In the wake of Senate passage of DADT, the folks at AOL asked me to write a piece on what’s next for gays. In my piece, I looked at the process of repeal and the prospects for gay influence in the 112th Congress:
Despite all the hullabaloo over Senate passage of legislation repealing the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays from serving openly in the U.S. armed forces, gay men and lesbians will still have to wait a bit before being able to serve openly, to say nothing of making progress on other legislative fronts.
“After President Obama signs the legislation,” reports AP national security writer Robert Burns, “the Pentagon must still certify to Congress that the change won’t damage combat readiness.” That provision likely secured the support of the two most junior Republicans in the Senate, Massachusetts’ Scott Brown and Illinois’ Mark Kirk, both men with a record of military service.
But this has many wondering how the armed forces will proceed with implementing the policy.
You can read the rest here.
Well said. I do find it interesting that AOL would even ask the question. I’m a married, white male, father of two and I don’t see why there is any question what is next for gays.
It’s an improved economy which is producing jobs and solid paying salaries so more folks can improve their quality of life. That’s not gay or non-gay, it’s just American, which we all are.
I want to make sure you understand I’m not criticizing you rather I just find it interesting that AOL in this example, would wonder what’s next.
If I’m totally off based here, let me know but it sure seems like economic issues are priority one for everyone.
Hmmm. I think the AP writer should’ve written:
(It’s important not to overlook that TWO signatures are required from Obama, since he might well calculate that it’s in his own political interest to delay the second signature for a while.)
Probably because AOL knows that gay activists never stop, NebraskaPatriot. And isn’t that true? They achieved tolerance long ago. Now they want endorsement.
I would much rather AOL asked a better question — when will gays ever shut up?
I have no doubt that Obama will get the signatures he needs according to this act, but that he has to get them does rankle me a bit. It smacks of the legislative branch stepping on the authority of the president as Commander-in-Chief. It’s not about Obama but the office he currently holds. One could make an argument about the constitutionality of that. Of course it’s a minor point I suppose and I’m very glad to see DADT repealed.
I assumed this meant what will gays go after next and when I read Dan’s response I felt he had side-stepped the assignment.
If DA/DT repeal is the end of the gay agenda and we are on the edge of perfect harmony across social lines, I sure missed the nuclear aspect of DA/DT.
I suspect AOL will keep fishing until they get the answer they want.
Ummm… growing up? (If the military can do it, gays can too. We can always hope.)
FTR, I welcome ENDA’s death. ENDA-type bills shouldn’t exist at the Federal level for any group (real or imagined). I’m familiar with the argument that since other groups have ENDA-type protections, we gays should also. I don’t buy it. I don’t think you can improve a nasty Federal intrusion on property rights and freedom of association, by broadening it.
There is more.
While the explicit prohibition on homosexuals serving openly was repealed, there was no gay tolerance section added. This means that the Department of Defense, by regulation could exclude homosexuals from the service.
Good. I mean, isn’t a military-effectiveness approach (as opposed to PC nonsense) something that all reasonable people want?
I’ve said before that I think the “gay question” might rationally have different answers, in different military specialties or service branches – just as with women.
Interesting article. Two points. #1 There is no way that gay groups, including those within the GOP can “appeal to Republicans” enough to get something like ENDA passed, or at least achieve the same parity by removing such protections from all other classes. Until Democrats control both chambers this will remain a pipe dream, especially as the social conservatives continue to ascend to higher levels of power within the GOP while the social liberals are RINO hunted.
#2 the Republicans aren’t done trying to deep six the DADT repeal. Witness their last ditch effort to undercut the passed legislation here. At least Mitch McConnell had the brains to realize that Democrats wouldn’t pass the authorization bill with that kind of poison pill in it. I guess that’s just Republicans standing up for gay rights issues again while Democrats aren’t doing enough for them?
Of course.
No one in this country is helped by allowing people like Bradley Manning, whose actions are endorsed, supported, and defended by the gay and lesbian community, any kind of access to our military.
Republicans put the welfare and security of the country ahead of pandering. Had DADT been enforced as it should have been, traitor Bradley Manning would never have had the opportunity to do what he did. Is it any surprise that the Obama Party that defends his actions is trying its hardest to get rid of the law that would stop future Mannings?
And as for ENDA, again, no surprise; the Obama Party, after all, screams that it is “homophobic” to fire gays and lesbians who sexually harass others. We should expect that the party of Eric Massa is desperate to force businesses to employ gays and lesbians like him.
The next step that needs to be taken by Congress is to alter the UCMJ to treat gay sex and straight sex the same (this recommendation is in the DoD report). Article 125, which prohibits consensual sodomy, needs to be repealed and the sections on fraternization and coercive sex need to be re-written to prohibit same-sex offenses the same way that opposite-sex ones are.
The next step Professor Daniel Blatt would be my following suggestions:
(1) Repeal federal “hate crimes” legislation and replace it with stronger gun-carry legislation. Let’s stop physical violence, not the mental motivations of the violent criminal.
(2) Forget ENDA. Let’s first heal the economy somehow. And then pass legislation that will support both gay and straight people create their own businesses, careers, and jobs that they dream of and receive driver’s licenses they couldn’t get because of issues with discrimination from a racist and homophobic CEO employer or DMV tester.
(3) Secure the border and stop illegal migration like in the State of Arizona of potentially violent, racist and homophobic Muslim and Hispanic people crossing our nation’s borders. And maybe regulate or impose a moratorium on non-Western immigration. <- That's something a GAY CONSERVATIVE would definitely agree with me on.
(4) Ban the Islamic Sharia Law to strengthen "separation of church and state" like in the State of Oklahoma to protect gays and women, both Muslims and non-Muslims from religious persecution. <- That's also something a GAY CONSERVATIVE would definitely agree with me on.
(5) Expose the "Communist Manifesto" to U.S. Congress so gays and women in America can go back to wearing modest clothing and ending the flaunting of "Ethnic/Gender/Sexual Orientation" Day Parades first started by the Liberace (I mean Liberal) Movement from the 1960s onwards. I am a young adult and I advocate going back to the days when America was mature and patriotic; in a time where dirty-mouthed homophobic-cussing teenagers and criminals received corporal punishment. Too bad Liberalism and Communism actually helped spread racist and homophobic language in America.
(6) Convert all public schools across America to private schools (K-12) and private colleges. Endorse home schools for kids and teenagers. You don't want racist and homophobic peers and punk-bastard bullies trampling the intelligent education of gay and straight kids in America, correct?
The policy will be reimposed. There will be no gay marriage in the United States regardless of the collusion of the sociopathic liberal bodies of the APAs and the ABA. There is no science involved, merely social activism and legal positivism.
“[Gays] achieved tolerance long ago. Now they want endorsement.”
Exactly what I’ve been saying, AE. And the repeal of DADT is just another step down the road to mandatory endorsement of homosexuality. Repeal has NOTHING to do with enhancing national security or military effectiveness. It’s about spitting on traditional values and mainstreaming a niche sexuality. Period.
“I assumed this meant what will gays go after next and when I read Dan’s response I felt he had side-stepped the assignment.”
Yes, Heliotrope, B. Daniel did side step the assignment a bit, but that is to be expected. He is, after all, the guy who’s been insisting that repeal of DADT is all about military effectiveness. Of course he can’t admit that gays intend to use repeal as a springboard to push for more “civil rights”, that would destroy is whole pretense.