Obama to end military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

Responding to average-people questions at Change.org, Robert Gibbs affirms Obama's determination to end the current policy governing gays in the military. ("Yes," he replies, when asked if Obama will overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" system fashioned on the fly in Bill Clinton's first months.)

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/01/09/don-t-ask-don-t-tell.aspx

The sooner the better!

[Captain Hilts]

1. DADT was fashioned by Colin Powell who helped block the integration of gaysinto the military. nt

[Solon]

2. Good, now the question would be when will it be repealed...

As another poster said on that blog, it could be sneaked through congress during the first days of Obama's presidency. The sooner the better, and its an unpopular policy anyways.

[Hope And Change]

3. K & R!

[MADem]

4. If he does that, DOMA is next--it HAS to be (if he doesn't reverse course, that is).

Unless he's going to set up a "Separate but Unequal" level of service for gay people, where discrimination is tolerated and benefits are not equal.

Ok, gay folk, you can serve...BUT:

--No base housing for your spouse?

--No pay at the "with dependents" rate?

--No ID card or medical benefits for your spouse?

--No TRAVEL or shipment of "with dependent" levels of household goods between duty stations for your spouse?

Why? Because at the FEDERAL LEVEL, there is no "marriage"--even if you did it in Massachusetts!

If the military provides Dependent services to gay personnel, then they're violating DOMA. If they don't provide dependent services to gay personnel, they're discriminating.

Conundrum, eh?

I hope they saved all of the crap we ginned up for Clinton--there was REAMS of issue papers, draft legislation, instructions and notices, implementation procedures on every conceivable issue. Otherwise, they'll have to start from scratch. I don't count on the people close to the throne nowadays to think outside that box, frankly.

I hope the guy didn't mean that Obama would go back to the requirement that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all....

Hey, you never know--sometimes people hear what they want to hear. I don't want to sound cynical, I certainly hope he moves forward with this, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[Solon]

8. Actually, this brings up a question, Obama has stated that gay marriage is a state issue...

yet he also promised to help repeal DOMA, which is a federal law, doesn't that make gay marriage a federal issue? Doesn't he contradict himself on this issue?

[MADem]

10. DOMA is a federal law, and gay marriage is "illegal" at the federal level.

That's what makes the whole debate and the commments so .... well, confusing.

If he has said he'll repeal DOMA, he is, indeed, speaking in opposition to what he said were his personal views on the issue.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

30. Well

I suppose his position is that, because it's a state issue, DOMA should be repealed, because it represents Congress sticking its nose into a State issue.

[AntiFascist]

49. Sounds good to me.....

the most flexible thing he might be able to push, beyond that, is for the Federal government to recognize federal rights for gay marriages and civil unions for those states which grant them. This might keep the "states' rights" Republicans happy and somehow I feel that their support is key to anything Obama attempts to do. In the meantime, gay marriage battles will continue in the courts.

[Political Tiger]

31. No.

[TheWraith]

45. If it's a state issue, and DOMA represents telling the states what to do, DOMA must go.

Even the intellectually honest "states rights" conservatives agree that DOMA is patently a bill aimed at telling states what they can and can't do.

[TTUBatfan2008]

19. You don't want to sound cynical?

LMFAO, that is exactly how you sound.

[MADem]

33. Well, if you read the full article, there's justification for my looking askance.

I don't know who this Robert Gibbs guy is, either. I've never seen him standing next to Obama, nodding wisely.

The FULL piece, note the underlined bit:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Responding to average-people questions at Change.org, Robert Gibbs affirms Obama's determination to end the current policy governing gays in the military. ("Yes," he replies, when asked if Obama will overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" system fashioned on the fly in Bill Clinton's first months.)

The question is when, exactly, Obama will be willing to wade into this thicket. Thus far the reporting on that front has been conflicting, but it seems like the memory of Clinton's agonizing 1993 experience, which spoiled his electoral honeymoon, has him holding off on the specifics for the time being.


--Michael Crowley


I guess that's a nice way of saying "Don't be holding your breath, now."

[TTUBatfan2008]

35. Never heard of Gibbs?

He's the guy who went on Hannity's show and kicked his ass for trying to play guilt by association against Obama. Hannity had some anti-Semitic guy on his show presenting the guilt by association case against Obama, so when they brought Gibbs on the show and started trying to bring up Ayers, etc., he quickly turned it around on Hannity. Gibbs was the communications director for Obama during the campaign. If I remember right, he previously worked on Kerry's campaign.




And here's the video of him kicking Hannity's ass:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c

[MADem]

36. I don't watch Fox News.

I see this fellow got a WH job after all his hard work. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/robert-gibbs-obamas-press_n_141752.html

I haven't been following the appointments terribly closely--I've only focused in on the Big Cheese cabinet positions, really.

Thanks for the link!

[TTUBatfan2008]

37. I don't watch Fox either...

But I remember someone posting that during the campaign. Gibbs seems like a cool guy.

[MADem]

40. Here's hoping he's better than Ari or Scott! Shouldn't be hard! nt

[DevonRex]

5. Fantastic. Of course we knew that, but it's nice to see it again on hte official site.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

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

[ruggerson]

7. It's a statute. He can't "end" a law.

He can lobby congress to repeal it and then sign it when it arrives on his desk.

[Jennicut]

9. Yes and there is support in congress to do it. I hope they will.

Also the military is less opposed to it then they were in 1993.

[ruggerson]

12. also Sam Nunn is no longer relevant

and it looks as if Colin Powell has come to understand that he was wrong.

[Jennicut]

15. YEah, uggg Sam Nunn. I really hated him then and still dislike him over that.

I think Powell knows it was wrong now and gays were not going to and did not "ruin" the military.

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. Clinton tried hard to fix the inequalities for gays in the military

In the end he had to compromise.

This is a different era with more tolerance. Obama should have an easier time of it.

[ruggerson]

14. 80% of the country supports gays serving openly

there is really no longer an excuse for DADT to exist. None. In America at large this is not a controversial subject. Only to politicians who are scared of anything with "teh ghey" attached to it.

[wmbrew0206]

21. What % of the military supports it? It is a controversial subject within the military

If you don't think it is, you are wrong. While I think DADT needs to be removed, the majority of the military is firmly against it.

Obama needs to, according to him, build credibility with the military and this being the first thing he does, will not help. He will probably hold off on removing DADT, until late '09 or after the '10 election. Those are the most politically advantageous times for him to remove DADT.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. The military is run by civilians according to the constitution

It doesn't matter what the military wants, they're going to have to learn to live with it.

[Jennicut]

23. Yes they will. The problem in 1993 was it did not have enough support in congress

I think it does now.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The problem in 1993 is that the military had lots of allies in Congress like Sam Nunn

Fortunately, many dinosaurs like him have since retired. DADT was a result of the fact that congress might have passed a law that would ban gays from the military and gotten enough votes to override a veto. Clinton, having never served, didn't want to face a public opinion battle with the military and Sam Nunn.

[wmbrew0206]

25. The military is not run by civilians, it answers to civilians in the POTUS and SecDef

Neither the POTUS or SecDef are really involved in running the military and each service is pretty much left alone to decide how to run their branch, within the law. DADT is currenlty the law.

Obama is a Democratic politician who has never served a day in the military. See the other thread here a few weeks ago about how the military is roughly 3 to 1, R to D, and you'll realize, as Obama himself has said, he needs to earn the respect of the military, especially in the middle of two wars. Removing DADT as the first thing he does with respect to the military, won't help. That is why I said late '09 or late '10, is probably when he'll do it.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Obama will be Commander-in-Chief, they need to earn his respect as far as I'm concerned

Obama isn't waiting until 2010 to get the military's approval to repeal DADT, he's making political calculations. The only reason Clinton didn't simply allow gays to serve in the military via executive order is that it would have triggered a public opinion war between him and the military + Sam Nunn and other members of congress.

[wmbrew0206]

28. Are you kidding?

The American military has kept this country safe for over 200 years. There are military members who have fought in four to five different wars because they have been order to by their country. They have risked their lives because they have been ordered to by Democratic and Republican Presidents. And they need to earn Obama's respect?

The reaction of the military is part of Obama's political calculations. The military will play a very large role in his first term and he'll need their support.

[wmbrew0206]

44. Aslo, 10% of military respondents to the an Army Times Poll said the won't not

re-enlist if DADT was repealed.

If you think Obama and his staff aren't paying attention to that, you are wrong. A 10% drop in rentention during the middle of two wars would be devastating.

This is why it will be put off until later.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/

[Hekate]

38. Racial integration of the US Armed Forces was accomplished by Executive Order of the President

That is the historical precedent we should be looking at. A civilian Commander in Chief must see that this is done. It took 15 years from the time that Harry Truman signed Exec Order 9981 until it was completely fulfilled. But it got done, and so will elimination of DADT.

Hekate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/welcome.html

On 26 July 1948, President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was accompanied by Executive Order 9980, which created a Fair Employment Board to eliminate racial discrimination in federal employment.

Segregation in the military services did not officially end until the Secretary of Defense announced on 30 September 1954 that the last all-black unit had been abolished. However, the president’s directive put the armed forces (albeit reluctantly) at the forefront of the growing movement to win a fully participatory social role for the nation’s African-American citizens.

The true fulfillment of the entire scope of Executive Order 9981—equality of treatment and opportunity—actually required an additional change in Defense Department policy. This occurred with the publication of Department of Defense Directive 5120.36 on 26 July 1963, 15 years to the day after Truman signed the original order. This major about-face in policy issued by Secretary of Defense Robert J. McNamara expanded the military’s responsibility to include the elimination of off-base discrimination detrimental to the military effectiveness of black servicemen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[MADem]

41. I don't mean to throw cold water on that idea, but I am going to.

Black soldiers were never told that they could not marry. Their spouses were given dependent benefits, as were their children.

The reason for the tap dancing is BECAUSE of the pesky matter of state marriage and civil union rights, which have been dealt a blow with the crap that went on in California--that was a SERIOUS "step back" from progress.

If Armed Forced integration had come first, followed by marriage, there'd be fewer issues, I think.

However, how do you "integrate" a military, and continue to discriminate against those who have been integrated within the service?

It is for this reason that I think they hesitate. DOMA will have to fall and those "Massachusetts marriages" (and other states, as well) will have to be recognized...at the federal level as a consequence of integration. Otherwise, you're dealing with federally sanctioned discrimination.

You're telling one soldier, the straight one, that he can marry, and another soldier, the gay one, that she cannot.

The minute you "integrate" the Armed Forces, you are dealing with issue. Marriage IS legal in MA and other states, and someone will make the case.

[w4rma]

48. Doesn't matter and I'm not sure that the "majority" of the military is in any way against it.

They know it doesn't work.

[MADem]

34. Ah, but do they support allowing a gay's partner to have a dependent ID card?

And shop at the commissary and exchange? And get medical benefits? Base housing? PCS funds? If you hit this "serve openly" issue, you're hitting DOMA. If not immediately, soon enough. You HAVE to--otherwise, you're discriminating against servicmembers (You, Sgt. Straightjacket, can get married...but YOU, Corporal Gaylord, can't!!).

I know, I did some of the work (that later got shitcanned, or maybe filed...who knows? It was a lot of work) on the "integration" of gays into the military. The "partner" issue was considered a can of worms, frankly, by the senior leadership. Even the ones who were "OK With The Gay" were NOT OK with the PARTNERS...and there was some discussion about how it might be handled if/when civil unions or marriage were ever authorized.

I do think that was the "stumbling block" back then--there weren't any states that had CUs or marriage, and the "concern" was that full acceptance of gays in the military would bring that on, and no one wanted to be responsible for doing that--it's an inconvenient truth, that bit. Not the whole reason that the DADT compromise happened, but it was a piece of it.

When they compromised with DADT, all that was changed were a few paragraphs in some instructions and notices, and a little blurb on an annex to the contract was removed (the "I am not gay" affirmation, in essence). All of the work for the "big rollout" was pushed to the side.

The second paragraph of that cheery little blurb cited in the OP was a bit less cheery. Or at least, it sure didn't transmit any urgency with regard to the issue. People reading the first part and not clicking on the link might feel a bit deflated after looking at the second paragraph.

Let's look at the whole thing again....

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Responding to average-people questions at Change.org, Robert Gibbs affirms Obama's determination to end the current policy governing gays in the military. ("Yes," he replies, when asked if Obama will overturn the "don't ask, don't tell" system fashioned on the fly in Bill Clinton's first months.)

The question is when, exactly, Obama will be willing to wade into this thicket. Thus far the reporting on that front has been conflicting, but it seems like the memory of Clinton's agonizing 1993 experience, which spoiled his electoral honeymoon, has him holding off on the specifics for the time being.


--Michael Crowley

[Pab Sungenis]

16. If he wants to.

Obama has shown something ranging between indifference and outright distaste for gay issues since he got elected. As I said before, his behavior has spoken volumes, basically saying "I don't need their votes any more, so...."

I expect that the economy and the war are going to be "too big" as issues to "leave any time" to do such little things as, oh, protect civil rights....

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. that is my concern as well

his seeming indifference to gay rights has been a constant throughout his campaign.

[Pab Sungenis]

18. It just underlines that Harvey Milk was right 30 years ago.

We can't trust "gay friendly" politicians to get things done, we have to fight on our own and get gays and lesbians elected to make sure they get done.

[TTUBatfan2008]

20. Indifference and distaste eh?

Then why did he invite a lesbian couple to join him on his upcoming AMTRAK ride from Pennsylvania to D.C. for the Inauguration?

[Political Tiger]

29. You've decided Obama has thrown gays under the bus

even though the bus is not even up and running yet!

[TheWraith]

47. Excuse me, but that's bullshit you pulled out of your imagination.

You've drawn yourself a picture where Obama's somehow anti-gay while ignoring the platform he ran on, which is the most gay friendly in history.

[AnnieBW]

13. All right!

In a time when we're recruiting gangstas and criminals to fight, we should let ALL who wish to serve do so.

[mrs_p]

24. but, but, i thought he was a right winger?

:sarcasm:

[Creideiki]

32. That doesn't contradict the reports that he plans on waiting until 2010

But that will be an election year, so...

Tell you what. You hold your breath, and don't worry. If you pass out, I know CPR.

[MADem]

42. I wouldn't expect any movement until after 2012, myself.

The second paragraph of that OP, that wasn't cut and pasted for all of us to see, didn't seem to suggest any urgency at all.

When you're not running for reelection, you can attend to your "legacy," after all.

[nodramamama]

39. Obama is now on record promising the repeal of don't ask don't tell

Do not break your promise, Mr. President. I'm with you on this one.

[wmbrew0206]

43. I'll throw this one out there and would like to hear other recent vets' POV

While DADT needs to be removed, you have to understand that any male gay service member serving openly in a front line combat arms unit, will be endanger of being attacked because of their sexual orientation. Don't think that just because the law is changed the 17 to 21 year olds that serve in those units will change their minds or become more accepting. I know many here will equate this to the desegregation of the military, but I promise you to that 18 year old grunt, it is much different. I have infantry officer friends who say the first thing they do if it comes out one of their junior enlisted Marines is gay, is to get them out of the barracks for their own safety.

I think there is a good chance that attacks against gays will increase in combat units within the Army and the Marine Corps. Both services will have to be EXTREMELY proactive in investigating any possible attack on a gay service member. That requires complete buy in from the command structure of the service. As an example, think of the scene from Full Metal Jacket where Gomer Pyle gets held down and attacked by the other members of his platoon. Unless the command really wanted to find out who was responsible, it would be really easy for the command to say, yes an attack happened but we don't know who is responsible, sorry.

While service support and intel units have a much more enlighten view of gays in the military, front line combat arms units do not. I would be really surprised to see an openly gay service member being able to complete a full tour in a combat arms or SF unit before 2015.

I think people need to have a realistic view of what will happen when DADT is repealed. While it might be the official policy, non-acceptance of openly gay service members could possibly remain the unofficial policy of combat units within the Army and the Marine Corps.

I'd like other vets to give their opinions about this.

[LostinVA]

46. Yes, MAYBE in 2010

Even though a supermajority fo Americans is for ending that and passing ENDA. But, let's wait at least two years or so before pressing it.