Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell (VIDEO)

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Obama Wants Quick "Change," Not "Repeal" Of Don't Ask Don't Tell (VIDEO) stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS


First Posted: 07-13-09 06:31 PM   |   Updated: 08-13-09 05:12 AM

What's Your Reaction?

President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the White House was powerless in seeking such a reversal, forced to wait for the legislative branch to act first. And, in terminology likely to anger the gay rights community, the president called for a "change" rather than "repeal" of the ban on openly gay men and women serving in the armed forces.

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates as well as Admiral [Mike] Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see [the law] changed?" Cooper interjected.

"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."

Watch:

Certainly, the quick timeframe is welcome news for the gay rights community, which has watched with a mixture of horror and bemusement as Obama has kicked his pledge to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell" down the road. But the specific language of the CNN interview is bound to cause some concern.

"We learned three things," said John Aravosis, the prominent writer and gay activist who runs AMERICAblog. "First, that President Obama no longer wants to repeal 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' he only plans to change' the law to, presumably, make it better somehow. Second, the president just said that DADT was constitutional. That's news to his supporters. And third, since when did implementation of the president's stop-loss powers have anything to do with whether laws in Congress are constitutional or not? It's increasingly clear that this White House has a severe case of the cooties when it comes to the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans."

Indeed, another gay rights activist made a similar argument to the Huffington Post, questioning whether Obama was being candid in saying Congress had to act first. The Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara, he noted, had produced a study showing that the president could, in fact, halt DADT through executive order.

The source also pointed out that the White House caused a brouhaha back in May by significantly weakening the language on its website in regards to DADT -- specifically, substituting the word "change" for "repeal." The language was reinstated a day later, after heavy pressure from the gay rights community.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the W...
President Barack Obama said over the weekend that he would like to tackle the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy "sooner rather than later." But in an interview with CNN, he also argued that the W...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
777
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 126 fans permalink
photo

Find out if your representative is already a sponsor o fH.R. 1283:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@P

Learn more

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act H.R. 1283
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5659.htm

About “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

Top 10 Reasons to Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
http://www.sldn.org/pages/top-10-reasons-to-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 PM on 07/17/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 126 fans permalink
photo

SLDN: "the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1283) has a new leader in the House of Representatives. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), the first Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress, is now quarterbacking the legislation."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 PM on 07/17/2009

Clinton signed Don’t ask, don’t tell (DODT). His endorsement of same-sex marriage may portend a growing confidence among Democrats and moderate Republicans to finally address equality for same sex couples and open service for gay and lesbian soldiers. Admittedly, Clinton is less constrained by the election calculations that encumber Congress and the President when it comes to divisive social issues. Nevertheless, Clinton has always possessed a keen sense for the shifting center of American politics. I hope he’s right.

http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/14/bill-clinton-supports-same-sex-marriage/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 07/14/2009
- suejester I'm a Fan of suejester 6 fans permalink
photo

On what grounds does Obama thinks DADT is constitutional???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:30 PM on 07/14/2009

He might not. I personally think it's a lousy rule whether its constitutional or not--the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a measure does NOT necessarily imply anything about its fairness or justice and discriminatory measures are not banned by our Constitution except in certain specified instances. Nonetheless, it almost doesn't matter what Obama thinks about the constitutionality of DADT. It's not a call a President gets to make. Even if President Obama was completely convinced DADT is unconstitional, he cannot veto existing laws, only ones put before him to sign. The Supreme Court makes decisions regarding constitutionality if the lower courts kick it up that far. It's called separation of powers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 07/14/2009

COOPER: Don't ask, don't tell, it requires an act of Congress to overturn it. You have said you want it overturned.

OBAMA: Yes.

COOPER: But your -- your critics, and even some of your supporters, say, look, you -- you could stop enforcement right now of don't ask, don't tell. You could defer enforcement until you prod Congress to act. Why not? Why not act?

OBAMA: Look, I -- I have had conversations with Bob Gates, as well as Admiral Mullen, about the fact that I want to see this law changed.

I also want to make sure that, A, we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the executive branch simply to say, we will not enforce a law.

It is our duty to enforce laws. I do think that there's the possibility, though, that we change how the law is being enforced, and -- even as we are pursuing a shift in congressional policy.

But, look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed. And we have already contacted congressional allies.
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-
So he wants to overturn DADT using the legislative process rather than by fiat (doing it, you know, the Constitutional way), but IN THE MEANTIME wishes to change the way the current law is implemente­d/enforced­.

I don't see the problem with this and think the author has misinterpreted Obama's words to infer something from them Obama never intended.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 PM on 07/14/2009
photo

well-said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 07/14/2009
- adoantarel I'm a Fan of adoantarel 5 fans permalink

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to get up in arms over the use of the word "change" rather than "repeal."

Nothing in his statement indicated to me that he wanted something other than repeal. When I hear something to that effect, then I'll be angry. Until then, I'm going to believe that Obama as a smart and savvy politician knows that change is a less divisive word that connotes advancement at the present time, and repeal could sound like moving backwards.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:05 PM on 07/14/2009
photo

THANK you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 07/14/2009
- LintLass I'm a Fan of LintLass 23 fans permalink

I'm having difficulty imagining how to "change" DADT into something just and functional. I think we should look to what all those other countries have done when they allowed LBGT's to serve openly, to all appearances with nary a hitch. DADT was supposed to be an improvement over the previous policies of active witch-hunts and prosecutions, but DADT itself is essentially about 'Bury the problem.'

Can you *half-bury* the problem? Find a way that certain elements can still place LBGT soldiers and citizens in a second or third class status, maybe, but make it, what, less punitive? How's this 'change' supposed to work, and what is it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 PM on 07/14/2009
- CitizenJ I'm a Fan of CitizenJ 8 fans permalink

Well, one, a law that is passes is constitutional until a court says it isn't, so we can stop bitching about that. And two, if all you want to happen is the President to use his stop-loss powers, then the next time we have a Republican president, we'll be right back where we are now. Also if he uses his stop-loss powers, he'll be using up political capital on something that won't last past his presidency. Better to use that capital on getting Congress to do their job. I think everyone needs to chill the eff out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:44 PM on 07/14/2009
- aftershock I'm a Fan of aftershock 80 fans permalink

"Well, one, a law that is passes is constitutional until a court says it isn't, so we can stop bitching about that."

So you're telling me if Congress passes a law saying the right to free speech is revoked it's Constitutional?

"And two, if all you want to happen is the President to use his stop-loss powers, then the next time we have a Republican president, we'll be right back where we are now."

It's a temporary measure!!! What is so hard for people to grasp about this?!?! No one expects that's ALL that should be done, what people are saying is this gives Congress the time it needs to act (since they're "busy with the important things" apparently) while saving valuable, honorable service men and women from losing their careers for nothing.

"Better to use that capital on getting Congress to do their job.

And he won't even do that on gay rights issues. He's been asked by Congress to lead on this issue and his only response is, "it's Congress's job." Do those sound like the words and actions of a "fierce advocate for gay rights"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 07/15/2009
photo

The thing is that simply repealing DADT won't work because we'll just go back to the old way of banning gays and lesbians in the military. It has to be changed to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. DADT allows them to server from the closet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 07/14/2009
- LintLass I'm a Fan of LintLass 23 fans permalink

We. Are Not. Bemused. :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 PM on 07/14/2009
- benne I'm a Fan of benne 9 fans permalink

At least stop the discharges now by using the stop-loss law. There's much he can do NOW, if he cared to.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 PM on 07/14/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 126 fans permalink
photo

"Stop loss" is not a law. It is an illegal draft. A draft is supposed to be enacted by congress.

But, Pres. Obama has chosen to continue this Bush program as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

Therefore, he recognizes his "power" to stop services members leaving the military because he uses it everyday in "stop loss."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 07/14/2009
photo

okay, i've had it. i have been following obama's lgbt agenda for a long time and paid close attention to his words. i have to say, as a lesbian, i grow increasingly frustrated with the lgbt community and our unwillingness to THINK about what our president is saying.

we are doing the right thing by voicing our opinions, by fighting for equality (something the president has told all of us to do from day one, something the president considers our responsibility as citizens of a democracy), but i get frustrated by the lack of positive hope and the knee-jerk reactions to his statements. LISTEN TO HIM. he has to be very careful when changing the law. otherwise, what happens to respect for the law? what happens when the government ignores law, defies its people, takes matters into its own hands and abuses power? the bush administration is what happens. an intelligence agency that lies to congress. it's a slippery slope. why is that not clear to us?

continue the positive fight, but stop giving up on a man who continues to inspire and responsibly, intelligently lead a nation of people who each have individual needs, agendas and passions. our childish backlash gets us nowhere and at times, may even damage all the work we've put into making much-needed, soon-to-come change.

take the president's advice: use your own power; positively articulate an opinion to your congressional representative. ultimately, it's congress that will have to repeal it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 07/14/2009
- benne I'm a Fan of benne 9 fans permalink

If political movements had taken your advice, nothing would be achieved. No Change Without Struggle. To that, I'd add, we don't need a big man to save us.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 07/14/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 126 fans permalink
photo

Millions more would be d e a d if we'd played nice rather deciding to ACT UP!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:15 PM on 07/14/2009
photo

wrong. we can fight respectfully. not sit and whine about it. i guarantee the people who are making change are not calling the president names.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:53 AM on 07/15/2009
- CigarGod I'm a Fan of CigarGod 104 fans permalink
photo

"If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law."

Do you think the law is constitutionally valid?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 07/14/2009
photo

no. that wasn't my issue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:55 AM on 07/15/2009

For those who are confused about what "repeal" means in the case of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, please read the eight pages of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR 1283). This is the bill sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania to repeal DADT. It begins:

"To amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the readiness of the Armed Forces by replacing the current policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces, referred to as `Don't Ask, Don't Tell', with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."

Repealing DADT with this bill will not roll back the clock to pre-DADT days. It basically adds "sexual orientation" to the list of personal characteristics which cannot be used as a basis of discrimination. It would join race, religion, ethnicity and other personal characteristics which have no determinant role in the individual's ability to perform.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 07/14/2009
photo

This is sounding like an issue with semantics to me. His saying that he wants it to change does not mean he is not interested in repealing the law. I think he's saying he wants change on the issue, not change to the law to make it work better.

It's not very strong language but I think the criticism is a little too early - and believe me, I've been on the other side of this argument many, many times.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 07/14/2009
- DrToketee I'm a Fan of DrToketee 12 fans permalink

Hey, I am as strong an Obama supporter as anyone, but because I am a supporter and therefore believe in fighting for change, I have to dead honest as we all should in helping our country: Obama, after all this time on this issue, your response to this interview question was utter bullsh!t and it shames you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 07/14/2009
- Artemis34 I'm a Fan of Artemis34 126 fans permalink
photo

Call his bluff and get your members of congress to send him a bill.

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act H.R. 1283
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/5659.htm

HR 1283 sponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01283:@@@P

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:48 AM on 07/14/2009
- chaya I'm a Fan of chaya 39 fans permalink

"I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

Great. I'll bet I know what he wants. Change it back to the way it was before, where gays and lesbians are prohibited from joining the military at all. That way they have to lie to get in.

Better in the old days? Sure. Soldiers weren't forced by the military to ignore their honor code by lying, so they didn't have a leg to stand on in court. Quicker and cheaper discharges. Was "better" for gay soldiers, too: they didn't HAVE to lie, they CHOSE to lie!

See how much better?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 07/14/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect