asked during a recent hearing "questions that revealed the military is clueless about how much this will hurt readiness, retention, morale and recruitment." Knight further wrote: "What if you don't respect your (male) commander for having sex with other men or wearing a dress and pumps while on leave?"

    From Knight's column:

    "We used to conform behavior to the military. Now we're conforming the military to behavior."

    Rep. Allen B. West, Florida Republican, belled the cat neatly during a hearing last Friday on the military's breakneck pace in implementing the new lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) law.

    Mr. West, whose 20-plus years in the U.S. Army included combat commands, noted that he and others at Fort Bragg had to endure "sensitivity training" in the 1990s. It didn't enhance the "warrior ethos," he recalled.

    What became clear at the hearing of the House Armed Services Committee's Personnel Subcommittee chaired by Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, is that the Pentagon is forging into unknown territory, driven by political correctness, not military need.


    On the other side, Mr. Wilson, joined by Rep. Vicky Hartzler, Missouri Republican, Rep. Austin Scott, Georgia Republican, Mr. Coffman and Mr. West asked questions that revealed the military is clueless about how much this will hurt readiness, retention, morale and recruitment.


    Both Mr. Stanley and Adm. Gortney insisted that chaplains and others troubled by the new policy will face no repercussions. Sure they won't. Adm. Mullen has already invited anyone who disagrees to leave the military.

    "We're not asking anyone to change their beliefs, just treat everyone with respect," Adm. Gortney said. What if you don't respect your (male) commander for having sex with other men or wearing a dress and pumps while on leave?


    More Homophobia From Wash. Times' Robert Knight

    Wash. Times' Knight Laments GOP Didn't Use "Suppressed Facts" to "Cripple The Homosexual Juggernaut"

    Wash. Times' Knight warns of troops being "'trained' to appreciate sodomy"

    Wash. Times op-ed: DADT repeal forces "GI Joe" to have "Gay Joe for a bunky"

  • GAO Study On DADT Costs Again Shows -- Contary To Assertions -- Policy Placed Burden On Military

    Blog ››› ››› CHRISTINE SCHWEN

    During the debate over repealling the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy, several conservative media figures argued that the policy should remain intact because it was working. For example, in an editorial headlined "Don't Mess With Success," Weekly Standardeditor Bill Kristol wrote that DADT was a "successful policy" and stated that it "works pretty well at accommodating the complex demands of a war-ready military nestled in a liberal society."

    Well today we got confirmation of what we already knew, that arguments like Kristol's don't hold water. On January 20, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its report on the "Personal and Cost Data Associated with Implementing DOD's Homosexual Conduct Policy," and found that 39 percent of the military personal discharged becuase of the policy "held critical occupations," but even that number "could be an underestimation:"

    According to GAO's analysis of Defense Manpower Data Center data, 3,664 servicemembers were separated under DOD's homosexual conduct policy from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. Of the 3,664 separations, 1,458 of these separated servicemembers held a critical occupation or an important foreign language skill as determined by GAO and the services. More specifically, 1,442 (39 percent) of the servicemembers separated under the policy held critical occupations, such as infantryman and security forces, while 23 (less than 1 percent) of the servicemembers held skills in an important foreign language, such as Arabic or Spanish. Seven separated servicemembers held both a critical occupation and an important foreign language skill. However, the number of separated servicemembers with critical occupations could be an underestimation because of a number of factors. For example, the Air Force provided the occupations eligible for enlistment bonuses from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, but could not provide this information for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because the Air Force's data were incomplete.

    Additionally, the GAO calculated that it cost the military $193.3 million to "separate and replace" the officers discharged.

    Using available DOD cost data, GAO calculated that it cost DOD about $193.3 million ($52,800 per separation) in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars to separate and replace the 3,664 servicemembers separated under the homosexual conduct policy.

    Kristol recently wrote that while he still opposes repealing the policy, he believes conservatives who are "hyperventilating" should "cool it," because the troops will be handle the "burden" the repeal places on them. Actually, as the GAO confirmed yesterday, it was the policy that was the "burden" on the military, and fortunately, thanks to Congress' actions, they won't have to handle it much longer.

  • Vets Group Blasts 'Social Deviant' Farah's Anti-Gay Column

    Blog ››› ››› JOE STRUPP

    Among the most controversial reactions to the landmark repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a recent column at WorldNetDaily by Joseph Farah, in which he essentially urged soldiers and those interested in becoming soldiers not to serve in the U.S. Military.

    "As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves," Farah, who oversees the well-read site, wrote in the column posted December 17 before the repeal occurred.

    "If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America's national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will," Farah added. "It's just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can."

    The column drew several critical responses from those in the news business and those who follow military and gay rights issues, ranging from one who called it "irresponsible" to another describing it as "disgusting bigotry."

    Mike Triplett, vice president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and top blogger on the group's website, blasted Farah's column.

    "It is clearly, incredibly irresponsible. This is a good example of the kind of irresponsible commentary that goes on so often in the conservative press," he said. "It is unfortunate that there is so much irrational vindictive inside the conservative press and that it gets linked to by conservative bloggers and legitimate press. That is of greater concern, they are linked by more legitimate people."

    Ashwin Madia, an Iraq War veteran and interim chairman of, stated in an e-mail response to the column:

    "It's disappointing to hear someone demand that brave American men and women stop serving their country because of his blind hatred for a particular group of people. Fortunately, those who have served in today's military - including leadership from every branch - are rightfully confident that every survey of service members is correct and this repeal will have little effect on recruitment, retention, and readiness."

    He also added, "...the disgusting bigotry of Mr. Farah makes very clear who has rightfully earned the title of 'social deviant.'"

    Col. Dave Lapan, a U.S. Department of Defense public affairs officer, dismissed Farah's column.

    "We see editorials and opinions all the time and people are free to have opinions," Lapan said. "I would suspect that most people in the military are serving for other reasons and wouldn't listen to that type of admonition for people.

    "The military is, if nothing else, a meritocracy, people advance because they are good at what they do, regardless of where they grew up or what gender they are or what racial group they grew up with."

    Lapan added: "Historically, when other militaries have made this change, those who reported that the change would cause them to either leave the service or not join the service severely overestimated what actually happened in practice. Very small numbers actually followed through on that."

    Jarrod Chlapowski, field and development director of Service Members United -- the largest gay and lesbian troop organization - said predictions of military problems are unfounded.

    "They made much more dire predictions about white soldiers leaving the military during the integration of African-Americans in the military and it did not occur," said Chlapowski, an Army veteran who served from 2000 to 2005.

    He said reactions like Farah's are not a surprise, but hardly the majority viewpoint: "We won our biggest gay rights victory yet and this is what you will see. Yes, the media should not be advocating something that is clearly wrong and incorrect, but it is an opinion column and he is entitled to it. The implementation of the repeal will be the best education in that regard, it will demonstrate that it is not an issue. We are at a point where we are not arguing for repeal, it is actually happening."