So why isn't Obama stopping the loss of LGBT members of the military?

[MadHound]

While Obama talked a good game about gay rights during the campaign, his record while in office has been, well, less than stellar, and less than he promised. That he had Rick Warren speak at his inauguration did not bode well for future relations between the LGBT community and this administration.

I recognize that DADT has to be reversed through Congressional action. But, while Congress is debating, if that's the right word, DADT, Obama could stop the bleeding. We are losing good, high quality military professionals to DADT, and Obama could put an end to this with the stroke of his pen.

Instead, week in, week out, people like Lt. Col Fehrenbach and Capt. Hopkins are kicked out of the military, despite their outstanding records and upstanding service.

Again, Obama could prevent these losses with a stroke of his pen, but he won't. Why?

I think that Obama's actions vis-a-vis gay rights issues is very telling. While he talked a good game concerning gay rights during the campaign, now that he is in office, he is not following through. DADT is but one example. He could do the right thing, but he refuses to. Let's also look at gay marriage. Though talking a good game in the election, when Prop. 8 was reversed in the courts last week, Obama comes out against gay marriage:wtf: And let's not even start in on DOMA, which is not even on the administration's radar.

So what's really going on here? Obama's words are saying one thing, while his actions are saying another. It really is starting to look like the president, if not outright bigoted towards gays, is certainly leery of them, and is going to do as little as he can possibly can for them. I've met lots of people like this in my life. In theory, they believe in equal rights for all, but when the rubber meets the road, they get all squeamish about the matter, and their loud words of support fade to distant echoes and sometimes outright attacks on the gay community.

Obama needs to start doing more than mouthing pious platitudes about equality, or sending out his yap dog Gibbs to give everybody a good scolding. What he needs to do is act now and act decisively. He needs to put pen to paper and end the bleeding from the military now. He needs to expend some political capital and help put an end to DADT and DOMA. In short, he needs to start walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

[gkhouston]

1. That will happen when Fox news thinks it's a good idea. n/t

[Nite Owl]

2. It's all political for him

if it were to what he saw as his benefit he would do it. There is no caring about anyone unless you are a CEO or Fox news.

[VMI Dem]

3. His personal feelings toward gays do not motiviate him to do very much.

Simple as that.

[moksha]

6. That, and his political feelings of wanting to keep conserative support.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. Because he is a coward.

It would cost too much political capital to do so, so insted he kicks the can down the road with the lame "report" that will be completed and then finally a looked at after midtern elections when we have zero chance of repealing it.

An optimist might say they could attempt its repeal during the lame duck sesson, but there aren't glasses rosey enough to make me think that.

[Vincardog]

12. bingo got it in one Because he is a coward." He only has the courage to FIGHT with his supporters

He can't fight the radical regressive policies that caused this depression as well as the LAST GREAT DEPRESSION because that would require him to actually stand up to the PTB.

[zipplewrath]

5. I came to that conclusion during the campaign

"It really is starting to look like the president, if not outright bigoted towards gays, is certainly leery of them,..."

I saw during the campaign he seemed very uncomfortable with homosexuals, and he couldn't ever seem to speak about them without stumbling, something strange for an otherwise well spoken man. Axelrod bent himself up like a pretzel after the Prop 8 decision trying to describe Obama's position. He is emphathetic to GLBT issues, but I wouldn't say he is sympathetic. He won't do diddly on DOMA, he'll sign it if it passes, and he'll probably discourage it passing if they try before 2012. If congress passes DADT repeal, he'll sign it, and he'll let the military drag its feet and muddle up the effort.

[Whisp]

9. 'he seemed'

"some people say he seemed that perhaps maybe he wants to gut all gays, kill all white children and revert us back to the feudal system. I don't have any real proof mind you, but I had a dream last night that some chicken entrails spelled out this message to me. You know I have been wrong before, but i just have this feeeeeeling about this. And others do too, so there must be something to it!"

How do you feel about the hospital visitation rights for gay people that Obama passed? Is it a good thing that partners now can be with each other or did you prefer the old way where couples were denied being together during the last days and minutes of life on this earth because it was against some asshole hospital rules?

I am getting a feeeeeeeling from you that you think this is a terrible thing to do to gay people. Does not compute.

[zipplewrath]

20. Sympathetic vs. empathetic

As I say, I find him empathetic, but not sympathetic. You did read that part right?

[mitchtv]

79. a "benefit" that will be washed away the first week of the next repub president

Something tangible would help

[jaxx]

7. That is using the gay people to attack Obama.

Why would you do that? They're not pawns, they're people.

[MadHound]

11. Using gay people to attack Obama? LOL!

So now pointing out the discrepency between Obama's actions and words concerning the civil rights of the gay community is now "using the gay people" (better phrasing would be nice there).

By your logic, when Obama is criticized for his attack on public education, I must be using the teachers to attack Obama:eyes:

Your logic is faulty, your reasoning suspect, and frankly you aren't answering my question at all, namely why isn't Obama putting an end to the practice of drumming out soldiers due to their sexual orientation? Would you care to answer that, or will you simply continue to try and use lame, illogical attacks to defend and deflect criticism of this president?

[jaxx]

16. The President is putting an end to DADT.

It's being discussed and will be passed into law soon. I don't recall any other president trying to get it stopped, do you?

My logic is fine, my reasoning only suspect to you because I called you on using the gay community as a pawn. The president can sign papers all day long and when the next one comes into office they can sign again and turn Obama's statement into shredded material. The only way DADT will be stopped is by the congress passing the law.

You seemed to try to beat me up pretty bad with your choice of words, that's a shame. You turned this into you. You're not the important one, the gay people are the important ones in this conversation.

[MadHound]

23. But the thing is, while the bill concerning DADT wends its way through Congress

In the meantime Obama could not only end the loss of military personnel with a stroke of his pen, he could get out on front of this issue and provide real leadership at the same time. Gee, that means a couple of people this week, a person last week, a person next week, and on and on, wouldn't have to leave the military due to DADT. That's not personal enough for you?

Why do you think that wanting to stop this destruction of the careers of highly qualified military personnel is not putting people first? What kind of logic or sense does that make? Oh, and where in my post did I mention myself? I didn't, I am asking questions and forming answers.

You are simply grasping for any straws that can help you defend the defenseless.

[jaxx]

34. He could, but it wouldn't be good enough.

It has to be law. Don't try to make this about me, I'm not important in the conversation either. I want the gay community to be free and clear on DADT, not worrying that it'll be put back into effect by someone else.

I'm far from grasping at straws. I have a stake in this and it matters.

[MadHound]

47. BUT IT WOULD END THE LOSS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RIGHT NOW!

Don't you fucking get it? Are you that clueless? There are good, high quality military people who are being kicked out of the military RIGHT NOW while Congress takes its sweet time (and summer break) to get a bill through. Yes, an EO would be shredded by the next president, but IT WOULD STOP THE BLEEDING NOW!

People's lives are being ruined because of DADT, RIGHT NOW, and yet you are saying that we should wait for legislation that will come who knows when, if ever. What, you don't think that it is a good thing to save these people NOW, while we can?

What harm would it do for Obama to issue an EO while the bill is going through Congress. Best possible outcome, an unknown number of people would have their military careers saved while Congress takes its sweet time, then the law is repealed. At worst, a number of people have their military careers saved while the bill goes through Congress, is rejected, then a further number of people will have their military careers saved until the next president takes office and repeals the EO.

Get it now, either way it is a win-win, military careers saved. What the hell is wrong with that?

[jaxx]

51. Because they'd still have to hide.

They couldn't live openly as gay and lesbian. They would still be in the closet. That is not fair to them, not one bit. It's still DADT.

[MadHound]

54. No, they wouldn't.

Geez, you say you have a stake in this, but you're willing to throw good, highly qualified military personnel under the bus all for politics.

Have you no shame.

[jaxx]

59. I don't do the bus routine.

My sister is a gay transexual. You might want to stop with the innuendo and pay attention to someone who is all for letting the LGBT community have the same rights that the rest of us have. And making them hide isn't equal rights. It's discrimination.

[MadHound]

68. But not preventing their being thrown out of the military is equal rights?

Geez, you have one fucked up logic circuit, you might want to get it checked.

You mentioned your sister, let's do a hypothetical. Say she was in the military right now, and she was going to get kicked out under DADT. Which would you rather happen, Obama signing an EO that would prevent her from losing rank, position and getting kicked out of the military right now? Or that she is kicked out, losing rank and privileges and all benefits while waiting to see whether this bill becomes law, be it two months or two years from now? Which would harm your sister more, which decision would disrupt her life more? Which scenario would your sister rather see happen?

[zipplewrath]

55. But they'll still be THERE

If he is going to change the law, it will stop the explusions until they get the law changed. Right now, they are BOTH hiding AND getting expelled.

It makes no sense not to stop the expulsions until the law is changed.

[jaxx]

60. They can also be reinstated when the law is changed.

[MadHound]

64. Oh, geez.

So let me get this straight, you're willing for a number of people to lose seniority, benefits, choice assignments, get kicked out of the military, wait for an untold number of months or years, put their lives on hold while a bill repealing DADT passes, or not. Instead of having none of this happen with Obama's pen stroke.

Tells me where you stand, and it isn't with the LGBT community.

[zipplewrath]

67. How is that better than being THERE when the law is changed?

I'm losing track of how being hunted down and expelled, then in a year or two being reinstated, with loss of years and loss of assignment is preferable to being able to stay and continue their service.

[zipplewrath]

50. How is it not good enough?

He has the authority, right now, to stop the expulsions. He can do that under the authority of the law itself. Then, he can get it repealed which you keep claiming he's going to do, at which point the law is repealed and can't be reversed by a future president.

How is that not "good enough"?

[jaxx]

52. Read above, I just answered that.

[zipplewrath]

24. They why not stop them?

"It's being discussed and will be passed into law soon."

Without arguing about the prediction, if we accept the premise, then why not suspend the investigations and expulsions until the review is done? No future president can "over turn that with the stroke of a pen". If he is committed to changing the law, then he should use the authority the law gives him and stop the expulsions until he gets the law changed.

[dsc]

32. Actually I do remember a President who tried to have gays openly served

his name was Bill clinton.

[jaxx]

36. And from that came DADT, which was better than it was before.

And the law was passed, wasn't it?

[dsc]

38. yea he tried and lost

which was unfortunate but he did try in a much different and tougher era. Fewer than half supported gays serving then, now it is about 3 out of every four and a majority of both Republicans and conservatives.

[jaxx]

40. Which means it will get done.

By law.

[dsc]

49. He directly told both the Lt. Col, and us that he wouldn't be fired

Supposedly the standards for seperation were changed to ban such evidence from being used to seperate servicemen and women. If he can't be trusted to keep his word on this then why should I trust him to keep his word on the change in law.

[jaxx]

56. Because it is the law.

The law stinks, but it is the law. It has nothing to do with trust, it has to do with the congress getting it done, changing the law so that all men and women are equal in the armed services.

[MadHound]

57. And meanwhile, Obama could change that law, end the madness, all with the stroke of a pen

But instead, more and more highly qualified military people will be sacrificed on the altar of Obama's political stance.

[jaxx]

61. You just don't get it.

I'm sorry that you don't. Once again you used the gay people as pawns. I'm done with this.

[MadHound]

66. I don't get it? HA!

I'm not the ones willing to throw gay members of the military under the bus all for purely political purposes. You are willing to allow gays to be kicked out of the military, lose their professional lives, livelihoods and flush ten, twenty years of service down the drain, all so that Obama doesn't have to bother his pretty little head about signing an EO that would end the madness.

You and your position are pathetic.

[dgibby]

70. Agreed!

That position is analogous to waiting for hate crimes to include the GLBT community before protecting them from said hate crimes. Jeebus!

People are losing careers, retirement pensions, medical care, etc, etc, because Obama won't put his name on an EO suspending DADT until the law is changed.

What happens to these people if they get sick before the law is changed? What do they do about the retirement pay they're not going to get, even though they earned it for 19yrs? What if they become disabled while waiting to be reinstated and aren't physically qualified for the military?

To add insult to injury, Operation Stop Loss has effectively enslaved thousands of military members who have fulfilled their obligation, but can't get out, and the Services have lowered it's recruiting standards to include people with criminal records and known gang affiliations.

Gawd, I'm soooo glad I'm retired, although my retirement was delayed for a year due to Stop Loss during the first Gulf War.

What we need is a lot less Casper Milquetoast and a lot more Harry Truman!

[MadHound]

71. Thank you, perfect analogy,

It truly surprises me the depths some folks will sink to in order to defend the indefensible.

[dsc]

62. Gates directly said

and I will link this for the billionth time, that he was changing the standard of evidence (the only evidence that Farhenbach is gay is from an unreliable source) which we supposedly aren't using anymore.

http://fabulouspdx.com/gates-announces-new-dadt-regulations/

They included that the third party must be another service member, not a civilian, and not anonymous. They also suggested that evidence must be based on firsthand knowledge rather than hearsay, that any sexual misconduct occurring prior to a soldier’s service not be deemed admissible, and that statements made to chaplains, doctors, psychologists, and other health professionals be kept off limits.

We only know that Farhenbach is gay because a civilian falsely accused him of sexual assult. Under questioning from police while watched by the Air Force surrupticiously, he admitted to conscentual sex with the man. The standard was supposed to be retroactive. That is the promise we were made. If Farhenbach is fired Obama lied.

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Let me say this

This Fahrenbach case is a disgrace, as are all discharges under DADT. But this omne is particularly egregious, given the facts. And you are entirely correct that the Obama Administration's attention to DADT and DOMA have themselves been disgraceful. I disagree with Obama critics on nearly every other issue, but on this issue they are correct and the Administrations statements and actions are indefensible.

THAT SAID, it's not clear to me that the facts you stated violate the standard as described. Was the third party a service member? Yes, it was the Air Force investigators viewing the interrogation. Was it based on first-hand knowledge? Yes. They heard him describe the sexual "misconduct." Did it occur prior to the Fahrenbach's service? No. Was the statement made to a chaplain, psychologist, or other health professional? No.

The standard as stated is applied here. What's confusing is the charge of assault by a civilian (third hand) serving as the proximate cause of the interview. If we separate the interview and statement of "misconduct" from the charge of assault (which we should do), then the standard is applied. The only issue is whether "telling" unknown observers (essentially under duress of police interrogation) actually constitutes "telling" under the rules.

Of course, these are silly technical matters. The whole fucking law is a disgrace, and the sooner we get the Defense Appropriation bill through with a repeal of this stupidity, the better.

[ZombieHorde]

76. If only President Obama was willing to uphold the law with Bush.

Bush gets a pass for his crimes, but gay soldiers get punished. Profound inconsistency noted.

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. No, the executive can choose by fiat which laws to enforce

Standing public law passed by Congress? Pish-posh. I'm instructing my departments not to enforce it! Because I say so.

It's all very simple...

[frylock]

35. cya..

stroke of a pen. that's all it takes.

[jaxx]

37. Is that all it's worth?

How about the right to serve as who you are, legally? How about the right to live openly gay or lesbian in the army? A signing statement won't make that happen. A law will.

[frylock]

58. a signing statement will prevent LGBT troops from being discharged..

then they can worry about signing it into law. all this study BS and waiting for congress to act is obama covering his ass period end of statement.

[VMI Dem]

13. Why does he feel they are second class citizens?

[jaxx]

18. He never said that.

Instead he has worked to make things better for them. Rights at hospitals, FMLA, hate crimes. There are gay people in the administration.

[VMI Dem]

19. When he says that marriage is between a man and a woman, what does that mean to you?

What would you say of someone that opposed interracial marriage?

[jaxx]

39. I'd tell them about my son and his lovely wife.

People think what they want, but equal rights are constitutional. There is the difference. The President will never stand in the way of equal rights for marriage....to anyone.

[Occulus]

72. Well, how lovely for your son and his legally-married wife

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5505">Then, senior Obama advisor David Axelrod on MSNBC on Aug. 5 told Savannah Guthrie, ''The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples'' – adding that Obama believes marriage is ''an issue for the states.''

So, in your opinion, leaving my right to get married as an "issue for the states" is not "standing in the way of my equal rights".

Am I reading your position correctly?

[MadHound]

73. Umm, Obama opposes gay marriage,

Thus, technically speaking he is standing in the way of equal rights for marriage right now. Another inconvenient truth you're forgetting.

[MadHound]

26. His refusal to end the loss of military personnel due to DADT,

And his lack of support for gay marriage speak much louder than any pious platitudes that Obama has spoken.

[jaxx]

41. That is pure conjecture.

He supports DADT. That he is not supportive of DOMA is his problem and he'll have to work on it. But he won't stand in the way of constitutional rights.

[Bluebear]

74. He is bigoted against same-geder marriage. Bigoted.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. "They're not pawns, they're people."

Yes, that is exactly the point that Obama seems to be missing. He is he one who has cynically used the LGBT community as pawns -- suck up to them in the campaign to get their backing and then take tentative, half-assed action on their behalf because it would cost him too much.

LGBT supporters are NOT the problem here.

[jaxx]

43. I think you are wrong.

[valerief]

8. He doesn't seem to care, does he? nt

[Horse with no Name]

10. Obama's stance on gays was evident before the election

Many chose to ignore it.
He said one thing (pandered) while he did another (action).
Rick Warren was just one example.

Obama has not been a friend to the gay community. I am not sure that will change.

[mitchtv]

81. bingo

another politician , a slippery one.

[Raster]

86. Obama liked the Gay community's money and votes. Period.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

14. I think its pretty obvious how Obama feels about LGBT issues

Rick Warren, Donnie McClurken, the disgusting things written in DOMA, his complete inability to write and executive order stopping service men and women from being discharged per DADT.

Plus to top it off what David Axelrod said last week after the Prop. 8 overturn, about Obama being against gay marriage.

We know where he stands on this issue. It is obvious.

[QC]

15. Glenn Beck might not approve! n/t

[jaxx]

22. You want to expand on that statement?

Because you just called the President a republican.
Surely you made a mistake.

[mitchtv]

82. no he didn't

maybe a "follower"

[MadHound]

30. Funny thing, Beck doesn't oppose gay marriage,

<http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201008110048 >

Yet Obama does. What kind of weirdness is that?

[killbotfactory]

17. Yes, Obama clearly hates gay people. Thanks guys for clearing that up.

[MadHound]

27. Actions speak louder than words. n/t

[zipplewrath]

28. False dichotomy

One can feel uncomfortable without hatred. There isn't only two choices, hate gay people or be a full supporter. There are many a fence sitter out there.

[killbotfactory]

42. Hate is too strong, you're right

Callous indifference to the rights of all homosexuals in the universe.

[zipplewrath]

46. to SOME rights

He doesn't support some rights of homosexuals, and he places a low importance on the rights of current military members being expelled while he allows the bigots in the military to "study" how it will affect them. That ain't hate. That is a form of indifference.

[jpak]

25. Because he's a homophobe - we all know it's true

unreccing

[VMI Dem]

29. No way. Is a guy that opposes interracial marriage a racist. Heck no.

:sarcasm:

[jaxx]

44. Now it's getting comical.

[Nye Bevan]

31. Because he's afraid that he might lose the votes of some bigots.

At least that's the most charitable explanation. Either he's a homophobe or a political coward, and I choose to believe that he's a political coward. Real courage would have been to suspend DADT the week of his inauguration, rather than huddling with political advisers who pore over opinion polls and are terrified that John Q Homohater in North Carolina might not vote for Obama in 2012.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

69. I think it is because he is a Christian

I dont think it's political totally. I really think it is because of his beliefs as a Christian that prevent him from fully embracing these policy changes.

[mitchtv]

83. why then did he attend a Gay friendly

Xian church all those years? Let's face you have to look for one that is. Christ was not uncomfortable with Gays

[leeroysphitz]

33. Because. If he angers the republicans they will quit voting for all the other

wonderful reform legislation he is proposing.

:(

[jaxx]

45. Why does every thread on here end up with crap like that being posted?

Don't you know how to have a serious discussion?

[zipplewrath]

48. You consider your first response "serious"?

I'd hardly consider your first comment in this thread a contribution to serious discussion.

[jaxx]

63. You can bet I do or I wouldn't have made it.

[leeroysphitz]

53. Sure I do but DU isn't the place to have them anymore.

In case you hadn't noticed EVERONE on DU holds an immutable opinion on every subject. When was the last time you read a post where a DUer admits to having his or her opinion changed on a topic by the rational argument? What else are serious discussions for? Since nobody here ever changes their mind why try to have a "serious discussion"?

[gkhouston]

65. Because it might offend some people who probably aren't going to vote Dem anyway. n/t

[saracat]

75. Brcause he thinks they are whining members of the "Professional Left" ??????

And this is just a "pony"???????

[donheld]

77. C.O.W.A.R.D

[QC]

78. Face it, he's just not that into you. n/t

[havocmom]

80. Obama: all pious platitude; no intestinal fortitude

[LatteLibertine]

84. The issue needs to be addressed yesterday

I do still support President Obama and I'd like to strongly encourage him to get moving on this.

[Raster]

85. One word: homophobe.

Don't worry, it's just one song and a two-minute prayer.
--Fierce Advocate

[John Agar]

88. This is perhaps my biggest disappointment.

I expected much more from the president on GLBT.

The DADT report that Rachel Maddow presented a couple of days ago was devastating.