Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, October 13, 2009
Why DADT Looms So Large
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:08 AM
Andrew Sullivan asks...
The WaPo is right about this: the president is not responsible for not legislating something; and everything the gay rights movement wants is a legislative act right now. So aim the pressure at the appropriate people. Why does Nancy Pelosi believe the US should still be firing soldiers solely because they're gay? Has anyone put her on the spot about that lately?
True: most of the promises the president made to the gay community require action by Congress. Which is why, I think, the president's critics—ahem—hammer away at DADT. The president isn't in a position to do anything meaningful about DOMA or ENDA or hate crimes. Congress has to make those things happen (and Congress is close to sending hate crimes legislation to the president's desk); all the president can do is put pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. But while the president can't extend federal recognition to married same-sex couples or ban workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians by fiat, he can do something about DADT. As commander-in-chief he has the authority to halt enforcement of DADT. Seventy-six members of Congress asked him to do back in June.
Putting an end to DADT once and for all does require a legislative act. True. But suspending its enforcement would put pressure on Congress to do get off its butt and pass that legislation. It would, as I wrote on Saturday, shift DADT off the president's much-cited plate and slap it down on Congress's. Since a future president could reverse Obama's stop-loss order and order military to resume tossing out gays and lesbians, the president would be lighting a fire under Nancy and Harry's butts. We should be asking Nancy Pelosi about DADT too. But Obama really has the ability to put her on the spot about DADT.
Halting the discharge of gay servicemembers—discharged the rate of two a day since Obama took office—is something Obama can do right now. Which is why it looms so large in the debate about the promises he made to the gay community and his failure, so far, to deliver on them or move to deliver on any them. If Obama won't take the actions he can take now, if he refuses to make the changes that are within his power, it raises suspicions about his sincerity. Taking the actions he can take now—on DADT and on finally lifting the HIV Travel Ban—would demonstrate that he intends to act on the promises he made to the gay community. It would prove that he's acting in good faith, and that he can deliver more than lovely speeches.
1
Did you see the news today that the WH is now in talks with Lieberman about killing it from the Armed Services Committee?
4
Suspending enforcement would NOT put pressure on Congress to do get off its butt and pass that legislation- in fact the opoposite.
why don't 77 democratic Congressmen introduce legislation to repeal DADT?
There are about a zillion things ONLY the President can do.
DADT is not on the list.
How is this so hard for you to grasp, Dan?
Is it less gratifying somehow to bitch at Congress than Obama?
Grow up.
And get a clue.
why don't 77 democratic Congressmen introduce legislation to repeal DADT?
There are about a zillion things ONLY the President can do.
DADT is not on the list.
How is this so hard for you to grasp, Dan?
Is it less gratifying somehow to bitch at Congress than Obama?
Grow up.
And get a clue.
5
The President can put pressure on fence-sitting Senators on ENDA. We also can by calling them out. Here are the Senators that need calling: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/10/the_day_…
6
I think there's a case to be made that Obama is being too timid about DATD. Thanks largely to DADT, gays in military is not the hot button issue that it was when Clinton took it on. Polls seems to show that a majority support its repeal.
Still, this issue would likely motivate some conservative voters who might otherwise have stayed home on election night, and it might flip some moderates over to the Republican side. However, this effect could be counteracted if it brought in the silly lefties who are convinced "Obama hates fags".
Still, this issue would likely motivate some conservative voters who might otherwise have stayed home on election night, and it might flip some moderates over to the Republican side. However, this effect could be counteracted if it brought in the silly lefties who are convinced "Obama hates fags".
7
It's a fair point that an Executive Order can be overturned by another President - BUT that's all the more reason why Obama should issue an Executive Order to halt DADT.
The eariler that Obama stops the discharges under DADT the longer the period of time that supporters of having congress repeal DADT can point to of an 'open' military that is strengthened rather that weakened by LGBT personnel. Once a period of time in which gays have been allowed to remain on active duty, and it becomes obvious that the entire military complex didn't crumble, it becomes harder for a future president to overturn the Exec Order and furthermore puts more pressure on congress to make sure that the rights of LGBT service men and women to serve are protected.
The eariler that Obama stops the discharges under DADT the longer the period of time that supporters of having congress repeal DADT can point to of an 'open' military that is strengthened rather that weakened by LGBT personnel. Once a period of time in which gays have been allowed to remain on active duty, and it becomes obvious that the entire military complex didn't crumble, it becomes harder for a future president to overturn the Exec Order and furthermore puts more pressure on congress to make sure that the rights of LGBT service men and women to serve are protected.
8
i don't think an executive order would create an 'open' military. as a stop gap measure i don't believe it would change military culture any time soon. it's a diservice to the armed services to half ass it.
9
Repealing DADT would do nothing to provide benefits and privileges to career personel who have spouses and children. When het couples are in the military, they get transferred together, or if one is a civilian, they get sent along for free, even to a foreign posting, not to mention all the other benefits like health coverage, commisary privileges, the flag off the casket, etc. Suspending the discharges is politically smart. Those discharges are a firehose that everyone can see and become increasingly embarassed by - and just turning if off it would take the pressure off Congress to enact real legislation. Oh, and people would lose their "get out of the military free" card (You don't think many of those discharges are people who want out?)
11
What's keeping him from it is his growing reliance on the generals. He accepts what they say. They say wait. He waits.
Politically, Obama values the generals and all the flag-wrapping voters they guarantee far more than he needs to quiet our yelling about this.
After all, we agitators represent a fraction of the entire gay and lesbian voting base.
The generals and Obama know that most LGBT voters (especially after all this support-our-gay-troops rhetoric employed in the anti-DADT effort) are now thoroughly militarized. And that a voter wrapped in the flag is (as ever) easily led to care more about military success than civil liberties. In other words, the generals have us now too.
Petard, hoist, etc. Once the generals say okay, he'll sign whatever.
Politically, Obama values the generals and all the flag-wrapping voters they guarantee far more than he needs to quiet our yelling about this.
After all, we agitators represent a fraction of the entire gay and lesbian voting base.
The generals and Obama know that most LGBT voters (especially after all this support-our-gay-troops rhetoric employed in the anti-DADT effort) are now thoroughly militarized. And that a voter wrapped in the flag is (as ever) easily led to care more about military success than civil liberties. In other words, the generals have us now too.
Petard, hoist, etc. Once the generals say okay, he'll sign whatever.
12
"all the president can do is put pressure on Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid"
And we don't see him doing that. There are plenty of ways to put pressure on them, some private and some public -- if we saw anything like actual public pressure, it might make us think Obama intended to make progress on the rights front. But we don't see that; giving speech after speech in front of groups of gay supporters, no matter what kind of coverage in the news, doesn't pressure Pelosi or Reid. Similarly, all those speeches aren't exactly stimulating any of the House or Senate Dems to write and introduce legislation that might eventually make it to the President's desk for signature.
Until Obama is seen acting and pressuring, until he actually demonstrates commitment rather than just blathering it to death, I'm not giving any money to the Democrats beyond re-election contributions to my own very progressive Representative Barbara Lee. And I'm sending them message after message to let them know.
And we don't see him doing that. There are plenty of ways to put pressure on them, some private and some public -- if we saw anything like actual public pressure, it might make us think Obama intended to make progress on the rights front. But we don't see that; giving speech after speech in front of groups of gay supporters, no matter what kind of coverage in the news, doesn't pressure Pelosi or Reid. Similarly, all those speeches aren't exactly stimulating any of the House or Senate Dems to write and introduce legislation that might eventually make it to the President's desk for signature.
Until Obama is seen acting and pressuring, until he actually demonstrates commitment rather than just blathering it to death, I'm not giving any money to the Democrats beyond re-election contributions to my own very progressive Representative Barbara Lee. And I'm sending them message after message to let them know.
13
Hey @4, the House has introduced the exact legislation that you are talking about. It's called HR-1283, it has 177 co-sponsors. I wonder how you know that pressure from the President wouldn't help this piece of legislation move out of committee? He is the Commander-in-Chief. It is HIS military. If he truly wants it I think he should be applying pressure, at the least. Perhaps he is and we don't know that. I'm a gay VET and I think Dan's tone on this is about right. True, Pelosi and Reid are spineless on this and they need pressure, however,the President does have the authority to enforce the "don't pursue" portion of the current policy and it's clear by the discharge statistics that this isn't happening.
14
You all think Senator Harry Reid announced his support to the world about a week ago - see SGN front page a week ago - announced to the world, and that public event, press notice, was cause he was having a slow day? Nothing else to talk about?
He is the test for the issue and will carry water for the President.
Don't Ask is on its Way out Soon. But Harry can't call you and say that. It is not the way DC works.
By the way, Harry comes from a mountain state, know to be very patriotic. And he is a Mormon Elder. He is the perfect choice to signal White House direction on this issue in the Senate.
AND did you all forget, he is the ranking Dem, The lead guy in the Senate? Oh, my , is this a signal??
Please lobby Harry with great respect. He is on our side on this one, and, he might call you back.
He is the test for the issue and will carry water for the President.
Don't Ask is on its Way out Soon. But Harry can't call you and say that. It is not the way DC works.
By the way, Harry comes from a mountain state, know to be very patriotic. And he is a Mormon Elder. He is the perfect choice to signal White House direction on this issue in the Senate.
AND did you all forget, he is the ranking Dem, The lead guy in the Senate? Oh, my , is this a signal??
Please lobby Harry with great respect. He is on our side on this one, and, he might call you back.
15
Assume that Obama signs a stop loss order. Next, assume that gays in the military all come out. The pressure on congress would be to repeal DADT before the next election or see the military decimated.
I'll admit that many gays in the military would still be cautious about coming out until they knew their careers were truly safe, but I think it could work.
I'll admit that many gays in the military would still be cautious about coming out until they knew their careers were truly safe, but I think it could work.
16
Why is it in their (Obama, Reid, Pelosi) political interests to listen to us (LGBT voters) anyway? I mean, who else are we going to vote for besides the Democrats? This is one of the problems with political parties, especially a two party system. All political activity tends toward the center whereas it's the people on the left and right of center that get people elected.
17
Unlike, say, Truman, Obama lacks military experience and thus cred, especially now that he's a certified peacenik. So he has to defer to the generals to avoid another GOP shitstorm.
He's picking his battles. Let him win a few, first. Hell, let him win one.
He's picking his battles. Let him win a few, first. Hell, let him win one.
18
How exactly would issuing a stop loss on DADT, halting the witch hunts and discharges, pressure congress to move on its repeal? No longer would we have the immediacy of the problem DADT creates with recent cases of discharges/firings under the law, for example (and that outrage from those recently fired is NECESSARY to selling the cause). Thanks to people like dan choi, these are regularly circulated talking points on entertainment "news"-- cnn, msnbc, etc. And if a law exists that's not enforced, there's very little pressure to remove it on legislators...because no harm no foul--and no one cares. Until the next republican president reverses it, and DADT is back in effect. How is that a tactical approach? How would it put pressure on congress to reverse the law? Rather, what I offer would happen is that they'd have even more of a reason to play the "too many issues on our plate to deal with it" given DADT's lack of implementation--and their inactivity would be seen by their political advisors as a concession to the bigots while shutting down the homo complaints for the 2010 cycle.
The real question I have is whether or not you really want the policy reversed.
The real question I have is whether or not you really want the policy reversed.
19
Dan, you've got to admit - "suspending enforcement" of a federal law, even a military one (perhaps ESPECIALLY a military one) sets a scary looking precedent. It gives the president power far beyond that which the role was originally intended to have - if he can simply suspend enforcement of a law, even an unjust one, then future presidents, perhaps less scrupulous ones, could suspend enforcement of laws they don't particularly like.
Yes, it's an order he could give to the military, and they would have to execute it, like they do all of his orders - but isn't that a step in a terrifying direction?
Yes, it's an order he could give to the military, and they would have to execute it, like they do all of his orders - but isn't that a step in a terrifying direction?
20
I'm a former Marine. I'm gay. I was honorably discharged as a conscientious objector, not for being gay. But this was right before the Gulf War and was pre-DADT. I knew many other gay Marines. However, I do know first hand that #1, it is extremely difficult to get a "homo-discharge" ESPECIALLY in a time of war, simply because there are so many people who will use any excuse to get out of going. You know how many soldiers try to get out by playing the Gay Card? So many, that eyeballs roll up the chain of command whenever they hear it. Other claims of suicidal thoughts, mental illness, pregnancy (which used to work, now it doesn't), and finally, people shooting themselves in the foot, which often doesn't work either. I'm aware of soldiers who are admittedly gay, but their superiors look the other way because they know they need them.
The problem with DADT is that it's arbitrary. Believe it or not, there are actually some will look the other way because they really think DADT is stupid and they don't care if any of their soldiers are gay, they just want the job done. Then you have the hardcore commanders who are completely mortified that DADT may be lifted, because they cannot fathom any of their troops being gay.
Contrary to the claim that Obama can just eliminate DADT with the wave of a hand, that is just. not. how. it. works. Clinton easily implemented DADT because it appeased nearly everyone in the military. Those who didn't care could look the other way, and those who hated the idea of gay soldiers could discharge at will. Lifting DADT will NOT work the same way.
Yes, keep the pressure on. NO, don't throw Obama to the sharks because he's not tossing out DADT with the wave of his magical Commander-in-Chief hand. I have every confidence the ban will be lifted. Give him the opportunity to persuade the DoD that this will work. It is absolutely crucial that this be done in a way that will not compromise the troops.
More...
The problem with DADT is that it's arbitrary. Believe it or not, there are actually some will look the other way because they really think DADT is stupid and they don't care if any of their soldiers are gay, they just want the job done. Then you have the hardcore commanders who are completely mortified that DADT may be lifted, because they cannot fathom any of their troops being gay.
Contrary to the claim that Obama can just eliminate DADT with the wave of a hand, that is just. not. how. it. works. Clinton easily implemented DADT because it appeased nearly everyone in the military. Those who didn't care could look the other way, and those who hated the idea of gay soldiers could discharge at will. Lifting DADT will NOT work the same way.
Yes, keep the pressure on. NO, don't throw Obama to the sharks because he's not tossing out DADT with the wave of his magical Commander-in-Chief hand. I have every confidence the ban will be lifted. Give him the opportunity to persuade the DoD that this will work. It is absolutely crucial that this be done in a way that will not compromise the troops.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Liveblogging the Washington State House Debate and Vote
onIN FAVOR OF GAY MARRIAGE by Eli Sanders -
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Jeff Bezos' Racist, Pro-Life, Anti-Evolution, Rape-Apologist Search Engine by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
"The law at the time required a prosecution." by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (20) RSS