While Obama was addressing discrimination, I wonder how many gay

[cboy4]

linguists -- who speak the critical languages of Arabic and Farsi -- were grabbed by the proverbial collar and dragged out of the military because, well, Obama continues to drag his feet?

The reason this is frustrating is because he can stop enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell, until Congress changes the law. Everyone knows he doesn't have to issue an executive order.

200+ people have been fired on Obama's watch and I just wish I could believe he feels a sense of urgency and that he cares .. above and beyond flowery speeches that make everyone shout, "You tell 'em Mr. President!!"

Mentioning gay people during the NAACP speech was generous and it was nice. But nice doesn't protect the careers of human beings who are being fired when in fact the bleeding can be stopped.

And furthermore, you would think more DUers would have a better understanding of how the President of the United States could get this done without having to issue the executive order so many oppose.

Instead, we hear excuse after excuse after excuse.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Notes that Murphy, the guy who put the DADT repeal bill into the works...

Also opposes Obama doing any kind of an end-run around Congress. On separation of powers grounds - precisely the same argument that Obama used.

In any case, I agree - it seems to me that Obama could do more/work faster on this too. And I've said so repeatedly.

Thanks for a much improved post.

[PretzelWarrior]

2. always sift through the successes looking for failure. sure you're not

a GOP congressman? Pathetic. We get it. You think every day he waits is a bigoted response to the gay person's plight.

[cboy4]

6. This coming from the person who wrote a long, long OP about how he was

leaving DU because he couldn't take it any further that DUers refused to agree with everything you wrote about.

And look who's back.

Did you want to address my point, or are you satisfied with typing verbatim from one of your talking point memos?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[countingbluecars]

4. While I certainly agree that Obama

should end enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell, I don't think his NAACP speech should be your reference point.

[cboy4]

40. Yes, there's a connection.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. I agree. It was good that he mentioned it. But it doesn't negate what is actually HAPPENING.

[Thrill]

9. Putting a hold on the policy gives Congress an out

It will never be repealed if that happens

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. That would make sense *if* it was a contentious bill. But it's not. The public supports DADT

removal. This should be an easy thing to get through Congress, whether or not there is the "incentive of urgency" of stopping good officers from being discharged.

[Thrill]

22. If that were true. Congress would be wasting no time trying to over turn it

.

[dsc]

29. like they are rushing to pass publicly funded health care (to name one example)

[Thrill]

42. Because they don;t want to pass it

exactly my point

[dsc]

51. No your point was that if it were popular Congress would be rushing to pass it

clearly in the case of health care that isn't happening. So why not?

[Hippo_Tron]

69. The problem is that the public at large has little vested interest one way or another

Whereas the bigot lobby will push extremely hard to make sure it isn't overturned. Unfortunately a small and vocal minority can often defeat a quiet majority.

[dsc]

19. all he has to do is put a time limit on the hold (say 6 months)

then Congress can pass health care and other important legislation while not having translators and other vital people thrown out of the sevice in the meantime.

[cboy4]

20. Well, I franklyreject your premise .. but it sure wouldn't give Congress "an out"

if Obama stayed on their ass and pressured them to get it done.

Don't forget, this was an Obama campaign promise. Not only does he have an obligation, if for no other reason than to make good on his promises -- this would come back and haunt him if he runs for 2012.

Can you imagine the deluge of "...why would you trust Obama, he doesn't keep his word..." campaign commercials?!?


TYPO

[vaberella]

26. Exactly. n/t

[cboy4]

36. You don't understand the dynamics surrounding DADT and how to

change this simple law.

All you're interested in doing is acting as a rubber stamp by agreeing with all of your friends who post from their prepared talking point notes as to why Obama won't help gay people keep their careers.

Instead of stamping "Exactly. n/t" .. how about an intelligent response?

[boppers]

12. Another pro unitary executive post. Great.

Obama's not a king, and shrub's excesses are *NOT* exactly legal, or an example to be followed.

[LooseWilly]

18. 10 USC 654 Sec 15 B...

10 USC 654 Sec 15
( http://web.mit.edu/committees/rotc/code.html )

(b) Policy. - A member of the armed forces shall be separated


from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary


of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and


approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such


regulations:

Last I checked, the Secretary of Defense worked for the President. Last I checked, the Secretary of Defense's job was to manage the military in order to meet the strategic goals set by the President. If the President feels that a new set of "regulations" should be "prescribed by the Secretary of Defense" for the"findings" that follow 10 USC 654 Sec 15 B... then it would be the Secretary of Defense's job to... draw up a new set of regulations.

That would be acting in accordance with the law. As opposed to, say, refusing a court ordered release of documents under a FOIA request, for instance.

The bill is already in Congress. It has at least 152 co sponsors. Why not draw up a new set of regulations in the meantime?

[boppers]

38. "shall be separated"

So, Obama could do what, direct the SoD to change the color of the forms used in the separation? How is that helping?

[LooseWilly]

46. ... "under regulations prescribed by the Secretary..."

"... of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and


approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such


regulations: ..."

Which means the Secretary of Defense defines the procedures for making the findings as defined under 10 USC 654.

Section 4: " (4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for


and to prevail in combat should the need arise."

By those standards, which 10 USC 654 posits as the underpinning of all the following tripe about "good order and morale", the CIC has grounds for ordering a review of the current procedures for making said findings.

Section 14: "(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that


exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create


an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of


morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the


essence of military capability."

This section defines the reputed root of the "need to separate" homosexuals from the military... however, a regulatory review could be made which would also consider the counter- "risk to the armed forces' high standards of


morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the


essence of military capability." that would result from the separation of a member of of the military based on his or her sexual orientation... and the resulting "weighing" of factors could then be used as a standard of judgement of potential issues of "separation", in deference to considerations of Section 4 (above) which explicitly states "The primary purpose of the armed forces".


Bam. Legal basis for a re-evaluation of the current procedures for separation of military personnel under 10 USC 654 (DADT)... call Secretary Gates and get him to work.

Hell, I'm not even a lawyer, and I can construct that argument in 15 minutes of examination of 10 USC 654. And I'd be willing to bet money that it's a more legally sound argument than any of Yu's memos.
Arabic translators, Farsi translators, 18 year veteran decorated combat pilots, and pretty much any other soldier who says "I'm gay"... will all have a record of competent/meritorious service to override the issue of sexual orientation when solving the "separation calculus word problem" at their hearings.

Does that help?... Or is there a stationery issue that I neglected to address?

[noamnety]

49. DOD regulations are regularly changed

without an act of congress, or laws being passed.

I have a painfully ignorant historical question. If I'm reading this thread right, there is nothing in law (not DOD regulations, but law) which prevents gays from serving - other than DADT? Was that the first/only actual law that made it illegal for gays to serve?

Was that Clinton's legacy to the GLBT community, that instead of just writing DADT into the regs as CINC, he made it this big impossible political thing to fix?

[LooseWilly]

66. I'm not really sure, but I think that DADT was the first Congressional effort...

to restrict service in the military by LGBT folk. I suspect that being gay was cause for being dishonorably discharged prior to DADT... and that DADT was a Congressional effort to tie Clinton's hands in the face of his campaign promises to allow gays to serve. So, in a sense, DADT could be called a legacy of the Clinton Administration... though it could also be seen as a "step forward" after a time of outright banning of gay service (as long as you hide it, we won't bother to actively investigate... if that can really be called "progress").

A quick google/wiki search led me to information about which countries currently allow openly gay service in the military (Argentina is more forward thinking than the US at the moment, among many others)... but I didn't find any historical account of the topic in the US. Knowing that Truman issued an executive order to desegregate the military (on racial grounds) leads to my suspicion that the same sort of DOD policies of segregation were also used to ban gays... but I am just supposing here.

In the end, I think it is just another facet of the hypocrisy of the US, as far as the propagandist notion of "Land of the Free" goes... when 20 of the 26 nations that participate militarily in NATO permit openly gay service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gays_in_the_military).

[madinmaryland]

16. Didn't you try this last night in GD with similar results?

Good luck. My comments from last night remain the same.

[redqueen]

24. And I'm sure it will continue to happen.

And anyone who doesn't like it is a homophobe!

[madinmaryland]

33. Well, if we are going by

the OP's definition of a homophobe, then I have no clue what that is. He's all over the place with the definition. I think he has called everyone in another forum here, that.

Anyway, not sure exactly what you are referring to.

[redqueen]

34. I'm referring to the charges of homophobia...

which are flung around this site like crazy.

And the fact that I wouldn't be at all surprised if this same thread was posted in GD last night... and won't be surprised if similar threads are posted until Obama either directs the military to stop enforcing it or the act is repealed.

[ruggerson]

45. did you see the reply in this thread

where the poster said something along the lines of (mocking) "I have a PINK pony for you that's absolutely FABULOUS..." It got deleted but can you imagine if something similarly offensive and disgusting had been said to a black person here? They wouldn't be here anymore.

[bliss_eternal]

47. many equally offensive things were said to black people...

...after prop 8, by many that are still here. sorry to say.

on edit, not to beat the dead horse that is prop 8, ruggerson. i sincerely apologize for that.
my comment was merely to make the point that there are many times offensive things are said to and about black people/african americans on this board, and people are not banned for doing so.

the idea that black people are held to some different standard of treatment on du is what i'm attempting to address (and show to be false).

[Behind the Aegis]

48. That is very true.

And I fought with more than few over those statements. The point is the bigotry being directed at GLBT DU'ers is beyond the pale and should be as inexcusable as racist, anti-Semitic, anti-women remarks, and other bigotry. Also, some of the same people making these comments are the same ones that have routinely told us we cost them elections, including Presidential ones, and that is NOT something you will see DU'ers saying about AA, Jews, women, or other groups (except those who also blame third-party supporters).

I know you are familiar with coded racism, well, there is quite a bit of coded homophobia at this site and is being used to tell us to "STFU" and "wait for your rights." We are not willing to do either, nor should we have to do so.

[ruggerson]

52. in this case the offender

is white, I believe. If there were similarly offensive things said to AA's during the Prop 8 debates, those people should have been dealt with, I agree.

[MarjorieG]

27. Think there's truth to the pressure, pushing creating long-term results, which temporary repeal

delay. Letting military and Congress off the hook. After healthcare, while Gates and Murphy working on this, I hope, trust will be a real solution.

[TexasObserver]

30. Recommend

[WI_DEM]

41. recommend! I love Obama but he needs to get with it on civil rights for all

including our gay brothers and sisters.

[cboy4]

43. Wow, look at all of the deletions in my thread about the importance of

human rights for gay people.

Telling to say the least.

[madinmaryland]

44. Even though you have me on ignore, it's seems odd that most DU'ers

can talk eloquently about civil rights and not have it turn into a flamefest. Of course after several years of reading your posts I have come to expect that.

[ZombieHorde]

50. I have never seen that before. nt

[NMMNG]

53. Maybe all the gays should become straight Neo-Nazis

The military doesn't seem to have any problem taking them, or ex-felons. :sarcasm:

[cboy4]

68. Yup!

Sign right up

[PolNewf]

54. So tired of the whining

I'm very socially liberal, if it doesn't harm anyone else then people should be free to do whatever they want. I support the issues you constantly complain about but they are not that important to me personally and this constant harping really bugs me.

From my perspective you are undermining the only hope you have of seeing any progress on these issues as well as the big national issues such as energy, health care and education.

If the aim of your posts is to increase support for your goals you should be aware you may be having the opposite effect. You constantly complain about Obama not actively supporting your causes but you certainly are not supporting his either.

[VMI Dem]

56. You are the perfect example of a social liberal, as seen

on this message board.

[PolNewf]

58. Yes social liberal

Not social democrat\socialist.

[madinmaryland]

55. I thought this flamebaiting thread had been locked.

:wtf:

[kwassa]

57. I'll bet no linguists, gay or straight, were fired while Obama addressed discrimination.

It was after working hours on the east coast, and late in the working day on the west coast, when Obama addressed the NAACP.

Pretty damn unlikely, isn't it?

Your attempt to distort the context of his speech is duly noted, as it was in the last thread you started on this topic.

[cboy4]

59. Oh well as long as no gay people are kicked out of the military after business

hours, I guess it's a-okay!

[Balbus]

60. This president is not your friend.

I'm sorry.

[Phx_Dem]

63. That's okay, neither are you. At least I trust and respect him.

[Balbus]

65. If you trust a politician,

then you are a fool.

[Mimosa]

61. Priorities

If Obama tries to do all good things at once (let's say during his first year or two) he will not be able to accomplish anything. Life, politics and business all have to be managed in order of priorities. I for one feel that affordable health care for all, no exclusions, is the most important goal. Ending the wars in the Middle East and improving the economy vie for what I think is next in importance.

I worked in the gay rights cause during the 1970s. We've come a long way since then, probably further than many I knew ever thought we'd get.

CBoy, I can appreciate where you're coming from. I'd like to remind you to look back a few decades. Try being optimistic. I've always admired how blacks in the South and elsewhere managed to remain positive (as well as creative) during very bleak decades, knowing that the future would be better.

[cboy4]

62. But this is such an easy thing to do .. As commander in chief, he has the

authority to temporarily stop enforcement of DADT until Congress changes the law.

I am not arguing for an executive order.

I'm arguing that he can stop the terminations now, without breaking so much as a sweat, until Congress gets to work.

How can you not agree with me?

[Mimosa]

67. CBoy, here it is

CBoy, single issue voters can collaborate with other single issue voters and lobby for change. Eventually it happens. Or not, as the anti-abortion activists come to mind. Plate techtonics regarding gay rights have been changing the culture for 30 or 40 years. Somehow you don't understand why Obama isn't issuing an executive order right now to bring about immediate change. You don't see that should Obama take such steps at this point he would come across as a radical above the law dictator and would lose his ability to deliver the change on health care reform which will benefit gays, straights and everyone.

that's what I meant by priorities. Look up 'project management.' I'm sure the administration has placed gay rights issues on a project management timeline. And I suppose DADT is being worked on behind the scenes. In the meantime, the best things the GLBT community can do is to reach out to the public at large and make friendly alliances. You have been alienating GLBT best friends at DU for as long as I've posted here. I sympathise with your passion. Yet there are more effective strategies to build up critical mass than making topics which seem to alienate 50% of progressive people who already deeply sympathise with 'the cause.' Yet you have also made people examine their attitudes and do some thinking.

(((BIG HUG to CBoy)))

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.