Now, Defense Secretary Gates has begun to use it, too.
He does give some examples of more "humane" ways of dealing with DADT.
One example of that might be — what if we did not take into account third parties trying to harm somebody who may be gay in the service. Somebody who may have a vendetta, or hatred toward somebody, and therefore out them as a way to wreck their career. Is there a way we can not focus on those kinds of reports.
What? If authorities are made aware that a soldier is gay or lesbian, the law demands they discharge them. It doesn't matter if they're made aware of the soldier's orientation if it comes from a third party with a vendetta. So is he proposing they just ignore it?
Gates puts the onus back on Congress to get legislation through to repeal, reminding us that DADT is not just a policy, but a law. But he'll break that law if a personal vendetta is involved?
But I would like to remind him that in the interim, Obama has the authrority to put a stop-loss on discharges. And he won't.
Where's the humanity in that?