Kudos to Rep. Tauscher for introducing this legislation and at least getting the ball rolling.
It is precisely the sort of knife fight no president wants to get into, especially in his first 100 days. But it seems that President Barack Obama is about to get dragged down the same dark alley as Bill Clinton when he was forced to confront the highly charged issue of gays in the military early in his term.
On Monday, buoyed by a stronger Democratic majority in Congress, Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation to overturn the ban against homosexuals serving openly in the military, a Tauscher aide said.
Clinton’s handling of the issue was widely condemned, and the entire fiasco became a textbook example of the sort of avoid-at-all-cost political controversy that can seriously undermine a new president. For Clinton, it knocked him off message, sapped him of auathority, damaged his popularity ratings and left him with a reputation for being wishy-washy that stuck.
And it left the military with a policy that no one really likes — the “don’t ask, don’t tell†regulation that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don’t flout their homosexuality.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles this tactically and politically. There have been very mixed media reports since November on if and when Obama would tackle DADT.
There is a discussion at Pam’s House Blend on this development.  Feel free to join, and bring those folks over here, too!
Maybe I should post a count-up clock on how many days since Inauguration until DADT is repealed? Does anyone know how to build such a widget?
[RELATED: First DADT litigation faces Obama Justice Department]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I will be very surprised if this issue produces the widespread firestorm that it did 16 years ago.
Having said that, it may produce smaller fires in certain constituencies that Obama is sensitive to – think of the many Obama voters who voted “Yes on 8” in CA – and it will be interesting to see if that happens.
P.S. Kudos to Tauscher for introducing the bill. (Assuming it’s a clean bill, i.e., no disgusting or brain-dead riders attached.)
I know that its probably just consensus bias (from my gay blog reading) talking, but I don’t see how anyone can oppose DADT repeal — everyone hates it and the people arguing for it use charicatures of gays to back their reasoning. From my perspective, killing DADT will only anger people who didn’t want Obama as president in the first place; his constituency is too becalmed from his election to start a ruckus over this.
And it left the military with a policy that no one really likes — the “don’t ask, don’t tell†regulation that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don’t flout their homosexuality.
OK, I’m ‘no one’ and I like this policy. Homosexuals have always served in history’s militaries and DADT recognizes the contribution of each soldier despite his/her sexuality. Military service should supersede any personal issue. Thus, a policy “that allows gays to serve in the military, as long as they don’t flout their homosexuality” is consistent with the needs of the armed services and their membership(s). Only if “Don’t Tell” is being used as a premise for discharge inconsistent with the policy itself would I object and only with the discharge, per the policy.
Those who protest DADT likely have issue with the inability to “flout” their sexuality, behavior that clearly has no place in the military. Go flout your sexuality in a disco or on a blog. Don’t like DADT? I’ve a suggestion for you: Don’t volunteer.
What a non-issue.
I also do not think this will be such a big deal. I would even go so far as to say that there is a significant percentage of those who voted “Yes on Prop 8” who would also be in favor of repealling DADT and have Gays and Lesbians serve our country and contribute to our security and the protection of our freedom, (revelation coming) I being one of those voters. This revelation to my fellow readers of Gay Patriot will probably anger some, but yes, I voted for Prop 8, for many reasons, some of which has appeared on this blog, by it’s authors in the advocation of allowing same sex marriage.
That being said, If I were in a position of power (POTUS) I would repeal DADT and have no distinction regarding who serves based on their sexual orientation and their practice of their orientation as long as it does not violate fraternization rules that ALL service members abide by.
This all to say that because a majority of voters voted for Prop 8, does not mean that a majority of voters be for DADT. These are complicated issues with many variances and are not clear cut for all of us in this great land of ours.
I agree with Ignatius.
I third that.
In a side story, Obama’s pick for trade representative, Ron Kirk, owes $10K in federal back taxes.
How many does that make now?
I think Ignatius has it absolutely right.
I’m sorry, but I disagree with Ignatius. It’s not “flouting” one’s sexuality to become involved in a long-term, monogamous same-sex relationship and to expect/hope that you could involve your partner in the same way that your married heterosexual comrades-in-arms do. Because those families are closeted, they also are denied the support system that is critical during deployments. And that respect it absolutely does not meet the needs of the armed services or it’s membership.
I’m not disagreeing with “flouting it” in terms of inappropriate behavior. Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate for any soldier, gay or straight. But this policy makes a certain percentage of the population who are otherwise perfectly well qualified to do a military job either a) hide their personal lives completely or b) forces them choose between a career of service to the country they love and having a family. DADT still imposes that burden.
I’m glad to see this bill introduced.
Meant to add – Bruce, it’s nice to see you link to PHB. I came over here as a reader from there some time ago.
Actually, I would be fine with DADT if only it were DADTDP, that is, if only they honored “Don’t Pursue” which was supposed to be part of the bargain.
DADTDP was supposed to end witch-hunts of honorable gay servicemembers who truly weren’t bothering anyone with their sexuality… and who very often performed for the nation with bravery and skill. From what I’ve been told – much of it on this very blog – the policy hasn’t worked because they never gave up on the witch hunts. The service of good people is being lost.
Making “DP” (Don’t Pursue) a reality would be one fix to the problem. Letting gays serve openly would be another. If you happen to think the second fix is worse than the problem, start lobbying for the first.
I’m still not sure what there is to “tell.” This law is based on a myth–the “once-gay, always-gay” myth. There is no scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is an intrinsic, absolute state. Many queer theorists are discussing sexual fluidity. If you think sexuality is fixed and inborn, then do catch up, girlfriend. That’s SOOO yesterday, so pre-Mika and Lindsey Lohan. Like that crazy pair, most people in the military are at an age when they are discovering their identities. I’m sure there is a military equivalent of a LUG (lesbian until graduation). It’s also the case that men in all-male situations can become attracted to each other and then return to heterosexuality when back in normal society. So, I’ve never understood exactly what was being “told.” If I was a sergeant and someone 18-25 told me, “I’m gay. I’ve always been gay. I’ll always be gay,” I’d roll my eyes and say, “Sure, kid. Good luck with that. But you still have to dig this ditch.”
Open serve will work if the gay community gets behind the military on the necessary measures to ensure the proper working of the military – dropping the hammer on fraternization, making sure homosexuality is irrelevant to promotion, assignment and retention decisions. It will fail if the gay community treats homosexuality as a military qualification or assumes anything negative that happens to gay soldiers/sailors/airmen is always the result of homophobia.
This is not the time to drop the ball.
Or drop the soap.
ashpenaz: while there are almost always exceptions to every rule, i think most people are either gay, straight, or bi for their whole life. those people who see a “change” were probably just bisexual all along.
Bruce,
You want to invite Pam’s House Blend commenters here? Why?
If the gay service member tells people “I consider myself homosexual”, “I am gay”, or similar variations, then he then runs afoul of the rules by having announced it or made it official, and can be discharged.
Sure there is.
That’s why they are called “queer theorists” (by themselves among others). What they “discuss” isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit. “Queer Theory”, while treated as an academic discipline by some, is not a real one.
Oh… Oh… excuse me. I understand now completely. Because *you say it*, with absolutely nothing to back it up except a bit of “Queer Theory” and a couple of fashion references and anecdotal rantings, it must be true! I shall change my thinking 100% now! P.S., please let me know if you have a good Ponzi scheme I can ‘invest’ with.
If you happen to think the second fix is worse than the problem, start lobbying for the first.
You’ll have no argument from me on that one. That, in my opinion, is the one place where DADTDP has been most consistently misapplied — although, entertainingly, the Bush administration, judging by the level of discharges, has done far less in the way of pursuing than did the supposedly “pro-gay” Clinton administration.
And to Rob’s point, way too little too late. SLDN and the rest of the so-called “gay veterans” movement should have raised holy hell when San Francisco’s gay leftist movement banned JROTC, spat on the USS Iowa, and openly supported Code Pink’s getting the US Marines declared “uninvited and unwelcome intruders” in Berkeley.
Nice job most of you guys for actually acknowledge Tauchers work on this issue. Perhaps I’ve been too harsh on some of you guys (other than NDT – nice crack about the ‘so called service of the veterans over at SLDN – They’ve earned the right to speak their minds on this issue)
My only concern is if DADT is repealed, is anything going to replace it, or is it going to go back to ‘don’t tell, feel free to ask, and by all means pursue?”
With all do respect, Ignatius, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Under current law a homosexual can be kicked out of the armed services for saying anything that outs himself. Outing oneself by mentioning a boyfriend (or girlfriend), for instance, is hardly flouting one’s sexuality, now is it?
People who oppose DADT (whether in or out of the military) think that gay servicemen deserve the same right to be out in the open that their straight counterparts currently enjoy.
Also, a gay service member can be kicked out if his command discovers his homosexuality in any way. His command can learn about his sexuality from his private correspondence, his private conversations, and his actions that occurred off duty and off base. His commanding officers can discover these things for themselves or they can get reports from other service members or even civilians. In short, the whole world are potential spies against the gay American soldier.
When gay soldiers complain that they should be able to dance with their boyfriends, or kiss their girlfriends, or live with their same-sex spouses without risking their jobs they are hardly asking for the right to flaunt their homosexuality in the military. They are asking for the same freedom to live that heterosexual soldiers have. That’s all.
I really shouldn’t have to tell you (or NDT or Not Always Right) any of this. 🙁
How ’bout we repeal DADT and get all the gays out of the military? They don’t belong here.
(other than NDT – nice crack about the ’so called service of the veterans over at SLDN – They’ve earned the right to speak their minds on this issue)
Which rather was my point; judging by their silence, they seemingly have no problem with anti-military bigotry and bashing when it’s their fellow gays and leftists doing it.
That is their right. However, they shouldn’t expect people to think they care much about the military when they’re all about the left calling US troops “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, “murderers”, “baby-killers”, and everything else that the Obama-sponsored left does.
I guess you can cheer this if your goal is to cause a huge drop in recruitment and re-enlistment.
Maybe you think this country can stay free when conservative young men choose to avoid your uniformed bathhouses, but I doubt it.
“Sure, kid. Good luck with that. But you still have to dig this ditch.â€
In other words, “Whatever. Do the damn job I told you to do.” Which is the right response anyway, is it not? 🙂
Exactly. My point is that people shouldn’t be forced to identify themselves as anything, and any self-identification should be ignored. The LUG phenomenon is a good example of people who think it’s fun to be gay for awhile just to shock their parents. I don’t really care how people identify themselves–is Tom Robinson still gay? Lindsey Lohan? Anne Heche? Lou Reed? Ted Haggard? Larry Craig? Mika? A-Rod? Mike Piazza? Clint Black? Who knows? Who cares? I shouldn’t have to identify as gay to get a civil union; I shouldn’t have to identify as straight to be in the military. The fact that I say I’m “gay” doesn’t make me gay. It could mean anything from “I want to shock my mean ol’ Dad” to “Why do I see Jason Statham movies so many times?” to “I think I can build a more solid family with my buddy Joe than with Mary.” What if this same soldier leaves the military and finds that the love of his life turns out to be a woman? Does he get back in?
And, yes, sexual orientation has been shown to change over time. Especially with women. We can’t make laws unless we’re honest about what actually happens.
“Why do I see Jason Statham movies so many times?â€
*laugh* You’ve seen one Jason Statham movie, you’ve seen them all.
Though he does have an impressive build, and I do like the fight choreography. I prefer Transporter 1 though. The female lead was hot. 🙂
When gay soldiers complain that they should be able to dance with their boyfriends, or kiss their girlfriends, or live with their same-sex spouses without risking their jobs they are hardly asking for the right to flaunt their homosexuality in the military.
The military doesn’t exist to provide self-actualization. It exists to defend our country and protect us from some really rotten people, and in the process, it quite often has to tromp all over personal convenience.
If you want to do all of these things, there’s a whole civilian world out there that lets you do it quite nicely. If you prefer the military world, these are the ground rules, and if you can’t live by them, you shouldn’t be in the military.
To gay liberals, being able to make out with your boyfriend in public is more important than either military efficiency or effectiveness. That’s their opinion, and they’re welcome to it; however, they should be honest that their first priority is setting aside military readiness or concerns in favor of advancing their own agenda.
Somehow, I doubt that would be nearly as popular.
it’s not just wanting to makeout with your boyfriend, NDT. people shouldn’t have to worry about hiding an entire part of their lives so as to not be outted. some gay people actually have families, you know, or are in committed, long-term relationships. keeping all of that hidden is a burden that shouldn’t be imposed. your argument is asinine.
furthermore, how exactly does a guy seen kissing his boyfriend (anymore than a guy seen kissing his girlfriend) detract from the military’s mission?
why do i get the feeling that NDT is the biggest closet case on the internet?
Because you can’t offer anything substantial to the conversation but have to snark, bob?
NDT,
You apparently assume that the SLDN is a liberal organization. They are concerned with one thing. And one thing only. Repealing DADT. You shouldn’t expect them to care about what goes in Berkeley. Its not on their radar.
Besides, since you think that anyone who dares not hide their orientation apparently deserves to get kicked out of the military, you probably shouldn’t give them advice. You apparently don’t support their agenda (of believing that Gays are not prima facie unfit for military service, even if someone knows that they have a boyfriend)
For the record: NDT is anything but a closet case. Hint: He’s been a beefcake boy on a gay charity calendar. I am not kidding. And yes, the shots were beefy – yum!
people shouldn’t have to worry about hiding an entire part of their lives so as to not be outted
And they don’t. All they need do is not enlist in the military, and it won’t be a problem.
Meanwhile, boob, if outing is such an awful thing, why do you and your fellow gay liberals like Mike Rogers fully endorse, support, and justify it?
actually, livewire, i made a substantive comment in #30, to which i’ve yet to receive a response.
and gay or not, i’d be willing to bet a good sum that NDT is quite troll-ish.
You shouldn’t expect them to care about what goes in Berkeley. Its not on their radar.
One would think, Tom, that, being an organization who supposedly supports all members of the armed services, they would have something to say about an organization like Code Pink that says that all members of the armed services are “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, “baby-killers”, and “murderers”, or people who badmouth the military in an attempt to get rid of the JROTC program or the donation of a battleship they don’t like.
You’re right, I don’t expect them to care — because, as a leftist gay organization, they must support their leftist anti-military allies first and foremost, no matter how hypocritical it makes them look and how much it makes obvious that gays are anti-military.
Meanwhile, as to peoples’ attempted arguments about the UCMJ, it is also against the law to appear nude in public or to have sex or commit sexual acts in public in California.
As examples like the Folsom Street Fair make clear to us, liberals consider it “homophobic” to enforce laws that in any way impede upon or limit sexual behavior by gays in public and thus, refuse to do so. What should lead us to believe that they would allow the UCMJ to be enforced against gay soldiers?
as a big ol’ liberal, i want to come out and say i don’t consider impeding upon or limiting sexual behavior in public by gays “homophobic”. i would imagine that most liberals agree with me.
Is it wrong for me to get intellectual and emotional pleasure from my knowledge of how very… extraordinarily… *little*… bob knows? I mean, I truly know *so* much more than bob on this question; as on many other questions. Is it wrong that that gives me a certain kind of enjoyment?
#30, oh sorry, thought you trolled in all the threads, let me quote a gentleman who is more knowlegable on such matters than I.
“I also point out that it’s not up to the military to defend its policy. Rather, it’s incumbent on those of us who wish it changed to show how that change would positively affect the mission.
As long as we insist (and I’m not sure if that’s what you’re doing with your comment, so no offense meant here) that it’s the military that should defend its current policy, we’re fighting from the wrong perspective.
To that end, while your point is valid, it’s not germane. Unless there is evidence that changing the policy would actually improve morale, simply saying it might not hurt isn’t going to cut it.”
Now I can think of a number of civilian reasons, and maybe a few military ones, but I’ll leave that as an exercise for others.
NDT,
Yes it would take a CinC to have the testicular fortitude to tell the courts/ACLU to take a flying leap. Something like “This is a volunteer army, everyone agrees to the UCMJ, and to follow it. Check your civilian rights at the door.” And then essentially tell the courts to try to enforce their decision.
ILC, yes, it’s wrong. just shows your mortal. OTOH, we had a successful movie about an idiot savant. If they made one about bob, it would be half as successful.
Arrgh. two posts lost in the filter.
ILC is one of those people who doesn’t know how little he knows.
quite sad.
NDT,
You are very good at creating strawman arguments to argue against. Unfortunately for you I am good at seeing them for what they are.
The antics of Code Pink and the Folsom Street Fair have nothing whatsoever to do with this the military ban. This is probably why the SLDN has never concerned itself with such nonsense as its sole raison d’etre is to help service members affected by DADT. In any event the behavior of SLDN is itself irrelevant to this discussion.
This is in no way an answer to my comment, which was a response to Ignatius’ assertion (and your agreement) that gay soldiers who want the ban lifted simply want the ability to “flout their sexuality” in the service.
We all know perfectly well why the armed services exist and that service members must make sacrifices to serve. The question here is why homosexuals must make sacrifices that heterosexuals are not required to make.
That may very well be, but it doesn’t matter in the slightest. All that matters are actual results.
The presence of open homosexuals in the military will either harm its efficiency and effectiveness or it won’t. I’ve honestly seen no good arguments that it will; if you have any please present them. We all know that the current policy costs the military hundreds of capable members.
Furthermore, if open homosexuals in the armed forces does present a problem, why can’t it be dealt with by discharging homophobes instead of gays? In short, why does the need for a capable military provide a moral rational for supporting irrational prejudice? If you are going to support the ban that is the question you must answer.
Actually bob, your #30 argument was destroyed in another thread.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9286#comment-379944
Enjoy.