"Obama Says Repeal Of Military Gay Ban Needs Study"

[Bluebear]

Aubrey Sarvis, the president of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that advocates for the repeal of the military's gay ban, is speaking out on President Barack Obama's reported delay in fulfilling a campaign promise to lift “don't ask, don't tell,” the 16-year-old military law that bans open gay service.

The Boston Globe reported on Feb. 1 that the administration would wait for a Pentagon assessment on the issue before moving forward. Sarvis called that Washington-speak for “let's just kick this down the road a ways” in a Huffington Post editorial...

The Pentagon has been told that the Obama administration will not be looking to lift the ban soon, reports the Globe.

President Obama first began distancing himself from the issue in September when he told Mark Segal, publisher of gay weekly Philadelphia Gay News (www.epgn.com), that he would first seek consensus from lawmakers and commanders on the issue.

“Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell', I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process, getting the Joint Chiefs of Staff clear in terms of what our priorities are going to be,” Obama said.

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=3180&MediaType=1&Category=26

[Vinca]

1. I don't get it. This seems like such a no brainer. nt

[Tesha]

29. He already got the votes of the gays and won't need them again for at least 3.8 years. (NT)

[EFerrari]

31. We're all in that position. And most of us are also in "safe" districts

where the incumbent doesn't worry very much about getting our vote. I could bleed to death on Nancy Pelosi's porch and she'd just call someone to clean up the mess.

[Fornax]

57. Not safe

I live in Greenville SC in the shadow of Bob Jones University. It isn't safe. I'd love to move.

[Maven]

2. Global warming needs more study also

LOL.

[EFerrari]

3. DADT is dangerous as hell and Obama should have signed the order

right along side the order to shut down Guantanamo.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Congress has to do it. (nt)

[EFerrari]

8. Is that right? I still think Obama should sign an order citing safety issues

and let all the morans on the hill sort out the legislation. They're impotent sheep most of them, and it'll take them years to do it. But, Obama is a cautious man and he'll never do that.

[TheWraith]

50. Yes, it's congressional legislation. Won't take years, though, this is just more bullshit.

Yet another case where media outlets are making shit up out of thin air to justify a story and get people in a tizzy. People should have learned from the LAST time this happened, when Politico created a "story" about Obama delaying DADT until 2011 based on one remark made by Conyers about there being more urgent priorities.

[Zywiec]

7. I think DADT is stupid also, but how is it dangerous?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

9. It diminishes the access of gay service men and women to law enforcement.

[Zywiec]

13. Yep, that makes sense to me. Thanks! n/t

[EFerrari]

15. And come to think of it,maybe to medical care,too.

:grr:

[BOSSHOG]

4. I agree

We should study why the military allows alcoholics, incompetents, spouse abusers, dunder heads and the fiscally ignorant to continue serving and yet there is such an intense concern about somebody's fucking sex life. Study My Ass. I think we should ban religious zealots from positions of authority in the military. At least that could be justified.

[MNDemNY]

18. Can we ban them from positions of authority everywhere? Please?

[Horse with no Name]

37. Don't forget the felons, racists and gangbangers

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/01/ING42LCIGK1.DTL

>>>snip
The Army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits -- in one reported case, they went to a "youth prison" in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated, he was "barely 17 when he enlisted last January" and his divorced parents say "recruiters used false promises and forged documents to enlist him."

While confusion exists about whether the boy's mother actually signed a parental consent form allowing her son to enlist, his "father apparently wasn't even at the signing, but his name is on the form too."

Law enforcement officials report that the military is now "allowing more applicants with gang tattoos," the Chicago Sun-Times reports, "because they are under the gun to keep enlistment up." They also note that "gang activity maybe rising among soldiers." The paper was provided with "photos of military buildings and equipment in Iraq that were vandalized with graffiti of gangs based in Chicago, Los Angeles and other cities."

Last month, the Sun-Times reported that a gang member facing federal charges of murder and robbery enlisted in the Marine Corps "while he was free on bond -- and was preparing to ship out to boot camp when Marine officials recently discovered he was under indictment." While this recruit was eventually booted from the Corps, a Milwaukee police detective and Army veteran, who serves on the federal drug and gang task force that arrested the would-be Marine, noted that other "gang-bangers are going over to Iraq and sending weapons back ... gang members are getting access to military training and weapons."

[bdab1973]

51. This is a problem

It used to not be this way...but part of me thinks that beyond the Iraq/Afghan war, it's also attributable to the widening gap between our civilian society and the military. Military service used to be seen as part of one's service to the country and just part of being American. But today, the percentage of people who have served in the military is very small. It's almost becoming it's own little clique.

I have seen a general lowering of standards in who joins. I'll also state that it bothers me. It bothers me for two reasons...first, we can't have idiots defending our country. Second, I do not believe in the consensus that others have (including some of my own family) that only the dregs of society should serve in the military. That's so ass backwards I can't even begin to defend something like that.

I'm not in the Army anymore, but I'm around them all the time (I'm in Baghdad). I was enlisted in the Army 17 years ago, and things are very different today than things were back then. Discipline seems to be slipping, for sure. Even in the Air Force, I've sometimes seen that "thug" mentality. Hey, great, if you wanna be a thug on your neighborhood street, that's fine. But don't be that way in uniform, representing our country, and executing our foreign policy. One example...I saw this kid (he was white by the way) in uniform sporting a very light, but still visible, goatee (beards are verboten, unless you have a medical waiver for shaving), and he walked right by us (a Lieutenant Colonel, two Majors, a Captain and a Master Sergeant) and all that he did was nod his head up and go "whassup". WTF??? You know, I'm not one of those types that needs a salute to get me off, but what the hell happened to any kind of discipline in our military? Even the Lt Colonel (our commander) was so shocked he looked at us and said "what the hell was that?". We're all laid back types, and we mostly laughed it off...I think the MSgt responded with some smart ass comment like "that was Vanilla Ice...he's joined the Air Force". But it underlined in my mind a general trend I see in our military, and a trend that's happening much more rapidly in the Army.

Anyways, that's my rant on the subject...

[Toasterlad]

55. "what the hell happened to any kind of discipline in our military?"

I think you answered your own question. Not one of those officers immediately turned and chewed that kid out? Back in my Navy days, I would never THINK of speaking to an officer like that, and I can't think of an officer who would accept being spoken to that way. Granted, I never served in a combat zone, so I'm unsure of the protocol under near-constant hostile conditions, but I would think in that case you would want MORE discipline, not less. That punk should not have been allowed to get away with that behavior.

It's seemed to me for awhile that, whereas, as you said, the military was once full of all types of people, now it is only the gung-ho kill-something no-future losers who are joining up. That does not bode well for the future of our military, especially if no one is training them to respect their officers, their country, and themselves, not to mention the civilians (on both sides) that they encounter on a daily basis. If today's armed services are the face of America in the middle east, the "mission" will NEVER be "accomplished".

[bdab1973]

48. I have a friend who got a DUI

...he's on his way out of the military. He can't get promoted, his career is over. He's not an alcoholic, just went out one night and decided to drive home...simple mistake, but cost him. So while I'm sure we can go digging up examples of people that get around the law, in my 17 years of experience being in the military, people with abusive behaviors, alcohol or substance abuse problems tend to be shown the door. Fiscally ignorant types are also often shown the door because they wind up losing their security clearances. Incompetence...depends on your definition I suppose. I fly, and I've seen a few that weren't that great at the flying part, but made great staff officers, and vice versa. I'm one of those other types...I fly really well, but I despise and hate office jobs, and I doubt I'd be any good at pushing paper.

[14thColony]

52. Yep, career death for an officer

But the Es can and do survive it. Going rate around here for an off-base DUI is LoR, UIF, and a referral EPR/OPR, which did cost a soon-to-be Master Sergeant his (upcoming) stripe. But he tests well and has plenty of points, so he'll make it next time around no problem.

[philosophie_en_rose]

5. A study of what?

They should be thoughtful about how they're going to make it safer for people that come out, but do they seriously need a study to decide not to discriminate?

[Cid_B]

47. It may seem simple but there is a whole host of issues...

... that deserve to be thoroughly thought out, even if only for practical implementation.

Will they be safe? Will they be assaulted? Can a homosexual be a roommate with a heterosexual of the same gender? What level of mandatory education is legally and ethically needed to integrate homosexuals into the military? What effects on morale will it have? Which aspects of UCMJ need to be revamped?

That is just a short list off the top of my head. I'm sure there is more.

[David Dunham]

6. The policy is a statute. CONGRESS has to vote to repeal it. Obama can't himself do it

[EFerrari]

11. Sorry, I either never knew that or managed to forget it. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

10. And by "study" I hope he means

"get 'er done." Evidently there are a couple of Dem senators foot dragging on this. Shameful, really.

[aikoaiko]

12. Where, except in the title, is a study mentioned?

:shrug:

Of course, he would want to "consensus from lawmakers and commanders on the issue". That's what fuckin leaders do.

But where is this all together different idea of a "study" coming from?

[LostinVA]

14. A supermajority of Americans is for the repeal of DADT

A SUPERMAJORITY.

There is no legit reason for a "study."

[EFerrari]

17. It's so frustrating that Congress is completely dysfunctional.

They are a hazard and no one's immediate health or safety should be in their hands in the first place.

That's why we have an Executive, to step in in a timely manner. This is why Congress doesn't control FEMA or the National Guard.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

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

[bluedawg12]

40. Listen up rangersmith82 - here's your source:

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/Marine+General+Questions+Obama+Plan

Marine General Questions Obama Plan to Study Gay Ban
Scholars Concur that More Study is Unnecessary and Could Have Political Costs

"Given CNN’s December 2008 poll showing 81 percent public approval for open gay service, Belkin said, Obama should not hesitate to end the policy by executive order."

Also there are currently 65,000 gay men and women in uniform at present:

"Extensive scholarly research already shows that allowing the 65,000 gays and lesbians currently in uniform to serve openly will not harm the military in any way."

.........

Read the article, it might ease your mind, as far as data. Or not.

As far as troop morale and attitude that comes from the top down.

There is no fraternizing in the military. Everyone keeps it zipped, or is supposed to, gay or straight.

It's up to the leadership to train the troops and the troops follow. If the brass says accept gays, the troops will, of course there has to be training and that also means no fraternizing.

They don't have to keep their sexuality to themselves and live a lie, that's the point. There is a difference between being open and hitting on people. That's called, no fraternizing.

One more thing, if a gay man wants to be a ranger or a SEAL or special OPS, they will be that. Bigotry can be untaught too, with a little discipline and self control.

[BlooInBloo]

38. What exactly is a SUPERMAJORITY, and how does it differ from a supermajority...

and what is the latter, as well?

[ferrous wheel]

16. Clinton did the same thing, promised to get it killed and caved in to the fundies.

Promises, promises...
:grr:

[MNDemNY]

19. Get it killed? He enacted it.

[ferrous wheel]

20. Yes, as a "compromise". He campaigned with a promise to eliminate the

prohibition altogether.
edit: by the way he didn't 'enact' it, Congress did.

[DURHAM D]

21. Yes - and before he enacted it things were sooooo much better in the military.

NOT.

Just be sure to thank Senator Sam Nunn, Senator David Boren and Colin Powell for the congressional bill called DADT.

[EFerrari]

22. How do you figure that?

[DURHAM D]

26. It wasn't better but

many younger folks think it was and Bill Clinton screwed things up.

I should have used the "just kidding" symbol in my post.

[EFerrari]

28. Oops. I guess it's still Monday at my house.

:)

[ferrous wheel]

27. Check the calibration on your sarcasmometer

:evilgrin:

[ferrous wheel]

24. Somewhat ironically, Barry Goldwater actively worked to have the ban overturned completely.

"strange bedfellows", as it were...
;-)

[cherish44]

25. He intended to get the gay ban repealed

And caved. Don't Ask Don't Tell just means they can't ask you if you're gay. People can still get kicked out of the military if they let it be known they are gay.

[rpannier]

35. If by caved you mean

He prevented Sen Nunn from enacting legislation that would have made completely banned gays from serving then `Yes` he caved

It was not a pretty decision by Clinton

I was in the military in 93 and there was a tremendous amount of opposition within the service to letting Gays serve at all in any capacity -- secretly or in the open

[LostinVA]

45. I think we can "thank"/blame Sam Nunn for that

[Marrah_G]

30. If he keeps delaying the repeal of this.......

.....then I will consider him just another tool, saying one thing and doing another, like so many disappointing politicians before him..

I hope to hell he is different, but comments like this are not helpful.

[MadHound]

32. Kicking that can on down the road eh?

Well Obama, I guess you're no Harry Truman. Truman at least had the courage of his convictions, and did the right thing regardless of the political consequences. Obama's too concerned about getting reelected to do the right thing and thus gays are getting thrown under the bus.

Coward, just another fucking coward.

[EFerrari]

33. In fairness, what first term president doesn't?

And, Obama is facing the worst buffet any new president has in -- how many years? At least fifty.

But, he's not really the issue here, imho. Or, he's only the lesser part of it. Congress is DOA and *that* is the problem.

[Lilith Velkor]

43. Truman didn't.

He signed Executive Order 9981 (note: without Congress) after the Democratic Convention, but before the general election. That's why it was so close.

And his buffet was comparable.

[EFerrari]

46. I always thought it was close because the black vote was just moving over

to the Democrats. Interesting. :)

[elleng]

34. Seemed quick and easy for clinton too, eh?

And what did we get stuck with? Everyone happy?

[EFerrari]

36. I have no faith in uploading projects to Congress.

These are the same people that couldn't impeach the torture president. :shrug:

[readmoreoften]

39. How bipartisan of him. Well, there's about 2 decades of studies he can read up on pretty damn quick.

Or he can just look at other nation's armies and say, hey, DADT's fucking stupid.

[Bluebear]

44. We don't want to be like Belgium or anything, we're Merkun!

[varelse]

41. “Although I have consistently said I would repeal 'don't ask, don't tell',

I believe that the way to do it is make sure that we are working through a process"

Psst, Mr President... the way to do it is take a page out of the Harry Truman book and just get it DONE.

[Orsino]

42. There's nothing to study...

...unless it's ways to help the bigots in uniform come to terms with the fear they've been avoiding all these years.

[anonymous171]

49. Obama is a genius. DADT is harmful. The "study" will show that.

Obama will repeal it, but it will look like he is just responding to the findings of the study. He will look pragmatic instead of partisan.

[Toasterlad]

56. See Now, You Learn Something Every Day! I Had No Idea That Allowing Discrimination Was Genius!

I always thought it was, at best, cowardice! Now I know differently! Thank God for DU! If it weren't for this place, I'd think Obama was just another spineless fucking political douche who campaigned on promises and then reneged! Now I know better!

[14thColony]

53. I can only speak for me

and my tiny, tiny little scrap of one part of one service of the US armed forces...but I know very very few long-term military people who would have the slightest problem with repealing DADT.

In the words of a colleague of mine some years ago during the Clinton era, when confronted with an outraged fellow officer fearful that 'the gays' would 'run rampant' in the military soon:

"No Bob, I don't want to see 'the gays' f*cking on the desks. Likewise I don't want to see the heterosexuals f*cking on the desks either. I want everyone to do their goddamned jobs while they're at work, and then as far as I'm concerned they're free to f*ck whoever they want when they get home."

For me that still pretty much sums it up.

[EFerrari]

54. When you break it down to the office furniture, sanity always wins out.

lol

:)