5 myths about DADT

[pepperbear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091702444.html?hpid=topnews

1. DADT was created to promote unit cohesion and military readiness.

2. Repealing DADT will be complicated.

3. The integration of women and African Americans into the military offers useful comparisons.

4. The troops oppose repealing DADT.

5. DADT is a losing issue politically.

[4lbs]

1. I agree with all of those being myths.

Furthermore,

Repealing DADT will be complicated.

No complications. Congress just needs to pass the repeal, and the President (Obama) signs it. The sticking point is getting the Senate to overcome the filibuster. It definitely doesn't involve sticking pins in a voodoo doll, chanting phrases 3 times while walking backwards, blindfolded, on a sunny Friday in September, in a year that ends in '0', when there's (almost) a full moon.


The integration of women and African-Americans into the military offers useful comparisons

I agree that too is a myth. There was no established law passed by Congress allowing the military to discriminate against women and minorities. It was just traditional policy back in the first half of the 20th Century. Not an actual law. DADT is an actual law. There is no comparison.


The troops oppose repealing DADT

I agree that it's a myth. The only military people opposing the repeal of DADT are a few old upper echelon military officers. They represent probably at most 5% of the total military. The troops that actually serve with the vast majority of gay and lesbian soldiers on a daily basis, the privates all the way to Lieutenants, have little to no problems with serving next to gay colleagues. The troops in the field are too busy worrying about IEDs and snipers to care whether that person next to them is winking in a "my cot or yours" manner, if that even actually happens.

[Number23]

2. Segregation laws provided the law

And these laws pertained to every single aspect of a person's life.

Where (or if) you could be educated. Where you could live. Where you could shop/eat/sleep for the night. What type of job you could have -- and that most certainly did include the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

But the OPs point is still a valid one. It took YEARS before the military was integrated, and that included after Truma's executive order. For some reason, that point keeps getting forgotten over and over again 'round these parts.

Here's a link to hands down, the Best Thread on DU which covers this issue: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=258x2983#9717

[4lbs]

5. None of those segregation laws were federal laws. They were state laws.

A segregation law passed in Mississippi didn't apply in New York or California.

Truman's EO was possible because there was no national federal law regarding segregation on the books he had to overcome.

President Obama doesn't have that luxury.

Yes, it was a long time even after Truman's executive order before the military was fully desegregated. It wasn't like some people believed, where the day after Truman signed the EO that suddenly whites, blacks, latinos, asians, and women were all sleeping in the barracks together.

[Number23]

7. Your point was that there was "no law" leading to military segregation

You said: "There was no established law passed by Congress allowing the military to discriminate against women and minorities. It was just traditional policy back in the first half of the 20th Century. Not an actual law."

Congress may not have passed the laws, but there were laws.

[FreeState]

4. There were laws that kept women out of combat

Which kept them segregated from what men did.

http://www.cdi.org/issues/women/combat.html

[pepperbear]

3. I for one am disgusted that it was nothing but politics that killed this. n/t

[xchrom]

6. at this point we're just useful tools so people can say we're not them. nt