“There is no available avenue for service members who would typically report discrimination [based on sexual orientation] through an equal opportunity office. … In reality when a service member does report it through the chain of command it is rarely taken seriously. There’s no consequence for commanders who ignore anti-gay harassment. The environment has created second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian service members and it permeates all military.”

Further, DADT did NOT empower either recoupment nor refusal of 100% of eligible separation pay. Mr. Wilson’s Pollyanna attitudes towards the Obama Pentagon’s ongoing discrimination, including fighting the ACLU class action suit are, at best, just plain sad.

Finally, please publish a retraction of your assertion that DOMA bans access by gay couples to military housing. The DoD’s November report confirmed only that financial supplement for non-military housing was prevented by DOMA. On-base, “military family housing is NOT. Quote, emphasis mine:

“A third category of benefits are those THAT ARE NOT STATUTORILY PROHIBITED, but that
current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. With regard to this category, THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE SERVICES HAVE THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY TO REVISE AND REDEFINE THE ELIGIBLE BENEFICIARIES TO INCLUDE SAME-SEX PARTNERS. Here, we recommend that, where justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint, the benefit be refashioned to become a member-designated one—in other words, to give the Service member, gay or straight, the discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as beneficiary. An example of a benefit in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance office, and it may be suitable for this member-designated approach. MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING IS ANOTHER PROMINENT BENEFIT IN THIS CATEGORY. However, we do NOT [emphasis theirs] recommend at this time that military family housing be included in the benefits eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating
whomever he or she chooses as a ‘dependent’, is problematic. Military family housing is a
limited resource and complicated to administer, and a system of member designation would
create occasions for abuse and unfairness [to unmarried straight couples]. …

For benefits such as these, the Department of Defense COULD [emphasis theirs] legally direct the Services to revise their regulations to extend coverage to Service members’ same-sex partners. This could be accomplished in two ways: leave to the Service member the freedom to designate his or her ‘dependents’, ‘family members’, or similar term; or, revise these definitions to specifically
mention a committed, same-sex relationship, and require some type of proof of that committed
relationship. The latter is similar to the approach now being taken in Federal agencies for civilian
employees.”

Thank you.