Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, May 20, 2009
Homo / News Required Viewing
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM
Rachel Maddow introduces America to the Air Force's $25-million-dollar-man, an 18 year vet—and decorated war hero (with dreamy eyes)—who is being tossed out of the armed forces for... well, can you guess?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
And Obama already has the authority to stop the dismissal of Lieutenant Colonel Victor J. Fehrenbach:
One of the main impediments to swift action is the assumption that, since the current ban on openly gay service is a federal law, Congress is the only body that can end it. But according to a report released yesterday by the Palm Center (to which I contributed), the president actually has legal authority to end gay discharges with a single order. "Don't ask, don't tell" is both a Pentagon policy and a federal statute, the result of a 1993 political compromise by Clinton, Congress, and military brass. To get the current ban wholly off the books, Congress will need to act. But to end the practice of discharging gays from the military, the president can exercise his constitutional and statutory authority without any blessing from Congress.This is because Congress has already granted the president authority to halt military discharges in the interest of national security. Under 10 U.S.C. 12305, "the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States."
Using this authority is a perfectly legitimate and fully legal suspension of the "don't ask, don't tell" statute. And for those who need more proof that the president has the power to halt homosexual discharges, the language of the statute was clearly written to allow executive action to modify its effects, explicitly granting the Pentagon the discretion to determine the process by which discharges will be carried out. What's more, while the law calls for a discharge "if" a finding of homosexuality is made, Congress nowhere requires the military to ever conduct such findings; the commander-in-chief can simply order that the military immediately cease making findings of homosexual conduct or statements.
Why won't Obama act?
1
Soldiers are to gay rights what polar bears became to the politics of climate change - an easily spotlit symbol, intelligible to the dumbest dumbfuck voter snacking on boogers watching TV in a trailer park, of virtuous victimhood.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it is definitely a thing.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it is definitely a thing.
2
"Gays in the military . . . here's how I feel about it, alright? Anyone . . . DUMB enough . . . to want to be in the military, should be allowed in. End of fucking story. That should be the only requirement."
-- Bill Hicks
-- Bill Hicks
3
Does anyone know if 10 U.S.C. 12305 is the same edict that prevented seasoned military folks from not serving under Bush.
Cause if it is (and it was something that the Bush admin. put in place to keep folks who wanted out in) then it would be very sweet indeed to see it used to keep capable men and women in the military who want and deserve to be there.
Cause if it is (and it was something that the Bush admin. put in place to keep folks who wanted out in) then it would be very sweet indeed to see it used to keep capable men and women in the military who want and deserve to be there.
4
I think he's covering his butt by not saying anything, and like he usually does, letting public sentiment turn particularly ugly against something so he can waltz in and play the cavalry. I usually smirk at that, like when he did it to some bankers, but now it's getting under my skin.
He seems to have noticed how easy it was to overrule Bush Administration rulings and is letting things fall to the courts or congress. He probably doesn't want the legacy-killer of news stories harping on and on about "Today, President Pelosi overturned a longstanding Obama Administration policy..."
It should be noted that the Obama administration purposely let the deadline pass and Witt v. United States Air Force is going forward, which means we'll hear in public proceedings what, exactly, is behind the discovery and discharge of GLBTQ troops. So maybe that IS his deal-- no risk and a solid policy change that can't be rewritten in the next administration.
He seems to have noticed how easy it was to overrule Bush Administration rulings and is letting things fall to the courts or congress. He probably doesn't want the legacy-killer of news stories harping on and on about "Today, President Pelosi overturned a longstanding Obama Administration policy..."
It should be noted that the Obama administration purposely let the deadline pass and Witt v. United States Air Force is going forward, which means we'll hear in public proceedings what, exactly, is behind the discovery and discharge of GLBTQ troops. So maybe that IS his deal-- no risk and a solid policy change that can't be rewritten in the next administration.
8
Obama is a politician and always was. A damn fine one, too. He's pushing every issue where there is 70% level of support. Stimulus, wall street, fuel efficiency, close Gitmo and ban torture but otherwise be hawkish; fund highways (yuck) but not transit vouchers (yay). (He chooses these things esp. if there's a slice of business supporting him, too.) He does not expend political capital on things with only a 50% or lower level of support such as gay rights. Very, very typical politician, in this. ITYS!!! And ya sure you betcha when he made campaign promises -- he knew then he'd likely be "deferring" fulfilling them after winning office.
OMG another politician seduced someone to get their votes!! Get used to it.
The answer is to stop hoping one great man will change anything, whilst supporting the best among the options, and ALSO working hard for change via all avenues (building public opinion, grass roots pressure, telling human interest stories like this air force guy, marching, working state by state, everything).
Stop waiting for the cavalry. Ain't no cavalry coming. (Apol. to Chris Gardner). You & we gotta be our own cavalry. IMHO.
OMG another politician seduced someone to get their votes!! Get used to it.
The answer is to stop hoping one great man will change anything, whilst supporting the best among the options, and ALSO working hard for change via all avenues (building public opinion, grass roots pressure, telling human interest stories like this air force guy, marching, working state by state, everything).
Stop waiting for the cavalry. Ain't no cavalry coming. (Apol. to Chris Gardner). You & we gotta be our own cavalry. IMHO.
9
holy cow. they booted that guy? unbelievable. definitely a heartbreaker.
now he's a hero in more ways than one.
did you all catch that he was basically coming out to his ENTIRE airforce base at that very moment?
now he's a hero in more ways than one.
did you all catch that he was basically coming out to his ENTIRE airforce base at that very moment?
11
@4 is right. It really looks like Obama is going slow on culture war topics and forcing issues into the courts or congress so that the change can happen but he wont get the credit/blame for how it goes. It sucks for getting things to happen fast, but it probably means things happening more permanently and possibly setting precedent for other issues as well.
12
@4 Yeah, it is starting to get pretty annoying. At this point, I'm not sure if we'll look back in a couple years and see this strategy as part of a broader political strategy that worked, or see it as a defining and constant characteristic of this administration.
Yeah, I know it's only been a few months, so I am trying to be patient, but if you come into office with such a strong mandate, you have the leeway to make some bold moves.
Yeah, I know it's only been a few months, so I am trying to be patient, but if you come into office with such a strong mandate, you have the leeway to make some bold moves.
13
Picking this scab constantly is a good way to keep attention focused on the utter stupidity of the problem.
I'm not as impatient nor as skeptical as Dan (and others who want it NOW). I still believe Obama will act to reverse the policy, and I think it is way too early in his first term to be wailing about being thrown under the bus.
But, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If we remain silent and passive, and just hope Obama (and congress) eventually does the right thing out of the kindness of their little hearts, it ain't gonna happen. The democratic congress, in particular, has shown itself to be quite spineless, and enacting gay rights legislation of any kind is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be highly risky. They will not act without constant pressure from the public.
Rachel Maddow strikes the perfect tone here. Not as shrill as Dan or John Aravosis (who also have their role in the process). But constantly bringing it up in a very reasonable way, showing how ridiculous, harmful, and outdated the policy is.
I'm not as impatient nor as skeptical as Dan (and others who want it NOW). I still believe Obama will act to reverse the policy, and I think it is way too early in his first term to be wailing about being thrown under the bus.
But, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. If we remain silent and passive, and just hope Obama (and congress) eventually does the right thing out of the kindness of their little hearts, it ain't gonna happen. The democratic congress, in particular, has shown itself to be quite spineless, and enacting gay rights legislation of any kind is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be highly risky. They will not act without constant pressure from the public.
Rachel Maddow strikes the perfect tone here. Not as shrill as Dan or John Aravosis (who also have their role in the process). But constantly bringing it up in a very reasonable way, showing how ridiculous, harmful, and outdated the policy is.
14
PC @8:
This is a great observation. Y'know, representative democracy is not a spectator sport.
This reminds me of a story of how a group of liberal activists came to Franklin D. Roosevelt--I don't know--maybe in his first term. And they presented this whole liberal agenda they wanted enacted. And Roosevelt responded something to the effect of, "Make it so I have no choice but to enact it."
Yeah, that means swaying public opinion. And that's not easy considering all the myths, delusions, and self-destructive notions that swirl around in the American character.
I think when it comes to the whole gay-rights agenda, Obama is playing rope-a-dope. He knows society and the establishment are trending that way anyway. So the longer he waits, the easier it gets.
The answer is to stop hoping one great man will change anything, whilst supporting the best among the options, and ALSO working hard for change via all avenues (building public opinion, grass roots pressure, telling human interest stories like this air force guy, marching, working state by state, everything).
Stop waiting for the cavalry. Ain't no cavalry coming.
This is a great observation. Y'know, representative democracy is not a spectator sport.
This reminds me of a story of how a group of liberal activists came to Franklin D. Roosevelt--I don't know--maybe in his first term. And they presented this whole liberal agenda they wanted enacted. And Roosevelt responded something to the effect of, "Make it so I have no choice but to enact it."
Yeah, that means swaying public opinion. And that's not easy considering all the myths, delusions, and self-destructive notions that swirl around in the American character.
I think when it comes to the whole gay-rights agenda, Obama is playing rope-a-dope. He knows society and the establishment are trending that way anyway. So the longer he waits, the easier it gets.
15
Why this emphasis on "in this house"? Does the press secretary usually refer to the administration that way?
I guess I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it could conceivably mean that an initiative is underway elsewhere, right?
Yeah. As if Congress is gonna do anything right.
I guess I'm just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it could conceivably mean that an initiative is underway elsewhere, right?
Yeah. As if Congress is gonna do anything right.
16
@12: Optimistically, he could very well be waiting for this post-W anxiety to shake out from government. Bush didn't make any massive cross-branch leaps until a little over 6 months into his first term, and neither did Clinton. It could be a presidential waiting game that sits independent of one's mandate. Maybe it's the politeness of the presidency? Only go after the most unpopular policies at first, then wait a bit so the other president slinks from the mind enough to justify a massive overturn. In that case, though, Obama would be trying hard to be a legacy-builder.
Then again, seeing how cool and patient Obama was in his campaign, I'm beginning to wonder if he just glides through everything he does, lets his position be known and waits for people to do what he says or disobey so he can be forced to do something.
Then again, seeing how cool and patient Obama was in his campaign, I'm beginning to wonder if he just glides through everything he does, lets his position be known and waits for people to do what he says or disobey so he can be forced to do something.
17
Why won't Obama act?
The only possible reason that makes sense to me is that the leadershit of the US Military, the 3 & 4 star Admirals and Generals, who have to be confirmed in their positions by an act of Congress, are (almost) all Bush appointees who were selected for their ideological loyalty, not their loyalty to their Oath, or loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to America as it is.
The only possible reason that makes sense to me is that the leadershit of the US Military, the 3 & 4 star Admirals and Generals, who have to be confirmed in their positions by an act of Congress, are (almost) all Bush appointees who were selected for their ideological loyalty, not their loyalty to their Oath, or loyalty to the Constitution, or loyalty to America as it is.
18
Why won't Obama act?
Because HE HATES GAYS, that's why.
Is it really that difficult to understand?
Because HE HATES GAYS, that's why.
Is it really that difficult to understand?
19
I don't think Obama hates gays. I believe that when he called himself a "fierce advocate for gay rights", he wanted it to be true. Why he's avoiding the topic now is kind of puzzling. Public opinion on this issue is moving more and more to the left, as homosexuality is seen less and less as a sexual perversion and more as a different kind of normality. I'm not saying we're there yet (obviously) but I think the day has passed when a major politician can engage in hate speech toward the gay community. As such, I think the time has come where the president can get behind this if he wants to.
I'm not saying he can get away with advocating gay marriage. That has to happen on a grassroots level, and I think the movement is better off without a huge symbol of power behind it. But DADT is a bad law, and I think most people understand that. Obama should be able to repeal it. I don't understand why he won't.
What's good about this situation is that this man's heartbreaking plight is a valuable illustration of just how wrong DADT is. If he plays the media machine correctly, he can sway public opinion even further on this issue, and Obama will pretty much be forced to act if he wants to remain an agent of the people.
Fingers crossed.
I'm not saying he can get away with advocating gay marriage. That has to happen on a grassroots level, and I think the movement is better off without a huge symbol of power behind it. But DADT is a bad law, and I think most people understand that. Obama should be able to repeal it. I don't understand why he won't.
What's good about this situation is that this man's heartbreaking plight is a valuable illustration of just how wrong DADT is. If he plays the media machine correctly, he can sway public opinion even further on this issue, and Obama will pretty much be forced to act if he wants to remain an agent of the people.
Fingers crossed.
20
Stuff like this is why I never register as a Democrat - they simply refuse to LEAD on these issues. It's probably the Clinton legacy - don't do anything without enough popular support.
I believe Obama will finally act on this when it's politically safe (or at least when the political cost won't be too great to bear). Or else, like the other thread implies, he'll let the courts do the dirty work.
I believe Obama will finally act on this when it's politically safe (or at least when the political cost won't be too great to bear). Or else, like the other thread implies, he'll let the courts do the dirty work.
22
Not to sounds like an Obamapologist, but is it possible that Obama is standing back and letting a few cases like this hit the media, to create a critical mass in the culture (rather than Obama using precious political capital to make the case), so that he can then step in and appear to ANSWER the vox populi rather than acting as a "liberal activist" who is "imposing liberal values on our families" (as the Fox News gang would crow if he acted proactively)?
It doesn't give him a pass for letting crap like this happen, but it's also very possibly his strategy here.
It doesn't give him a pass for letting crap like this happen, but it's also very possibly his strategy here.
23
Obama will throw a bone to his gay supporters when necessary, but he also knows fully well that they will not vote for Palin-Prejean in 2012. Therefore, as with any Democrat who wants to be re-elected, his best move to secure his job is to pander to the "centrists" who are riled up about the economy and avoid making too many waves. Maybe in his hypothetical second term his more controversial campaign promises will see the light of day.
24
If you're gay, why did you go into the military? I'm sorry but will somebody please explain to me why we are supposed to feel sorry for these men and women who pursued options that placed burdens on themselves to stay in the closet???
It's your own damn problem that you CHOSE to go into service. You knew what you were getting into.
I'm not for DADT, but I'm certainly not for woe-is-me how could they have done this to me types.
You chose to work for them.
YOU.
It's your own damn problem that you CHOSE to go into service. You knew what you were getting into.
I'm not for DADT, but I'm certainly not for woe-is-me how could they have done this to me types.
You chose to work for them.
YOU.
25
@ 24,
Many of them join for the same reason the hets do: a steady paycheck, a chance to escape their current situation and job training for the future.
Many of them join for the same reason the hets do: a steady paycheck, a chance to escape their current situation and job training for the future.
26
@24 - So, the gay kid who wants to be a veterinarian when he grows up gets to pursue his chosen vocation, but the gay kid who wants to fly fighter jets when he grows up needs to STFU and stop being so woe-is-me?
Sounds reasonable.
Sounds reasonable.
27
@ 24 Not to mention, many are young enough not yet to know they're gay.
You're right, Dan, about Fehrenbach's dreamy eyes. I'm as het as they come (men just smell funny) but I'd take one for the team for (or from) a devoted serviceman and patriot like Fehrenbach.
Of course, I'd probably be fantasizing about Maddow at the time.
You're right, Dan, about Fehrenbach's dreamy eyes. I'm as het as they come (men just smell funny) but I'd take one for the team for (or from) a devoted serviceman and patriot like Fehrenbach.
Of course, I'd probably be fantasizing about Maddow at the time.
28
No, Julie, the gay kid who wants to fly fighter jets when he grows up needs to STFU choose to be an autopilot.
You know, when I was entering college I wanted to live with gorgeous studs who shower together. Did I join a fraternity? No. I chose to make my life easier and live in the dorms.
I just don't have any empathy here.
STFU and get out of the military if you're in it and gay. When you accept a job, it is important to know what policies you are agreeing to abide by to take the job. These people knew what they were and are getting in to.
Why should we Democrats have to blow our political capital on this? We shouldn't, and I hope that we don't.
You know, when I was entering college I wanted to live with gorgeous studs who shower together. Did I join a fraternity? No. I chose to make my life easier and live in the dorms.
I just don't have any empathy here.
STFU and get out of the military if you're in it and gay. When you accept a job, it is important to know what policies you are agreeing to abide by to take the job. These people knew what they were and are getting in to.
Why should we Democrats have to blow our political capital on this? We shouldn't, and I hope that we don't.
29
Lets try again, it's been something close to 12 hours since I tried to post.
@7
Unless we see some war crimes trials and action on gay rights . . .
No, I don't. I'll be voting third party for pres for the first time ever.
@27
I'm not clear on the whole "too young to know" thing. Can't most teenage boys tell if they have a "man reaction" (to use an interesting euphemism coined on dollhouse) due to watching the cheerleading squad or showering with the guys after gym?
@7
Unless we see some war crimes trials and action on gay rights . . .
No, I don't. I'll be voting third party for pres for the first time ever.
@27
I'm not clear on the whole "too young to know" thing. Can't most teenage boys tell if they have a "man reaction" (to use an interesting euphemism coined on dollhouse) due to watching the cheerleading squad or showering with the guys after gym?
30
At least once a month, Dan says or writes something that makes me want to choke him, (but in a playful, not death inducing way), but I agree 100% with him on ending DADT, a failed policy that is unjust and cruel.
Asshats who think joining the military is stupid and/or think gays in the military should stay in the closet DO need a good choking.
And, NOW is the time to act to end DADT. Obama has enough political momentum to get this done. His failure to do so, is a slap in the face to the millions of gay votes, dollars and man hours we gave to get him, and the Democratic majority in Congress, elected in the first place. Killing DOMA CAN wait awhile longer; the momentum isn't there yet, but the time to end DADT is here and now.
Asshats who think joining the military is stupid and/or think gays in the military should stay in the closet DO need a good choking.
And, NOW is the time to act to end DADT. Obama has enough political momentum to get this done. His failure to do so, is a slap in the face to the millions of gay votes, dollars and man hours we gave to get him, and the Democratic majority in Congress, elected in the first place. Killing DOMA CAN wait awhile longer; the momentum isn't there yet, but the time to end DADT is here and now.
31
I'm so happy Rachel is keeping this issue front and center. I have a feeling Obama is doing what Baconcat @4 was saying. If that's true, then good on him. But I'm getting impatient. I'm one of those gay members of society that want to join the military. My conscious wouldn't let me enlist under Bush, but I'm ready and willing to serve under Obama. I'm just waiting for him to let me.
32
One of the confounding factors in the sex lives of young people is that they have to get over that hump from everything being a turn on to some things being a turn on to some things being more of a turn on than others. I've heard plenty of allegorical accounts of boys with girlfriends signing up, discovering they weren't really all that distressed when the girl was sleeping around with Jody and then soon finding out they liked one of the nice boys at their port-o-call.
In the past the UCMJ was concerned specifically with the act of sodomy, but these days, I'm not sure what actions constitute homosexual conduct. According to Dan Choi (the recent linguist interviewed by Maddow before and after his discharge), a statement to the effect was enough. (I'm also not sure if fetish activity, say a Major who is fond of humiliation play, is also regarded as conduct unbecoming, and worthy of discharge - it would surprise me if it wasn't.) Plenty of San Francisco fleet-week virgins walk away from the Castro as queen for for a day having learned much about their own sexuality.
Stillnon @ 28, the problem is there really are opportunities and social structures that are unique to the military that are not available in the civilian market, so it is more than a bid for equality in a petty arena. Career paths I had considered in my lifetime, the space program, field intelligence, FBI Special Agent were impeded due to my lack of military experience (in my case, thanks to a family discouragement, not discrimination by the service). Even human rights aside, there really shouldn't be any reason to refuse someone willing (eager, even) to serve their country.
In the past the UCMJ was concerned specifically with the act of sodomy, but these days, I'm not sure what actions constitute homosexual conduct. According to Dan Choi (the recent linguist interviewed by Maddow before and after his discharge), a statement to the effect was enough. (I'm also not sure if fetish activity, say a Major who is fond of humiliation play, is also regarded as conduct unbecoming, and worthy of discharge - it would surprise me if it wasn't.) Plenty of San Francisco fleet-week virgins walk away from the Castro as queen for for a day having learned much about their own sexuality.
Stillnon @ 28, the problem is there really are opportunities and social structures that are unique to the military that are not available in the civilian market, so it is more than a bid for equality in a petty arena. Career paths I had considered in my lifetime, the space program, field intelligence, FBI Special Agent were impeded due to my lack of military experience (in my case, thanks to a family discouragement, not discrimination by the service). Even human rights aside, there really shouldn't be any reason to refuse someone willing (eager, even) to serve their country.
33
@28 So by your logic, everyone in the Midwest should quit their jobs because they can get fired for being gay? The military isn't the only place where you can get fired just for being gay. It is perfectly legal in the private sector in 30 states in our great union.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (33) RSS