Obama is all talk and no action when it comes to LGBT issues

[t0dd]

And this article makes that crystal clear.

San Francisco Bay Times
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=10671

Of course I still like and respect Barack Obama. And I thought he was pretty funny at the White House correspondents’ dinner the other night. But when it comes to LGBT issues, the man is a total wimp.

No, I don’t expect him to make controversial stands on principle at a time when he needs political consensus to fix the economy, reform health care and fight the Taliban. But I do expect him to do something. Just something. Anything.

Let’s take military service. Americans now overwhelmingly support openly gay service. In particular, Americans support the personification of counter-productive military discrimination: the openly gay Arabic translator. Since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is an act of Congress, the policy cannot be repealed with a stroke of the pen. But as some of our advocates are pointing out, a stroke of the pen can nonetheless issue a stop loss order, suspending the policy when it comes to, let’s say, Arabic translators.

It would just be a gesture. And it would probably heighten calls for an order to suspend the policy for every gay service member pending a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But it would be something.

In late April, Lt. Dan Choi, West Point graduate, Iraq veteran and yes, an Arabic linguist, was booted out of the Army after coming out of the closet.

Since his discharge, he has held several TV interviews and written an open letter to Obama. His termination letter, wrote Choi, felt like a slap in the face.

“It is a slap in the face to me. It is a slap in the face to my soldiers, peers and leaders who have demonstrated that an infantry unit can be professional enough to accept diversity, to accept capable leaders, to accept skilled soldiers….

“As an infantry officer, I am not used to begging. But I beg you today, do not fire me.”

But Obama did fire Lieutenant Choi, his spokesman Robert Gibbs telling the press that the president will not intervene in military personnel issues, but will work to forge a “durable legislative solution” at some unknowable point in the future.

Earlier, Obama hand-wrote a sweet little note to another ousted soldier, Second Lieutenant Sandy Tsao, calling her “an outstanding American,” and insisting without any specifics or schedule that he was “committed to changing the policy.” That was sort of nice, but not exactly helpful to anyone but Lt. Tsao’s great grandchildren, who can sell the letter on E-Bay a hundred years from now for big bucks.

On Sunday, Obama’s national security advisor, General Jim Jones, told George Stephanopoulis that he “didn’t know” if Don’t Ask would be overturned, and that it wasn’t an immediate priority because “we have a lot on our plate right now.” Jones thus echoed the comment we heard awhile back from Defense Secretary Gates, who told someone on TV that the issue of gay service would be “kicked down the road a little bit.”

And finally, last month, the White House Web site revised the official policy on gays in the military from a pledge to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to a vague plan to “change” the current law “in a sensible way.” The original language was quickly restored after LGBT bloggers and activists went ballistic.
You get the picture. On this issue, and on every other question of gay civil rights, the Obama administration is literally all talk and no action. All I’m asking for is a lot of talk and a teeny bit of action.

I understand strategic priorities, and like you, I can close my eyes and summon up the sound of our president intoning the mantra he applies to virtually every national dilemma: “It won’t be easy. And it won’t happen overnight.” Well, fine fine fine. I’m not looking for overnight results, and I don’t expect that Obama will tackle a “hard thing” on our behalf right away. But for God’s sake, man, do something. Something easy. And for the record, that stupid joke about marrying David Axelrod in Iowa was not particularly clever.

For emphasis:

“As an infantry officer, I am not used to begging. But I beg you today, do not fire me.”
But Obama did fire Lieutenant Choi, his spokesman Robert Gibbs telling the press that the president will not intervene in military personnel issues...

Lovely..

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Choi fired himself. End of story. nt

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

15. Such depth and insight

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Without arguing the merits (and I do not believe there ARE any) of DADT,

Choi, fully aware of the consequenses of coming out, violated DADT.

How is this Obama's fault? Obama did NOT fire him. Choi voluntered the information that got him fired. That information put Choi in the gears of the military justice system, and even the President CANNOT interfere with that. Until Congress eliminates DADT, that is how the system works.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

17. Or as Commander in Chief, he could simply order the military to stop discharging people we need

And tell Congress they need to work on it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. That would be ordering the military to commit a crime.

Sorry, the real world isn't that simple.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

19. I guess Truman ordered the military to commit a crime too, then

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. No, he didn't.

The military was segregated due to previous administrative orders, not acts of congress.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. That's not the same thing at all. There was no law barring blacks from

serving in the military. There was merely a military policy of not integrating units. As CIC, Truman could change that policy. Obama, however, cannot change the law - that is in Congress' purview. He can put pressure on congress to change it, but it would have some political cost at a time when he needs all the backing he can get to deal with the economy and two on-going wars.

Personally, I think he DOES have the political capital now and I'm disappointed he's not pushing harder on it - but I don't know what he IS doing behind the scenes. I'm certain that what he does not want is to push it publicly and see it shot down, giving him a loss. We know that the majority of the public backs equal service, but the majority in congress is still too afraid of the minority votes.

He has long since advocated ending DADT - when we see him getting out front on the issue it will be because he has made certain that congress will repeal it.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

24. A supermajority of Americans support repealing DADT

The rest aren't going to back him for anything, anyway.

I fail to see how it has political cost.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Unfortunately, in this case, we are not a democracy but a republic.

Having the people behind the issue doesn't help if the elected representatives are not behind the issue. I've seen nothing that suggests that a majority of either the House or the Senate supports repeal of DADT - too many of them are owned by the Pentagon.

If there was such a thing as a national referendum, repeal would certainly pass.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. Great.

Then they can tell congress to pass a bill repealing DADT and Obama will be happy to sign it.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Congress gave the Commander in Chief

"the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”"

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

So no. An order from the Commander in Chief to halt military separations in regards to gay & lesbian service members would be well within the law.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. If it were a matter of national secuirity, sure.

But it's not. It's a civil rights issue.

I think we've had enough of Presidents skirting congress claiming issues of national security, thanks.

[Luminous Animal]

49. National security in this context is specific.

"...essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”"

If Congress feels that, in fact, they unintentionally made a skirt when they thought they were crafting a practical provision, well they can simply go back and unmake that skirt. Anyway, it is impossible to skirt while at the same time exercising that which has been granted. I am not proposing that Obama skirt Congress. I am proposing that he exercise his Congressional sanctioned powers. When we are finally out of Afghanistan in 5 or 10 years, the national emergency will be over and nobody will give two squats about gays in the military and DADT and Congress can pass legislation rescinding it.

[KamaAina]

61. Well played, indeed, Ma'am!

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much). I was unaware of that. Can it be that the CinC is as well?

:thumbsup:

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. How many crimes has the military been ordered to commit in the previous 8 years?

At least this so called "crime" (overturning the ban on gays) would be a worthwhile action with positive results.

[lies and propaganda]

22. most worthless post of the day

and lacking about as much empathy as you possibly could.

He was the fallguy.. willing to let the example be made of him in order to change the stupid bullshit law.

[t0dd]

27. Rosa Parks arrested herself. End of story. nt

[lies and propaganda]

67. 2nd Most Worthless! Good job dude!

[KamaAina]

62. FAIL.

End of post.

[Political Tiger]

2. Obama hates the gays.

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. He's worse than Hitler.

[spoony]

64. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of bullshit

The sort of bullshit so often employed on DU these days, to cow dissenters with over-the-top sarcastic ridicule. But because of its rampant overuse, by the same posters usually, it is becoming ever less effective as more and more people want less knee-jerk defence of the administration and more actual discussion of its policies and what needs to change.

[cali]

4. that' s an excellent article. thanks for posting it.

[stray cat]

5. taking a stand means something - usually sacrifice

Lieutenant Choi knew the consequences and decided it was worth the sacrifice - many lose their job without even that

I don't know what Obama's timing may be on certain issues but I guess he is not willing to let one individual dictate that timing.

[t0dd]

6. I love the sarcastic replies.

Using sarcasm to justify an intolerance to Obama criticism is pretty amusing. But let's face it. All he has to do is issue a stop loss order and suspend the policy. That's it. Oh, but let's keep firing brave men and women who just happen to be gay. It's not my problem. I won't intervene with military personnel issues. Moreover, nor will I be the fierce advocate I advertised myself as.

[pup_ajax]

8. sarcasm vs. civil rights

Nicely said.
Some people think Obama sits high on an untouchable throne and must never be questioned or criticized.

[Zenlitened]

7. "a stop loss order, suspending the policy when it comes to, let’s say, Arabic translators"

That would be a terrific start. A pragmatic, cautious chess move, one might say. Even the chess fans here would welcome that, right?

[t0dd]

14. We'd just have to make sure

to "change" the position of the chess piece in a "sensible way".

[Statistical]

34. and illegal.

It is the LAW that military separate soldiers.

The President would be placing a policy that advises the Pentagon to willfully break the law.

Even the President is above the law.

No if Obama wants to confront this issue he should use his position to hold Congress accountable.
Keep a running count of the number of people separated because Congress fails to act.
Keep the issue in the spotlight.
Demand action by Congress.
Use press briefing to turn questions around on reporters. "Why isn't MSNBC asking Congressional leaders this question as DADT is the LAW and can only be changed by Congress".

President could do any of those things.
The President can not simply make illegal actions policy and advise the pentagon to willfully break the law.

[Zenlitened]

36. See:

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/Executive%20Order%20on%20Gay%20Troops.pdf

Presidential Authority to Suspend Discharges for Homosexual Conduct

... The President of the United States has authority under the laws of the United States and the Constitution to suspend all investigations, separation proceedings, or other personnel actions conducted under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 654 or its implementing regulations.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Nope. It is not against the law.

Congress already gave the Commander in Chief, "the statutory authority to halt military separations under 10 U.S.C. § 12305, a law which Congress titled, “Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation” Under the law “the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States” during a “period of national emergency.” The statute specifically defines a “national emergency” as a time when “members of a reserve component are serving involuntarily on active duty.”"

"http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[scheming daemons]

9. Yep.... we fucked up when we didn't elect McCain

:shrug:

Oh well... live and learn.

[Deja Q]

50. Seconded. He would have put GLBT rights ahead of everyone else.

:sarcasm:

[anonymous171]

10. Uh, so what was Obama supposed to do exactly? nt

[t0dd]

11. Uh, let's see..

Enact a moratorium to prevent further discharges? He just needs a pen.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Oh, so when the president does it, it's not illegal.

Got it.

[Statistical]

35. So he is a King not a President.

The restrictions the Congress places on him as part of checks and balances don't apply.

Obama can undo any law at anytime or any place for any reason?
Think that might be a little dangerous?

If Obama can "undo" law of the land why not just dissolve the Congress? They really serve no purpose.
Of course SCOTUS likely would intervene and strike the moratorium down as unconstitutional so likely he would need to dissolve the Supreme Court also.

Good plan.

[Lilith Velkor]

51. He is the fucking Commander in Chief of the US military.

He can stop-loss anyone during wartime, and Congress can't do shit about it.

Do you really think we need fewer people who know Arabic in the armed forces?

[Bluebear]

54. (crickets)

[Lilith Velkor]

56. Thought so.

[Starry Messenger]

53. Well, there's a post next door comparing him to Solomon. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

12. Obama is all talk and no action when it comes to a lot of things.

get in line.

[Morning Dew]

13. true, true. But we've been in line... and we keep getting pushed to the back of it. nm

[Mari333]

23. just waiting for the oh so subtle homophobia on DU to bubble forth

and it will.

[RetroLounge]

29. It's not subtle at all...

Happens here every day...

RL

[Mari333]

31. yes it does. nt

[readmoreoften]

41. Will? Already has upthread. Many DUers care more about political heroes than human rights.

Dead children, raped US soldiers, people whose lives are collapsing due to predatory laws that favor profit over all else--all these come second to tenderly caressing Obama's cheeks and announcing him another victim "powerless" to change the system. Fired gay soldiers who lose benefits don't even come close to the "concern cut". If he's so powerless to make the changes he campaigned about, then maybe it's time we look for where the real power lies. In other words, maybe we need to begin organizing for real change because the very system of political representation itself is failing us. Let's face it: we can't elect anyone who will stand up for the people because those who own TV stations, newspapers, and megachurches won't allow it.

[QC]

42. + 1000

[GCP]

59. Thank you

I'm so sick of the way people are bending themselves into pretzels excusing every broken promise from the Messiah.

[bigtree]

25. he's playing chess

:crazy:

[closeupready]

30. Yeah. ROFL

:rofl: We're playing pin the tail on the donkey. :D

[JVS]

63. LOL

[ohheckyeah]

32. I'm so sorry Lt. Choi

was fired and I admire his courage.

I don't think most heterosexuals have gotten beyond the point of intellectualizing the issue. On a intellectual level they get it but it's yet to sink into their heart and emotions. Most of us don't get the pain gays have from being rejected by family, friends, classmates, coworkers, the community. We don't understand how stressful it must be to live a lie, trying to hide who and what you are.

DADT is not just legally wrong, it's morally wrong and it causes real people real pain. I think that's a point that should be made loud and clear.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[opihimoimoi]

37. Sorry. The President did the right thing....

[Creideiki]

38. I'd agree, but you misspelled "wrong"

[opihimoimoi]

39. Sorry...he did the "correct" thing....lol

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

44. Sorry, you misspelled "wrong" again

[GCP]

60. +1

:thumbsup:

[suzy creemcheeze]

40. ?

?

[BuyingThyme]

43. Why do people feel obligated to open arguments with disclaimers

about liking Obama.

He's a fucking politician. Just make your case.

[Lilith Velkor]

52. It's an attempt to placate the fanbase.

Eventually, people will catch on that said fanbase will have their tantrums no matter what. Be patient. It's only been 114 days.

[brunhilde]

57. Amen, sister...

I dunno why some get TSd for telling it like it is, but whatever's clever...At least you are putting it in the Universe!:yourock:

[Boojatta]

58. "But I do expect him to do something. Just something. Anything."

There are things other than DADT. Why aren't we shown a list of alternatives? The focus on DADT suggests that the author of the article wouldn't accept "anything."

[Hekate]

65. LGBT appointments to high office: check. Cabinet appointment: no. Short listed for SCOTUS: check...

... (or so some detailed threads here grandly speculate). Appointed to SCOTUS: remains to be seen, as only ONE person can get the job, leaving all others NOT appointed.

As for Choi: Choi outed himself and got discharged under the existing rules. Obama did not personally "fire" him.

As much as I admire Choi's principled stand, this is what civil disobedience is all about.

You think a law is unjust. You break that law. You get arrested, or fired, or whatever the penalty is. You hope that others will join you in sufficient numbers that public opinion is swayed in your direction -- that whatever law it happens to be is unjust. And you hope that with public opinion on your side, the law will be changed.

President Obama did not "fire" Choi, or Tsao either.

Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy did not operate the fire hoses or send police dogs against the Civil Rights marchers -- who were engaged in acts of civil disobedience. Ultimately the laws changed, with the help of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson -- and the Congress.

But kids, civil disobedience is ALL about consequences and making your position and its unjust consequences very public. It's a tough row to hoe.

Hekate

[Kievan Rus]

66. At least he's better than Dubya