When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent a letter to Congressman Ike Skelton today urging Congress not to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" in 2010, he wasn't just kicking the can down the road a little. He was announcing a de facto White House decision to delay action on the gays-in-the-military issue for a very long time.
According to Gates, Congress must await the results of a Pentagon study group which is looking into "don't ask, don't tell," and which is slated to finish its work in December, 2010. On its face, the request sounds fair enough. Why, after all, should civilian politicians meddle in military personnel policy before the Pentagon determines which policy makes most sense?
To answer this question, two factors must be considered. First, the letter must be understood as a signal from the White House, not just the military. As my colleague Christopher Neff has said, "the Department of Defense is not its own branch of government. The Secretary of Defense serves the President." The letter, in other words, reflects a decision by the Obama Administration to abandon repeal efforts in 2010.
Second, the Administration knows full well that if "don't ask, don't tell" is not eliminated now, repeal likely will have to wait until the next presidential term if not later. The political environment in Congress soon will become much more challenging than it is now, and the opportunity to repeal the law probably will diminish if not disappear as a result.
One of the saddest aspects of the current situation is that, surprisingly, gay rights groups may block the one, remaining politically viable solution that would improve national security, deliver a victory to the White House, and honor the letter and spirit of Secretary Gates's request. According to this scenario, Congress would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" law in 2010 while providing discretion to the Secretary of Defense regarding implementation.
Some groups believe that when Congress repeals the law, it must simultaneously mandate an affirmative requirement for the Pentagon to implement a non-discrimination standard. This is not, however, necessary. By eliminating the "don't ask, don't tell" law but refraining from insisting on a non-discrimination standard, Congress would allow Secretary Gates to formulate new regulations over time, after the Pentagon completes its study. There are now enough votes in the Senate to pass this option.
Some gay rights groups oppose it, however, because they fear that a legislative option that does not include a specific, statutory implementation plan would allow a future administrations to reinstate the gay ban.
This is, frankly, hogwash. Once the law is off the books, and after the Pentagon completes its study, the administration would work with military brass to reformulate personnel regulations. Once those regulations are reformulated, gay discharges would cease. And once gay discharges ceased, it would be almost impossible for a future administration to reinstate them. Neither the military nor the public would have any appetite for a new gay ban. When George Bush tried to reverse a Clinton-era executive order mandating nondiscrimination of gays and lesbians in non-military federal agencies, he was unable to get away with it.
The gay rights community should adjust its goals immediately and work with Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" while allowing the Pentagon the flexibility to manage implementation as it sees fit. Otherwise, we are going to be waiting for repeal for a long, long time.
Wrong is wrong.
The time to end it is NOW.
He reminds me of Governor Richardson. Nice guy, tries to do right by the gay community (though he falls short), but wants nothing to do with us personally. At least Obama understands that it isn't a choice (at least I think he does...). My ultimate point is that Obama doesn't care. He will sign pro gay legislation that is put before his desk, but he will never lift a finger to get it there. Come on, if he wasn't going to fight for a public option, or Wall Street responsibility then what makes you think he cares about fighting for gays?
If he doesn't come through with this, it will be a BIG, BIG mark on his tenure
yesterday, representative gutierrez was ARRESTED in an act of civil disobedience at an immigration reform rally.
fast forward some 24 hours to the DADT repeal rally held today... "OUR GLBT Representatives: Barney Frank, Jarid Polis and Tammy Baldwin didn't even have the BACKBONE to show up for the rally, much less participate in an active manner that would get them arrested. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? to me, it says that OUR representatives are cowards.
Draft Howard Dean 2012! (at least he had the strength of his convictions to SHOW UP AND SPEAK at today's rally!)
sheesh. this just reeks of p*ss poor reporting.
really? WHICH groups? name 'em if you've got 'em. i follow this issue passionately, closely, daily. in not one single article, e-mail or communication that i've ever received have i seen this assertion. the majority consensus is building that a repeal NOW, in the defense authorization, with an implementation timeline BASED ON THE STUDY is the current strategy from the vast majority of groups working on this issue.
When you have a wronged minority group chastised by a writer because they're not content with the pace of the end of their oppression, well, that says it all.
The president has no place saying this, which he said THE SAME WEEK gays were once again put through the humiliation of having their civil rights voted on:
"The United States is a great nation because it respects the dignity of all people."
Until that is true, the president offends by expecting gay people to not say, "Uh, wait a minute, Mr. President...it most certainly does not respect ours."
We betray our founding principles and our ideals of fairness, justice, and human equality each day we tolerate this government-sanctioned discrimination, and frankly, I'm tired of people not seeing that this is actually, above all else, a pro-American issue.
icanhazhowarddeanin2012? kthxbai.
My bet - it is the career officers, mostly the civilian middle management equivalent, up to the generals. They are older and set in their ways and opinions. BUT, these guys - and guys seem much more concerned about other peoples' gayness - also have years or a decade or more of obeying orders. If the military developed an implementation plan, which should not have taken any 16 months to do, and gave the clear command to get over it, much of the trouble and even resistance would go away.
After all, we know the gays are in the services already. They just are not telling. So, if you have been living with a gay person and not knowing it, does your head blow off when you discover their sexual identity? I suspect not.
What a bunch of military wussies we have in command now!
Te response : Yes we can ( as always)
Notice tat te identity politics party didnt even include benders in its appeal to latinos blacks first time voters etc
Three years to investigate the impact and how to implement it? Why not simply discuss the issues with all our allies who have had openly gay men and women in the military for decades and America is the only country that doesn't allow gays in the military. America stance on gays in the military stand with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other oppressive regimes.
----reply----
Are you referring to our allies who help support us with a dismal number of military forces, if any at all, when we need them?