\ 
 :: I Agree that the template should be removed completely. This is a No-Brainer   
 First: To address Sterrettc's argument above: The argument that LGBT is not an "organization" is clearly disingenuous. The premise of the argument to have the LGBT template removed is that the placement of that portal clearly violates neutrality of the article. It is clearly one faction whose intent was to have the policy lifted, and frankly, has nothing directly to do with the content of the article. There is no wiggle room for your position. 
 Second: To address Ruoyyssey's position: Linking it to this article is indeed an advertisement for the LGBT position. Again, try to get past your bias and look at the concept for what it is. For example; if a group that supported the ban, such as the United States Pastor Council (USPC) were to have their logo (image) with links to similar website located where the LGBT image ois located; I have no doubt that countless people who support the abolition on the DADT policy would be screaming to have the USPC image removed. Additionally, your reference to the occasional "vandalism" suffered by the logo, demonstrates your need to simply skirt the primary issue. Images, web pages, and logos are vandalized every day on this website and well as numerous others. In fact, when someone emoved the website from the page and opted for a blank area for this DADT article, it was deemed as "vandalism". That is not vandalism, and your efforts to equate it as such is yet another effort to draw attention away from the fact that the LGBT logo, with it's links has no place within this article.  
 WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT PRESENTING FACTS IN AN UNBIASED FORMAT AS POSSIBLE. IT IS SIMPLY WRONG THAT THE LGBT LOGO REMAINS AS PART OF THIS ARTICLE.