DEMS Duck DADT for Another 2 Years.

[bluedawg12]

No we have no reason to worry about the progress GLBTQ folk are making.
Our party is in power now.



What, me worry?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/
Merry Christmas! Dems Duck DADT
This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Jim Burroway
December 26th, 2008

How’s this for a Christmas present? The Roll Call is reporting that Congressional Democrats have decided to delay taking up the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for at least two years — that would be after the mid-term elections:

Key Democrats — even openly gay lawmakers — are quietly conceding to letting another two years go by before trying to overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the controversial 1993 law banning openly gay people from serving in the military. Most fear that moving too quickly on such a divisive issue could backfire, and most would rather tread lightly, at least in the early months of President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

<snip>


Democratic lawmakers regularly beg off questions about the contentious policy, arguing that other issues are far more important — such as winding down the war in Iraq or bolstering the economy. They also remember the political uproar when then-President Bill Clinton used the beginning of his presidency to try to overturn an outright ban on gays serving in the military. That effort tied his administration in knots in his first months in office, and Democrats fear a repeat performance.”

<snip>

The country has chanced a lot in the past fifteen years since DADT was put into effect. But the Dems haven’t. They’re just as cowardly as they always were, this time spooked by a fifteen-year-old ghost.

The Democratic party holds a commanding presence in the House, and a very strong one in the Senate. If they wait two years, we’re looking at after the mid-term elections — when the ruling party typically loses seats. After that, we’ll hear the predictable counsel that DADT will not be doable with the more conservative Congress. This is the strongest position the Democratic party is likely to be in for some time. As one famous politician who had no fear of shaking things up often asked, if not now, when?

And where is the HRC on this? Oh, I see. They’re fully on board with the timid wait-and-see approach. Are they representing our interests here? Or the Democratic Party’s?

<snip>

story via queerty: http://www.queerty.com/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[kenny blankenship]

2. You'd think it would have sunk in that the country has more important stuff to do

than keeping gays down. But no...

[bluedawg12]

4. When will the time be right to stop ducking?

[kenny blankenship]

7. Whenever the dems stop being chickenshits

If they can stop hiding under their beds whenever some piece of shit like Colin Powell looks at them, then we will get this done. Powell should have been cashiered for his words and actions back when DADT was adopted --that made a bad situation even worse. The military does not run the civilian government and if there are high ranking officers who think differently then they need to be identified and sent on a permanent golfing vacation. DADT made discrimination against homosexuals FEDERAL LAW for the first time ever, and now requires an act of Congress to end discrimination in the military, instead of a simple Executive Order. The Democrats and Clinton dug themselves a hole, and threw us in it.

[MNBrewer]

34. just as soon as we're 3 years from an election

oh, wait... they happen every 2 years.....

Oh well.

[Sub Atomic]

3. The Navy lost over $1MM in training when they kicked me out.

I was kicked out in 1986 for being a faggot.

This was after the Navy spent over $1MM training me to be a nuclear engineer.


It's a good thing that this fag didn't go nuclear way back then.

[bluedawg12]

5. What a tragic waste of your talent and tax payer money.

[HillbillyBob]

43. I was an air traffic controller trainee aboard Enterprise almosy 1/2

way through training for carrier duty when I was outted, tossed away like trash.
I could not get into civilian air traffic because of my discharge, even though it was Administrative under Honorable Conditions. I went voluntarily because I was told that if I fought it I WOULD be put in the brig.
All for being a faggot too. Ironically there were quite a high percentage of gays on Big E.
We got the highest marks and Enterprise was a premier flagship..

[TheWraith]

6. Actually, Carl Levin never said what they attribute to him.

They claim he said nothing would be done for a few years. What the actually said was that it's on the agenda, but there were urgent issues (such as the economy and the war) that came first.

[GodlessBiker]

8. It's a known fact that politicians cannot rub their stomachs and pat their heads at the same time.

[noamnety]

9. Yep, soon as they solve all poverty and stop all wars

they'll get right on this. They are thinking it will take two years. :)

[kenny blankenship]

10. And end (and reverse) global warming, and...

[bluedawg12]

16. Yes, the world must be "perfect" for it to be the right time

of course, there is always those pesky elections to worry about.

Which is why many say, they will only donate and actively support pro-gay rights legislators.

Others reply, "but that makes you a single issues voter!"

Double bind.

Note to self: Must stop listening to bad advice.

[bluedawg12]

11. Please proivde a link, I would like to read the statement in context. n/t

[bluedawg12]

12. Here is my link to the primary source: Congerssional Roll Call

Here is the quote from Sen. Levin from Congressional Roll Call:

>>Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) last week said it could still be a few years before anything changes.

“It ought to be re-examined and it ought to be on the agenda, but it shouldn’t be very high on the agenda,” Levin said. “There are just too many other more important things to do.” <<

http://www.rollcall.com/news/30978-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[TheWraith]

17. That is the original comment. "a few years" is Roll Call's interpretation.

Levin never said that.

[bluedawg12]

32. Fair enough, wraith and good point. I'll take Biden's word

and rememeber the pledge:

>“I’m not making a commitment for the administration based on any timetable. But the commitments we made during the campaign to deal with these issues of equity and fairness, we will deliver on in our administration,” Vice President-elect Joseph Biden said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” <
Source: roll call.

The issue is not that it be first, as much as, after 15 years it not be forgotten.

By administration, I assume him to mean this term, as there is no second term to speak of. Hope for yes, speak of? No.

[TheWraith]

38. I don't think it will be forgotten.

The US is a much different place than it was 15 years ago.

[bluedawg12]

41. True, times change and that's also what we inted to do with accountability.

[jgraz]

13. Dumb question: do we really need Congress to overturn this?

I thought the Prez could do this with a simple order to the Joint Chiefs. :shrug:

[Sub Atomic]

14. *not holding my breath for Obama to do anything meaningful by himself*

[bluedawg12]

15. I'm not a legal beagle, but I understand that if it is a law -

then, either congress can over turn it, or it could be challenged in Federal Court, but then, would end up in this current SCOTUS. I don't think the POTUS can over turn laws.

Anyone? This is a good question.

[TheWraith]

19. The federal courts, including the Supremes, can't overrule military laws. nt

[GodlessBiker]

26. Sure they can, if the law violates the Constitution. But the courts give a lot of leeway ...

to the military.

For example, if military law came to say that a soldier could be executed without trial, the Supreme Court could step in.

But DADT is a law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton.

[TheWraith]

39. It has to do more than violate the Constitution.

The UCMJ has various provisions which are unconstitutional under standing SCOTUS decisions, but are allowed to stand in the UCMJ because of, among other things, the court's limited authority over the military.

For that matter, it has to get to the SCOTUS in the first place, since all military legal matters are handled in the seperate military judicial system, which has extremely limited oversight by the Supremes.

[bluedawg12]

42. A service member cannot appeal a court martial to SCOTUS.

However, since Congress passed the laws that become embedded in the UCMJ, the Congressional law is subject to legal review.

If the Congressonal law is Unconstitutional then, Congress would then have to act to change the UCMJ.

In another words, litigate the congressional law and not the military and the UCMJ.

[TheWraith]

18. No, he cannot. Changing the UCMJ requires an act of Congress. nt

[bluedawg12]

29. Thanks wraith! A further look: It has been challenged in the Courts.

Even if requires strictly Congressional repeal, as the head of the party, the POTUS exerts powerful influence over what the party policy will be.


Here's some background on the Congressonal Law known as DADT and some info. on Court challenges:

Don't ask, don't tell is the common term for the policy about homosexuality in the U.S. military mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation.

"Don't ask, don't tell" has been upheld five times in federal court, and in a Supreme Court case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the federal government could withhold funding in order to force universities to accept military recruiters in spite of their nondiscrimination policies.

Barack Obama's position
President-elect Barack Obama plans on repealing the policy and allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the armed forces, agreeing with Gen. Shalikashvili and stating that the US government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops expelled from the military, including language experts fluent in Arabic.<14> <15> In late November, 2008, Obama advisers announced that his plans to repeal the policy may be delayed until as late as 2010, because Obama "first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus, and then present legislation to Congress."<16>

<<


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

[TheWraith]

37. Or more accurately, people have tried to challenge it in court.

However, military law stands as something of an exemption from normal federal law: the military is allowed to maintain rules which have been judged unconstitutional as state laws, since, well, just since they're allowed to. It's why the military still has laws against things like adultery and sodomy (defined as any form of oral or anal sex, straight or gay) even though they've been overturned as being unconstitutional everywhere else.

[bluedawg12]

40. The Defense is Different Argument + The Heckler's Veto.

But going back a step, the UCMJ:

>>The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. ch.47) is the foundation of military law in the United States.

UCMJ History:

Effective upon the founding of the United States in 1776, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces.<1>

On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later.

The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code's title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.

The current version is printed in the latest version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts 2006 and 2007.<<

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

.........

My thought on this in terms of Court action, was not to take the Military to Court, as that is a separate legal system, but, to challenge to Congressional Law, as being Unconstituional.

If that were supported by the Court, then the Congressional Law would be overturned, and Congress would then have to act to change the UCMJ.

Obviously that is a long shot, hence the idea of passing bad laws is worst tha now laws at all, because now you have to verturn a bad law.

Also, I agree, historically the attempts through the Courts have failed.

I see it as more expedient to have Congress change the law, in this case a legislative approach would be more expiditious than judicial.

..........

As far as the military exemption from the law, this is an excellent article about that and DADT, it's a bit long, but for any one seriously interested in this law, this article is a good read, very touching and humane with examples of injustices that are hard to believe actually happened to good men and women serving with honor and cites legal reasons why the should be abolished.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol'y+953#H1N6

Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military
8/22/2008 11:16:00 AM

Cited: 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 953
<*pg 953>
SEXUALLY SPEAKING: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SHANNON GILREATH*

The "Defense is Different" argument is essentially a rationale for allowing government actions that would otherwise be blatantly unconstitutional, on the grounds that (1) the military is a very special environment requiring an especial surrender of personal liberty and (2) military officials have superior expertise to determine how the proper balance between uniformity and personal liberty is struck.45 Courts often embrace this argument through a policy of judicial deference to military decision-making -- even in the face of a constitutional challenge. Thus, any claim that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be declared unconstitutional as a violation of First Amendment speech rights will be more difficult than a similar challenge made outside the military context. However, no court has held that deference to the military is limitless.46

As it stands, the only soldiers who may speak in favor of the ability of gays and lesbians to live authentic lives while serving their country are straight soldiers, or gays who are secreting their authentic selves. It is a curious debate indeed when the only people prohibited from debating are the victims of the policy the debate addresses...

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ensures that the only viewpoint missing in the debate is the point of view of the gay or lesbian service member. But the central contribution of the First Amendment to American society is that it ensures every viewpoint has a chance to be heard. Surely, this philosophy is why the courts have held that viewpoint discrimination -- the very kind of discrimination wrought by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- is the greatest of First Amendment sins.43

At bottom, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is bigotry. And of course, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is extreme censorship --including censorship of speech that goes to the very heart of the First Amendment. That should be no surprise: hatred, intolerance, and suppression of speech have gone hand-in-hand throughout history. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" tells Americans that the very expression of a gay or lesbian identity is disgusting. It sends the message that, because gays are so disgusting, straight soldiers will not want to work with them and should not be required to do so. It provides a legal "heckler's veto" for service members who do not want to hear the unpleasant realities of a sexually-diverse America.

Of note is the right wing view, as recently as August 2008, that DADT does not do enough. This is a hint of the reasoning and "expertice" we are up against.

http://cmrlink.org/HMilitary.asp?docID=336

Also see: Problem with Gays in the Military for relevant information on this subject.

>>We keep hearing about personnel losses that have occurred since 1994 when military personnel announce that they are homosexual, and are honorably discharged. In comparison to discharges for other reasons, such as pregnancy or violations of weight standards, these numbers are relatively small. <14> They could be reduced to near-zero if the Defense Department stopped issuing misleading information about the eligibility of homosexuals to serve in uniform. The routine inquiry about homosexuality can and should be reinstated now; no additional legislation is required. <<

[yardwork]

36. Isn't that what Clinton tried to do?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[La Lioness Priyanka]

21. while it is tragic for gays who are currently in the military, i am not sure that this is a bad idea

1. we do not in our community have good leadership and i do not think we can deal with another high profile failure like prop8

2. if congress doesnt tackle what the country considers its urgent problems like the economy, this will lead to partisan politics and we will fail.

3. it gives us activists us some time to get our game plan together so when this comes about we can be effective in mobilizing public support

(i do not think we should postpone this to AFTER midterm elections in 2010. we should do it before then). sorry for being unclear on that one. i think early 2010 and not fall 2010.)

[Ioo]

22. I served under DADT, THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA

THe dems do not get it, it is NOT going to get better than it is right now... they WILL lose seats in 2010, history shows this over and over and over...

NOPE, what they are doing is breaking the promises made to the GLBT community AGAIN...

I am fucking over it. I no longer care who gets elected, I am going to get fucked both ways... at least I know one hates me openly, the other, just secretly. I will save my money and vote for my dog, he loves me!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. i think they should tackle it before 2010. maybe late 2009. nt

[noamnety]

23. I think the article nailed it.

If they wait two years, there's a chance given the shit economy that voters will blame it on democrats and vote republicans back in - and then *oh damn, we can't pass it now, there's not enough votes.

and in two years, the economy will still have problems, so if all else fails they can still fall back on "we can't fix it til the economy is better."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. i was unclear. i meant before elections 2010. not waiting till midterm

[noamnety]

27. I think there's even less chance of that happening.

I doubt they'd want to do that right before a big election (which will no doubt be the biggest election of our lifetime. *snort*)

[MNBrewer]

35. Right. Can't do it BEFORE an election, OR after!

Now, if we could only fit it in some OTHER time :sarcasm:

Dems....

[bluedawg12]

33. My take is that DOMA should be first, I just don't want DADT swept under the rug.

If Biden promises they will tackle this in the first term, that seems reasonble.

I totally agree, that unripe and poorly planned actions leading to set backs sends a message that gay rights issues are weak and not supported by the majority of people and that causes more damage.

[LostinVA]

28. This si somethig they couldeasily get passed NOW, and with little real uproar

The big majority of the American public supports this, as do many active and retired military leaders.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

45. How could there possibly be a deleted message in response to this?

I mean, who could argue with your post. It is 100% factually correct.

www.sldn.org could educate some people.

[bluedawg12]

46. It is true, the majority of Americans support ending DADT.

I didn't see what was written, but the reply above was a fact.

[gaspee]

30. And in 2010

They'll say it's not the right time - we can't afford to upset the christians before the 2012 election!

3,000,000 verse, same as the first.

Did anyone really expect anything else? Really?

[bluedawg12]

44. For any gay or lesbian ex service members this is a good read>

This is an excellent legal arugment against DADT, but the human element is also there to remind us of the injustice and human tragedy behind the impersonal words.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol'y+953#H1N6

Legislative History of the Law Regarding Homosexuals in the Military
8/22/2008 11:16:00 AM

Cited: 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol'y 953
<*pg 953>
SEXUALLY SPEAKING: "DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL" AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

SHANNON GILREATH*


A couple of years ago, a good friend of mine, a man who is involved with a male enlisted member of the military, watched his partner leave for Iraq. Naturally, my friend and his partner are involved in a very discreet relationship because of the military's ban on openly gay service members -- the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. My friend phoned me to express how painful their parting was. Interestingly, the most stinging part for my friend was his detachment from the heterocentric drama unfolding around him at the military base. Everywhere he looked, it seemed, opposite-sex couples embraced, and some wept openly and kissed. But as the transport carrying my friend's partner of five years left Fort Bragg, North Carolina, he could only stare silently. My friend and his partner could not share one last embrace or one last goodbye kiss because of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Such public displays of same-sex affection trigger separation proceedings under current military regulations.1

At that same time, across the country in Washington State, Major Margaret Witt was finding herself at the mercy of those same regulations.2 In 2004, the military began separation proceedings against Witt -- a reservist and decorated nineteen-year veteran with the Air Force -- when an anonymous tip revealed that she was in a long-term lesbian relationship. By all accounts, Witt was an exemplary service member. She was a stellar operating-room and flight nurse; President Bush awarded her the Air Medal for service in the Middle East and, later, the Air Force Commendation Medal. Even as the military scrambled to find qualified nurses to fill open positions, Witt was discharged.

In 2006, a federal district judge dismissed the suit that Witt brought to get her job back. Witt argued that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was unconstitutional "as applied" to her, and that Lawrence v. Texas3 and United States v. Marcum4 <*pg 954> established a liberty interest in the off-base private conduct for which she was punished. The judge disagreed:

<snip>
Having arrived at the appropriate level of scrutiny, why does "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fail to pass muster? The government has consistently argued two reasons why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is necessary for the function of the military: privacy of the soldier and unit cohesion. Each of these reasons amounts to a lot of puffing. Certainly, they do not amount to compelling interests accomplished by the narrowly-tailored means required by the First Amendment when quintessentially political expression is targeted because of its message.

<snip?

Professor Tobias Wolff explored a related point in his assessment of the scope of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which he concluded reached far beyond the <*pg 961> military setting.35 Wolff details the case of Steve May. From 1999 to 2002, May, a gay man, served as a Representative in the Arizona legislature.36 While on reserve status in the Army Reserves, May rose to challenge a particularly virulent anti-gay speech by another legislator, who supported a bill that would prohibit state agencies from providing domestic partnership benefits to same-sex employees.37 In his speech on the floor of the Arizona House, May employed a very effective rhetorical tool: He explained why the anti-gay bill was a bad idea and offered himself, a stable, successful, non-promiscuous, state Representative as the foil to the picture of gays as depraved moral degenerates painted by the opposing Representative.38 This courage cost May his position in the military. Just a few months later, based upon his speech, the military began separation proceedings against May.39 The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy's unlimited scope, applying "24 hours each day" to expression "on or off base" and "on duty or off duty,"40 reached even the political speech of an elected representative of the people of Arizona.41

May's story is a drastic example of the damage that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" does to the public debate about what is perhaps the defining civil rights issue of our day -- equality for gays and lesbians in the United States

[IndianaGreen]

47. Rick Warren is opposed to repeal of DADT, as is James Dobson et al

They have threaten in the past to tell all fundie service members to get out of the military if gays are allowed to serve openly.