Obama Wants Quick 'Change,' Not 'Repeal' Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

[IndianaGreen]

Another of those "Change You Can Believe In". How about Socialism: change you can count on? A socialist President would have done away with DADT on DAY ONE!

Israel has had LGBTs serving openly for years, and there is no controversy about it. Why is Obama more concerned about offending fundies that never voted for him than he is about LGBTs that put him in the White House?

Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

First Posted: 07-13-09 06:31 PM | Updated: 07-13-09 10:18 PM

President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the White House was powerless in seeking such a reversal, forced to wait for the legislative branch to act first. And, in terminology likely to anger the gay rights community, the president called for a "change" rather than "repeal" of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with (Defense Secretary) Bob Gates as well as Admiral (Mike) Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see (the law) changed?" Cooper interjected.

"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/obama-wants-quick-change_n_231061.html

[merh]

1. where does he say "not a repeal"

I read his statements to mean he wants congress to change the law. A repeal is a change.

[IndianaGreen]

2. LGBTs are treated like Palestinians

We are promised a lot, but given the same old shit, over and over again.

[merh]

3. That doesn't answer my question

Where does he say "no repeal" and isn't a repeal a change?

I have problems with people splitting hairs to get offended and that is how this article reads. A repeal is a change. To do away with DADT is a change.

[IndianaGreen]

5. My take, using Bob Gates as a cue, is that they will keep DADT on the books

but they will not discharge servicemembers that have been outed by someone else. This is like saying that a black person will not longer will be forced to give up their seat on the bus to a white person, but we still keep the separate but equal restrictions.

[merh]

8. I don't see that.

I see that he is working to get congress to change DADT "in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist" and he wants it sooner rather than later.

Guess you don't like that. I don't understand why.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Please point out to any statement in which Obama publicly calls for Congress to repeal DADT

and I don't mean a statement told behind closed doors to a few dozen of LGBT donors, or to a LGBT magazine.

[merh]

12. You don't want a repeal, that puts you back to the laws before DADT

and those laws were more unjust than DADT.

You want the law changed, just as Obama is saying in the interview that is the subject of the OP.

"I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

Obama wants the change sooner rather than later.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Once DADT is repealed, Obama can do what Truman did

to integrate the army. What we need is an all inclusive ENDA, plus repeal of DADT and DOMA.

[merh]

16. What I don't understand is why the LGBT community doesn't

get behind the Equal Rights Amendment.

That would protect everyone's rights.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Jesus Land will never vote for it

Indiana was the first state to ratify ERA.

[merh]

18. All that is needed is 3 more states to vote for it

The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.
http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/

Which 15 states have not ratified the ERA?

The 15 states whose legislatures have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.

I think Arizona, Illinois, Florida and Nevada would be states that should be targeted.

But hell, Congress first introduced the ERA in 1923, whats a few years to wait for equality. .

[BR_Parkway]

20. I guess you haven't followed the DADT history with the Obama

admin - the "fierce advocacy" of our rights to get the gay dollars, volunteers and votes that became the re-worded, watered down version on the White House website - the total denial that he's made that as CinC that he doesn't have the power to institute an administrative stop of the discharges in the mean time (in spite of numerous groups, including a letter from 77 Congressmen) saying he does have that authority - coupled with the rabid defense of DOMA and the total silence from the White House except a joke about 6 States passing marriage equality laws during the past few months

This isn't splitting hairs - this is politics as usual in the GLBT community -before the election, we're vital and needed to get the win - after the election, our issues are too controversial to be touched because they would interfere with the President's agenda.

The part that I don't understand is what you're stake in this is? You seem pretty intent in this discussion on making this a trivial thing in spite of other's reactions that it isn't and that it's hurtful to them somehow.

• Are you a veteran discharged under DADT? I am.
• Are you a member of the GLBT community that's been told to sit in the back of the bus time and time again because our rights to be treated as whole Americans rather than 3/5ths would just cause too much of a stir and keep us from getting _____________ legislation passed? I am.
• Have you actually read DADT to see what parts could be "changed" (meaning some parts kept) versus "repealed" (meaning some parts done away with) before coming in here to blast everyone upset by this as being "hair splitters"? I've sure as fuck read it a number of times over the past decade and half.

You are posting on a Democratic/liberal/progressive board - can't you see that this isn't a single issue thing, but rather a loud warning to all of our ideals, not just the GLBT ones?

The POTUS, with a supermajority in both the House and Senate now, is backtracking on an issue that has the support of 70+% of the country (including 56% of Republicans who attend church regularly) and has been proven to work in over 26 countries around the world - sounds an awful lot like healthcare reform to me.

Also in the interview, POTUS says he can't choose not to enforce a law - while his admin does exactly that by imposing a 2 year moratorium on certain deportations that they don't agree with to give Congress time to change the law. Or while they keep telling us not to look back at the lawlessness of BushCo/Cheney, we just have to move on.

[merh]

23. I guess you would guess wrong.

And, as I questioned in my first post, where does Obama say he doesn't want DADT repealed? How do you know that isn't part of the change he is talking about? Perhaps everything you write is what he is aware of and what he has his people working on with the military and congress.

I'd think you would be pleased to read he wants the change sooner rather than later.

[subcomhd]

25. when it is repealed,

what branch of the service are you interested in joining?

[sandnsea]

4. A repeal takes it back to Clinton era

As was posted elsewhere. That's not what is needed. A change is needed. If Obama had said repeal as the OP thinks he desires, Obama would get excortiated for setting gay rights back decades.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Obama is not repealing DADT

Obama is making a cosmetic change to the way it is being enforced. Bob Gates spoke of not discharging people that have been outed by someone else, but keeping the thrust of DADT intact, that LGBTs are second class citizens.

[sandnsea]

7. That is a temporary measure

until the legislation is permanently changed. That was very specifically stated. What could it possibly benefit you to distort it?

[merh]

9. Nothing Obama could do will make the OP happy.

I realize that repealing DADT puts things back to the Clinton era and those laws definitely infringed upon the rights of the LGBT service persons.

The law has to be changed, repeal won't work.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Nothing short of full equality is acceptable

anything less is more of the separate but equal.

[merh]

13. I agree with you about full equality.

I believe it will happen and I hope it comes about sooner rather than later.

[subcomhd]

26. OP is very anxious to enlist and serve. I assume.

I'm still ttrying to reconcile OPs "America is an Evil Imperialist power" with OPs desire to be allowed to participate in the Imperialism.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Meanwhile. let's see how LGBTs are faring in 'communist run island' of Cuba

Cuba Permits Sex Change Operations

Topic started by IndianaGreen on May-28-09 05:58 PM (7 replies)
Last modified by kenny blankenship on May-29-09 01:46 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=134952

Cuba National Health Care System to Cover Sex Change Operations

Topic started by Mika on May-28-09 05:05 PM (1 replies)
Last modified by NMMNG on May-28-09 05:09 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=134930

Cuba has America beat on LGBT rights!

[merh]

19. They have better health care too.

Obama is saying he wants the change, you just aren't content. I know, you will believe it when you see it and I don't blame you for that.

I believe change will come.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Out of the 23 original NATO members only the US and Turkey

prevent gay people from serving in the military. All of them have better health care too.

Change does not just come, change gets made. Some are making it, some are not. It is that simple.

[merh]

22. See, I don't see you making

The Civil Rights Movement had leaders, I don't see any for the LGBT community and I don't see any concentrated effort. There are a few that are trying to make a difference and their efforts are not applauded as loudly as they should be.

With all the controversy over the DOJ brief in the smelt case, I didn't see one thread on trying to help Smelt and Hammer in their efforts. They have been pursuing this for 5 years, trying to get DOMA tossed as unconstitutional since 2004, but I have seen no thread thanking them, acknowledging their efforts or trying to help them by raising funds for their legal fees.

Perry and the Plaintiffs in the case filed against California are courageous, the couple in NOLA who are challenging DOMA, they are courageous, but there should be hundreds of such filings all over the USA - each time a couple is denied a marriage license, each time a couple lawfully married is denied a benefit.

And there is a dispute in the LGBT community as to how to best handle Prop 8 - should the focus be repeal or should it be the legal challenged. Instead of saying we need to do both, we need to do everything we can until the change is made, time is wasted arguing over who is right and what is the best way to go.

As you say, change doesn't just come, it is made. The Lovings made that change and it didn't come overnight.

The Lovings married in June 1958, plead guilty in January 1959, had their sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. They moved to the DC, and on November 6, 1963 the ACLU began to litigate on their behalf, filing a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the sentence on the grounds that the violated statutes ran counter to the Fourteenth Amendment. After a series of lawsuits which ultimately reached the Supreme Court, SCOTUS rendered their decision in 1967, declaring Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute unconstitutional.

The article you site in your OP is not part of the effort to bring about change, it is just another article to slam Obama. Obama is saying he wants to change DADT sooner rather than later but you don't applaud what he said, the author of the article doesn't applaud what he said, you split hairs and say it isn't enough.

As far as I can tell the author of the article you site in your OP (and you by extension) prefer to let others do the work for you or you don't applaud those carrying the load and you definitely don't try to make their load easier. I don't have much patience for that, not when you take a positive like what Obama has said in the interview and twist it to a negative.

[WyldRogue]

24. Funny that the following statement:

"It is our duty to enforce laws" is even in the OP as no one has enforced any Rule of Law so far. If they have, then let me know who, where and when please because every day I see those that belong in jail sitting smugly on TV...

[The Hope Mobile]

27. Haven't we seen a correlation between certain racial minority groups and

homophobic behavior? Not trying to start something here. Just sayin'. Its not just fundies who fear the repeal of DADT, IMHO. If I'm wrong I would be very pleased because I personally want it repealed.

[merh]

28. No, sadly homophobia isn't assigned to any one race.

Homophobes come in all skin color.

[The Hope Mobile]

29. Hmmm. Clearly that's not what I'm trying to say. But there is PLENTY

of information on higher rates within certain groups . . . one in particular which tends to vote democrat otherwise. I'm saying that consideration of this group may be a factor . . . and I would also say that its more likely to be a factor than the extreme fundies who never vote for Obama anyway.

I've got no idea how you interpreted that as being an assignment of any one trait to a single race in its entirety but to each his/her own.

[merh]

30. I got it from what you posted, just as this post tends to read the

same way, though you try to be "PC".

[The Hope Mobile]

33. lol - funny how you're the only one who sees it that way.

You're clearly missing something. But if you want to keep barking up the wrong tree - keep wasting your time. Otherwise google the correlation yourself next time. Its well reported.

[merh]

34. It was falsely reported.

That is why I know my observations are more on point than even you realize.
You never checked the facts, you just accepted the tainted conclusions.
You might want to check your facts and take a deeper look yourself.

http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/issues/egan_sherrill_prop8_1_6_09.pdf

http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/prop_8_and_blaming_the_blacks.php

[Vidar]

31. Obama does very little of substance.

[subcomhd]

32. besides reversing one Bush policy after another

nothing at all