It was also telling that Johnson did not say “I WAS not an activist on the matter of gay men and women in America”? And that he didn’t actually say he felt badly that his gay “good friend” was afraid to come out to him 27 years ago—or describe what he’s done since to assure him he isn’t homophobic TODAY. Perhaps he isn’t, given that he said, “We ARE all a product of our circumstances, and part of my circumstances INCLUDE my formative years in the 1970s at Morehouse College, an all male, all black, Southern Baptist school.” How much more obvious could his real feelings be than in the fact that he didn’t say that HE is one of “many of our leaders” “troubl[ed] that there are “certain inequalities between similarly situated couples in the military community”? Note, too, he didn’t say that ALL “military family benefits [will be] extended to the partners and other family members of gay and lesbian service members” in time, but that they’re simply studying “WHICH” ones. And, how ridiculous was his closing declaration, contradicting what HE had acknowledge just minutes before, that nongays had “welcome[d] their [gay] brothers and sisters to an UNCONDITIONAL place at the table”? There are MANY “conditions,” and indisputable documentation that Johnson was at least one of the chief architects.

That’s where the debatable attempts to read his mind end, and the FACTS of his transparent stall tactics and duplicity, both in the past and yesterday, begin. For despite his Big Lie yesterday that they are still working on identifying benefts, he truth is that that study he co-authored and published OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, in November 2010—the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—ALREADY identified benefits that are NOT banned by DOMA—and how to implement them. From page 142:

“[O]ur Terms of Reference required that we consider the issue of benefits for same-sex partners and the families of gay and lesbian Service members, in the event of repeal. …We studied the issue carefully, and no other policy recommendation came close to consuming as much time and
effort.”

And their lengthy investigation included one of the most crucial benefits—which the marvelous gay panel member, Air Force Deputy General Counsel Gordon Tanner specifically called out yesterday—access to base housing. From page 144 et al., of the study:

“In this category are benefits that are *NOT statutorily prohibited, because Congress has not explicitly limited the benefit in a manner that precludes same-sex partners, but that current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. For these, the Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory flexibility to define the eligible beneficiaries in way that includes same-sex partners. … Military family housing is another prominent benefit in this category. … For benefits such as these, the Department of Defense **COULD 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. … We do **NOT, however, recommend 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 chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, and such a system would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.” [*emphasis mine; **emphasis theirs]

How did Mr. Johnson and his subordinates define “unfairness”? By suggesting that it would be unfair to deny unmarried straight couples such access but allow unmarried gay couples—dodging the fact that, even in 2010, legal marriage was available to gay service members through some states. WHY then; why NOW when that number has increased?
Another issue that Tanner emphasized was the ongoing failure to support gay military spouses and their families. AGAIN, Johnson’s team identified those IN 2010, yet vetoed them. From page 145 et al:

“Other benefits and support services that may be suitable are, for example, programs and services provided by the Department of Defense family centers, which include mobility and deployment assistance, relocation assistance, and crisis assistance. Expanding the eligibility for these benefits and programs COULD BE ACHIEVED by modifying the definition of ‘family member’ in DoD policy and regulations to permit Service member designation. … we do NOT, at this time, recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition of ‘dependent’, ‘family member’, or other similar term, for purposes of extending benefits eligibility.” [emphasis mine]

Again, they dodged answering why they could not at least be changed for those gay service members who ARE just as legally married as straight couples from, e.g., Massachusetts, New York, or DC, tellingly, instead, commenting about how “controversial” marriage of gays still is, and bleating “unfairness” again re unmarried straight couples even as they admitted: “We realize this is different from the direction the Federal government is taking for civilian employees to address the disparity in benefits available to married opposite-sex relationships and committed same-sex relationships.”

They also absurdly parroted the old canard of the Antigay Industry about gays not deserving so-called “special rights.” Maybe this is because Johnson shockingly agreed to meetings with SEVEN different CIVILIAN antigay groups including Focus on the Family and the so-called Center for Military Readiness AKA Elaine Donnelly. I don’t recall the military meeting with members of the Ku Klux Klan when planning racial integration.

In sum, despite recent insufferable praise of Johnson by co-opted Gay, Inc., mouthpieces, his remarks yesterday, coupled with his history of fighting any court ruling that the ban was unconstitutional—even questioning the military’s OBLIGATION to obey such court rulings—and the fact that such benefits COULD have been extended nine months ago—as well as also lifting the ban HE engineered on including gay service members under the protections against harassment and discrimination of the Military Equal Opportunity Program—only reinforced that, at best, his support of repeal was extremely reluctant—and that he remains a part of the problem of achieving full equality in the military not a part of the solution. When are our paid leaders going to seriously challenge him?