Don't ask, don't tell, don't change
 

Why do I get the feeling Obama's playing both ends of this issue? He openly campaigned against DA,DT during the election and now he's writing positive notes to people who are being dismissed under DA,DT. At the same time he's seemingly doing nothing to change the policy. In fact here it appears he's supporting it. Is he engaged behind the scene to change the policy or is he being a *gasp!* politician regarding this matter.

Personally I think it's sad we treat a percentage of our citizens this way. I think gays should have the rights everyone else has, whether in the military or not. I'm also troubled when I read that people were tossed for being gay when they possessed such valuable skills such as translators.

Anyone else have thought on what Obama's doing regarding this matter?

Obama's in-action on DA/DT, and DOMA/Gay Marriage is extremely disappointing to me.

Despite being an Obama fanboi, I must admit that I'm also disappointed by his inaction on this issue.

He's running for reelection.

The country is center-left for the moment, but a lot of people out there are still scared to death of the homosexuality issue. Considering that Prop 8 passed, I'm convinced we need more significant social change before governmental change can occur on this issue. New England has been able to move forward because the people were already convinced that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. Until we can do that in all the blue states, it wouldn't be politically smart for President Obama to move on the issue. It's a real shame, too, because there are a lot of people that are victimized by homosexual inequality.

That's no damn excuse. :shakehead:

Politicians should do what is right, not what will get them re-elected. I thought (think) Obama would do the right thing, regardless of how it would affect his chance for re-election.

It's a sticky issue.

We want politicians to 'do the right thing,' but often fail to recognize that opinions regarding what constitutes the right thing vary widely.

I honestly think Obama failed to understand during his campaign exactly how restrictive the political world is. After watching some of the decisions he's made, I've come to the conclusion that there was a lot of simple naivete and optimism there. Now that he's in office it seems he's finding that his powers aren't nearly as far reaching as he had assumed they would be.

Repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would be a positive move, in my opinion. However, the gains made need to be balanced against the costs incurred. If repealing this policy causes him to step on some toes which in turn makes it harder for him to do some of the other things he wants to do, then he needs to prioritize.

Don't Ask Don't Tell is dated and quaint. I've no doubt that it's days are numbered. At the same time, I could see it being held back as a second term sort of issue.

But unlike Bush, Obama is influential and charismatic. Don't you think that him coming out strongly in favor of gay rights would set an example that many who might be on the fence might follow?

It's possible, but it's a huge gamble. President Obama and his team have to deal with the economy first and foremost right now, and they are asking for a lot of faith from the American people considering how unpopular the bailouts have been. If he goes too liberal (in this case, supporting a perfectly legitimate cause of civil rights for homosexuals), he's going to scare away a lot of the center that ventured left to elect him. As much as it pains me, there are still a lot of moderate people in this country that are petrified of anything even remotely different, and considering how hard the right has pushed to attack homosexuals even going so far as to win California, Obama would be in for a huge and bitter war. That outright war with the evangelical right would endanger his economic plans.

If the economy looks better next year, I fully expect Obama to move on to education, health care, and civil rights more aggressively, but for now everything has to be about some measure of stability so that people can get back to work. As important as allowing gay marriage and repealing of DA/DT are, 10-15% of the country out of work and massive economic instability has to take priority.

If I were president, I'd be fighting the war at full steam on every front especially civil rights, but I probably wouldn't be elected president because I'm too far left (among numerous other factors).

If this is going to change, it has to change from the ground up not the top down. Trickle-down societal progression stands as much a chance at success as trickle-down economics. This has to happen at a grassroots level, with campaigns to spread awareness and debunk lies.

This is just politics, and it isn't surprising, nor all that disappointing to me.

America is too conservative for too many changes at once, especially considering this particular institution.

Give it time. Let's do the marriage thing first.

Part of why the last president to make a case about this ended up wishy-washy is because you can't fucking win. DADT was a complete cave-in to hardliners on both sides of the issue. It was probably the best compromise Clinton could have reached, but it was most definitely a compromise. Because you can't win with gay rights. Observe the flack Obama is getting for actively putting off the issue. Can you imagine what the Right would say if he stepped up and did the right thing?

You know he wants to. He's said as much. But politically, you act, you've got a fight on your hands, you don't act, you can postpone that fight to another day, meanwhile you can focus on things that are issues affecting many more Americans than the question of gays in the military.

i'm confused. do we not elect representatives to carry out the will of the people anymore?

dk, "the people" are not all-knowing and wise. Sometimes they are stupid. Case in point: segregation. The majority of folks in your home state of Texas would still have some citizens attending separate schools and drinking from different water fountains if it weren't for some decisions by folks that went against popular opinion at the time.

that is irrelevant, it's also what causes alot of the strife in this nation. yes, some groups of people are pretty damned ignorant, but so what? if it's a small group, they are minimized. In the episode you reference, look at the harshness as a result of the 'forcible' actions that they weren't prepared for? It was shameful, but that was their way of life to choose. They are representatives, not rulers.

It's not irrelevant if chosen way of life is found to be constitutional. Discrimination is unconstitutional, was then, is now.

dk - there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about a represenative or Senator having to "do the will of the people". They'll do that if they're smart, but occassionally you'll see someone make a principled stand. Jinn's point is that if they're making such a stand, they're doing so knowing full well that it's an unpopular opinion with the "folks back home" but an issue that needs support.

But you're not so obtuse that you don't know that already. I'll play your game, though, and ask you what the point of this line of questioning really is.

Well at least Dick Cheney is speaking up for once about this. Honestly I think Obama is playing it politically. I think Wil is right (it does occasionally happen) in that the country is not as far left as many people feel right now. Although I support the abolition of DA/DT, it would absolutely be an opportunity for a resurgence in the Republican Party. Ask anyone in California after Prop 8, many lifelong Democrats voted against Gay Marriage especially in the Black/Hispanic populace.

Honestly I'm being more and more impressed with Obama, concentrate on international/economic issues and kick many of these cans down the road for later on.

As for the "do what's right, not what's popular". That's what Bush did. He did what he thought was right, regardless of the popularity. "Right" is person specific and can easily get you into trouble with those who see differently.

I think Prop 8 passed more because the lying propagandists succeed in fooling the public (stuff about homosexuality in schools and forcing churches to marry homosexuals), but yeah the country on the whole isn't prepared to accept homosexuals as equal yet. That means for me and everyone else that's fighting for equality, our focus shouldn't be as much on elected officials as it should be on discrediting the liars and spreading truthful information.

This is a year 4 issue (actually it would be a year 5 or 6 issue). I'm sorry, but there are more pressing issues and you don't want to give reason to people in the center to vote for the other guys in the next congressional election in 1.5 years.

are you seriously trying to tell me that the framers of the US Constitution set up the representative system so that districts could elect leaders to make a principled stand, even though that stand would be directly opposed to what the people in that district want?

In a representative democracy it's the responsibility of the voter to choose someone that represents them. If I choose for someone that disagrees with me on something, I don't get to cry foul when he or she doesn't side with my belief on that issue in his or her service. You're talking about direct democracy where the representative is just a puppet of constituents... that's not the system we're in.

It's nice to know that you think my most basic civil right -- my equality under the law -- is not a pressing issue. :shakehead: In taking your own rights for granted, you are discounting those of yours which I can only wish for.

We have waited over 20 years, how long do you expect us to quietly wait while we fund the campaigns of people who claim to be our "fierce advocates?" What is your advice to the gay community who has consistently been sidelined while "more important issues" like corporate welfare and starting wars have been put forward? "Shut up and pay up?"

The gay rights movement has momentum, and now is the time. Obama needs to stop sitting on his hands and move forward with the "change" he has been promising if he wants his GayATM to resume spitting out cash. :P

Obama's suppose to meet with several human rights leaders on the anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, next Monday I think. My hope is he walks out of that meeting and says this oppression as gone on long enough. I'm signing an executive order to stop all actions under the UCMJ until congress has time to repeal DA/DT. I think that's the right thing to do. I hope he does it. I fear he won't.

And I think gays and lesbians have been waiting longer then 20yrs.

seretogis: I understand your impatience.

It's difficult for those of us who are outside the GBLT community to relate to some issues. I think this is one of them. Certainly it is important, and it is a civil rights issue. At the same time, politicking is inevitable.

I'm removed one degree further, because I'm not an American citizen. Honestly, things like don't ask don't tell confuse the hell out of me. I really don't see how a soldier's sexual orientation is in any way relevant -- the pertinent question is whether or not he is capable of carrying out the duties required of the role. It's a simple yes/no, and there's very little else that impacts it.

The she is implicit. I default to singular male pronoun in a lot of cases, and often don't bother to clarify, but in the context of this discussion it's relevant.

It seems to me that Obama is being very carefully neutral on a lot of issues, and that this is one of them. I think the man has Plans, and needs to consider every move from as many angles as possible in order to carry out those Plans effectively. That's how I'm reading the situation, anyway. If there are other items on his agenda and if pushing don't ask don't tell has the potential to impact those other items, then don't ask don't tell gets placed on the back burner. It's not ideal, but it may be necessary. Seeing a US President who actually thinks about what he's doing is reason enough to be guardedly optimistic, and I'm willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt on this.

It's easy for me to say sit tight and be patient, because this isn't my issue. It's harder to do when you're directly involved. So long as the movement continues to be toward more social freedoms rather than less, don't ask don't tell has a limited lifespan.

Sit tight and be patient.

I appears he is listening to senior and retired officers, probably because he doesnt have any miltary experience himself.

BTW, that is PRECISELY what the framers had in mind. The framers were concerned about excessive power in the hands of what at the time were largely illiterate and ill-informed masses. They designed us a representative democracy so that we could elect our schooled elite to represent our interests for us.

Going to "framer's intent" on this one is a losing argument, because the framers were working in a very different world from the one we're living in now, and it's as incomprehensible to us as our world would be to them. Or at least, any "framer's intent" that coincides too neatly with one's OWN intent ought to be looked at with skepticism.

Why would he want to do that?? It isn't like the gays are all going to vote Republican in the next election. In fact of all the voting groups gays are probably the least of his worries. He already has the gay vote in his pocket and like someone else has already pointed out he needs the "middle of the roaders" to insure he's reelected. Somethng might {might is being used very loosely} shake loose on the gay rights front after the next Presidential election. The guise of "being to busy with the economy" is being used to buy time until then.

Just another perfect example of the major parties using their base to get elected and forgetting all those promises after the votes cast.

Don't most advanced countries accept gay soldiers? The first that comes to mind is Israel, but I know many more countries have no problem with it.

This is a let down. With the newer generations and future generations being more tolerant and accepting than those in the past, hopefully they can get something passed soon to allow gays in the military.

I didn't hear it in the video, but does anyone know when and if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy will be looked at again?

I mentioned this in another thread: Canada's first gay military wedding occurred 5 years ago.

LGBT people have been allowed to serve in the Canadian military since 1992 (that's 18 years for those keeping score).

Sexual orientation and the Canadian military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a hard time thinking it would be a year 3/4 issue now, given that Republicans can use this in the November to bring out more voters. And forget about it if the Republicans/Tea Party wins some seats in two months.

This isn't personal, it's political. There is a time and place for these things, and the Democrats need to be more focused on proving they are taking the country in the right direction. And being able to get voters out because their ideas on where the country needs to go are better.

The only reason I even care about this issue is because I think the military has become too right-wing.

http://blogs.trb.com/news/opinion/ch...gs2.gif?ref=nf

This vote was a fucking disgrace.

The American people are not scared of the homosexuality issue.

Poll: Most Want "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

This, even without specificity regarding what "openly gay" is. Some envision San Francisco gay parades, and other envision their gay neighbors who are pretty normal - when presented with the term "openly gay".

Homosexuals have been serving in the US military before this nation gained independence. Initially the issue was not about a declaration of homosexuality that would lead to discharge but actually engaging in certain sexual behaviors. I have no problems with military codes restricting certain sexual activity of or between people in the military on active duty. The issue of a declaration of homosexuality from inception has been counter productive in my view. On those occasions when the military allowed the harassment of people because they were different in any respect indicates a clear lack of military discipline and leadership. The Clinton compromise was wrong from the beginning and is wrong now. All that is needed is a commander-in-chief who won't tolerate harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation, sex, race, religion, national origin, and even age in my view. If a person can do their job, let them do it.

Obama was never serious about most of the things he promised

o blah blah blah ace.
the vote in the senate went as it did because of the republicans. because of cheap stupid partisan nonsense.
for fuck's sake, be real for once.

How about Democrats presenting the issue alone, without a bunch of other pet issues. Political gamesmanship is what the vote was about.

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

I support the repeal of DADT, but I would have voted against what was voted on Tuesday.

What is not clear or real about that?

Your posturing of it as a "Clinton compromise" was a little unnecessary, but I'm delightfully surprised that you're at least on the right side of this issue.

I wasn't happy with the other stuff thrown on this bill, either.

Eh. I agree with ASU. It's an important issue, but I'm not going to vote for the anti-DADT politician over the politician who's better on the economy, or more respectful of civil rights, or opposed to abortion. There are more important issues, and gay rights issues don't get to cut to the front of the line in my mind just because it's a more personally compelling issue or less debateable.

On the other hand... I don't see the risk for Obama that others are seeing. If the promises didn't lose him the election, why would the actions lose him reelection?

You'd think this would be a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment.

bg -

For the record, I am for gays openly serving in the Military.

I believe the argument against the 14th amendment is that we are talking about behavior, not "state". Someone can discriminate against blacks...because they are obviously black. No one can discriminate on your bedroom activities unless they know about them.

I've said it before. I'll share a foxhole with anyone who shoots straight and fights bravely. I don't care if you think I look cute.

Let's see how Perry v. Schwarzenegger plays out. The Court already laid the groundwork in Griswold, Loving, and Zablocki. I for one, would be surprised if it did not come out in favor of the same-sex couples.

Taking the 14th's Due Process concept of 'privacy' and it's 'respect for the marital bedroom' it does seem like such a policy would be in contravention of the 14th Amendment.

Why? Given the number of mentions of Republicans blocking the repeal of the bill, I thought it important to point out the role of the other party.

Also, to be clear - the votes to repeal DADT are there, and they have been there from the beginning of Obama's term. Democrats talk a good game, but they don't deliver.

I also know what game Republicans play with the issue. Many elected Republican don't like DADT but they don't have the courage to vote for repeal or hide behind "military leaders". The nation simply needed an elected Democratic President to deliver on the promise, and it will be done - the nation will move on - the military will adapt, in fact be relieved that this controversy is over.