Obama pledges to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, repeal DOMA … sometime
posted at 12:00 pm on October 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
During the campaign, Barack Obama made a lot of promises to various constituencies of the Democratic Party, including the gay/lesbian lobby — and they’re agitating for some action on these pledges. Obama insisted yesterday at a meeting of a gay-rights organization that he would end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) in the military and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), but the attendees could be excused a healthy amount of skepticism:
President Barack Obama pledged to end the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the military in a speech Saturday, but acknowledged to a cheering crowd that the policy changes he promised on the campaign trail are not coming as quickly as they expected.
“I will end ‘don’t ask-don’t tell,’” Obama said at the annual dinner of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay civil rights advocacy group. Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end the ban, but did not give a timetable or the specifics that some activists have called for. …
“We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve the country,” Obama said. “We should be celebrating their willingness to step forward and show such courage … especially when we are fighting two wars. …
Obama also called on Congress to repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits. He also called for a law to extend benefits to domestic partners.
First, DOMA does not limit how states can recognize partnerships, as the AP writes. States can pass whatever partnership laws they want. What DOMA does is keep the federal government from forcing states to recognize the partnership laws of other states, bypassing the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution for marriage laws. Congress enacted it when it became apparent that judges in state courts wanted to bypass legislatures and carve out legal civil marriages for gays through judicial activism.
Repealing DOMA would take some work. Obama has to get both the House and Senate to pass a repeal of the law, which still remains popular. If he wanted to do that, he would need to act rather quickly, as Democrats will likely lose a lot of ground in the midterms. However, with the increasingly unpopular ObamaCare bill stalled in Congress, another unpopular cap-and-trade bill stuck as well, and 2009 running out of days, we’re not likely to see any attempt until at least 2011. Democrats know a repeal attempt in an election year would be political suicide for the midterms — and after the midterms, they’re not likely to have the strength to pass it.
DADT is another matter entirely. All it would take to end it is an executive order. Obama is, after all, the Commander in Chief. Obama wants Congress to take the heat for this as well, though, and has passed the buck on the issue since his first day in office. What’s more, on this issue, Obama has it right. DADT served a useful purpose in showing that gays can serve honorably in the military, but the time has come to end it. Unfortunately for his cheering throngs at the HRC dinner, Obama doesn’t have the courage of his own convictions to take that step himself.
In other words, these sound an awful lot like his other promises — which Jim Geraghty reminds us always come with expiration dates.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Except for the four or five centuries the Greeks ran the known world. Ask the Persians how those queens fought.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I have said it on here before. As a military spouse I think DADT is truly unfair to the gay service members partner. My husband is getting ready for a deployment and they are setting up a support system for spouses and girlfriends/boyfriends. When the gay service member is deployed their partner goes through everything I will go through, but he or she will go through it alone. The military is very good at being a family I think it sad that we cannot include these people in it. I know the safety and moral of the troops are more important but from my perspective this is truly a big problem with DADT.
sammypants on October 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM
But that is not what the gays say…are you ending up being the bigot?
They are saying they are actually a women, that physical organs are not what defines a person.
Just like many women define themselves internally. You are saying you are only what you are physically? You are stating that the gay community is wrong, because they have male genitalia, they are men, they can’t be women? So only if they have post-op they become a women?
I think even you (but you won’t) would be able to see the dilemma that their argument has caused.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM
So the Greeks were all Gay? Or did they all just live four 0r five hundred years?
Guardian on October 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM
In 1948 many Americans disagreed with you. The notion that a black man would command a white man violated the social order. In hindsight we feel differently, but Truman was dealing with the mindset of 1948.
My point isn’t that b/c of racial integration we now should junk DADT, but rather that the change in 1948 was much more experimental.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
The problem lies is servicemen will be forced to accept homosexuality as “normal” and “born with it”. They will have to go to more “sensitivity training” “diversity training” and all the crap that takes away from the mission.
A ministry called Exodus international specializes in helping people leave the gay life style and living a normal, sustainable life. So because of that, being born gay isn’t true, therefor it shouldn’t be accepted as mainstream. The only people I feel for who truly deal with this are hermaphrodites because they are the ones confused having some of both sets of reproductive organs.
I say all this to give an understanding where I’m coming from.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
epic *facepalm*
Thanks. At least you’re reading.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM
So if a man showed unusual interest in men, then he would be assigned to the women’s barracks?
See you guys are dodging the issue, you come up with a general platitude, but you realize that facing this is very difficult.
To determine “what is behavior” and where they should bunk is pretty tough.
Now as soon as it is found out that you can bunk with the ladies, watch the “wannabe’s” scamming the system.
Right now, the system is working, why try to undo what the military considers a “right” situation.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM
You’ve got quite an imagination. It would do nothing of the sort. If a serviceman wants to believe that homosexuality is “wrong” or whatever, that’s fine. It’s about service to this nation. That’s all.
As for groups like “Exodus”….don’t even get me started.
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 1:11 PM
r2b…you still haven’t proved otherwise. Do you have any case study that shows gays openly serving would be what you say it would?
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 1:13 PM
“In 1948 many Americans disagreed with you. The notion that a black man would command a white man violated the social order. In hindsight we feel differently, but Truman was dealing with the mindset of 1948.
My point isn’t that b/c of racial integration we now should junk DADT, but rather that the change in 1948 was much more experimental.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:08 PM”
Hold on now, all that segregation went on in the South when the democrats controlled it. It was more of a political issue then a racist issue. Once the political climate changed in the South, Segregation lifted. But to be fair, both repugs and dems were a part of that where before the dems weren’t.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM
I’m not dodging the issue when I’m saying the commanders should have leeway based on the mission. Bunking with the ladies isn’t an option. If “unusual” interest is shown it is probably grounds for dismissal.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:17 PM
If Obama is going to do this, then do it. If not, quit using the military as a laboratory for social engineering.
You told the gays you were going to do it. Be a, er, man and follow through.
I and other military folks are tired of being guinea pigs for every social cause out there.
Issue the executive order, rescind/ammend the relevant portions of the UCMJ and be done with it. Next year let the lobbying for military health care dollars begin for ‘gender re-assignment’ surgery. Then those on active duty will have to go to classes to be sensitive to the feelings of the addadicktome crowd.
I’m against this, but if it’s gonna be done, crap or get off the pot.
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 1:18 PM
The military should not be in the business of sex. Period. Although they should support left behind loved ones no matter what orientation.
I do not understand why we have to address who your screw preference is in the military.
Why? There is no valid reason and to ask, to tell or whatever is completely counterproductive. The assumption needs to be made that the enlisted is not enlisting to get laid.
This whole issue is totally ridiculous imo and another grab at attention by another special interest.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Race suffused society in the South. Jim Crow wasn’t something politicians enacted behind the backs of the voters. The politicians were elected to support what private organizations were doing.
Unfortunately, it required the federal government to step in and break up the system. The goals were right but the method has had a damaging effect on American democracy.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM
BS it wouldn’t do nothing! You can get fired from the military for just saying “there is a lot of women working here” because he was looked upon being sexist. That’s what political correctness does. it stifles free speech and turns harmless jokes into overblown stupid issues. The person who said that BTW was a full bird Colonel who was forced to retire. There went a person with a wealth of experience and how many more like that will go if DADT get’s repealed? It was just a joke but some high minded person got “offended” (Oh jeez). Now we have to walk on egg shells in an environment of killing.
Like I said before, the homosexual movement is nothing more then a political vehicle used to silenced the opposition because charging racism is getting old.
What’s your problem with Exodus international? Spill you gut’s I’ll Que the violin music for you.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Yes, but again this is NOT a race issue. Nor should it be compared with.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Unless Obama is planning on sending 40,000 gay newly enlisted gay troops to Afghanistan, I would say he needs to get his priorities straight (no pun intended).
BohicaTwentyTwo on October 11, 2009 at 1:24 PM
But will they look fabulous in uniform?
That’s crass, I know, but I had to get that out there.
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 1:26 PM
It’s not a race issue. It may or may not be a good idea. However, it seems a less challenging social experiment than Truman’s racial integration of the military in 1948.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Where are they now? Just a small little country. glad your able to find ONE. How about some actual historic facts of human experience that grew this country to a super power status in 150 years. Institutionalized homosexuality had nothing to do with that. Because all the liberalism run a muck, I see the decaying from within of this great nation.
What do you see?
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I can tell ya’ it’s not.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:30 PM
heh, just for a bit o humor break…still one of the best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_iH1GhM2j8&feature=fvw
JetBoy on October 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM
So you are saying unusual interest in a women towards a man is grounds for dismissal?
See how the gender gets mixed up? Remember you are dealing in essence with a “woman”,not a man.
And that will be the legal argument, that you are dealing with a women, not a man…since it could be argued that genitals do not define the man, as bleeds blue wants to do…which is totally against any liberal definition.
So “unusual” interest in a gay man is no different then a woman’s interest.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM
What am I saying they would be…that they would continue to defend themselves as not being defined by genitals?
I don’t think I need a study, that has been the liberal gay posture for decades. Genitals do not define who you are…
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM
lol at conservatives getting all butthurt over DADT.
It’s so *easy* to have an opinion ’bout them thar HOMMASEXSHULS over, like tax policies. But hey, that’s a slice of life.
I’m gay, I’m conservative-ish, I am pro repealing DADT (because at this point it’s little more than a way for a superior who personally dislikes you to be like GOD UR GAY to get you discharged), but at the end of the day, I don’t care that much.
I love being a confusing, enigmatic gay. <3
But srsly, when so-called conservatives thump on this issue with their TIRED AND BORING skepticgay “opinion”, all it does is create 1,000+ DailyKos trollmongers who are all “SUCH RACIST WHITEY McWHITE HOMOPHOBES UGH PLZ JOIN TEAM *EVERYTHING* (aka the Democratic Party) CLICK HERE TO DONATE!!!! (lol Ned Lamont)”
At. the. end. of. the. day. DADT does not matter, it won’t matter, and I just sit back in my chair all gay LOLing at all these non-gays having such a WAR OF WORDS.
You want to win, Team Sarah (yes, we should all be on Team Sarah)? Then you stop this arguing about THIS WORTHLESS TOPIC and start arguing about HORRENDOUS TAXES AND THE DEVALUATION OF THE DOLLAR AND THE FACT IRAN IS BUILDING ~*NUCLEAR WEAPONS*~ k?
Otherwise, you’re just helping to re-enforce the stereotype that Republicans are old white crusties that hate *progress* when that is absolutely nothing of the sort.
Stop playing to the stereotype. <3
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Perez Hilton is that you?
Are you doing your part in how the Republican party can win?
Making our tent bigger you say? Where to the gays go in the tent?
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 1:38 PM
We are a much more litigous society then any other…I just see problems, lawsuits, distractions…nothing “nefarious”, or evil…just something the military doesn’t need, for a very small gain.
Figure 4% of the population is left out of true “open” service, well people physically incapable are a greater %. Not everyone, can serve, and not everyone can be a hairstylist, or designer, or engineer, or attorney.
But I will say this, along jetboys funny post…the last air flight, the “male” attendants looked better then the female attendants, and definitely in better shape. At least they could pass each other in the aisle…
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Speaking of tired and boring:
it’s little more than a way for a superior who personally dislikes you to be like GOD UR GAY to get you discharged),
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 1:35 PM
But you put a LOT OF WORDS IN CAPS SO YOU MUST BE RIGHT!!! 11ELEVENTY11
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 1:42 PM
It could be if it reaches a threshold of harassment. There would be additional criteria based on people bunking together.
You second point about gay men being a different gender, others might be better at answering. I think they aren’t the same as women, no matter how effeminate, but I don’t think much about it. There are however volumes of books dedicated to the study of gender, none of which I’ll read.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I am not advocating a BIG TENT. WHY IS THAT ALWAYS THE KNEEJERK REACTION?!
Did you miss my Emmy-Award-Winning Line of
I bolded the *necessary* part.
FACT IS (and check it): BASICALLY NO ONE GIVES TWO WHITS ABOUT GAYS IN THE MILITARY! We have McChrystal saying “I need soldiers NAO!” and Iran is building nukes and people are BROKE and yet this is your raison d’etre? REALLY?
I’m not saying “Oh, Republicans! Worship at the gay S&M altar! Make me feel SPECIAL!!!” I’m saying that there is serious stuff going down, and we should focus our energy on *those salient topics* rather than another worthless discussion on GAYGAYGAYGAYGAY.
People have things in common, and principally it’s the government TAKING MY WAGES FOR A STIMULUS. You want to bear arms over gays? Go ahead. Just keep on feedin’ that left wing so they can continue to play their identity politics cards.
And plz don’t compare me to PEREZ HILTON again. That’s a horrendous insult.
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM
This is one of dozens of thread on this site…this is the only one pertaining to this, so I don’t know where you get the thought that we are “consumed” by this.
Wise up, this is specifically talking about military and the DADT policy.
The problem with people like you, is that you don’t “read” you skim and create your own fantasy blog.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM
See you are moving the target…but I get it.
This is a question that no one who wants this type of integration wants to undermine one of the gay’s core beliefs…that you don’t define someone by their genitalia.
If that is not so, then commanders have to find another way…you say “unusual” interest, then moved it to harassment, to totally different things.
Which shows how complex this problem is, you can’t answer the simple question (and neither can I), so it will probably be decided in court…right now, the system “works”, if changed, then the courts will get involved with “I was not promoted because…”, “I was picked on because”, “I was discipline because”…etc. The commanders don’t need that DADT, not perfect, but it works.
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Football is calling….see ya….
right2bright on October 11, 2009 at 1:53 PM
This didn’t jibe with my recollection of events. The way I remember it, the ban on homosexuals in the military was originally implemented through the military chain of command, and ultimately with the CiC, the president. This became an issue during Bill Clinton’s campaign for president, and he made the promise that he would end the ban by executive order.
Once elected, the issue was taken up by Congress, and a law was passed, and then signed by Clinton, making DADT the law of the land. A quick glance at Wikipedia confirms my recollection, although there is the claim down towards the bottom of the article that a bunch of “experts” in Santa Barbara think that the law can be overturned by executive order. There is no explanation of where they think the executive gets the power to unilaterally overturn a law merely on his say-so.
Anon Y. Mous on October 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I didn’t introduce the term “unusual interest” and don’t know what it would mean. I used the term “harassment” because it is a defined term depending on jurisdiction.
I guess my view is that an organization should have a code of conduct and judge people on how they behave, not on what those people feel or how they manage their personal life outside of work.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Do gays value their open sexual orientation more than the security of the nation?
What does serving freedom by defeating our enemies have to do with whose genitalia you desire?
Or why anyone should know about it.
If they can’t take the rules and order that a strong, stable military needs to crush our opponents, they need not join.
No one is forced to serve.
profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I am not advocating a BIG TENT
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Pup tent?
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 2:06 PM
profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Great point.
But we all are forced to conform to their worldview.
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 2:08 PM
And they have issues with them hitting on others all the time.
Tim Burton on October 11, 2009 at 2:10 PM
So let me see…we allow open homosexuality in the military.
And when will I be able to check into my heterosexual male barracks?
Will there now be 4 housing facilities? Hetero/Homo-Male/Female?
Is that logistically feasible?
If no, then will we just have co-ed living quarters and heads(latrines)? The Brits do this at some locations.
If this co-ed living arrangement makes anyone uncomfortable then where do we go from there?
This is ridiculous. We know where it will go, we will screw all the “normal” majority for the sake of a sacred protected group. They are friggin morons. If I cannot tell you are homosexual by simply looking at you then the best and easiest way to keep your sexual orientation from becoming an issue is to keep your yap shut!
This is like putting gas into the fire and then wondering why the flames are out of control.
donkichi on October 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Well put donkichi. It is ridiculous.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM
GOOD LORD IN HEAVEN (and by this I mean the Guadalupe, since she is such a scene-stealing *diva*).
If there was this much ~*passion*~ about doing something useful, like, idk, FIXING OUR ECONOMY, as there is about DADT, then maybe we Americans could fix problems.
But nah. Let’s talk about GAYS. How timely, how focused, how SALIENT.
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Greece eventually collapsed, too.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Except you’re missing a huge issue. Homosexuals will turn the entire thing into a political mess. I can see it now, “He gives me the dangerous duties, because I’m gay.” or “I was passed up for promotion, because I’m gay.” or “He is a homophobe that said bad things about me being gay.” (In reality the guy just was mad cuz he got hit on)
I can keep going, after all the Feminists made the whole women on ships thing into a political mess. It still has issues in units. Heck my brother’s unit ended up having an issue with a girl in the unit sleeping with nearly everyone. They ended up requiring everyone to get an STD check, because of the number of infections that had turned up.
Almost ruined a couple of marriages, including a Sargent that didn’t even sleep with her. His wife was just very insecure.
Tim Burton on October 11, 2009 at 2:20 PM
As did Rome, the Brits and Soviets. If the US does it will have more to do with the debt we owe to the Chinese than gays in marriage or the military.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 2:22 PM
You are correct. One’s sexual orientation should be a private matter.Do you think that the entire San Fran Gay Pride parade will immediately rush to
volunteer?
I know hundreds of gays who served their country proudly and bravely.Not a one felt the need to announce who he or she liked to sleep with.
katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM
It’s ludicrous, in my view, for a person to define him/her-self by who they’re sleeping with.
The problem with militant gays and those ‘enlightened’ people who back them, is they define themselves by their sexuality. Something is serious wrong there, more in their heads than in their pants.
There are far more valuable meters a person could use to define him/her self. In combat, the last thing a soldier needs is the guy in the foxhole beside him worrying first that he/she is gay. Who cares?
Militant gays define themselves by who they want to sleep with. And they’re sexual exploits are what matter to them, not anything else–like fighting to save American liberty, for example.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Gawd I’m so sick of gay people. It seems the last 15 years we get them shoved in our face. What’s wrong with DADT? We don’t need to know the sexual preference of any soldier…period.
Please, give society at least 5 year break from hearing about you. We’re really sick you.
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM
UGH LIAM.
The point is that ~*militant people*~ (excepting the military, obvs) are obnoxious.
Gay, Vegan, Bible-Thumping, Ron Paul-tards, O-Bots… at the end of the day, militant insanity always fails. As principled conservatives, we should know how to excise these tumors rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
One thing I HATE!!! (yes, hate, such a strong word <3) is people projecting their bias onto a whole group of people based on some MSM-spotlighted crazy.
So call out the BS *hypocrisy* in such groups (gays, obvs), and don’t WHITEWARSH them like a Missourah fence in some 19th century novel. Hypocrites should suffer, not entire identity groups.
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I totally agree! It’s a private matter among people in general, but militant gays want it made public. It seems they feel need to be somehow validated.
That’s a sickness, I say. By all their fighting, they basically say they’re perverted and so demand we accept them anyway. That’s the message from them I’m getting.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Militants are totally obnoxious, I agree! They do more harm to their own cause than those who oppose them.
Problem is, militants are embraced by those in power, and made to be either mainstream or defenders. It’s all sick, really.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Was a purpose of DODT was to show that gays can serve honorably in the military?
It’s easy to argue that gays have served successfully in the military because of DADT rules – which demand discretion and makes it possible for everyone to be successful.
Buy Danish on October 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Hundreds? You have an astounding social life, apparently. I’ll bet you get invited to some excellent parties.
It’s not about declaring your orientation, it’s about not having to hide it.
Really, when you think of it, who gives a flying f*** who the person next to you is trying to bang? That’s why this whole discussion is so stupid. Gays are just gay and in the mean time we have work to do. Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Heh, I shopped at the Danish PX today here at Kandahar. Heh.
Suppose that means that I bought Danish. The batteries I bought there were made in China though.
Eh, mixed bag or irony?
donkichi on October 11, 2009 at 2:43 PM
ty.
So can we move onto the fact, idk, that PEOPLE ARE BEING TAXED TO HIGH HEAVEN?!
Or do other people really give such *personal investment* into this topic?
Mind? BOGGLED.
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I’m sure you’re right. Everyone has the right in this country to speak and fight for what they believe. But we’ve had 15-20 years at least of hearing from the gays. If they had any sense strategically, they’d stop push so hard, America will push back.
Jeff from WI on October 11, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Deeper, why should anyone have to declare or hide? Why not just forget the matter entirely?
Like it or not, some straights are going to dislike hearing about how some guy got his pecker into another guy’s hairy ass.
Just the same as so many gays disparengly call heteros ‘breeders’. A lot of gay men HATE the notion of a guy entering a woman.
By the same token, straight men can’ seem to grasp the notion of looking at another man’s hairy ass and saying, “Umm! I like that!”
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Yes I do. Some of my friends go back to WWII,Korea,Vietnam. They vouluteered to serve their country. Not to get a date.
katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 2:50 PM
All they can do is push. There’s a gay group out there, I think it’s Queer Nation, that opposes use of condoms. It’s not about saving themselves, it’s about sex; it’s about indulgence. It’s about ‘take me as I come no matter what.”
The militant gays want exposure. The gay people I know, who aren’t militant, go to work and live their lives the way the rest of us do: without fanfare.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I’ll bet we disagree on the tax issue, but you are correct. The gays in the miltary thing should be a non-issue and we should move on to other topics.
Bleeds Blue on October 11, 2009 at 2:58 PM
I agree, as a conservative. Who cares, in the end?
Problem is, militant gay groups are pressuring the matter. Far as I know, no righty group started this or is involved.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 3:00 PM
DADT works for everyone involved. Only the die-hards who demand more are pressing this policy.
Otherwise, it’s an acceptable situation if not a comfortable one. I say leave the matter rest.
Liam on October 11, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Just a historical nitpick on the Greeks and Homosexuality.
Athens (who most of us think of as the exemplar Greek society) was decidedly anti-homosexual (there are speeches about it- not to mention the accusation and execution of Socrates).
The two main societies with institutionalized homosexuality in Greece was Sparta, and Thebes’ Sacred Band.
Sparta essentially disappeared as a power because they didn’t have enough babies, and because of their backwards economic system. Not to mention I doubt anyone today would want to hold Sparta as a model for society.
Thebes was basically a flash in the pan that destroyed Sparta and then faded away itself. Not saying that has anything to do with homosexuality, but Thebes can’t be held up as a exemplar society either.
Macedonia and Alexander the Great is the other main entry for Greek dominance, and they weren’t very homosexual friendly either- no matter how flaming Alex was. (Being King lets you get away with stuff).
Sackett on October 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Eliminating DADT does not allow gays to serve. To do that the Congress has to eliminate Article 125 of the UCMJ and that is Military Law [since 1947 and in different form prior] and does require Congress to act. Acts of Sodomy are still a crime in the US Military. [Look up Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.]
DADT is just a policy of providing people with their V Amendment rights concerning criminal activity. Discontinuing it would allow the Military to openly and agressivily procecute gays as criminals in accordance with Military Law…
DJ Elliott on October 11, 2009 at 3:10 PM
People just don’t get it. DADT allows gays in the service. To repeal that policy makes it so they can not serve until the law is changed.
This is a huge can of worms that only idiots would want to open at this time.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM
lansing quaker on October 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Hey, angry gay guy.
The thread is about gays, hence the topic of the thread discussion.
catmman on October 11, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Promotion of homosexuality is not “ahead” of where civilian society is. It’s historically tied to the fall and destruction of societies. The racial argument is tired and stupid. It’s a red herring.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 3:17 PM
I used “Ahead” as a historical observation not an argument that particular types of integration are beneficial or that one argues for another.
My point on racial integration was that it was disruptive and vehemently opposed, not that it compels us to think one way or another on DADT.
dedalus on October 11, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Does not compute.
Buy Danish on October 11, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Ed’s committed a logical error. He argues that the “success” of an institution under a policy is an argument against maintaining that very policy. This is a peculiar argument. It’s like saying “We are paying all these cops to police Times Square 24/7, but there’s hardly any crime there any more. Therefore we can safely save money by getting rid of the cops.” It may be true, but it simply does not logically follow.
Other militaries don’t have a problem with their looser policies because their militaries don’t actually do what the US military has to do. For instance, nuclear submarines are submerged for months without even surfacing. These can be extreme social environments.
The problem as I see it is that the repeal of DADT will make gays a protected class and then lawyers and activists and the Scott Beauchamps and the media and finally chaos will follow. It’s just a headache that they don’t need right now, all things considered.
shazbat on October 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I would like to point out:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177723
I’m relatively neutral on the policy, but I do not think it should be repealed because I do not think there will be a boon in enlistment, period. Obviously there might, and probably will be, an artificial increase in gay soldiers, but they would have applied anyways and therefore would not affect overall enlistment.
Within that article, it mentions that 23% of the military might not re-enlist if this change is inactive.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500781_11/United_States_Government.html#p172
Near the bottom it gives some idea of the size of the military on by branch, which totals to approximately 827,000. That would mean ~190,210 members of the armed services that wouldn’t reenlist if we take the full 23%.
Mind you, with 174,000, that is LARGER than the marine corps.
So, from a pragmatic standpoint, the repeal of this policy could be very bad for our military.
Just my 2 cents
Vortaine on October 11, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Who here has had a gay person in their unit and what was their honest experience.
tomas on October 11, 2009 at 4:32 PM
The fact that so many “CPU cycles” have been burned servicing this topic is PRECISELY why President Numnutz should have kept his big fat mouth shut on the subject. A wise poster way back up the road there said we don’t need these distractions given our fight with the terrorist threat we are facing.
Maybe this a**hole (the president, not the poster) is trying to stir things up to further postpone his decision on McChrystal’s reinforcements. Waddya think?
It’s clear that he is either (1) an incompetent fool or (2) a politician. (I am voting for door number one.) He ought to just start doing rhe ACTUAL WORK OF POTUS instead of flouncing his fanny around the world, beating his gums.
VoyskaPVO on October 11, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Retired US Navy… and mixed.
On Shore duty? Gay sailors were no problem at all… in Port? not much of a problem…
But once at sea? When tensions rise and there is no escape from the people you live with? It becomes a problem.
Lost 3 sailors just prior to Storm with a Gay on drunk straight rape situation… Lost the Gay sailor who had been OK up till then…. Lost the victim who was passed out drunk when it happened, and could no longer face his shipmates due to shame… and lost the sailor who “found” them and beat the crap out of the Rapist, when he was found guilty of assault.
So, in my experience… the problems are not bad in a Peacetime military… but once deployed or at War? It becomes a problem… and being as how that is what the military is all about?
Question becomes…. if it aint broke… why Fix it ESPECIALY in time of War, with Morale already plummeting?
Romeo13 on October 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM
In 2007 the bottom fifty percent of tax payers paid 2.89% of the federal taxes while the top 10% paid over 70% of the taxes. Please admit there is never enough for you. You folks in the bottom 50% kill me.
CWforFreedom on October 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Most liberals that push for this are too dense to see the relationship between accepting open homosexual behavior the subsequent utter necessity to have co-ed facilities.
Those that do get it are too immoral to care.
scotash on October 11, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I’m not in the military and never have been. Personally, I like DADT. However, I very much agree that the issue you raise is a problem. That being said, gay service members know what they’re volunteering to do, the special sacrifices they are going to make, and I respect them even more for that choice.
How to fix this problem, I’m not sure. I really rely on members of the military to deal with this issue. I hope that it is not treated ideologically, but rather from a military perspective.
I believe that gay service members serve just as honorably and bravely as every other identifiable group within the military. As long as DADT is retained for military purposes, then I would hope military support groups could find some discrete and private means of supporting gay service members and their partners, and we really don’t need to know about it if this is happening.
Loxodonta on October 11, 2009 at 5:52 PM
You’re right but you’re also wrong.
IMO DADT has shown that gays can serve honorably WHEN their sexual orientation is NOT made a significant issue. If DADT is rescinded one could reasonably expect more militancy from the gay community in terms of public accommodation/acceptance of their sexuality and that would very likely raise problems we don’t have today.
katiejane on October 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM
President “PRESENT” strikes again.
PappyD61 on October 11, 2009 at 6:07 PM
Great idea! Lets mess with the ONLY government service that actually works!
obleo on October 11, 2009 at 6:25 PM
The dirty little secret is that the CinC can get rid of DADT at any time, he does not need congress approval. So why hasn’t just sign an excutive order? Because he is just playing lip service to the raibow flag base. Remember he is a follower of the Rev Wright……..not so much od a big supporter of the gheys.
GREENTURTLE on October 11, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Wanna end DADT?
You call in the SecDef and the JCS and the top CSMs, etc. of all the services and you say “January 1 2011 we’re enlisting and commissioning gays, now what do you need to make that happen?”
Don’t keep whining about it in public, just do it.
JEM on October 11, 2009 at 6:38 PM
THIS. I don’t even understand what “serving openly” is supposed to mean. I am not in the military, but my understanding is that our soldiers join the military for ONE REASON – to defend the USA. How does being gay or straight or black or white or any of that fit in? If a gay person wants to be a soldier so that he/she may server her country, why must everyone know he/she is gay? And the person is a good soldier, why should it matter?
I assume it has to do with discipline and a great lack of it. And that can’t be good for our military no matter who your spouse is.
Spectreman on October 11, 2009 at 6:53 PM
My Rant:
I’m fairly unique in that I had 21 years in the Army and Army Reserves, including the first Gulf War, and live in West Hollywood, CA with a ton of gay friends and coworkers. I’m a Libertarian Republican and strongly support gay couples having every legal right and privilege that straight couples have, but oppose gay marriage (I support civil unions).
Two things – comparing gay soldiers to the Civil Rights struggle is totally off base. If you put two soldiers in a fox hole for six months that are different ethnicities, there is no fundamental different between them and they will bond more and more over time. Racism is ignorance, not a core human behavior.
Put two soldiers in a fox hole for six months where one is gay and you have a fundamental difference those two soldiers – and one that will impact how that unit and its ability to accomplish its mission. (Side note – I disagree with Charlie Rangel on pretty much everything, but can’t dislike the guy because he fought for this country knowing he was going to come back to segregated drinking fountains).
I was in the Army when Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was implemented and in my opinion, it just made things worse. Before that there were soldiers that were known to be gay but they weren’t open about it, didn’t make it an issue for the entire unit and generally sought out positions that wouldn’t land you in a fox hole. An only mildly closeted gay person in a line unit back then would have been a big problem though. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell just made everything into a front and center issue, making the situation a political one instead of a far backburner issue.
What I support is the US having the policy that Israel has – gays can serve openly but not in combat units. There are plenty of jobs for the capable, highly qualified gay soldiers and sailors out there (mostly sailors… I kid, I kid…..) that don’t put you in tiny base camp in Afghanistan with 12 guys living in a small tent for months and years. He also serves who performs maintenance or logistic support outside the main theater of operations.
Another thing – how many openly gay men are there that are itching to be in 1st Marine Division or the 82nd Airborne? Not that many. Also my comments are pretty much about gay men, the lesbians I’ve known in the military were almost all very professional, already in positions that weren’t part of a line unit and not going to be in that fox hole for six months anyway.
Last note – the issue of “gays who want to serve being kicked out of the military” is largely a false one. Many or most of the soldiers being “kicked out” only “discovered” a few minutes after finding out they got orders for Iraq. How many of those are gay and how many of them are using it as an excuse to avoid combat?
At the end of the day, it’s a minor side issue like the poster said above. In the big scheme of things, this is a ass pimple on the bloated socialist leviathan Obama wants this country to become.
Kaisersoze on October 11, 2009 at 7:18 PM
ED, you totally miss the point of DADT. It exists not to exclude gays, but to prevent straight young men from losing unit cohesion. The military is comprised mostly of testosterone-filled young men who are put into stressful situations. These young men are not comfortable around open homosexuals. If you insert open homosexuals into their ranks, their performance will suffer. We are not dealing with 40-0 year old lawyers here. We are dealing with young, pimply faced horny straight boys fresh out of high school. Tell them the have to share tight quarters and showers with an open homosexual, puts strain on them they don’t need.
That is the point of DADT. Any homosexual who wants to serve can serve. But he doesn’t have to disclose his perversion.
keep the change on October 11, 2009 at 7:29 PM
No, Thebes was not a flash in the pan. They convincingly defeated Spartans at several battles which rank among the most decisive military victories in Greek history. The Sacred Band went against the very best Spartan units and came out on top (pardon the pun).
Thebes superemacy among Greek States was cut short by Phillip of Macedon and his superior Macedonian Phalanx. At the Battle of Chaeronea the Band was destroyed to the last man and Phillip himself eulogized them when he came across their bodies thrown on each other.
Holger on October 11, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Obama can repeal the DADT but the military will still court martial them if they are caught in the act. During WW11 there were many cases of military men regardless of rank that were court martialed for sodomy. You can run all of the sensitivity sessions you want but the military will courtmartial your ass (pun intended) for sodomy. I defy any of you to show me how the military could change what has been on the books since the law was implemented. I can just envision Barney Frank trying to get the law changed.
Big Nicholas on October 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM
It has to change unless you want to charge a soldier for putting it in his wife or girlfriend’s butt which that law says is illegal. Actually, West Point sodomy laws says oral sex is sodomy so you want to charge a male cadet for going down on his girlfriend during Summer Leave?
The sexual laws made sense when they were established, in the 1800s but now? Can you honestly say a soldier should be courtmartialed for putting it in his wife’s butt or mouth?
Holger on October 11, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Ending DADT with an executive order is only a temporary measure that, like most liberal policies will ‘feel good’ for a time but won’t solve the problem. With even 58% of conservatives ready to reverse the DADT policy it would seem like a good time to actually do something the public was in favor of instead of steaming ahead with his screw you, we’re not listening attitude.
DOMA is just a strange beast that, like DADT was Clinton’s stop gap way out of a bad place he got himself into. Just be glad he didn’t get a law passed that required all blue dresses to be burnt!
Liberals never lead, compromise, or listen, they just take their ideological ‘feel good’ dreams and shove them down everyone’s throat!
David
LifeTrek on October 11, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Is requiring someone to hide who they are and lie about their life really acceptable to you.
Really, and your heterosexuality is just a behavior — you could turn it off or switch it just like that if you really wanted to? It isn’t inherent in your being? Your gay at heart? Or is it just gay people who are that way because they are straight at heart?
You worked that out logically in your head?
Seriously, it isn’t just about sex. To think so is the mistake of the ages.
Assume you could live your life only if you NEVER referenced your girlfriend/wife, dates, kids, home life, entire high school experience, past conquests, future plans and desires. Would you really want to live that — now assume you only realized who you were after you enlisted.
Personally I think it should be left up to the military, but today’s younger generation really doesn’t have that big a problem with it because they understand that it isn’t a choice.
David
LifeTrek on October 11, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Sodomy is a court martial offense. The law was on the books since the days of Washington, and if somebody tried to get it changed the military will go bezerk. You will never hear any congressman shout “I am for sodomy in then military”.
Big Nicholas on October 11, 2009 at 8:56 PM
That really is the issue, Big Nicholas, and I honestly can not see anyone in their right mind touching it. Except maybe Barney Frank, but he is clearly not in his right mind.
ORconservative on October 11, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Yeah Really! Isn’t that the definition differences between “Heterosexual” and “homosexual” based on behavior differences?
I didn’t say anything about switching it off/on. Why do so? Something wrong with your heterosexuality? Board with your life so you seek adventure? Switching it on and off is like being a double minded person…unstable in everything they do. Does science show us that a person is born gay? No. If so, show me the science!
Absolutely, especially compared to your emotionally charge response. The seduction of liberalism utilizes emotions, have you falled victim to that? I don’t live life guided by emotions but try through principle and sound judgment.
Hey, the average gay person sleeps with dozens of men, transmitting diseases like you know what…so by and large…it’s about sex.
One of those “What if” questions.
I’m retired military.
The younger generation are indoctrinated with homosexuality in schools, on TV and college. They have been desensitized to it and really have no moral compass(good job liberals). Anything goes nowadays but when that happens, everything goes.
b1jetmech on October 11, 2009 at 10:08 PM
He will end DADT….He will repeal DOMA.
We don’t even go through the motions of passing or repealing laws in the Congress anymore.
Even the Stalinists went through the motions……
lsheldon on October 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM
I think the issue is not “desensitizing”
The issue is “practicing”–how else are they going to get the human species to die out and thereby sve the world?
lsheldon on October 11, 2009 at 11:36 PM
People like dedalus have no experience in the military and think it would be no problem if men decided to wear female uniforms, watch straight men in the showers, etc, because right before a guy being watched is about to punch the peeping Tom, Tom can say, “I’m a patriot, so it’s all OK.”
They will keep beating the dead horse about race, but refuse to understand the fact that the opposition to homosexuality is largely either
1. Rational in nature for the same reason separation of the sexes, etc, is rational in a military environment.
2. Based on morals and religious views held for thousands of years that will continue to be held for thousands of years.
They think browbeating people and calling them names like homophobes, etc, will eventually wear down their resolve against rationality and their religious views. What a great usage of resources.
TTheoLogan on October 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM
This was an entirely boring speech. Oh great, DADT will be repealed. Like the military didn’t already announce this earlier this year?
AnninCA on October 12, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Last time this issue had a major public airing was in the Clinton years. Between then and now we’ve had SCOTUS (incorrectly IMHO) declare criminal sodomy laws unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. Does this significantly change the legal landscape surrounding this policy? Or is the military justice system legally distinct enough that it carries little legal weight?
I recall from the debate in the 90′s when Senator Sam Nunn explained the importance of the “Don’t Tell” half of the policy. If a soldier announces to his commander “I’m gay!” he’s also announcing a compelling desire to commit acts of sodomy which military law defines to be a serious crime and a dischargeable offense. I recall he said it created “a rebuttable presumption” that the announcing soldier was in fact guilty of this crime. “Don’t Tell” was key to avoiding this legal jeopardy.
Seems to me if the aim is to move toward armed forces that accept open homosexuals, the proper legal path is to repeal those parts of the UCMJ that criminalize sodomy. Likely there’s a number of sexual crimes nearby that might merit a reformer’s attention as well. (Recall the lady flyer discharged for adultery about 10 years ago?) This is a job for Congress, not the President to take on, though he may certainly offer whatever leadership he wishes.
Rev Snow on October 12, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »