The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama and Don't Ask Don't Tell
Heartlash
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, I'm of the belief that the Obama administration will eventually do the logical, ethical thing and allow gays to openly serve in the military. He sure seems to be taking his time, though:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html
So I understand that the Obama administration doesn't want to ruffle Congressional feathers, but in this case I think he may be treading TOO softly. Public opinion is shifting on the issue and he certainly has the political capital and means to make it happen quickly. I'm frankly disappointed that he didn't use this case as an opportunity.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html
The Obama Administration, in its brief in the case last month, said a lower court acted properly in upholding the gay ban. "Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute," argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The bar on gays serving openly is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion," her 12-page filing added.
The endorsement of "Don't ask, don't tell" by the Administration marks the latest rightward tack by Obama. The President denounced many of George W. Bush's national-security policies during the campaign, but in office has adopted more conservative positions, including endorsing military commissions to try purported terrorists, and declining to release a second batch of photographs depicting alleged U.S. maltreatment of Iraqi detainees. His stance on "Don't ask, don't tell" may be more surprising, because Obama aides have made clear the President wants the ban lifted eventually.
Pietrangelo doesn't buy the line from Obama aides — and the Pentagon — that they're too busy grappling with a faltering economy and two wars to handle the gay ban right away. "It's a complete lie that he has too much stuff on his plate — this is the guy who criticized Bush for not being able to multitask," Pietrangelo says. "We have an old saying in the military — the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters."
So I understand that the Obama administration doesn't want to ruffle Congressional feathers, but in this case I think he may be treading TOO softly. Public opinion is shifting on the issue and he certainly has the political capital and means to make it happen quickly. I'm frankly disappointed that he didn't use this case as an opportunity.
My indie mobile gaming studio: Elder Aeons
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Heartlash on
0
Posts
Though honestly he's been silent on too much stuff he promised during the campaign.
"By the way, we fixed healthcare, I just got a text from my people in Israel and they've worked it out with Palestine, and oh yeah, weed is legal now"
*helicopters fly over the crowd throwing joints everywhere*
"I would also like this opportunity to announce an investigation, unprecedented in its scale and determination, into the possible illegal goings-on of the Bush administration."
...well we can dream anyway.
Unfortunately, if you try to do everything at once, nothing may get done. See Carter.
Federal law. It was attached to a military budget back in '94. H.R. 2401.
Or you could look at it this way, which to do first?
A large, obtuse macro-economics problem with solutions in as of currently theoretical grounds (implementation of Keynesian economics).
A simple ethics problem with a fast, easy, and practical solution.
I honestly think that DADT could be repealed in a week if the proponents were ballsy about it. Or at the very least Obama could order Gates to stop enforcing it.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Take it as you will.
And most of congress will be pissed at him for not complying with something passed in congress, which they'll paint as a line item veto.
Oh no, a mostly unpopular congress will be mad at an extremely popular president on an issue that holds wide public support across all the spectrums of American society. The horror.
Also, he also sided with not allowing the Supreme Court to take up the issue either. Obama's record on gay rights since entering office has been pretty lackluster and his excuses about the economy taking up all his time ring hollow. Especially since with this recent act he was actively givng advice on whether another branch of government should be taking up the issue.
I don't think we wants to spend political capital on this issue while other issues are more urgent. Plus, there's no way getting rid of DADT quietly. The right would go up in flames, potentially derailing the rest of Obama's agenda.
The political risk simply isn't worth it right now. It sucks but I think healthcare reform, getting the economy going, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. are more important.
Note: I'm openly gay and I really don't see the problem with having to stay in the closet while in the Army. Why the fuck does every Tom, Dick and Joe have to know that I like cock?
Where is this massive amount of political capital even going to be spent? 58% of self-identified conservatives support the repeal of DADT, a demographic that is almost certainly not filled with Obama super-fans in the first place. 69% of the populace at large support its repeal. Few political topics in America enjoy such a wide mandate for change.
Oh yeah, and that support, 15 percentage points higher than support for the government offering universal health care coverage according to Gallup.
Well right now the system is very open to abuses and blackmail.
Which was my point, really. If it says GAY on some guy's personnel file, and guys in his squad get their hands on it, you can bet your ass (that is safe at home after having voted against DADT) that he's going to be thereafter known as the squad's bukkake bitch. I'm not saying that most gay guys wouldn't enjoy that (considering the amount of military-themed gay porn there is.. my God!), but still.
Well beats the current system of having people more or less serving openly anyway until someone decides they have a grudge and gets you kicked out
Seriously? You don't see a problem with everyone around you being able to talk about their relationships, bringing the people in their relationships to command functions, and getting married and receiving benefits because of these relationships? And what's a person supposed to do if they want to make a career of the military? Completely shut out their love life for no good reason?
I think it's less that you'd be forced to come out while in the military and more that they wouldn't kick you out if you did choose to be openly gay while serving. I'm sure plenty of people would still choose to just not talk about it. The difference is that now it would be their choice and if they screwed up and came out while drunk or whatever they wouldn't lose their enlistment/commission.
First, cite please.
Even if that were true, I would need to see a demographic breakdown of where those conservatives are located. That is far more salient since it would help predict the level of support he can expect from key Congressional leaders, along with any active resistance. Plus, he cannot be seen as weakening the military while he is trying to shift directions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember that DADT hasn't been a front-burner issue for a while. That level of support among conservatives could vanish overnight in a blizzard of ads funded by a newly-invigorated right attacking Obama for weakening troop morale. It's a bullshit argument but resonates strongly in certain areas.
Obama has already been criticized for having too many items on his agenda, for trying to do too much too quickly. His staff is, from all accounts, working to just about the absolute limit of human endurance as they try to get a healthcare bill to Congress before the Presidential vacation in August. Where they would find the time and energy to write a bill repealing DADT, sell it to Congress, fight the PR battle, and get it passed without sacrificing other parts of the agenda is beyond me.
With DADT gone, you could still be closeted if you want. You just wouldn't be thrown out if you decided you wanted to come out.
Real world facts? Maybe I'm biased because, well, most of Romania is homophobic and any openly gay guy in prison would become everyone's bitch instantly here. Even if he were a 250 pound weightlifter. That, and I see a lot of similarities between prison and the Army (guys without women, guys in crammed spaces, guys have needs).
How about you assume the American military is better than a Romanian prison? Cause that's a much better "real world fact".
Well good for you and Romania, but America is, ostensibly, a first-world country and it might be nice to strive for some kind of equal rights befitting that title!
And no!
the military and prison are not the same thing at all. And gang raping will not occur.
Only in so far as a societal politeness. I don't go asking coworkers about their sex life because it's rude - not because of a rule.
If Army guys want to talk about their sex lives and they end up asking a gay guy the most that should happen is that people hear a story they weren't prepared for.
Sure. Cause there aren't thousands of nutjobs in the US military. I was under the impression that this was about doing the right thing by gay people, not about the US getting a teeth bleaching for extra sparkly pearly white teeth.
Just FYI, the gallup link with those stats is in my OP.
EDIT: And the TIME link cites the conservative statistics.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Agreed. I think that's what enc0re means, though.......although I could be wrong. It's impolite to ask someone "so, which do you prefer, chicks or dicks?" unless they're ready to hear the guy answer "both" or "chicks with dicks."
MB, reading fail.
Gallup poll was referenced in the OP article. Direct link is here. Health care poll is here.
What congressional leaders of any import are in an area where this is likely to be wildly unpopular? This isn't a wedge issue anymore. If the far right were going to be mobilized it would have been mobilized by universal health care, which has far weaker public support and is also reviled by the extreme right. The troop morale argument has been demolished by the desperate need for troops on the ground.
And yet they carved out the time to go ahead and write a legal brief supporting the status quo. Funny that. I think this shows Obama's lackluster record on gay rights personally. It is one of the major areas where I think he has completelly dropped the ball.