My take on the DADT repeal

[dsc]

In fairness much will depend on implimentation both by Obama and by future administrations. That said, we do know some things.

Unlike in 1993, when the President wanted gays to openly serve while Congress didn't, this time the Congress wanted to end the policy while the President wanted to wait. It was only when Congress made clear that it had the votes to put the DADT repeal into the budget that Obama permitted it to go forward. I admit to be worried about this when it comes to implimentation. Truthfully I don't fully trust this administration nor this pentagon when it comes to this issue. Worse any future administration could literally go back to the pre 1993 witch hunts. Honestly this is the thing that makes me the most angry with the way it was handled. We were told repeatedly by both Obama and his supporters that we needed to do this right, not quick. And right was defined as not reversible. Well, this is emminantly reversible.

I see no reason we could have had a full repeal combined with an expressed permission for gays to serve once the Pentagon signed on. This should have been at the very least a settled law once this was done. We had 80% of the people, including 60% of conservatives on our side and all we got was a quite possibly temporary end to DADT. Are you kidding comes to mind. Maybe this will turn out OK after all. But we were promised that it would. Given the immense wait, it should have. 80% of the public and a large majority of Congress would have been enough if Obama didn't need to be dragged along.

[Prism]

1. Choi and Pietrangelo have vowed a hunger strike

That tells us right there the quality of this compromise and just how badly they're mucking it up.

Have you read this? A pretty cynical take by a lesbian former army captain.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16264/tanya-domi-conduct-unbecoming-the-politicos-sell-out-the-soldiers

Here's what is about to drive me crazy. People think this repeal. It is not. Congress may pass this compromise, and people will think "Well! All done! Hooray for us." But our community knows better. There are many ill-defined triggers in the compromise that could easily drag on and on and on before they're met in the eyes of the Pentagon and the administration. (Met = whenever it costs us nothing politically).

I don't trust the administration when it comes to implementation. The severely back-handed support they gave this compromise is just another middle finger at us. "Well, fine, if we have to placate you, but we hate this compromise and wish Congress would leave the issue alone." Gee, thanks for that stunning endorsement, President Fierce.

This will go exactly how all the rest of it has gone. The people inclined to believe the President has equality issues close to his heart will declare Congressional action The Victory. Meanwhile, the LGBT community will have to go even further balls-to-the wall and practically riot to pressure the President into implementation. Be prepared for dozens of "Those ungrateful gays . . ." memes.

As Choi and so many others have said. There is no end to the discharges. There is no nondiscrimination language in this. There is no definitive deadline, but instead a plethora of vague standards and goals within the study that will have to be met through a very subjective process that will be defined by political necessity.

It's amazing to watch these politicians bend over the community over again and again, and then have the PR valkyries come flapping in to let us know how much we should be enjoying it.

Yeah, I'm getting really tired of this administration's bullshit with gay people. Real fuckin' tired.

[msongs]

2. the bush generals can veto the "repeal" so Obama/congress can escape blame nt

[Prism]

5. I have a feeling there will be an excuse

Which is why I object so very much to the vague "conditions" laid out in the compromise. Cohesion, readiness, etc. How will those things be determined? There is no objective process, benchmarks, or deadlines laid down. Only concepts left entirely at the discretion of the White House and the Pentagon. Forget the barn door, this compromise leaves an entire air force hangar wide open for all kinds of mischief of the Republican, military, and conservative Democratic varieties.

The story of DADT repeal has been delay, delay, delay, delay. The community is tired of it. Congress is tired of it. So now we get this "Don't worry, the check is in the mail!" Yeah, I might believe that if this President had some sort of track record with the LGBT community about those promises. Horrid DOMA briefs, no ENDA, and little directives that suspiciously appear out of thin air whenever the protests are reaching a fever pitch.

He's lost my benefit of the doubt. He lost it awhile ago. And to think, I stuck with him through that McClurkin and Warren business. Yeah, I was wrong. Everyone else in the community was right. I guess I hoped too much.

[dsc]

6. I wish you had been right

I hate having been right about the McClurkin thing back then.

[Prism]

9. Yeah, me too

:hug:

[ProSense]

3. "Unlike in 1993..."

when President Clinton signed DADT into law.


The OP is another attempt to criticize Obama while excusing Clinton for the mess.

[Prism]

4. No, it's a comparison, and a true one

In 1993, Clinton did want to allow gays to serve openly. Congress was opposed. DADT is what happened as a result. And I do not say that in defense of Clinton - I really don't like how he handled all of that. But facts are facts.

Now, we have a Congress that has been prepared to tackle the issue, with a reluctant President who has insisted upon delay after delay after delay. More facts.

It's Saturday. Shouldn't one of us be off?

[ProSense]

7. In 1993, Clinton signed DADT into law.

In 2010, Obama is working to repeal it.

Period.

[dsc]

8. and Kerry voted for the law

but when that is pointed out the period becomes a comma, as it should. Unlike you, I am consistent in applying that rule.

[ProSense]

13. Of course

you know that's bullshit. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

[dsc]

14. He voted for the very same law that Clinton signed

you can post thread after thread offering explanations but the bill that Kerry voted for was the law Clinton signed. Not one period, comma, or letter was in any way altered between Kerry's vote and Clinton's signature. That said, both did so because both recognized that it was either that or witch hunts and witch hunts were worse.

On edit

Here is the link backing me up, unlike yours, it isn't self serving blather but a link to the actual vote taken in 1993.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380

[ProSense]

17. "Here is the link backing me up,"

A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1994 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes.

The defense authorization bill is not DADT.

[dsc]

28. Yes it is

sorry but if you don't know that you are too ignorant to comment on any of this and if you do and wrote what you did, you are too dishonest. Either way you aren't worth listening to. This is the law, signed by Clinton and voted for by Kerry, that implemented DADT. If that law hadn't passed, there would have been no DADT.

[ProSense]

30. DADT was a policy compromise crafted by Clinton

You are trying to claim that Kerry supported a policy he testified against, voted against, voting to strip it from the bill.

The defense authorization bill is not DADT.

[dsc]

31. wrong

That law, the Defense Authorization Act, is how DADT became law. You can type your self serving crap until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but the history is what the history is.

[ProSense]

32. Dumb

There are policies in the health care bill that Blanche Lincoln voted against. That doesn't mean that she supports these policies because she voted for the bill.

Clinton crafted DADT. If he wanted it out of the bill he would have pushed harder to support stripping it from the bill and leaving the policy in the hands of the President.

[dsc]

33. so why is it that Obama isn't responsible for the contents of bills

everytime we stated that we wanted a full repeal of DADT in the military's budget, which Obama largely writes, you and others told us come crying to Congress. But in this instance you say instead, Clinton should have removed the languge and Congress is blameless. Which is it?

[ProSense]

34. What is it about Clinton drafted the DADT compromise that you don't understand?

"Clinton should have removed the languge and Congress is blameless."

Who the hell said Congress is blameless? Sixty-three members voted against stripping it from the bill. Kerry voted to strip it.

[dsc]

35. So by your standards we can blame Obama for the language in this repeal

specificly for the fact that it doesn't have specific non discrimination language.

[Prism]

10. If you're not going to add anything, don't bother.

Clinton wanted to undo the ban on gays in the military. He wanted to. He failed. I recognize his failure on the issue and in no way excuse how poorly he handled it.

President Obama, on the other hand, claims he's working to repeal it, but his actions betray his words. He has found reason after reason after excuse to delay the repeal. This compromise is another delay dressed up as progress.

If this President and Congress wanted to, they could repeal DADT right now. They could stop the discharges. They could add nondiscrimination language.

Why aren't they doing those things? Especially now, when the moment is ostensibly at hand.

A study? They have dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on this issue to choose from. It's a delay.

Choi and Pietrangelo are preparing a hunger strike because they find this compromise so unacceptable. They're gay men, in the military, leading and sacrificing on this issue.

What is it you know that they do not?

[Radical Activist]

22. "his actions betray his words"

His actions are giving the Pentagon a deadline of repealing it this year and then making it happen.

[Prism]

36. No, the study has a deadline - not the repeal

I don't think people understand what is in this compromise. Have you read it? If you'd read it, you'd not make statements like these.

Why not read it before commenting? I don't understand this willful perpetuation of falsehoods. This isn't a gray "up to the interpretation of the reader" kind of thing. The language is black and white. The study is due this year. Repeal is not. This legislation is not a repeal. This legislation says "Well, when you're up to it, you have our permission to repeal." It is not repeal.

It is not repeal.

[vaberella]

16. Actually that was the statement. "While the President wanted to wait."

What? Where did Obama wanted to wait?! He was going by the feelings that he was told by Congress early on. They wanted to wait---since we had some big issues that were going to be voted on. And yet this poster is saying Obama wants to wait. When?! Can you give me the information that states that Congress wanted to move ahead but the President is forcing them to wait? AS a matter of fact I remember reading that Obama supported Congress' move on this.

[ruggerson]

11. What the bill does is ALLOW repeal after the "study" is completed

If Obama, Gates and Mullen all certify that the study is acceptable, then DADT is repealed.

But, as you state, specific non-discrimination language was taken out of the bill as part of this compromise package, so all the repeal means is that the mechanism of DADT is stopped.

Once the repeal if in effect, however, there is nothing stopping Obama from issuing an executive order specifically banning discrimination.

Hopefully, pressure can be applied to get him to do this. Since it was the administration and the military that removed the non-discrimination language from the bill, it is their responsibility to craft strong regulations that will discourage future Presidents from reversing the entire process.

[dsc]

12. Is the sodomy law being changed

or are we assuming, possibly wrongly, that Lawerence rendered it moot? If the sodomy law stays then Obama can't issue an executive order banning discrimination any more than Clinton could have back in 1993.

[ruggerson]

15. the "sodomy" paragraph in the UCMJ applies to both sexes and orientations

I don't see them routinely throwing out straight servicemembers, and we can be pretty sure that many of them are routinely engaging in oral and anal heterosexual relations.

"a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

I don't see this as an issue. Hopefully the provision will be tossed, but it may just remain on the books as a relic - a "blue law."

[Unvanguard]

18. There's something to what you say, but I don't think it's the full picture.

It's not the case that Obama only went along with it after it was clear the votes were there. It wasn't clear the votes were there until Byrd and Nelson declared that they would vote "yes", which was days after Obama had expressed his support: indeed, it's pretty clear that their support was predicated on Secretary Gates' acceptance of the compromise, so were it not for Obama's support the effort would have failed.

This has been the problem from the start: in the Senate especially, there are a number of conservative Democrats whose votes are needed to break a Republican filibuster, but because they do not share the (relative) social liberalism of most of the caucus, would not have gone along with a DADT repeal without military approval. This has been the central motivating force, I think, behind Obama's strategy: he wanted to get the military on board before proceeding, to get those votes and secure repeal's passage in Congress, and he did, but at the condition of this review process.

The problem with his approach was that, effectively, it ran out of time. The review is due to be completed at the beginning of December, which would have pushed any legislative action on repeal to be uncomfortably close to the point where a likely more-conservative Congress would take over in January. Obama's major failure was that he was too politically cautious to avert this problem and push for an early repeal: instead he effectively sat out until Levin and Murphy finally decided to take the initiative on their own. Had his strategy been adhered to, it's quite possible we wouldn't have repeal for several more years.

But in fairness to him, he came around, and he did so at a crucial moment, when he could still make a difference, and he did. And I see no reason at this point to think that his support is insincere, or that the military will not actually proceed with getting rid of DADT when the review and Byrd's two-month delay are over: the top leadership made clear at the hearings that they thought DADT should go, and that the review was focused on "how, not whether." It is not a very principled compromise, and it is a rather depressing indication of how far even this very Democratic Congress still has to go on gay rights issues, but it is one that looks like it will work.

If I'm wrong, when we find out in December, feel free to excoriate me with this post. :)

[jonnyblitz]

19. Byrd really surprised me. If you could have seen him on the

Senate floor in the 90's going off on his homophobic tirades while clutching a bible during the DOMA debates. I used to be a C-SPAN junkie back then and always watched Congress. Anyway, I am seriously stunned and pleased with his shocking turn around on this issue.

[Bluenorthwest]

20. He got shouted down everytime he wanted to ask for money

after claiming to be all that he'd promised he was. He had to 'come around'. He was shamed into it. And he punted anyway.

[Unvanguard]

23. GetEQUAL's protests may have been effective, I don't know.

I was inclined at the time to think they would accomplish nothing, but clearly something worked.

But the simple fact remains that Obama could have refused to support the Levin/Murphy approach: that would have sunken the effort, and he could have taken political refuge in the review process he helped bring about. He didn't. He does not deserve credit for this legislation--that all goes to the people in Congress who brought it about while he did nothing--but he wasn't exactly an opponent either. Certainly he is not at this point; yesterday I received an OFA email encouraging me to pressure Congress to finish the job...

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Clearly something worked indeed.

The advisers knew at the time that those protests were in fact, moderate and kindly versions of what could have been, and what will be if results are not delivered. Here, the choir thought that was the end of the world. They do not understand that there could have been a hundred people walking out on him having revealed 'BIGOT' tee shirts. The administration understood that at once. And snapped out of their state of complacency.

[Unvanguard]

26. Great, if it works I hope they keep it up.

At the moment, the score is GetEQUAL et al. 1 (well, maybe 0.5, they want a moratorium), Unvanguard 0 (I doubted we would see any action in Congress however many protests there were.)

I'm pretty sure we won't see an executive order halting discharges, too, whatever they do... here's hoping they can improve their score against me even further. :)

[Radical Activist]

21. I'm glad to see that the left is able to show support for Obama when he follows through

on issues we care about.

This is probably equally as reversible as Truman desegregating the military.

[ruggerson]

27. I'm glad to see people acknowledging that the gay communityi

kept the pressure on this President, Congress and the DNC to follow through on campaign promises.

While this may be incomplete as of yet, the fact that we've gotten this far is due to the tireless efforts of gay and lesbian servicemembers, the SLDN, effective gay bloggers who push stories through into the MSM and the GLBT community nationwide.

[dsc]

29. Had Truman lost in 48

especially to Thurmond, it would have been over on Jan 21, 1949. Dewey probably wouldn't have reversed it.

[VMI Dem]

25. I have to question the motivation of a man that opposes civil rights for gays.

He may want DADT repealed, but I don't think it is a pressing concern.