jberryhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 01:58 PM
Original message |
Why do we call it "DADT repeal"? |
|
Aside from the Clinton/Obama infighting, this is not "DADT repeal".
Prior to DADT, it was unlawful for gay folks to serve in the military.
The package that was DADT ended the ban on gays in the military, and it was as far a compromise as politics would allow at that time.
A "DADT repeal" would literally mean a return to a ban on gays in the military.
While I realize that some use the DADT acronym to refer to that PART of the package which has the bizarre free speech limitation, there is a tinge of "Clinton did something awful and now it is being fixed" to some commentary. Clinton got what he could get, and Obama finished the job.
|
Unvanguard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Because DADT is a statute, and they're repealing it. |
jberryhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. It part of a larger package that legalized gay service in the first place /nt |
TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
According to the law, being gay was still directly contrary to the goals of military service, based on the rules established by Congress. DADT was simply a set of guidelines to try and prevent gay individuals from being directly questioned about their sexuality, and to head off witch hunts for gay servicemembers. But being gay and serving in the military was not "legal" before the passage of this current bill, it was just in some ways protected.
|
Codeine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Without that first painful shot at the issue we might not have made it this far yet.
|
Jennicut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:02 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Many forget that Clinton actually had many Dem Senators and Reps that were against even DADT. |
|
I honestly think Clinton was naive about the whole thing...with the military and those in his own party. Obama learned from that experience and also in benefiting from 18 years of some attitudes changing.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Because Congress' bill will repeal DADT, making it null and void. |
|
Edited on Sat Dec-18-10 02:05 PM by Tx4obama
Then after that Obama will have to issue an executive order to change the old military rules (prior to DADT) to enact new rules regarding the enlistment of folks to serve without sexual discrimination. Or perhaps there is something in the new bill that states folks can't be discriminated do to sexual preference in the new bill, I haven't heard anything about that yet.
|
jberryhill
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. No.. It's a different bill |
|
It's like the "repeal the Patriot Act" thing.
Any bill amends the US Code by adding or deleting specific language.
There is never a bill that says "undo that other one".
Strictly speaking, "repeal of DADT" would restore the ban in gays. That's not what's being done.
|
Tx4obama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. What is happening today gets rid of DADT, that's what matters :) n/t |
Aramchek
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message |
6. You're right about one thing. Obama certainly finished the job. |
Uzybone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Can we just be happy for something good for once. Instead of trying to rehash primary rubbish.
|
11 Bravo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
10. Hell, you've been here longer than I have. You know the answer to that question. |
PhillySane
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:31 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Used by the government. As if they are repealing something, truly. I'm with you. They had a chance to repeal lower taxes on the rich, and then sold it as some big stimulus package they had passed. They are constantly mindfucking us.
|
Skinner
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-18-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Because it's repealing the part of the statute... |
|
...that's about don't-asking and don't-telling.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:04 AM
Response to Original message |