Obama Works with Military to Repeal DADT
On the same day I was finishing the second chapter of my dissertation, I was asked to write two pieces on Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell. I linked the first here. Earlier today, Pajamas Media published the second of those pieces. Here’s the opening.
Seventeen years ago, just days after becoming president, Bill Clinton rushed to fulfill a promise he had made several times on the campaign trail in 1992–he would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military. At the time, the presdient could have repealed the ban with the stroke of a pen. It was an administrative directive, not federal law.
Clinton, however, did not lay the groundwork for repeal. His fellow Democrat, Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga), then-Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an opponent of the ban, held hearings which upstaged the president. Colin Powell, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Stuff, voiced his opposition. And Clinton had Barney Frank, an openly gay Democratic Congressman, defending him. That Massachusetts Democrat had no history of military service and was not well regarded in military circles. He cast this issue as one of gay rights.
In the end, Frank helped craft a compromise, legislation that would come to be known as Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT). It allowed gay people to serve provided they don’t openly declare their sexuality. But, it also codified the ban. No longer an administrative directive, it was no federal law. The president would need an act of Congress to repeal it.
Now that I’ve whet your appetite, click here to read the rest.
1 Comment
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I understand you being bullish on repealing DADT. The sounds coming from the White House, the Pentagon, and certain leaders of Congress all indicate impending repeal.
I mentioned in a previous comment on this topic that I believe all of this is so much political theater. Democrats campaign as being more conservative than they govern. There are enough Democrats in just the right positions (Skelton being one), or who are in danger of losing their seats because they are either Blue Dogs or lucked out on Bush-fatigue, who will vote to maintain the status quo.
The good bloggers here are more in tune to answer these questions: Does Skelton face a viable challenger? Will the Blue Dogs face conservative or liberal Republican challengers? When will the Democrats bring out their Westboro Baptist Church to provide covering fire for Christianity-phobia.
I believe the repeal of DADT will happen only under two conditions being true, neither of which I’m seeing:
– it happens during a non-election year. When there’s time to explain it to the constituents, and not worry about job security – that condition lends credibility to the effort.
– the effort is lead by conservatives. Repealing DADT will have larger legal and social reactions (consequences or rewards being perception)” that only conservatives can manage without damaging our Nation.
o the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not account for hate crimes. With federal law, as codified in the UCMJ specifically addressing ‘equality of treatment’ and not ‘equality of impact’ that opens the door to repeal all hate crimes legislation. It’s has the potential for being an enormous shock to the legal system.
o The Pentagon has been very lenient with respect to enforcing the Solomon Amendment. With DADT repealed, there is no argument that can be made by universities to prevent/inhibit the military from recruiting and doing other business on campuses. The exposure to the military’s inherent idealism, work ethic, and drive will undermine the extremely anti-American pathos that serves to indoctrinate generations of anti-Americans. This has the potentional to be an ever bigger shock, this time to academia.
Repealing DADT is a good thing, and I’m prepared to be disappointed over what comes of this.
Comment by DaveOnotinSF — February 6, 2010 @ 9:43 pm - February 6, 2010