Don't ask don't tell

[Hazir]

Is there anybody who can explain to me what the fuck Obama is up to with don't ask don't tell? He promised he would repeal it. Everybody knows the 'research' that's being done by the armed forces is just a rerun of research years ago. The top brass aren't defending it any longer. The majority of the House and Senate are against it. The only reason why it's not been voted out is a technical blockade not even really related to DADT. The president who signed it into being declared he feels it's been used unfairly and much more draconian than it ever was intended. There is a federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional.

So what the hell is keeping him from doing the necessary steps to scrap it? It could be as easy as not appealing the decision of the federal judge.

I'm starting to see Obama as a complete sell out on 'gay rights' (i.e. equal rights for gays).

[Angel_Mapper]

You and everyone else. Him and the Democrats need help finding their testicles. One seat away from a filibuster-proof majority and they still can't get shit done.

[Hazir]

You and everyone else. Him and the Democrats need help finding their testicles. One seat away from a filibuster-proof majority and they still can't get shit done.

You know, if that were it, I could understand the difficulty. But he's got a plethora of ways to get rid of it and he still sits on his hands.

[Nessus]

The DADT-scrapping is problematic, since if repealed it would mean one of two things: Shoving all the faggots out of the armed forces (not possible since the world police are already running dangerously short of fresh bodies to shove into the grinder), or forcing the armed forces to quit being insane bigots and telling them to get rid of ancient policy saying sodomy is grounds for discharge. (lol, discharge!) The US armed forces are also notoriously full of all brands of Mormons and evangelical nut-jobs who would go absolutely ape at the idea of having to live and serve with faggots.

You and everyone else. Him and the Democrats need help finding their testicles. One seat away from a filibuster-proof majority and they still can't get shit done.

The Pubbies are absolutely insane and will not budge an inch, on anything. Because their voter base is apparently insane, and have already voted for sufficiently insane candidates that they've guaranteed their loss when their horse of choice is pitted against the Democrat. You can't do anything with them even if you have testes the size of bowling balls.

[LittleFuzzy]

The US armed forces are also notoriously full of all brands of Mormons and evangelical nut-jobs who would go absolutely ape at the idea of having to live and serve with faggots.

The career military *not the high leadership* for the most part doesn't give a shit one way or the other, actually.

[Ominous Gamer]

Never thought I would get a chance to quote TheSuperficial on these here boards....

Lady GaGa appeared at a rally in Portland, Maine last night (above) to convince Republican Senator Susan Collins to vote with the Democrats today in repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Let’s, uh, take a look at how that went. The Huffington Post:

“I find myself on the horns of a dilemma,” said Collins. “I was the sole Republican in the committee that voted [to repeal DADT]. I think it’s the right thing to do. I think it’s only fair.”
But, she said, refusing to allow unlimited amendments is an equal affront to decency. “That too is not fair,” said Collins of Reid’s decision. “I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down debate.”

So oppressing minorities is bad, but so is not allowing Republicans to get some tchotchkes, so let’s keep doing the oppression thing. Makes perfect sense.

[wiggin]

The DADT-scrapping is problematic, since if repealed it would mean one of two things: Shoving all the faggots out of the armed forces (not possible since the world police are already running dangerously short of fresh bodies to shove into the grinder), or forcing the armed forces to quit being insane bigots and telling them to get rid of ancient policy saying sodomy is grounds for discharge. (lol, discharge!) The US armed forces are also notoriously full of all brands of Mormons and evangelical nut-jobs who would go absolutely ape at the idea of having to live and serve with faggots.

Nessus, you're full of shit.

[Nessus]

Nessus, you're full of shit.

That may be, but my observations are based on discussions with US soldiers! Their anecdotal evidence is suspect, I grant you. But what about army demographics? Are evangelical nut-jobs and Mormons well-represented or not?

[littlelolligagged]

Nessus, you're full of shit.

The problem there being that she isn't.

Yes, some of the military is more progressive - but please remember, a large quantity of Amerikans in general find homosexuality to be offensive and that gay people are unfit to do many things. Couple that with the fact that the people who are likely to join the military are often from less wealthy backgrounds, less likely to be college educated, more likely to be conservative. These demographics are all much less likely to accept homosexuality.

Then you have the decision-makers for the military who tend to be older, fairly conservative, and set in their ways.

The military had to be forced into accepting blacks. It needs to be done, now - in spite of their protests.

[wiggin]

Please. Just because there are Mormons and evangelical Christians (btw, most evangelical Christians are *not* nutjobs) in the military doesn't mean that there would be a huge backlash against openly gay servicemen.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...-fact-of-life/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...arines-future/

It seems that personal opinions aside, the military is most interested in being a professional warfighting organization that is best prepared to meet the challenges ahead - and following the laws and directives of the civilian political establishment. Some in the military want to keep DADT, others want to trash it. But that's irrelevant to whether it would cause a significant problem if DADT were repealed. Pretty much all of the evidence indicates that it wouldn't.

[Nessus]

Uh

Correct me if I'm wrong (as you are so wont to do), but faggotry in and of itself is grounds for ejection from the US armed forces right now, yes? DADT was engineered to stop people from being asked whether they had ass-sex as a means of getting them dishonourably ejected.

I would also like to contest your absurd claim that evangelicals are not nut-jobs, but that's another thread.

The open backlash is a side-issue compared to the top-level aping I referred to in my post; some old generals realize that they are running out of young men and women ready to die for insane causes, but these generals might not be enough to combat the idea that the US army has to accept people who butt-sex other people. This is why repealing DADT is a problem.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and you can explain to the audience why Obamarama cannot fix it? Is it Palin 2012? Is it something else? Tell us, we wish to drink of your wisdom!

[Hazir]

The discharge on the basis of homosexuality is grounded in the DADT. Which means if it goes, homosexuality is no longer a reason for discharge. As for sexual misconduct; the same rules would apply between people of the same gender as the rules they have now for people of the opposite sex. We have reached the point where not scrapping it has entered the realm of the Kafkaesque.

I mean, we're not talking to something as controversial as opening up marriage to people of the same sex.

[Hazir]

Actually, well over half of Americans feel gays should be allowed to serve. The number goes stellar if people are told that DADT today means that gays are actively sought out (eat that senator McCain, you lost the last bit of respect I had for you today, you lying piece of shit). Even people who think open gays have no place in the army feel that it is unfair to discharge people who didn't come out voluntarily.

[agamemnus]

Actually, well over half of Americans feel gays should be allowed to serve.

They are.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Wasn't this just defeated in congress?

I'm all for flipping congress the bird on this and a couple of other matters, but is that possible?

[Dreadnaught]

I think the Republicans are being stupid on this one. A majority of our elected representatives agree DADT is stupid. It encourages peer dishonesty, which is antithetical to the values of the military. The Republicans are being given the chance to vote for this and have it tucked into another military bill. It's not like the Democrats are going to hammer the Republicans for voting for the Democratic bill.

THAT SAID, the Democrats are also stuffing the Dream Act, etc. into a military spending bill. Putting DADT, Dream and military spending in one pill is clearly a divisive and political tactic.

[Hazir]

I think the Republicans are being stupid on this one. A majority of our elected representatives agree DADT is stupid. It encourages peer dishonesty, which is antithetical to the values of the military. The Republicans are being given the chance to vote for this and have it tucked into another military bill. It's not like the Democrats are going to hammer the Republicans for voting for the Democratic bill.

THAT SAID, the Democrats are also stuffing the Dream Act, etc. into a military spending bill. Putting DADT, Dream and military spending in one pill is clearly a divisive and political tactic.

Like I said. I can understand how the politicking makes this avenue difficult. But how can a president who has the means to put an end to the practise in several other ways simply refuse to act in a way that a vast majority of the nation and even Congress think is the right thing to do AND which is an election promise.

To me it's simply mind-boggling. Really I am quite cynical about politicians, and I don't like Obama much, but this is just crazy.

I see; not appealing the ruling
I see; an executive order prohibiting active seeking out gays or even prohibiting application of DADTwith those who have not go on the record about their being gay (Not perfect, since it leaves a policy with a very biased anti-gay slant in place but at least it renders it practically irrelevant and 80% of Americans would support it).

[Dreadnaught]

Like I said. I can understand how the politicking makes this avenue difficult. But how can a president who has the means to put an end to the practise in several other ways simply refuse to act in a way that a vast majority of the nation and even Congress think is the right thing to do AND which is an election promise.

Like with the [alleged] slowing federal enforcement of marijuana laws, Obama is an incrementalist on these things. He would rather dissolve the practice slowly, EG telling the military informally to stop pursuing these cases, then having a formal hold of pursuing these cases (but leaving homosexuality technically grounds for discharge) and then formally abolishing DADT once it's even more of a non-issue.

Which isn't much comfort if you've been discharged for homosexuality in this incremental tone-down period. But it's part of Obama's temperament on this kind of stuff.

[Ziggy Stardust]

[LittleFuzzy]

Is there anybody who can explain to me what the fuck Obama is up to with don't ask don't tell? He promised he would repeal it. Everybody knows the 'research' that's being done by the armed forces is just a rerun of research years ago. The top brass aren't defending it any longer. The majority of the House and Senate are against it. The only reason why it's not been voted out is a technical blockade not even really related to DADT. The president who signed it into being declared he feels it's been used unfairly and much more draconian than it ever was intended. There is a federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional.

So what the hell is keeping him from doing the necessary steps to scrap it? It could be as easy as not appealing the decision of the federal judge.

I'm starting to see Obama as a complete sell out on 'gay rights' (i.e. equal rights for gays).

He's not a sell-out, because he never promised us much of anything *including gays in the military* Democratic politicians know that they don't really have to make promises to gay voters because for the most part, we're not about to vote for Republican. He'll wait for Gates to finish the requested year of study which isn't going to say anything new. Then he'll wait some more. If it somehow becomes a campaign issue *via court action, or some enterprising activists from one side or the other* he might venture a promise to look into the matter, maybe change the name of the policy, etc. Change will only come from the Courts, from a politician with a strong military background, or possibly some radical young Republican.

[Hazir]

He's not a sell-out, because he never promised us much of anything *including gays in the military* Democratic politicians know that they don't really have to make promises to gay voters because for the most part, we're not about to vote for Republican. He'll wait for Gates to finish the requested year of study which isn't going to say anything new. Then he'll wait some more. If it somehow becomes a campaign issue *via court action, or some enterprising activists from one side or the other* he might venture a promise to look into the matter, maybe change the name of the policy, etc. Change will only come from the Courts, from a politician with a strong military background, or possibly some radical young Republican.

Yeah ok, that is the standard story. But it doesn't explain why he doesn't even act on something that should come this cheap both in terms of effect and effort.

Also gays don't have to vote for the Democrats if they don't want to vote for the Republicans. They can also stay at home. And guess who's going to be hurt by that.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yeah ok, that is the standard story. But it doesn't explain why he doesn't even act on something that should come this cheap both in terms of effect and effort.

He doesn't need to do anything, and it's not something he's particularly interested in himself. Hell, his background is of a black community organizer from Chicago, it's entirely possible he doesn't care for homosexuality personally. Why bother doing anything?

. They can also stay at home. And guess who's going to be hurt by that.

They will be. I voted for Obama, last election. Despite deep misgivings. Because doing otherwise risked McCain dying in office and a Palin presidency.

[Hazir]

That describes my option 2, but he didn't even do that. All it takes to kill DADT is to prohibit active investigations (as was the intention anyway) and sort of limit DADT to people who could be described as 'activist'. It's abolition by increments, and it has the support of pretty much everybody. Still, not even that we see from the Obama White House.

I am really wondering why he does exactly NOTHING where doing a little costs that him nothing (could even be spun in a conservative way that appeals to doubters in the center) and that would really win him big with people who supported him and to whom he made a promise. Politicking I understand, but unnecessary and harmful inaction on your own promises I don't get.

[Dreadnaught]

Some in left-wing circles here are saying that Obama (like Jimmy Carter, our president from 1976 - 1980) has personally lost the sense that he can push people towards a view and change the agenda. That he's started to feel that the one thing he's good at is hardcore campaigning, instead of pushing major new ideas.

[Hazir]

That's a pretty damning picture of the president. And it makes me wonder if he ever had any vision beyond being the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This would be Loki's cue to say that all politicians want power, and he would be right. But most politicians want to be seen wielding that power and get the adoration of their voters. They don't want to be voted in and then alienate blocks of voters by ostentatiously sitting on their hands.

[Loki]

That's a pretty damning picture of the president. And it makes me wonder if he ever had any vision beyond being the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. This would be Loki's cue to say that all politicians want power, and he would be right. But most politicians want to be seen wielding that power and get the adoration of their voters. They don't want to be voted in and then alienate blocks of voters by ostentatiously sitting on their hands.

Gays are, at best, a few percent of the electorate. Even if Obama does nothing for them, all but a small fraction will continue going to the polls and voting Democrat. Meanwhile, Obama risks alienating a far bigger bloc of voters in conservative Democrats (especially the ones that are gung-ho about the military). So, on balance, he's not going to lose any votes by not doing anything to help gays, and might actually be better off not doing those things. I think Fuzzy makes a good point about Obama's career as well. A community organizer in a terrible part of Chicago is going to be far more concerned with helping the poor than with helping gay people, and Obama might believe that doing the latter might prevent him from doing the former. Frankly, there's a higher chance of the current policy getting repealed with a Republican in the White House than with a Democrat.

[Hazir]

Gays are, at best, a few percent of the electorate. Even if Obama does nothing for them, all but a small fraction will continue going to the polls and voting Democrat. Meanwhile, Obama risks alienating a far bigger bloc of voters in conservative Democrats (especially the ones that are gung-ho about the military). So, on balance, he's not going to lose any votes by not doing anything to help gays, and might actually be better off not doing those things. I think Fuzzy makes a good point about Obama's career as well. A community organizer in a terrible part of Chicago is going to be far more concerned with helping the poor than with helping gay people, and Obama might believe that doing the latter might prevent him from doing the former. Frankly, there's a higher chance of the current policy getting repealed with a Republican in the White House than with a Democrat.

The people he would alienate are people who would not vote Democrat untill kingdom com. 80% of Americans feel that DADT as it is at the moment is not fair. Doing the right thing when so many people agree on it being right usually wins over voters in the center. Where it really counts most.

With you and LF throwing in that black community organizer thing I am starting to think Obama might be not doing anything because he lives under the illusion that a problem is only real if you're poor and black.

Anyway, I wouldn't really mind if he got voted out. Too bad it's almost certain that a conservative Republican will be the one who takes over, but at least with them you don't have to get annoyed with them not doing anything at all.

[GGT]

Late entry to this thread, but today the news was highlighting the Margie Wit decision (Air Force nurse who was fired from flight duty for being lesbian).

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...t-witt-092410/

A couple of wonks said people like McCain wanted the Armed Services Committee to make these decisions, others wanted congress to draft a law, yet others (perhaps including Obama?) preferred courts and judges' findings.

Still, it's a win for Witt, and the judge said it's actually the military being hurt by keeping gays out, not just a violation of civil rights.

[Hazir]

Well, now I am very curious what is Obama's real position on DADT. After today's ruling he can either be good for his word or fight to re-instate what he promised to abolish.

[LittleFuzzy]

Well, now I am very curious what is Obama's real position on DADT. After today's ruling he can either be good for his word or fight to re-instate what he promised to abolish.

Tough political spot. A majority of the country wants the policy gone, but it's not a major issue for most. But for those are really interested in the topic, on both sides, it will be a major GOTV issue. The social conservatives will respond particularly well to no attempt at appeal, but I'm not certain how our side will react, considering it is a mid-term election. On the one hand, an appeal should discourage voters, but on the other hand it more firmly puts the issue in the hands of Congress which means we really want to minimize conservative mid-term gains there.