For many of the men and women discharged under DADT, their discharge papers contain a narrative describing the person’s reason for separation: Many of those contain some variation of the language “homosexual conduct.”

U.S. Sen. Mark Udall said today that no honorably discharged veteran should be forced by the military to discuss their sexual orientation with a prospective employer, and he has written a letter to the Department of Defense asking that it streamline the process of removing offending language from discharge papers.

“Even though we ended DADT last year, more than 14,000 veterans who were forced to leave the military because of their sexual orientation still have an unfair stigma hanging over them,” Udall said. “Many of those veterans are now beginning the long process of correcting their discharge paperwork to ensure that their records reflect the quality of their service – not the discriminatory legacy that forced them from the military, weakening our national security in the process. Especially at a time of such high unemployment for our veterans, we should make it as easy as possible for them to maintain their personal privacy by making such corrections,” Udall said in a prepared statement.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, joined Udall in signing the letter.

“We need to right wrongful discharges for our veterans immediately,” Gillibrand said. “Last fall, we ended the discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Now it’s time to create an efficient way for veterans, who were discharged because of who they love, to receive clean, honorable discharge paperwork. Veterans that were discharged under DADT served our country courageously and with dignity and we need to give them the appropriate recognition immediately.”

“Although this harmful and wrongheaded policy has been repealed, it left behind a legacy of injustice that continues to discriminate against the gay and lesbian service members whom were discharged under it,” Lieberman said. “By streamlining the process to correct these service members’ discharge documents, the Department of Defense can ensure that these courageous Americans move forward with dignity in their careers and private lives.”

Udall said in the statement that while the Department of Defense has agreed to remove the offending language from paperwork, getting it done has proved difficult and time-consuming for many veterans and that it needs to be streamlined.

The letter:

Dear Secretary Panetta,

When the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) took effect on September 20, 2011, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Dr. Clifford Stanley issued a memorandum providing guidance to the military services regarding applications from veterans separated on the basis of their sexual orientation seeking changes to their discharge paperwork. The memorandum made clear that Discharge Review Boards (DRBs) “should normally grant requests to change the narrative reason for a discharge…[and that] requests to re-characterize the discharge to honorable and/or requests to change reentry codes to an immediately-eligible-to-reenter category” should be granted when the original discharge was based solely on DADT and there “were no aggravating factors in the record, such as misconduct.” The guidance goes on to say that while “each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,” having “an honorable or general discharge should normally…indicate the absence of aggravating factors.”

While this guidance was an important step in the right direction, it is insufficient for the vast majority of veterans discharged under DADT. The current process is protracted and overly burdensome for veterans who-according to Dr. Stanley’s guidance-should be entitled to have their discharge documents corrected. Our understanding is that many veterans who meet the criteria outlined above must first gather their service-related paperwork, which many veterans do not possess. The veteran must then file an application with the supporting documentation to overcome the presumption of the DRB that the discharge was proper. To accomplish this, the veteran must argue that the discharge should be changed according to the standards of “propriety” or “equity,” per DRB regulations. Only after overcoming this presumption will the DRB change the discharge paperwork.

We understand that changing discharge paperwork is not a small matter and that in most cases, a careful case-by-case evaluation is warranted. But as long as a former service member’s Narrative Reason for a discharge is “Homosexual Conduct,” “Homosexual Act” or “Homosexual Marriage,” that service member is compelled to be “out” to any future civilian employer and anyone else who sees the document. Likewise, the negative reentry code serves as a barrier to employment opportunities.

Therefore, the process should be streamlined for those veterans discharged under DADT who have honorable or general discharges and only seek changes to their narrative reason for discharge and their reentry code. We thus respectfully request that the Department clarify that DRBs shall correct discharge paperwork upon receipt of a basic DD Form 293 application, provided that the DRB can then obtain the veteran’s DD Form 214 and service record. The Department should further clarify that, where there are no aggravating factors in the service member’s record, the presumption should be in favor of correction.

Veterans who were discharged under DADT should not be compelled to carry with them a narrative reason for separation that indicates their sexual orientation to anyone who sees their discharge document. In order to begin to put the regrettable policy of DADT fully behind us, the process of getting these documents corrected needs to be accessible and achievable for all. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

“I moved to Colorado to change the party from within,” said Michael Carr, a Log Cabin Republican and a party precinct captain in Colorado. “I think it’s important for Republicans to look at this issue with a cold calculating eye…. [Opinions] are advancing very quickly on homosexuality, civil unions, even gay marriage.

“As a severe Republican partisan, I want the party to be around for a while,” he said. “I want it to be the party to challenge big government and big spending and if the party continues to take up this sort of hateful bigoted mantra, I fear the party is going to lose young people, who will identify as independents, and we’ll have less troops on the ground come election time.”

The bill, SB2 introduced last year as well by Denver Democratic Sen. Pat Steadman, would grant straight and gay couples in Colorado the right to form state-recognized unions that would bestow many of the legal protections and responsibilities now granted only to married couples. Couples entering into a civil union could share insurance and pension benefits and make medical and inheritance decisions for one another, for example. They would also be able to adopt children more easily and be bound to pay alimony and child support should their relationships dissolve. Even though some of those rights are available to non-married couples now, they come with hefty legal price tags and unique hurdles like home inspection visits from state workers. The bill was defeated by one vote last year in a Republican-majority House committee determined to keep it off the House floor, where supporters believe it would have passed in a full chamber vote.

The fusty and the brash

Mario Nicolais, a major Republican Party figure in Colorado and an attorney at Hackstaff Law Group, the conservative politics firm where intensely Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler was partner, directed his remarks almost entirely at Republican Committee member and outspoken traditional marriage defender Kevin Lundberg.

“I’m the spokesman for Coloradans for Freedom,” Nicolais said to open his testimony, referring to the group of high-profile state Republicans who have banded together this year to support civil unions.

“I am a radically partisan Republican… and I am here to say that conservative principles unequivocally support civil unions. I think that’s something necessary for this committee to hear and the people of this state to hear. There are many conservatives who believe this… We don’t think it’s a gay-rights issue. We think it’s an equal-rights issue… We think personal liberty and individual freedom rights are at stake and those are twin pillars of conservative thought.”

Last year, Nicolais was the “defacto leader” among Republicans on the state’s legislative reapportionment commission, a mark of his standing with the party but also now perhaps a dubious credential in some quarters, given that the Democratic members of the commission outmaneuvered Republicans to effectively decapitate GOP legislative leadership by drawing powerful incumbents into the same districts. In that light, the showdown over civil unions between Nicolais, a brash operator in the world beyond the walls of the capitol, and Lundberg, a congressional candidate, fusty Christian-politics figure and staid member of the legislature for a decade, seemed particularly charged for the glimpse it offered on the generational power struggle being waged on the right in Colorado, where outspoken younger idealists are seen as either rebuilding or ruining the Republican party.

Looking up at Lundberg, who was seated in the elevated “bench” of the Old Supreme Court Chamber where the hearing was held, Nicolais pressed a point saturated with culture-war references, casting images of gay family life into the air through a Republican lens and, in doing so, bending sterotypical Colorado conservative views to the shaking point.

“Civil unions are good conservative public policy. They promote monogamous relationships. They promote families. They promote caring for children,” Nicolais said. “You can’t go to a Republican caucus or stump speech without hearing those values espoused over and over and over again. It is Republican red meat and I [repeat it] all the time myself.”

Sniffing heresy, Lundberg asked if Nicolais should then be counted among those who believe the “one-man, one-woman” defintion of marriage voted into the state constitution in 2006 is “inappropriate public policy.”

“No, that [assertion] is categorically wrong,” said Nicolais. “Most of our group differentiates very much between marriage and civil unions… We praise this bill because it recognizes [Colorado's Amendment 43]. The idea that an institution as old and as important as marriage would be reliant on the government for any sort of protection is antithetical to conservative thought… [This bill concerns] a relationship between two committed people and their government and we think that is entirely appropriate. The question of gay marriage should be reserved for another day.”

“I respectfully disagree that we’re talking about marriage as a different thing,” Lundberg said. “What are the differences except for the name? It sounds to me that what you’re arguing for is a very different form of that marriage relationship, [one] that is antithetical to what the Colorado Constitution defines as between one man and one woman exclusively.”

“Marriage is something bigger,” said Nicolais with Steadman sitting silently next to him and the four Democratic committee members eyeing the exchange from the right side of the bench. “What we’re talking about here is the relationship between two people and their government. That is it. That is what civil unions are.

“But marriage is different,” he continued. “It is between two people, between their families their communities, their churches, their gods, all things conservatives don’t think the government should be a part of… Many supporters [of Coloradans for Freedom] differ on these questions. Many of our supporters are in favor of gay mariage. Many believe the state should get out of the marriage business. There’s a divide there. What we all agree on is that, when it comes to this very limited tie– the relationship between the government and two people who have committed themselves to each other and to a life together– we think that that should be equal because we believe in equal rights…. Equal rights and civil rights are what we argue for as conservatives.”

“I find it remarkable,” said Lundberg, “that you draw a parallel with civil rights issues of past decades and yet resist any comparison of civil unions to marriage as having a similar [likely societal impact]. Your arguments are that this is a conservative principle. If that’s the case, then the conservative people of Colorado would agree with you, and that [scenario] is a very far stretch by my experience of public policy. I submit you are a remarkable exception to the rule.”

Democratic Committee Chair Morgan Carroll then looked from Lundberg to Nicolais, as did the 200 people who filled the chamber gallery. “Mr. Nicolais, do you want to respond?” she asked.

“I will, briefly, just to say that Coloradans for Freedom, we wanted to add our conservative voices to the conservative voices out there. It’s not just cut and dried that conservatives oppose civil unions. It’s simply not true.”

Freedom, families, religion

Troy Ard, openly gay chairman of the state’s College Republicans, also called into question opposition to the bill on ideological grounds. He suggested opposition was not consistent with conservative views of limited government that dominate on other controversial topics like gun control and taxes and so the position raises the specter that there are other less attractive factors driving it.

“I must wholeheartedely disagree with those who can believe that sound government is limited government and that personal liberty is one of the most important doctrines of our federalist society but then at the same time believe that government should be involved in picking and choosing which American couples can live together and enjoy government recogniiton,” he said.

Republican Committee member Ellen Roberts was one of three Senate Republicans, all women, who supported the bill last year. She voted in favor of this year’s bill Wednesday and her questions for witnesses over the course of the hearing were designed to shore up confidence among conservatives. Mostly she sought to underline the vital and presently absent protections the bill provides for the children of gay couples and the safeguards for religious liberty the bill includes.

Roberts pushed back, for example, against Cahleen Hagerty, a spokesperson for Colorado Catholic Charities, who testified that the bill “could jeopardize” her organization’s placing children with adoptive families.

Roberts asked for specifics on how Catholic Charities might be affected and then read out specific language in the bill meant to address the very issue.

“This article shall not be interpreted to require a child placement agency to place a child for adoption with a couple that has entered into a civil union pursuant to this article.”

Hagerty said she had only meant to “draw a parallel” to civil union laws passed in other states. “We’re worried about the future,” she said.

Capitol corridors and chambers

The political landscape in Colorado has changed dramatically since last year’s debate over civil unions. Gay rights have expanded in states across the country. The leaders of the Armed Forces are lifting the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning open gay military service. The Obama administration has said it believes the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has ceased defending it from court challenges. Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California has been ruled against twice. Reputable public-opinion polls have consistently found large majorities of Americans in favor of greater relationship equality, including in Colorado. And after last year’s Democratic Party redistricting victory, Colorado Republicans face a much more difficult election terrain this year than they have faced in decades.

Acknowledging these developments, Democrat Steadman told the Colorado Independent that, nevertheless, the back-channel conversation around the bill, the kind of nitty-gritty negotiations in corridors that can translate to key votes in chambers, hasn’t really changed this year, at least not yet. Indeed, after five-plus hours of hearing testimony, Steadman wore the set face of a distance runner, eyes on the horizon, as determined to continue the fight for the bill as he is to see and state clearly the challenges littering its route to the governor’s desk.

Republican Roberts, however, had a different take. She wore a hesitant smile when she told the Colorado Independent that she thought that in the last year the conversation has been broadened on the right in Colorado.

“Coloradans for Freedom is part of that,” she said. “Republicans are united by common ground on ideas about economic opportunity and also about equal rights. Abe Lincoln was a Republican and I think some of the ideas that drove Lincoln have been lost in the intervening years. Seeing this as a family issue is important. Supporting this doesn’t make you a RINO. I think a lot of Republicans hadn’t thought about civil unions in that way– that gay couples take their kids to the doctor, to karate, do all the family things. I think more Republicans are recognizing these are people just trying to have a normal family life. We’re evolving. Maybe this time we’ll see this bill as less about sexual preference and more about families.”

In her closing remarks, before voting in favor of the bill, Roberts directly addressed the two main issues Lundberg cited in voting against it.

“This is a slippery slope to same-sex marriage,” he said. In fact, Lundberg never really argued against the bill itself. He said he thought it was really a gay marriage bill not a civil unions bill and that, even though the the bill as written may not infringe upon the state’s “one-man, one-woman” definition of marriage, once on the books, the bill could be reworked to do so.

“This bill is a stepping stone,” he said. “I see this as a deep problem in regard to the [constitution] we were sworn to uphold.”

Roberts said the bill carefully defines civil unions and respects the constitution.

“I return to the 20 years I spent as an estate-planning attorney where I dealt with same-sex couples who were raising children. There’s a difference between marriage and civil unions, and the biggest thing [this] bill does is sustain the family unit. I don’t agree this is marriage… Yes, statutes might change. But you could say that about every one of our statutes.”

[ Images: Top: Lundberg, left, Nicolais, right. Side series: Steadman in conversation with reporters after the hearing. ]

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

On a conference call with supporters of Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom coalition on Tuesday evening, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann said she would reinstate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, while agreeing with a caller who said allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would “destroy the armed forces.”

“I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ,” Bachmann said in her introductory remarks. “I gave my life to the Lord when I was 16 years of age. We are committed to the pro-life cause, we believe that life deserves protection from conception to natural death.”

Bachmann also talking about her work on the anti-gay marriage amendment that will be on the ballot in Minnesota in 2012.

“We also believe that God has a design for marriage between one man and one woman. I was the chief author of the marriage amendment in Minnesota and we persisted, and after seven years, in a very hostile liberal state, we finally passed that marriage amendment and it will be on the ballot and I believe it will pass in 2012.”

She said conservatives don’t win “pro-family victories’ unless they fight hard and have trust in the Lord: “It’s incredibly important that we trust him in what he can do because god is so big and so great and so powerful.”

Bachmann took questions from callers, including a man named Jack who said “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is going to destroy the armed forces” before his call was dropped.

“I think of all of the candidates that are running in this race, I have been very vocal about this,” Bachmann said. “I would reinstate the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. It worked before and what it says is the issue of sexuality is one that doesn’t come up and people aren’t allowed to be open about it because the United States military is unique, its not a social experiment.”

She said repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is gong to hurt the military’s preparedness: “I take very seriously the job of Commander in Chief. I see that as my very first job and I would listen to the generals [on DADT].”

Bachman told the activists not to settle for a moderate candidate when choosing their candidate for 2012, and that she is the most socially conservative.

“I believe that this is a powerful election, and I firmly believe that this is the election of all elections and that’s why my message has been don’t settle,” she said. “Every four years the pro-life conservative Christians, we are told about this time time the race and just get patted on the head and told that we have got to elect the moderate in the race.”

Bachmann’s campaign has recently focused on the theme that conservatives don’t have to compromise on their ideal candidate.

“Don’t settle. Don’t settle for anyone less than a candidate that will stand up for our profile, pro-family, pro-marriage issues,” she told people on the call. “What makes me stand out is that I have stood up on every battle tat we care about and I have taken the heat and have shown in the heat of the battle I push on.”

She added, “I have a titanium spine. I will put my spine up against any man who is running in this race.”

DENVER– Veterans, state lawmakers and Democratic Party officials gathered on the capitol steps here Monday to celebrate the end of the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which for the last 18 years barred gay Americans from serving openly in the military. The Pentagon on Tuesday is officially lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell across all branches of the armed services in accordance with legislation passed last December. At a time when nearly any issue can generate incendiary political rhetoric and gridlock Congress, the end of the controversial military policy is being lauded as a rare bipartisan victory for equality and common sense and a sign of progress in service of the nation.

“Today is the eve of a major day… It’s almost like Christams Eve or Passover for many of us in this community,” said state Senator Lucia Guzman. “Tomorrow brings a new era. Nowhere in America should anyone be asked to lie about who they are or about what they stand for.”

Guzman said that active gay service members would now openly be representing core U.S. values they were fighting for overseas.

“As the sun goes down… the gentle cool breeze here in Colorado will connect with a breeze all over the world and say to our men and women in uniform ‘You are now free not only to fight and die for our country but also to be our country.”

“Many people fought to make this day possible,” said Colorado Democtaic Party Chairman Rick Palacio who, as a staffer for Maryland Representative Steny Hoyer, helped draft and push the legislation that will end the policy. “Colorado’s senior Senator Mark Udall, [independent] Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and [Republican] Senator Susan Collins of Maine were pivotal in ensuring this legisaltion passed. They are proof that bipartisanship still exists.”

Palacio referenced the fact that 14,000 service men and women had been discharged under the policy.

Government accountants estimated last year that the process of identifying gay service members and discharging them under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” cost the country more than $200 million since its implementation.

In arguing for repeal, Senator Udall said repeatedly that seeking to expel men and women the country had paid to train was extremely detrimental at a time when the nation was fighting two wars.

“These are jet pilots, translators of Arabic, Farsi, Pashtun– languages so important in the War on Terror. All the skill sets needed in the military are met by gay Americans.”

Most of the countries of the European Union, as well as Israel, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Taiwan and Uruguay all embrace open gay military service and have in most cases for years.

Vietnam veteran Dennis Daughtery spoke to the small crowd outside the capitol today about the kind of closure the repeal would bring for him.

“I have two friends whose names are chiseled into a wall in Washington DC. I just want to go back and say to them Welcome home.”

State Senator Pat Steadman, who sponsored a same-sex civil unions bill in Colorado that gained bipartisan support before being killed in a House committee last year, said he saw the repeal as the end of a chapter in the larger story of gay equality.

“This is one step in a much larger movement,” he said. “It is a movement that has seen continual progress, from what is happening in different states around the country to, finally, the legislative changes coming out of our nation’s capital. This particular policy was a policy of exclusion and discrmination that way outlasted any usefulness and it was really time for it to go.

“We are now at a point where most of these policies of exclusion are history and we can start talking more about what we can do legislatively to focus on inclusion and equality. I hope that momentum continues to sweep our nation’s capital and where we are right now,” he said, referring to the state capitol building behind him.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

While it might seem logical, given the nation’s latest job numbers, that when Congress returns after an August recess its members will be focused on the economy, unemployment and the national deficit, at least one federal lawmaker from California is hoping to switch the conversation to gays and lesbians in the military.

Duncan Hunter

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a long-time opponent of open service in the military for gays and lesbians, is drafting legislation, according to Army Times, that wouldn’t seek to reinstate the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy set to end this month, but would allow military personnel to voice their opposition to serving with such individuals.

Speaking with National Public Radio in February 2010, Hunter gave his reasons for opposing repeal of DADT:

… I think that its bad for the cohesiveness and the unity of the military units, especially those that are in close combat, that are in close quarters in country right now. Its not the time to do it … [T]he folks who have been in the military that have been in these very close situations with each other, there has to be a special bond there. And I think that bond is broken if you open up the military to transgenders, to hermaphrodites, to gays and lesbians. …

It’s not just gays and lesbians. Its a whole gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual community. If you’re going to let anybody no matter what preference – what sexual preference they have that means the military is going to probably let everybody in. Its going to be like civilian life and the I think that that would be detrimental for the military. …

The Hunter proposal is expected to specifically address sensitivity training that is being conducted by the military branches in preparation for the Sept. 20 repeal date of DADT.

“We’ve heard the training is really pushing the line for people who believe homosexuality is wrong on religious and personal grounds,” an aide, who asked not to be identified, told Army Times. “It is a legitimate concern, under the circumstances, with the services working on disciplinary policies for people who don’t agree with this decision.

“The military always falls in line, but that doesn’t mean that the men and women who serve in its ranks should suddenly be forced to personally accept something that is contrary to their own principles,” the aide said.

The proposal has not yet been submitted for consideration, but it is believed that if such a measure is going to be considered, it would need to be one of the first proposals viewed by Congress when it reconvenes on Sept. 7.

Hunter, who was first elected to Congress in 2008 as the successor to his 14-term father of the same name, served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of the Marine Corps. He is the first Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan elected to Congress.

Since DADT was first introduced in 1993, the military has discharged more than 13,500 soldiers for being gay.

More than two centuries after America’s first military skirmish, gay and lesbian Americans can now serve openly in the military. President Obama today announced that the military was finally ready to implement a policy of openly welcoming people of all sexual oreintations.

From The Washington Post:

The Obama administration announced Friday that the military had made all necessary preparations to allow gays to serve openly in the armed forces, setting the stage for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in 60 days.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented President Obama with a formal certification Friday afternoon at the White House that the military’s ability to fight and recruit would not be harmed by the overt presence of gays in the ranks.

‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal: Closing a chapter in history: President Obama signed the landmark repeal in December, ending a 17-year ban on gays serving openly in the military.

The certification marked the final hurdle in a nearly two-decade-long campaign by gay-rights groups and civil-rights advocates to integrate the armed forces. Under a law passed by Congress and signed by Obama in December, the 18-year-old “don’t-ask, don’t-tell” policy will now automatically vanish in 60 days.

Congressman Jared Polis released the following statement in reaction to President Obama’s certification of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

“I applaud President Obama for certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Our military will be stronger and our nation more secure because brave men and women who are gay will be able to serve without living in secret and talented service members won’t find themselves discharged from the military just because of their sexual orientation.

“The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is a landmark civil rights victory. With this victory, as with every civil rights advance, America becomes more true to its values and to the ideal that, not only are we all created equal, we are all equal in the eyes of the law. I express my gratitude to President Obama for his leadership and to my colleagues in Congress who voted to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell last December.”

Senator Michael Bennet had this to say:

“It’s long past time for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ to be relegated to the dustbin of history,” said Bennet. “‘This backwards looking policy is not only wrong; it undermines our national security and flies in the face of our national values.

“Now that the President, Secretary Panetta and our military chiefs have certified the military is ready for this transition, we are well on our way towards affirming our nation’s basic rights and affording every American, regardless of their sexual orientation, the opportunity to serve their country.”

Bennet was an original co-sponsor of the bill to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He is also a cosponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act, a bill that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Senator Mark Udall, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence committees, issued the following statement:

“For almost two decades, we’ve had a policy that dishonored our troops and compromised our national security because it encouraged qualified service members to lie about their identity. Our men and women in uniform have been ahead of us for some time on this issue. They know that what counts in battle isn’t your sexual orientation but your courage, strength, intelligence, training and loyalty.

“I opposed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ from the beginning because it makes no sense, especially while we’re fighting two wars and engaged in conflicts around the world, to tell dedicated, qualified service members that they can’t serve. And I was proud to help lead the fight to end it. With today’s certification, the clock officially begins to tick on the end of the policy. I have faith that our military leaders will implement the repeal with respect, strengthening our military and ensuring the safety of our troops.”

President Obama’s reelection campaign sent out a fundraising letter to mark the occasion. From that letter:

This is huge and welcome news for every one of us who opposes discrimination of any kind. But now, the fight for equal rights moves on.

Here’s the next front: This week the President endorsed a bill to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, a discriminatory law that forces the federal government to ignore the rights of those in same-sex marriages, even those performed in states where gay marriage is legal. The New York Times has said it “ranks with the most overtly discriminatory laws in the nation’s history.”

With the “Obamacare-repeal” legislation passed yesterday in the U.S. House, California GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter has introduced the next Republican Congress repeal effort. Hunter’s “Restore Military Readiness Act” is reopening debate on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 17-year-old policy lifted by lawmakers in December that banned gay soldiers from serving openly in the U.S. Armed Forces. Hunter’s bill, which Colorado’s Doug Lamborn signed onto as a co-sponsor, is already being criticized not as a true policy initiative but as a way to revisit the issue of gay rights and military readiness that generated sparks during the last days of the previous Democratic-controlled session of Congress.

Hunter’s bill would require the heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines to independently sign off on whether or not to allow gays to serve openly. The Pentagon has already suggested that such a measure has no place in the world of the military, where strict adherence to chain of command is everything. The law repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in December already requires the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Obama as Commander in Chief to sign off on the process through which the ban on openly gay soldiers will be ended.

Hunter’s bill is sure to come under fire from Democratic lawmakers and progressive voters who see the debate over Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as well-worn ground and as a legislative battle already won. More significant perhaps, the bill may also come under fire from voters and analysts on the right whose top priorities in the midterm elections were to bolster the economic recovery and rein in government spending.

The Government Accountability Office reported recently that the military spent more than $193 million between 2004 and 2009 to replace roughly 3,660 troops discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. A University of California committee looking into the costs of the policy maintained that the GAO estimates were conservative. The UC Palm Center released a report in 2006 that estimated military spending on recruiting, discharging and replacing gay soldiers in the first decade of the policy was roughly $363.8 million. (ThinkProgress has posted a short blog on the topic that includes two of the charts from the recent GAO report.)

Hunter, a Marine veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, said in a release that his bill “isn’t necessarily” about lifting the repeal of DADT.

“The idea… is rather to ensure that military readiness and combat effectiveness are not adversely impacted. Given that the service chiefs carry most of the day-to-day responsibilities for each service branch, their independent certification is just as important and equally necessary.”

Hunter is a long way from the Marine Corps. “Independent certification” is the kind of phrase you may search long and hard for and fail to find in a Marine training manual.

Gen. James Amos, a Marine Corps commandant who publicly opposed the repeal in December, said he wouldn’t hesitate to implement it if Congress passed it as law.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Openly gay Colorado Congressman Jared Polis took to the floor of the House Wednesday to commend U.S. leaders for putting an end to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Clinton-era policy banning gay members of the military from serving openly. Gay citizens will “hold their heads a little higher as Americans,” Polis said soon after President Obama signed the repeal. “We are closer to equal treatment under the law, which is all we have ever asked for. Our government will no longer be an instrument of discrimination against us.”

Polis said Obama spoke “wisely and strongly” on the repeal at the White House ceremony and that he welcomed any gay service-members discharged under the law to reenlist.

President Obama said, there will never be a full accounting of the heroism demonstrated by gay Americans in service to this country. He continued, as the first generation to serve openly in our armed services you will stand for all of those who came before you and your will serve as role models for all of those who came after you.

Madame Speaker, today is an important day, not just for gay and lesbian members of the military, but to all of us who are gay or lesbian. To our family, to our friends. For they all know that today we hold our heads a little higher as Americans. We are closer to equal treatment under the law, which is all we have ever asked for. Our government will no longer be an instrument of discrimination against us. And all America will see and be told of the patriotism of the gay and lesbian Americans who proudly defend a country that today is one step closer to considering us equal.

Weeks ago, as Republican lawmakers led by Arizona Senator John McCain sought to put the breaks on the repeal, Polis told MSNBC that the power had drained from McCain’s shifting arguments in the debate.

You don’t have to be straight to be able to fight for our country. It doesn’t make sense. No other western country has this policy. You can study after study. They’re all going to show you the same thing, that of course gay and lesbian Americans can serve in the military and of course the military is a professional institution that is up the challenge of allowing them to serve, like every other institution in society, like the U.S. Congress, like our police forces. This is just a bizarre conversation we’re having… [It's] an absurd issue whose time has long since past…

I’ve talked to friends of mine in the military, constituents, they said the military has never asked their opinion about what’s on the menu in any of the other conditions. This has been the broadest reaching model for gaining input of members of the military on any major decision… Of course the men and women in the military overwhelmingly support allowing gays to serve openly. They have gay and lesbians friends, sometimes brothers, sisters, cousins. I mean this is just a stigma that maybe a few old white male senators have but the men and women of the military are well past this.

Gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, meanwhile, was asked by right-wing news site CNS to consider complaints that gay and straight soldiers would now have to shower together.

Frank nearly dismissed the question out of hand. “Oh no, not shower together,” he said, all mock aghast, but then added that gay and straight people have showered together in public spaces since the beginning of time. He pointed out that they were required to do so in the U.S. military for hundreds of years before Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and for seventeen years under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and that for all that time the U.S. military has done just fine.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Members of the government in Washington, reviled by the majority of the American public as a pack of petty partisan do-nothings, took action this weekend. Democrats and Republicans joined together in an inspired last-ditch effort that succeeded in repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” military policy banning gay soldiers from serving openly. The 17-year-old policy reflected a confused transitional moment in U.S. history. It was written by military brass referencing no serious empirical data. It asked soldiers to lie to each other and to their commanding officers. It resulted in tens of thousands of discharges and hundreds of millions of wasted dollars on education, combat training and legal fees. Even though the policy’s end came too late to prevent the career disasters that befell gay service members such as CU Boulder Air Force ROTC Cadet Mara Boyd, maybe it came in time to see many of those careers resurrected.

Boyd joined the collegiate officer training program as a sophomore at CU. She completed basic training at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, and finished in the top 10 percent of the class. She hated being in the closet. She told the Colorado Independent’s Wendy Norris last year that it seemed to go against everything she was putting into her training.

“I was in a state of anguish about not being able to lead by example and have integrity.”

Boyd said she felt tangled up by “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She wanted to ask about the policy but felt that to some degree even asking about the policy was a version of telling that she was gay.

“I was starting my third year in the program, [but] we had never discussed [the policy] in depth. One of the Catch 22s is if [you] need to know about the law, [you] can’t go to [your] commander and say, ‘You know, I’d like to discuss Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”

Boyd began to see her career dreams unravel.

“I knew I wouldn’t be able to lie and I wouldn’t be able to cover,” Boyd said. “As the generations pass and as gay and lesbian youth come out and are coming out at younger ages and have better resources, then the lying piece is a lot tougher. Some of the older generation are much more accustomed to having to lie and be closeted and hide that piece in their everyday life.

“I think it’s a burden for everyone no matter what age. It just really ate away at me.”

Norris relates the story of how Boyd’s career ended and how the military asked her to repay $30,000 to the government for the cost of tuition and books.

At the start of her senior year, with just 12 cadets remaining in the original class of 100, Boyd told her commanding officer, then-Lt. Col. George Ballinger, that she was a lesbian. According to Air Force ROTC protocol she was required to write a memo outing herself, an exercise Boyd recalls as “a bit absurd.”

She signed the declaration as the “character development officer,” a position to which her fellow cadets had just nominated her…

Ballinger followed military protocol and launched an investigation that resulted in Boyd’s suspension from the program… According to both Boyd and local news accounts at the time, Ballinger reluctantly pursued the probe, which would take nearly a year to complete.

In June 2003, the highly regarded cadet was drummed out of the officer training program and deemed “unfit for service” because of homosexual conduct. To add insult to injury, the government also demanded she repay her college scholarships and book stipends, now totaling $30,000… for her sophomore and junior years. Despite the efforts of Colorado University administrators and then-Rep. Mark Udall in asking the Air Force ROTC to forgive Boyd’s debt, Brig. Gen. Michael Hankins, who supervised the nationwide programs denied the move. Hankins declined to comment on the matter.

Boyd returned to CU and completed her degree. She’s still paying off the tuition. She told Norris that if DADT were ever repealed she might re-enlist.

“I’ll consider joining up. If the ban is lifted, I will really want to be a part of that transition in the military, to finish a commitment that I didn’t get to finish. I still have that emptiness of not having been able to see it through.

“I’d like to be a part of it as a part of the gay community and also to return to my military family.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Colorado Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall today were joined by the state’s gay and lesbian activist groups in cheering the 65 to 31 Senate vote to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars gay men and women from serving openly in the military.

“It it past time to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and confer dignity and a basic civic right to Americans who have signed up to defend our country,” Bennet said in a release. “No longer will well-performing service members be discharged or denied the ability to serve in the military based on sexual orientation.

“It is not only wrong; it undermines our national security and flies in the face of our national values. We don’t tolerate this kind of discrimination in the private sector, and should not do so in our Armed Forces either. Our military leaders say we should move forward with repeal, and the American people agree.”

Eight Republicans crossed party lines to vote for the bill, co-sponsored by Udall, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. The bill survived a filibuster attempt by Republicans earlier in the day, but now will be sent to President Barack Obama for his signature.

The bill compels the U.S. Department of Defense to implement the new policy in a way that protects national security. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen had recently urged the Senate to lift DADT.

“The U.S. Senate took a giant step forward today toward enhancing our national security by allowing all Americans to fight for their nation regardless of whether they are gay or straight,” Udall said in a release.

“Once the Department of Defense certifies that it is ready to allow fully open service, it will be a proud day for our nation. Never again will a soldier, a translator, a jet mechanic, or others in our Armed Services lose their job merely because of who they love. Instead, their love of country – and a willingness to sacrifice their lives – will be the paramount factor in their service.”

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado (The Center) lauded the Senate vote after the bill passed out of the House last week. Center officials said “this vote means the military’s 17-year prohibition on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military is a step closer to ending.”

After the president, Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify the lifting of the ban, it’s expected to go into effect within 60 days.

“We are pleased that the Senate listened to the American people, who overwhelmingly approve of gays and lesbians being able to serve openly. Repealing it is the right thing to do,” said Center spokeswoman Heather Draper. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has long infringed on the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian military men and women, which has been painfully obvious since the policy was implemented in 1993.”

Organizing for America-Colorado (OFA-CO) State Director Jennifer Cheyne released this statement after today’s vote:

“OFA supporters in Colorado are celebrating the Senate vote to repeal the archaic ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is something OFA supporters care very deeply about and they have been working hard urging Senators to support ending this discriminatory policy.

“Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and members of Congress, brave men and women will soon be able to serve openly and proudly in our Armed Forces regardless of their sexual orientation. Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will strengthen our national security and is a major step towards equal rights in our country.”