I think the military should finish their study; see how the military will be affected; see how to handle the logistics of rescinding the policy; then address the DADT policy on it's own. That's the way this should be handled.
All of us involved in defense research at RAND were briefed twice (some three times) over the last two days on DADT. They explained the 1993 policy analysis performed by RAND at the request of Clinton. They were asked to update it this year by two senators via DoD. The update is in review, but is being held by Congress until next year (at this point) and its being kept tight. There is a reason. The 1993 study found "sexual orientation to be germane to military service." The teasers we can get (from the primary researchers on it) are that the update has overwhelming evidence now to support that same thing.
RAND also looked at the surveys sent out by DoD. Something like 430,000 sent, only about 120,000 responded. RAND was irritated by some active leading in the questions and the questionable nature of the language in the survey. They have still found that many of the common concerns did show up, but no where near the level expected.
Basically, they told us that the DoD survey is largely useless. About the only thing it did was add a psychological factor to military members. It isn't influencing the debate and won't add any relevant data that isn't already out there, unfortunately.
So RAND is being asked to hold the report as not to influence current debate or decision making. Funny, RAND is supposed to provide this stuff to help debate and decision making...
So, that's a little additional information I learned this week. Also learned about biomass use, police body armor, drug policy, health-care, terrorist attack insurance, oil taxes, the gulf oil spill, and systems integrators if you have any questions on those! lol