Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, February 1, 2010
Politics / Homo Obama: DADT "Just Wrong"
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM
This story in the NYT is heartening:
But it was in Oval Office strategy sessions to review court cases challenging the ban—ones that could reach the Supreme Court—that Mr. Obama faced the fact that if he did not change the policy, his administration would be forced to defend publicly the constitutionality of a law he had long opposed.As a participant recounted one of the sessions, Mr. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that the law was “just wrong.” Mr. Obama told them, the participant said, that he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight.
But in 2010, he told them, this would be a priority. He got no objections.
Great, good, feeling hopey again about the repeal of DADT. But, again, Obama could suspend the enforcement of DADT today while Congress works on a solution, just as his head of Homeland Security suspended enforcement of the widow's penalty while Congress works on a solution. And Obama described the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as abhorrent and promised to repeal it but his administration nevertheless defended the law in court. But I'm prepared to take yes for an answer, of course, on DADT. As depressing as the lack of movement on the big promises—end DADT, repeal DOMA—there has been action on ending the HIV Travel Ban (set in motion by the Bush administration), and hate crimes legislation.
1
Hey, did you notice Obama's new budget deficit of $1.6 TRILLION?
On top of this year's $1.4 TRILLION?
Way more then the CBO's estimate of $1.35 TRILLION just last week.
And this one year's deficit is bigger than Bush's total deficit for 8 YEARS?!
And the deficit will still be $1TRILLION a year 10 years from now?
There's some news for you.
And if that doesn't make you shit your panties you're just not paying close enough attention....
On top of this year's $1.4 TRILLION?
Way more then the CBO's estimate of $1.35 TRILLION just last week.
And this one year's deficit is bigger than Bush's total deficit for 8 YEARS?!
And the deficit will still be $1TRILLION a year 10 years from now?
There's some news for you.
And if that doesn't make you shit your panties you're just not paying close enough attention....
2
@1, and how much of that deficit is because of Bush's policies, both domestic and foreign?
Yeah, that's what I thought, now shut your nasty snatch up and let the grown-ups comment.
Yeah, that's what I thought, now shut your nasty snatch up and let the grown-ups comment.
3
Great. You forgot to mention ENDA, though.
I hope everyone is making sure your Senators and House Representatives know your feelings on the issues.
And may I also add, although it is a bit off topic, you need to let your Senators and Reps. know how you feel about the proposed law in Uganda as well. Word is that there is going to be a big march to rally support for passing it on 17 Feb., that's Ash Wednesday for those few who use the liturgical calendar or who would understand the irony of choosing that date.
I hope everyone is making sure your Senators and House Representatives know your feelings on the issues.
And may I also add, although it is a bit off topic, you need to let your Senators and Reps. know how you feel about the proposed law in Uganda as well. Word is that there is going to be a big march to rally support for passing it on 17 Feb., that's Ash Wednesday for those few who use the liturgical calendar or who would understand the irony of choosing that date.
4
"he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight."
This sounds like the kind of logic and sound decision-making that I voted for, and any reasonable person with a sense of perspective should now STOP CARPING ABOUT EXECUTIVE ORDER. Most of the whiners whined just as loud when Bush used executive orders to do any-and-all sundry things, but now they want Obama to abuse his office for them. You can't have it both ways, folks...
This sounds like the kind of logic and sound decision-making that I voted for, and any reasonable person with a sense of perspective should now STOP CARPING ABOUT EXECUTIVE ORDER. Most of the whiners whined just as loud when Bush used executive orders to do any-and-all sundry things, but now they want Obama to abuse his office for them. You can't have it both ways, folks...
6
This is why the rest of the world thinks America is so fucked up. They're saying the repeal could be a multi-stage process that will take *years.* Why pussyfoot around when this ridiculous law could simply be abolished with the stroke of a pen?
7
I wonder, too, if it is strategically better to keep it active over non-enforcement- think of it this way, if X number of people are making phone calls and being actively pissed off at the continued injustices, how many people would actively care if it were on the books but not enforced? Half? A quarter? A tenth?
If DADT weren't being enforced, the argument would be "Why 'waste' the time and energy to get it repealed if no one is being harmed?" Sadly, I think too many people would buy it.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...
If DADT weren't being enforced, the argument would be "Why 'waste' the time and energy to get it repealed if no one is being harmed?" Sadly, I think too many people would buy it.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying...
8
This makes perfect sense that it could take several years to find a way to politely ask the GOP for permission, especially when they are already feeling grumpy about the health care bill.
9
Kabul embassy incidents, low morale among the troops, an intensifying of conflicts and reductions in the number of enlistments is more wrong. This is one issue concerning our nation's security that the President must set aside and leave for the generals to evaluate first.
10
#9:
The Kabul Embassy "incidents," as you put it, were instances of hazing by ArmourGroup, a private BRITISH company that is not part of the US military. Hazing rituals are not an indication of homosexuality and this incident has nothing to do with gays in the military. Thank you for pointing that out.
Low morale among troops: I fully agree with what you're saying: people who are forced into hiding at risk of their careers because of their sexuality are liable to have low morale, a good argument for repealing DADT.
Intensification of conflicts: another good argument for scrapping a policy that requires the military to fire qualified people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Reduction in enlistment numbers: again, I agree this is a good argument for scrapping DADT.
I'm amazed at you Loveschild. For once you're making some sense.
The Kabul Embassy "incidents," as you put it, were instances of hazing by ArmourGroup, a private BRITISH company that is not part of the US military. Hazing rituals are not an indication of homosexuality and this incident has nothing to do with gays in the military. Thank you for pointing that out.
Low morale among troops: I fully agree with what you're saying: people who are forced into hiding at risk of their careers because of their sexuality are liable to have low morale, a good argument for repealing DADT.
Intensification of conflicts: another good argument for scrapping a policy that requires the military to fire qualified people purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Reduction in enlistment numbers: again, I agree this is a good argument for scrapping DADT.
I'm amazed at you Loveschild. For once you're making some sense.
11
Radically restructuring military service will take time to do right. Why is that so hard to believe?
12
9, Lovechild, are you capable of making an argument for your views without resorting to lies and distortions?
13
Please correct me (politely) if I'm wrong, but if he corrects DADT by executive order, can't the next president easily reinstate it by executive order? And it's very possible that the hate/fear-mongering Republicans will manage to steal the next election. So doesn't it make more sense in the long run to have it changed by Congress?
14
Patti: I believe what people are suggesting is that he halt enforcement of DADT by executive order while waiting for it to be legally repealed.
15
#11: repealing DADT is not "radically restructuring" the military. It simply removes a harmful, discriminatory policy. Gays are ALREADY serving in the military. Repealing DADT only means that, like everyone else, they can't be fired purely on the basis of their sexual orientation.
16
@14 While that sounds reasonable, it's still an abuse of power, and politically stupid. While I strongly support the repeal of DADT, do am absolutely opposed to the President signing an executive order to repeal it.
17
@13 Yes and so can Congress and perhaps in a full ban. Meaning that the military can go back to prior policy. So while some gay activists might be pushing for this they need to be careful about what they're wishing because it can backfire on their asses.
18
Don't be stupid, Loveschild. You're the one whose always pushing for the government to do the wishes of the majority: the majority of Americans, including both people in the military and Republicans, want DADT repealed.
20
I understand there is a policy change to halt discharges (and perhaps investigations?) based on third-party reporting. I think Obama would also score political points for halting discharges is Arabic or terrorism specialists and hailing such a move as "promoting security."
22
2
So two years in we'll still be blaming Bush?
OK.
That puts 9-11 firmly in Clinton's basket.
And that $1 Trillion 2019 deficit, is that Bush's also?
Adults, by all means, continue saddling your grandchildren with debt....
So two years in we'll still be blaming Bush?
OK.
That puts 9-11 firmly in Clinton's basket.
And that $1 Trillion 2019 deficit, is that Bush's also?
Adults, by all means, continue saddling your grandchildren with debt....
23
Not that it should matter what the majority wants. Ending discrimination against black people in the military wasn't put to a popular vote. Neither was ending discrimination against women serving in combat. Both were highly unpopular proposals, but in both cases ending that discrimination was the right thing to do and in both cases ending that discrimination was positive both for the military and for the country.
This is precisely the same thing. By some estimates 70,000 currently active service personnel are gay. 13,500 have been discharged since DADT went into effect for NO OTHER REASON than that they are gay. Only the most ignorant, hateful, or stupid person would be unable to see why this is wrong (and yes, I know America is full of people like that).
This is precisely the same thing. By some estimates 70,000 currently active service personnel are gay. 13,500 have been discharged since DADT went into effect for NO OTHER REASON than that they are gay. Only the most ignorant, hateful, or stupid person would be unable to see why this is wrong (and yes, I know America is full of people like that).
24
Wait for tomorrow, Dan... Gates and Mullen are laying out the repeal strategy Tuesday to Congress. And according to what I've heard from friends at DOD, the language is more aggressive and comprehensive than anything the president has laid out before.
25
In the end, other than being Commander in Chief, the President's primary power is the veto pen and the budget.
Just defund prosecutions and say No Cash For You for anything other than what you want. Nothing they can do about it.
Just defund prosecutions and say No Cash For You for anything other than what you want. Nothing they can do about it.
26
It's ridiculous that we should still be blaming Bush for the mess we're in. That would be like still blaming Hitler for the Nazis.
The Conservative mindset is so much more forgiving. Granted, that's mostly because they have a hard time remembering things, but still, it's the thought (or lack thereof) that counts with them....
As for DADT, I applaud Obama's attempts to get this thing repealed the right way, rather than by executive order. It's frustrating, but not surprising, that it is taking so long, but it would be nice to see the US congress officially repeal this idiotic policy.
The Conservative mindset is so much more forgiving. Granted, that's mostly because they have a hard time remembering things, but still, it's the thought (or lack thereof) that counts with them....
As for DADT, I applaud Obama's attempts to get this thing repealed the right way, rather than by executive order. It's frustrating, but not surprising, that it is taking so long, but it would be nice to see the US congress officially repeal this idiotic policy.
28
@17: The difference is that an executive order could be countermanded by a future president quickly and quietly. A law passed by Congress would have to be repealed the same way. And since DADT is unpopular and seen widely as unnecessary and improper, I doubt that congresspersons, no matter how conservative and bigoted they may be, will be able to find enough compatriots willing to risk their careers over reinstating it. Suck it, you cuntwhorebitch.
@19: Yes they do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
I know, it's the Washington Post, but in this case it illustrates how even a somewhat conservative skew doesn't change the facts.
@22: The difference is that the Clinton administration passed intelligence about Al Qaeda on to their successors, including briefs warning of terrorist activity consistent with preparation for hijackings and even some warning that Al Qaeda planned to use passenger jets as missiles. Bush and his underlings, however, did not look into this because they were more focused on Iraq.
Bush, however, was a major force for deregulation, and his policies to a good extent caused the recession we are facing today. Admittedly, a lot of the stimulus bill (whose debt you blame on Obama) was set in place in the last days of his administration, but the harm he did far outweighs the good, in terms of the economy. But at least there were no domestic terrorist attacks during his term, right?
@19: Yes they do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
I know, it's the Washington Post, but in this case it illustrates how even a somewhat conservative skew doesn't change the facts.
@22: The difference is that the Clinton administration passed intelligence about Al Qaeda on to their successors, including briefs warning of terrorist activity consistent with preparation for hijackings and even some warning that Al Qaeda planned to use passenger jets as missiles. Bush and his underlings, however, did not look into this because they were more focused on Iraq.
Bush, however, was a major force for deregulation, and his policies to a good extent caused the recession we are facing today. Admittedly, a lot of the stimulus bill (whose debt you blame on Obama) was set in place in the last days of his administration, but the harm he did far outweighs the good, in terms of the economy. But at least there were no domestic terrorist attacks during his term, right?
29
Cool. I hope this means we'll see less of the Obama bashing posts on SLOG. They are divisive, self-defeating, and as the NYT article shows, completely off base in ascribing apathy for gay rights to the president.
At this point, smart progressive activists should drop everything and focus on the economy and health care reform. If neither of these situations improve, it won't matter what Obama and congress do about DATD and DOMA because the republican administration & congress will reverse them in 2012.
At this point, smart progressive activists should drop everything and focus on the economy and health care reform. If neither of these situations improve, it won't matter what Obama and congress do about DATD and DOMA because the republican administration & congress will reverse them in 2012.
30
@5 baconcat, it's painfully obvious that the armed forces, as currently constituted, don't want gay people to enlist; I suggest that gay folks simply refrain from signing into a system that fears and victimizes them. If gay Americans are so eager to get they arms and legs blown off, why not just do volunteer work in a warzone with the red cross or some other group that will put them in harm's way without questioning their sexual makeup?
I'm eager to see the end of DADT but further expanding the power of executive order isn't my preference...
I'm eager to see the end of DADT but further expanding the power of executive order isn't my preference...
31
words.
words.
words.
Repeal it by executive order. I would love to see the public reaction of a future President rescinding that order and firing thousands of out service members.
Oh and LovesChildPorn - Truman integrated the services by executive order (9981) in the midst of the Cold War.
words.
words.
Repeal it by executive order. I would love to see the public reaction of a future President rescinding that order and firing thousands of out service members.
Oh and LovesChildPorn - Truman integrated the services by executive order (9981) in the midst of the Cold War.
32
Executive Orders are on shaky grounds, legally and politically, not to mention morally. As fucked as DADT is, I don't think the higher-order structure of the system is worth further compromising just for it. W's abuse of Executive Orders needs to be reversed. Not to mention with DADT specifically, if Obama decrees an end to DADT and somewhere down the road DADT is upheld by some less or equally murky legal process, the people who've outed themselves are fucked.
Then again, perhaps once out soldiers have demonstrated their value and lack of harm to the system. I think maybe Obama's starting to play with calling people out on their bullshit (see: GOP Retreat), maybe he'll go to the point of forcing social issues temporarily set right to show grandma the sky hasn't fall, whereupon they'll stand aside as it's made permanent.
Also, may be too late for the EO thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uni…
Then again, perhaps once out soldiers have demonstrated their value and lack of harm to the system. I think maybe Obama's starting to play with calling people out on their bullshit (see: GOP Retreat), maybe he'll go to the point of forcing social issues temporarily set right to show grandma the sky hasn't fall, whereupon they'll stand aside as it's made permanent.
Also, may be too late for the EO thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Uni…
33
Point one: Funny, Dan, you didn't quote the opening line of the NYT article:
"President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military."
Yes, repeatedly, over the past year, contradicting the "Obama's not doing anything for DADT" meme so popular among the Veruca-Salt-wing of the LGBT movement lately.
Point two: Being able to do something suddenly and quickly and being able to do something permanently and safely isn't always the same thing, and isn't the same thing with Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Pursue.
It was an underestimation of the situation by Clinton, who thought he could--easily--do away with the military ban on homosexuals with the stroke of a pen, which directly led to the DADTDP mess to begin with. Is Obama overcompensatingly careful this time around? You bet he is. He's building on the work that's happened in the 16 years since then, and because the policy is Federal Law, wants it gone permanently, which only Congress can do, rather than unilaterally act, lending credence to the "Obama's Forcing this on the Military" meme which would only empower the Religous Right and the Republicans, who'd make a mint in fundraising in the following 24 hours.
By having Congress unwrite their own law, the end of the ban has much more "Will of the People" credibility, which isn't just nice windowdressing, but will help smooth implementation of the policy itself.
Why are so many queers--who themselves have never served before--screaming to end the ban instantly? I've talked to several gay men who were once in the service--and to two who currently are in the service--who are very concerned about exactly how the end to the ban is implemented, fearing not only for their own lives but also the safety and cohesion of the unit--because as much as they care about their own lives and rights, they also care about the service they and others give to this country.
People think the integration of the military by Truman happened overnight. It didn't, it took years, and there was still a lot of chaos in the process, including many other ways in which blacks were unfairly drummed out of the service (being told meetings were at different times then being charged with being AWOL). This time, Obama is making sure there's internal, institutional support--and preparation--before acting too quickly, unilaterally, or unwisely. It might be good politics, but it also just might be the safest thing for queers in uniform.
The devil, as they say, Dan, is always in the details. Let's get rid of the ban, but let's do it right, and let's not assume that because Obama is going slow, it's because he's abandoning his promises or some stealth-homophobe. Maybe, just maybe, he wants--and knows how--to do it right.
More...
"President Obama and top Pentagon officials met repeatedly over the past year about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the law that bans openly gay members of the military."
Yes, repeatedly, over the past year, contradicting the "Obama's not doing anything for DADT" meme so popular among the Veruca-Salt-wing of the LGBT movement lately.
Point two: Being able to do something suddenly and quickly and being able to do something permanently and safely isn't always the same thing, and isn't the same thing with Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Pursue.
It was an underestimation of the situation by Clinton, who thought he could--easily--do away with the military ban on homosexuals with the stroke of a pen, which directly led to the DADTDP mess to begin with. Is Obama overcompensatingly careful this time around? You bet he is. He's building on the work that's happened in the 16 years since then, and because the policy is Federal Law, wants it gone permanently, which only Congress can do, rather than unilaterally act, lending credence to the "Obama's Forcing this on the Military" meme which would only empower the Religous Right and the Republicans, who'd make a mint in fundraising in the following 24 hours.
By having Congress unwrite their own law, the end of the ban has much more "Will of the People" credibility, which isn't just nice windowdressing, but will help smooth implementation of the policy itself.
Why are so many queers--who themselves have never served before--screaming to end the ban instantly? I've talked to several gay men who were once in the service--and to two who currently are in the service--who are very concerned about exactly how the end to the ban is implemented, fearing not only for their own lives but also the safety and cohesion of the unit--because as much as they care about their own lives and rights, they also care about the service they and others give to this country.
People think the integration of the military by Truman happened overnight. It didn't, it took years, and there was still a lot of chaos in the process, including many other ways in which blacks were unfairly drummed out of the service (being told meetings were at different times then being charged with being AWOL). This time, Obama is making sure there's internal, institutional support--and preparation--before acting too quickly, unilaterally, or unwisely. It might be good politics, but it also just might be the safest thing for queers in uniform.
The devil, as they say, Dan, is always in the details. Let's get rid of the ban, but let's do it right, and let's not assume that because Obama is going slow, it's because he's abandoning his promises or some stealth-homophobe. Maybe, just maybe, he wants--and knows how--to do it right.
34
I want a show of hands here of anyone (gay or straight) who has been in the military. Because if you haven't, your comments (for or against repeal) don't carry much weight.
36
Chris @ 34,
Consider me with out much weight. Still, I'm going to stand opposed to discrimination in all its forms.
Consider me with out much weight. Still, I'm going to stand opposed to discrimination in all its forms.
37
@34: I'm sure plenty of soldiers opposed the racial integration of the armed forces. Does that mean that politicians shouldn't have done it?
38
@ 35, 36, 37
It's just that changing a military policy, ANY military policy, is not easy. I doubt the integration of the military back in the 40's was a slam-bang affair. I'm sure that was a years-long thing as well. Being opposed to DADT is one thing, but saying it should be stopped, NOW, TODAY is just empty rhetoric with no reality behind it. It's not as easy as that.
I will say this: I think this actually will go pretty easy. I suspect that top brass is tired of losing competent personnel because of the policy, and I also suspect that the vast majority of service members really don't give a shit. They'll serve and get along with gay folks in their units, and they'll just deal with it.
Full disclosure: I've never been in the military (I've had problems respecting authority in the course my life, so I thought it was for the best that I stay away from military service), but I've known a lot of folks who have. The military isn't this evil, evil, bigoted, evil death machine you may think it is. It's just...the military.
Kim, I'm quite sure you don't have too much weight.
It's just that changing a military policy, ANY military policy, is not easy. I doubt the integration of the military back in the 40's was a slam-bang affair. I'm sure that was a years-long thing as well. Being opposed to DADT is one thing, but saying it should be stopped, NOW, TODAY is just empty rhetoric with no reality behind it. It's not as easy as that.
I will say this: I think this actually will go pretty easy. I suspect that top brass is tired of losing competent personnel because of the policy, and I also suspect that the vast majority of service members really don't give a shit. They'll serve and get along with gay folks in their units, and they'll just deal with it.
Full disclosure: I've never been in the military (I've had problems respecting authority in the course my life, so I thought it was for the best that I stay away from military service), but I've known a lot of folks who have. The military isn't this evil, evil, bigoted, evil death machine you may think it is. It's just...the military.
Kim, I'm quite sure you don't have too much weight.
39
Of course it's that easy. There are plenty of rules already in place about conduct that cover any eventuality. It's a simple matter of scrapping that one dumb policy. Done and done.
40
One day, women will be allowed in combat positions, on submarines, flying combat sorties, and so on.
Think of it.
Considering how long it's taken to integrate gays, I suspect women will be integrated...oh...in my lifetime.
Maybe.
Think of it.
Considering how long it's taken to integrate gays, I suspect women will be integrated...oh...in my lifetime.
Maybe.
41
My sister is in the Navy, serving in Japan. She knows a lot of gay service members. She also knows a lot of straight ones. No one has or likely will report their fellows. The military is a brotherhood and they don't snitch on their friends. I've asked her about her opinion on DADT and popular opinion among most of them is, "get rid of it. It hurts more than helps."
I'm not in the Air Force quite yet, although I'm working on enlistment. I don't know if that's what @34 wants, but I support a complete repeal of DADT. Fuck that. I want to know someone's got my back, not who's on their back, straight or gay.
I'm not in the Air Force quite yet, although I'm working on enlistment. I don't know if that's what @34 wants, but I support a complete repeal of DADT. Fuck that. I want to know someone's got my back, not who's on their back, straight or gay.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
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
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"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
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (41) RSS