The article seems a little biased to me. It also omitts what I think is a very significant element of the dynamics in play leading up to the vote to repeal DADT: two federal courts had ruled that DADT was unconsitutional. I suspect that without the looming spectre of those rulings, Congress and the White House would have found excuses to postpone repeal. Of course, such repeal would never happen in a Repulican-controlled House or Senate.
Furthermore, I disagree with the author's assessment that activists like Dan Choi helped the cause of repeal. Quite the contrary, the image of him, and his cohorts, chaining themselves to the White House fence, in uniform is something that played right into the hands of those opposed to repeal, hardening them against repeal, rather than impressing upon them need for repeal. Choi's actions, and other similar actions, made it more difficult for progressives to pass the necessary legilation to repeal DADT, and gave justification to those opposing repeal.
While every service member has the right to demonstrate as a private citizen, making any politcal demonstration in uniform is expressly prohibited by military law (UCMJ) and frankly, is in very poor taste.
Bottom line, I thank the Federal Courts and the House of Representatives. It seems that the White House and Senate would have been just as happy to see the repeal efforts die from neglect.