Pentagon's spokesman now denies Pentagon official's estimate of DADT survey cost

In an interview with Igor Volsky from Think Progress, Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell challenged estimates about the cost of the controversial DADT survey:

The Department is also disputing Servicemembers’ claim that it “paid the research firm Westat the outrageous sum of $4.4 million to design and administer an email-based survey,” insisting that the true cost is closer to $850,000.

So, where did that bigger number come from? A review of the transcript from Morrell's Friday press conference indicates that cost estimate didn't come just from Servicemembers United. That larger number came from a Pentagon official (either the very same Pentagon spokesperson, Geoff Morrell, or another unnamed Department of Defense official who was also on the Friday call):

Question: What’s the cost of the survey? And how much more did it cost to double the size of the sample?

It cost about $4.5 million. (Editor's note: it's unclear whether this particular cost estimate came from Morrell or the DOD official who spoke occasionally throughout the briefing, but this was an on-the-record comment.)

I don’t know how much more it would cost, I doubt it would double the cost. But I frankly don’t think the cost in that respect was an issue for the secretary.

$4.5 million seems pretty darned close to the $4.4 million claimed by Servicemembers United.

But, the question is what number to believe from the Pentagon? We've got two choices: 1) Friday's answer from Geoff Morrell's press conference that the survey "cost about $4.5 million"; or 2) Monday's assertion from Geoff Morrell that Friday's answer was wrong and off by around $3.6 million. I'm going with Friday's answer when Morrell had less of a motive to obfuscate.

Servicemembers United is right: The Pentagon should refund the money. Read More...

Marine Commandant proposed 'facility adjustments' in March -- and didn't mean shower curtains

For everyone who is buying Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell's comments today on what he meant by "facility adjustments" as gospel, it wasn't only the Army Secretary who suggested separate facilities for gay servicemembers. The top Marine talked about building separate quarters for gay troops in March of 2010:

The Marine Corps' top officer said March 25 that even if the ban on openly-serving gays in the services is lifted, he would draw the line at forcing heterosexual Marines to bunk with gays on base.

"We want to continue [two-person rooms], but I would not ask our Marines to live with someone who is homosexual if we can possibly avoid it," Marine Commandant Gen. James Conway told Military.com during an exclusive interview at the Pentagon. "And to me that means we have to build BEQs [bachelor enlisted quarters] and have single rooms."

Now, that sounds a lot like "facility adjustments," which was the term used by Morrell on Friday. In fact, he said it twice, via the Advocate's transcript:

Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios.

And:

All this will help our collective wisdom about the situation and then we’ll make judgments – the working group will – and this is where the hard part comes in, about armed with all this information, what will we do when repeal takes place to prepare the force for that. Does it require more education? Does it require more training? Does it require – as I mentioned before – adjustments to facilities?

What sounds more like facility adjustments? Building separate quarters? Or adding shower curtains, which is what Morrell is now claiming?

Another funny thing. The leading homophobic opponent of DADT repeal sure thought General Conway meant "separate, but equal":

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said the question is whether the military, without a ban on gays serving openly, will opt for mixing gays and heterosexual troops in the same facilities or have "separate but equal" facilities.

"That's what [Conway] seems to be advocating here," she said. This is something the working group established by Gates to look at repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell should address up front, Donnelly said.

"I think that, in itself, is why Congress will vote to retain the law and not repeal it," she said.

So, Elaine Donnelly thinks the Pentagon Working Group should think about separate but equal facilities. And, Geoff Morrell said the Working Group would look at facility adjustments. And the Marine Commandant talked about building separate facilities. And the Secretary of the Army was talking about outright segregation. But, we're all crazy for thinking the Pentagon would ever propose "separate, but equal." Yeah, because Elaine Donnelly has no influence at the Pentagon, and we shouldn't believe a general, a secretary and the military's own spokesman.

I'd say, we're all suckers if we don't keep every possible bit of pressure on the Obama administration and the Pentagon until this law is finally ended. Read More...

Pentagon responds to our blog post about segregating gay troops. Apparently, I'm not being 'helpful.'

UPDATE: The Marine Commandment talked about segregation too.

It only took the Pentagon nine months to clarify that it does not plan on having 'separate but equal' barracks and showers for gay service members.

In a briefing this past Friday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell appeared to allude to the possibility of segregating gay troops if and when the ban is lifted:

"We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

Today, Morrell - who has been less than truthful about Pentagon efforts on DADT in the past - took umbrage at our post:

"We think it would be irresponsible to conduct a survey that didn’t try to address these types of things. Because when DADT is repealed, we will have to determine if there are any challenges in those particular areas, any adjustments that need to be made in terms of how we educate the force to handle those situations, or perhaps even facility adjustments that need to be made to deal with those scenarios."

"No one is talking about segregating gay servicemembers from straight servicemembers," Morrell said. "We don't know that any adjustment will have to be made, but in the event that's a recommendation from the review group, it would not result in any 'separate but equal' facilities."

Hypothetically speaking, Morell said, it is possible the military could consider facility modifications like adding shower curtains to shower stalls that are currently open.

"We don't know if any adjustments will be required, but we need to survey the force to get an idea of what their privacy concerns are," he said.

Morell said the suggestion the survey could lead to segregation is "inflammatory nonsense" from groups trying to discredit the survey, which is "not helpful" for the Defense Department.

With all due respect to Mr. Morrell, a Bush appointee, it's not my job to be "helpful" to a Defense Department that treats my community as second class citizens, and regularly undercuts its own commander in chief. As for Morrell's assertion that we are responsible for this notion that the Pentagon might be considering segregating gay troops, the idea didnt come from me, it came from the Secretary of the Army last October:

Selling the idea to Congress, which has the final say, could depend on exactly what the administration tries to do in terms of the timing of repeal and how it is applied, McHugh said.

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

“I don’t want to prejudge the situation,” he said. “I am saying if he did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.”

It's been nine months since the Army Secretary's comments created a mini firestorm of concern that the Pentagon was seriously considering segregating gay troops, as an option for how to implement a repeal of DADT. Perhaps the deafening silence from Mr. Morrell about the Secretary's comments, and his decision to let such concern fester for nine months, in addition to his rather in-artful wording at the briefing last Friday, played a small role in people's concerns. Read More...

Nate Silver on DADT survey: 'entire parts of it are completely useless'

What Nate says:

The survey might or might not be biased -- the bigger problem is that entire parts of it are completely useless.

In particular, given that the army that isn't supposed to have any (openly) gay soldiers, the survey asks the troops to engage in an awful lot of speculation about the gay soldiers in their midst.

Of course, Nate says a lot more. He does a thorough job of explaining why. Definitely worth a read.

And, this just adds to the growing controversy about this survey. What the hell was DOD thinking? Read More...

DADT survey asks how families of soldiers might feel about repeal

NOTE FROM JOHN: Joe and I want to welcome Nick Seaver to the blog. He'll be covering general gay news, across the board, with a specific focus on gay youth, but not limited to that. We're very excited to have Nick on board. Here's a little bit from his bio:

Nick Seaver blogs on civil rights and equality issues for the gay community at both www.LeaveittoSeaver.com and AMERICAblog Gay. Born and raised in Maine, he moved to Washington, DC for college, where he studied political communication. He has lived in the District since. He began writing extensively on gay rights during the ballot initiative in Maine that overturned a bill that legalized same-sex marriage. He writes about a variety of issues, ranging from marriage equality to issues facing LGBT youth, while occasionally covering broader political issues.

_____________

While a few of you may have read my writing at Leave it to Seaver, I’m excited to start contributing to AMERICAblog Gay. My goal in posting here is to catch some stories that might otherwise fall through the cracks, and to provide another voice on some of the issues that face our community. Thanks to John and Joe for the opportunity to chime in.

Last Thursday, John posted the survey that was sent to 400,000 troops on the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Beyond the absurdity of polling on a policy change in the military, one question caught my eye.

If Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your family feels about your military service be affected?

I'm a firm believer that 99% of the men and women who are serving would not waver in their commitment to fight for the US because they found out which of their colleagues are gay. (Keeping in mind, the gay soldiers are already there. DADT just operates on the premise that ignorance is bliss--if I don't know for sure someone is gay, I won't mind serving with them.) While I think surveying on this is 100% wrong, I can concede that if you think this survey is a good idea, an obvious question to ask outright is if serving with openly gay soldiers would affect the likelihood one would re-enlist. But are we really considering what the family of people who are serving with these men and women think? I get the incredible burden that the families of soldiers face, but I don't believe the thought of serving with gay people is one of them.

Without putting a hold on discharges under DADT, this process has seemingly offered no way for closeted soldiers to safely provide input on the policy, their service, their likelihood of re-enlisting, or the impact on their families. But it does take into consideration speculation on how family members of straight soldiers might feel. Read More...

'But wouldn’t it be nice to get just a little boost from the White House'

From Kerry Eleveld's weekly column. No comment from the White House on Hawaii, but there's every expectation that the Obama administration will appeal the DOMA decisions:

I also approached the White House about the fact that the governor of President Obama’s home state had denied basic protections to Hawaiian gays and lesbians. A spokesperson reconfirmed the president’s support for civil unions but declined to comment further on the matter.

Meanwhile, nearly everyone expects the Obama administration to appeal this week’s historic DOMA ruling and already some people are painting the administration as a victim of circumstance – having to defend a law that even the president himself wants to repeal.

But wouldn’t it be nice to get just a little boost from the White House when someone like Gov. Linda Lingle stomps out protections for an aggrieved minority. Apparently, anything regarding relationship recognition is just too hot for this administration to touch.

Just too hot. Read More...

In Argentina, Senate will vote on marriage this week

Of course, the Catholics are in a frenzy:

The Catholic Church in Argentina has stepped up its offensive against a gay marriage proposal, using Sunday Mass to urge its faithful to protest before Congress on the eve of a decisive Senate vote.

The Latin American country, where 91 percent of the population says it is Catholic, could become the first nation in the region to pass a law legalizing marriage between same-sex couples if the Senate adopts the bill before it on Wednesday.

UPDATE: Just saw in Towleroad's post on Argentina that the Mormons have weighed in, too. Of course, they did.

But, via Blabbeando (who provided the translation), our side is on the air:

El Mismo Amor, Los Mismos Derechos, Con Los Mismos Nombres.
The Same Love, The Same Rights With the Same Names. Read More...