DADT: Lawyers Advise Wait to Lift Gay Ban

[Centexfarmer]

This just in from the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawyers for the nation's top military officer are recommending holding off on an internal Pentagon effort that could lead to the repeal of the ban on openly gay military service. The delay could push a decision by Congress to the middle of the next presidential election.

As I read this I couldn't help but think of the "political realities" of this "recommendation."

A Joint Chief is apparently recommending that Obama not keep one of his campaign promises to repeal DADT until 'everyone is onboard,' and only then recommending that Congress take action to what would amount to waiting until after the "mid-term elections," when the Democratic "majority" could be slim or even non-existant.

Meanwhile I can see Obama and the Democratic National Committee using this issue as a "carrot" to keep us "onboard" so that we'll continue to send in our campaign contributions, and to keep the "Gay Dollars" flowing into their camps with the promise that 'if we just wait one more year...'

 

[iman]

I really don't think "gay dollars" or gay votes are that big a deal in a national campaign, anyway, where else are we going to go?

I do think changing the policy in the middle of a serious war would be used by Republicans to demonstrate Obama's "weakness" and "radicalism" I think that it is important that a smooth transition be made after an election and not before one.

 

[JB3]

I really don't think "gay dollars" or gay votes are that big a deal in a national campaign, anyway, where else are we going to go?
.

They risk losing the vote, not for another party, but to people not voting at all. Gays not voting for democrats would be their worst nightmare; it could easily swing any vulnerable house and senate seats to republicans.

 

[Kulindahr]

What else are we going to do?

Every gay person should pick an 'third party' and make it known that's how we voted. That would show that we're involved, but don't like either party.

 

[Kulindahr]

An interesting aspect of this:

In a case like that with Prop 8 right now, one of the measuring sticks for the possibility of protected (or 'suspect') status is whether the minority lacks political power. If DADT gets repealed, the bigots can argue that we do have political power, so we don't need protection. So in a very weird way, we might be better off in the long run if DADT stays the way it is for now.

 

[Centexfarmer]

An interesting aspect of this:

In a case like that with Prop 8 right now, one of the measuring sticks for the possibility of protected (or 'suspect') status is whether the minority lacks political power. If DADT gets repealed, the bigots can argue that we do have political power, so we don't need protection. So in a very weird way, we might be better off in the long run if DADT stays the way it is for now.

That's just messed up!

But I see your point.

I've always kind of maintained that eventually the U.S. Constitution will sort things out, and that very little if any legislation will be needed.

Look at any of the five states that currently allow Same-Sex Marriage, they didn't do so because of any referendum or ballet initiative, their State Constitutions allowed it by virtue of the law.

Of course, at the same time, with very little political leadership either.

 

[Kulindahr]

Isn't it great that we have a system where we might get more by not getting more?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Isn't it great that we have a system where we might get more by not getting more?

I've always heard that "less is more," I just never thought that there might be political rewards for doing nothing.

 

[NickCole]

I really don't think "gay dollars" or gay votes are that big a deal in a national campaign, anyway, where else are we going to go?

If gays have any spine they'll take their political donations and support and votes to candidates who fight for our rights. Withhold our dollars and support and votes from politicians --Obama for instance-- who claim to be our "fierce advocate" and then refuse to use their power to take action on issues like DADT and DOMA. And then if they have a spine gays will tell those politicians and the rest of the country WHY we're doing it and who's getting our support and why.

Really unbelievable, downright pathetic, that anybody, black, gay, woman, any member of a minority fighting for rights would actually be pathetic enough to say, "where else are we going to go" in today's United States.

I do think changing the policy in the middle of a serious war would be used by Republicans to demonstrate Obama's "weakness" and "radicalism" I think that it is important that a smooth transition be made after an election and not before one.

The entire past year has been "after an election." You weren't criticizing Obama's and Congress' failure to repeal DADT after the election in 2008.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ To illustrate the point further, and to prove that there are many of us who don't plan on taking this lying down, this from the Advocate:

Gays vs. Democratic Party

They’re fond of your checkbooks — and deaf to your demands for equal rights. What will it take for the Democratic Party to step up?

Nice article by James Kirchik. He also gives a little more background.

"Don't ask, don't Give." <~I like that!

 

[NickCole]

Don't drop the soap.

Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15military.html

What's worse is that article reveals there's been no plan formulated all this time when supposedly Obama was working with the Pentagon to come up with one.

What a surprise.

 

[NickCole]

^ To illustrate the point further, and to prove that there are many of us who don't plan on taking this lying down, this from the Advocate:

Gays vs. Democratic Party



Nice article by James Kirchik. He also gives a little more background.

"Don't ask, don't Give." <~I like that!

That's a good article, glad you posted it. And I hope you're right that many won't take this lying down in the servile "where else are we going to go" position.

But I fear what really will happen in this economy is that they'll blanketly withhold their dollars from the Democratic Party rather than giving money and support specifically to candidates who have a record of fighting for us. To access our power we have to be more than withholding, we have to be active about supporting.

 

[swmjck]

This just in from the Associated Press:

As I read this I couldn't help but think of the "political realities" of this "recommendation."

A Joint Chief is apparently recommending that Obama not keep one of his campaign promises to repeal DADT until 'everyone is onboard,' and only then recommending that Congress take action to what would amount to waiting until after the "mid-term elections," when the Democratic "majority" could be slim or even non-existant.

Meanwhile I can see Obama and the Democratic National Committee using this issue as a "carrot" to keep us "onboard" so that we'll continue to send in our campaign contributions, and to keep the "Gay Dollars" flowing into their camps with the promise that 'if we just wait one more year...'

All i hear is Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Same old political maneuvering with no regard for what's right and just. All of Washington disgusts me.

 

[archive]

Don't drop the soap.





What's worse is that article reveals there's been no plan formulated all this time when supposedly Obama was working with the Pentagon to come up with one.

What a surprise.

honestly....the writer has no idea what hes talking about in that particular paragraph....dorms are being built for privacy (one airman, soldier, marine, seaman to a room) as budget allows....for gym showers.....they are putting up dividers....pdoa's were banned (in uniform) before i even joined.....and when deployed, tdy, or stationed...you are supposed to follow the customs/laws of the host nation...and this was all in effect before obama


but then again...i never really expected for obama was serious about dadt

 

[White Eagle]

^ To illustrate the point further, and to prove that there are many of us who don't plan on taking this lying down, this from the Advocate:

Gays vs. Democratic Party



Nice article by James Kirchik. He also gives a little more background.

"Don't ask, don't Give." <~I like that!

I like that too and we need to let them know what we are withholding. But as Nick said this might hurt those Congressmen that are really on our side. [STRIKE]My[/STRIKE] Our Senators are hopeless, you know about them. But my Representative is good and I think he would be one it would hurt.

 

[iman]

The question remains: Where else are you going to go? This is a democracy and nobody gets their own way all of the time. The history of the US is one of expanding rights and by the gauge of womans rights and African American rights, we are making progress. The rights we seek, marriage and the ability to join the military are a fait accompli and while continual social and political pressure is still necessary, they are obviously coming.

We are better off working intelligently and respectfully for these rights and not use them to satiate some folks desire for victimhood or as a way to damage the Democratic party.

There are two parties in the US, a progressive party that has a record of expanding minority rights and a regressive party that has a record of using minorities as foils to generate fear and hatred in the electorate. Third parties are useless and just a cop out. So, where ya goin to go?

 

[iman]

^A third party would be fine for the two major parties because it would totally neutralize gay rights activists. Imagine what would have happened if African Americans had formed their own liberation party in the 60's; Do you think Obama would have been elected or civil rights legislation would have been passed? Democratic support for civil rights cost the Dems many an election before they reaped many electoral benefits. Do you believe that advocacy for gay rights helps the Dems? Democrats cannot even support gay marriage because the issue is such poison to the electorate.

Maybe Hoyer will tell you that he will stop working on your behalf until you grow up and stop throwing hissyfits because you can not as yet serve openly. (as if your going to go prancing off to the recruitment office)

Hoyer does not need us, we need him.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ To illustrate the point further, and to prove that there are many of us who don't plan on taking this lying down, this from the Advocate:

Gays vs. Democratic Party



Nice article by James Kirchik. He also gives a little more background.

"Don't ask, don't Give." <~I like that!

I like this bit:

. “We give money to get something,” he says. “We don’t give money to get warm fuzzies. If I wanted that, I’d give money to the cat shelter.”

At this point, I think maybe we should all respond like this:

Any time the Democratic Party sends a letter asking for support, write back and say, "All we get from you is warm fuzzies. Thank you for the encouragement. In response to your request, I've written a $50 check to the local cat shelter."

 

[Kulindahr]

What's more is that this was an election that gave Democrats a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In other words, this is the best time to do this relative to any likely climate in the future. What are the odds that you get anything better than a freaking 60-vote majority?

The trouble with getting 60 votes in the Senate is that there's really no such thing as the Democratic Party the moment that occurs: it breaks apart. Every single Senator realizes he has a lot of power, because he can hold out for something or they don't get that filibuster-busting number on the floor. Instead of a party with 60 votes, you get a core of maybe 45, and a loose cluster of cats to try to herd to make things work. So in some ways, having 60 is worse than having 55.

 

[Kulindahr]

The question remains: Where else are you going to go? This is a democracy and nobody gets their own way all of the time. The history of the US is one of expanding rights and by the gauge of womans rights and African American rights, we are making progress. The rights we seek, marriage and the ability to join the military are a fait accompli and while continual social and political pressure is still necessary, they are obviously coming.

We are better off working intelligently and respectfully for these rights and not use them to satiate some folks desire for victimhood or as a way to damage the Democratic party.

There are two parties in the US, a progressive party that has a record of expanding minority rights and a regressive party that has a record of using minorities as foils to generate fear and hatred in the electorate. Third parties are useless and just a cop out. So, where ya goin to go?

What a whining spineless way to beg to continue being a victim!

^A third party would be fine for the two major parties because it would totally neutralize gay rights activists. Imagine what would have happened if African Americans had formed their own liberation party in the 60's; Do you think Obama would have been elected or civil rights legislation would have been passed? Democratic support for civil rights cost the Dems many an election before they reaped many electoral benefits. Do you believe that advocacy for gay rights helps the Dems? Democrats cannot even support gay marriage because the issue is such poison to the electorate.

Maybe Hoyer will tell you that he will stop working on your behalf until you grow up and stop throwing hissyfits because you can not as yet serve openly. (as if your going to go prancing off to the recruitment office)

Hoyer does not need us, we need him.

Foolishness. Your argument amounts to "Let's all be spineless and kiss their feet even while they're shitting on us".

A third party -- if, say, all the gays in the country along with their friends voted Libertarian next election, unless there was a candidate with a strong proven record -- would send a message to the Democrats that they don't own us. There are a lot of races out there that are close, and the Democrats would likely lose their majority in at least one house.

You think they wouldn't pay attention?

And if someone gathered donations from gays, until there was a huge amount, and went on TV saying, "The Democratic Party talks a good talk but they're not much for action. Since they've mucked around in the Congress not just on our issues but on other major items, this check for $30,000,000 is going to the Libertarian Party", you don't think the DNC would go "Shit! Repeal DADT now, before the Republicans roll over us!"

Of course it will never happen, because of the hypnotizing mantra for the brainless, "You'll waste your vote. You'll waste your money. You'll waste your vote. You'll waste your money."

Those who kiss people's feet and get shit on are people who deserve to get shit on.