<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: After &#8216;Don&#8217;t Ask&#8217; repeal, what&#8217;s next?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/</link>
	<description>the gay community&#039;s news source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 23:40:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael@LeonarddMatlovich.com</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/#comment-13258</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael@LeonarddMatlovich.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:47:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=17071#comment-13258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[WHY is no one talking about the fact that, if they follow the Pentagon &quot;study&#039;s&quot; recommendations [after meeting with SEVEN different antigay groups] gay service members, even after &quot;open service&quot; is permitted, will be officially DENIED access to the same formal equal opportunity protections IN the military that, for instance, black service members are protected by? Hopefully, reversing that is among how Mr. Belkin defines &quot;good regulations.&quot; Their earlier research documented that the &quot;second class&quot; system afforded those perceived to be gay in terms of harassment did not work. This gap would affect EVERY out gay service member not just those with partners.

As for benefits, I continue to be shocked at the misunderstanding of professionals that DOMA does not REQUIRE government branches to only give benefits to male-female &quot;married&quot; couples and &quot;spouses. Except where other regulations pivot the use of the term &quot;dependents&quot; back to DOMA, the military is free to rewrite their benefit policies to include other terms such as domestic partners just as private sector firms do for their employees where same gender marriage remains illegal.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WHY is no one talking about the fact that, if they follow the Pentagon &#8220;study&#8217;s&#8221; recommendations [after meeting with SEVEN different antigay groups] gay service members, even after &#8220;open service&#8221; is permitted, will be officially DENIED access to the same formal equal opportunity protections IN the military that, for instance, black service members are protected by? Hopefully, reversing that is among how Mr. Belkin defines &#8220;good regulations.&#8221; Their earlier research documented that the &#8220;second class&#8221; system afforded those perceived to be gay in terms of harassment did not work. This gap would affect EVERY out gay service member not just those with partners.</p>
<p>As for benefits, I continue to be shocked at the misunderstanding of professionals that DOMA does not REQUIRE government branches to only give benefits to male-female &#8220;married&#8221; couples and &#8220;spouses. Except where other regulations pivot the use of the term &#8220;dependents&#8221; back to DOMA, the military is free to rewrite their benefit policies to include other terms such as domestic partners just as private sector firms do for their employees where same gender marriage remains illegal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zoe Brain</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/#comment-13256</link>
		<dc:creator>Zoe Brain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 23:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=17071#comment-13256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those countries also allow Trans people to serve. The US does not. Even after DADT repeal, there is still institutionalised discrimination.
Some of these countries (e.g. the UK) allowed Trans people to serve before they allowed Gays.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those countries also allow Trans people to serve. The US does not. Even after DADT repeal, there is still institutionalised discrimination.<br />
Some of these countries (e.g. the UK) allowed Trans people to serve before they allowed Gays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meghan Stabler</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/#comment-13250</link>
		<dc:creator>Meghan Stabler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonblade.com/?p=17071#comment-13250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is there any conversation taking place within the organizations you mentioned (SLDN, Palm, SU) etc that touch on working on ensuring transsexuals can serve? A number of our allies, UK, Spain, Australia, Canada, others and even recently Poland do. It would be a shame to dismantle these orgs whilst service discrimination exists and I would like to hear the opinions of each organization regarding this.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there any conversation taking place within the organizations you mentioned (SLDN, Palm, SU) etc that touch on working on ensuring transsexuals can serve? A number of our allies, UK, Spain, Australia, Canada, others and even recently Poland do. It would be a shame to dismantle these orgs whilst service discrimination exists and I would like to hear the opinions of each organization regarding this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.washingtonblade.com/2011/01/26/after-dont-ask-repeal-whats-next/feed/ ) in 0.29524 seconds, on May 21st, 2013 at 11:41 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on May 21st, 2013 at 12:41 pm UTC -->