It's Chow Time at the White House, Brother

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is joining Sunday's National Equality March in Washington because the patience of the LGBT community is running thin with what appears to be President Obama's inaction on issues of great importance to us.

What gays and lesbians are looking for--and will be marching for on Sunday--is nothing special, and that is exactly the point. It's what virtually every other American already has: equal treatment under the law, not just in the military but in every area of life to which such prejudicial laws as "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act extend.

"Justice delayed, is justice denied," Queen Victoria's Prime Minister William Gladstone famously said. We've been waiting for justice for a very long time and it cannot be delayed much longer. You can feel the momentum building, and as the momentum builds, the dominoes fall. Sunday's National Equality March is the sound of another domino falling.

The President's National Security Advisor General James Jones, his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have all played variations on those old songs: "when the time is right" and "President Obama has a full plate right now." But those arguments are not playing any more. You know the full-plate argument is finished when Jon Stewart says on national television, "It's chow time, brother. That's how you get things off your plate."

No one would deny that the president's plate is full to overflowing, and the enormous and urgent problems he faces would overwhelm most people: intractable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and dissension within the Executive Branch (not to mention Congress) on how to deal with them; a fractious political debate going on over health care, the end result of which will affect the life of every one of us to a singular degree; the worst recession since the 1930s. But grave as these problems are, they cannot overwhelm the president. That's why we elected him, not to be overcome by the problems but to overcome the problems.

As Jon Stewart said on his Daily Show on Comedy Central, "Remember, you're the president of America. When your plate gets too full, you get up and get another plate."

You know the days of DADT are numbered when Elaine Donnelly's endlessly repeated arguments against gays in the military (all coming down to disrupting "unit cohesion") are demolished not only on Anderson Cooper's "360" but in the latest issue of the Pentagon's own flagship publication, Joint Force Quarterly. Ms. Donnelly is reduced to saying of Air Force Colonel Om Prakash's prize-winning essay, "It won a contest, that's all." Oh.

The two epigraphs to that essay nicely summarize Ms. Donnelly's arguments against open service. Here is a U.S. Senator: "There is no more intimate relationship . . . they eat and sleep together. They use the same facilities day after day. They are compelled to stay together in the closest association." And here is an Army general officer on the same subject. "Experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline, and morale."

The only problem with these arguments is that they were made by Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) and General Omar Bradley in opposition to President Truman's 1948 Executive Order to integrate the races in the military. That doesn't stop Ms. Donnelly, however, any more than did Colonel Prakosh's essay in the flagship journal of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You know the days of DADT are numbered when the president's inaction on opening up the military (among other things) makes it to NBC's "Saturday Night Live" and is the frequent object of ridicule on Rachel Maddow's show. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), veteran of Iraq and lead sponsor of H.R. 1283, which would repeal DADT, held a "Special Order Hour" in the House Tuesday night to highlight the law's impact on national security and to push for additional co-sponsors. (Check out his website, "Let Them Serve.") More dominoes down.

After reading Colonel Prakash's essay in JFQ, I wrote here last week that a fresh breeze was blowing through the Pentagon. That may be and let us hope that it is so, but the breeze seems to have barely ruffled a leaf on the White House lawn. It does not seem to have stirred a paper on the desk of General Jones. The President's National Security Advisor told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that the president would take up DADT "at the right time. . . . I don't think it's going to be--it's not years, but I think it will be teed up appropriately." I think we've heard that before--but "not years"? Not a good sign. Not at all. (Perhaps President Obama will offer a clarification Saturday evening.)

I'm sure that General Jones' offhand remark provided no comfort to Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, a much medaled Iraq war hero and an SLDN active-duty client set to be discharged under DADT. "The president told me in June, 'We'll get this done,'" Fehrenbach said. When? In General Jones' time or in the time zone the rest of us live in?

President Obama will be speaking at the Human Rights Campaign's annual fund-raising dinner in Washington Saturday night. That seems a good time for the president to tell Colonel Fehrenbach what he's waiting to hear, "specifically when the president plans on working with Congress to reverse the law."

More than 65,000 LGBT patriots will be listening to what Obama has to say about repealing "don't ask, don't tell." I said in an SLDN statement released today, "the clock is ticking. A clear time line from this White House and Congress is urgently needed. On Saturday evening we hope the President will call on Congress to partner with him on repeal and send him the Military Readiness Enhancement Act that he can sign into law next year."

David Wochner, who serves on the Victory Fund's Campaign Board, which carries a lot of weight in the LGBT community and in Congress, told Politico that he sees the president's "appearance at the dinner as a show of good faith. I'm willing to go on that."

I'm willing to go on that, too, for the time being. But my "time being" does not feel at all the same as General Jones' "it's not years."

It's a lot closer to Jon Stewart's, "It's chow time, brother."

Comments

[Beca]

Aubrey, I think it's important to rember a unique quality of President Obama, one that I often struggle with because of my own impatience and my own urgency of the "now", but it's part of his make up and it is part of the reason he got to where he is. His "slow and steady" approach that he often uses and has used since he became a public figure, and one that has worked for him rather well. I have to keep reminding myself of this, especially when I am jumping up and down pulling my hair out at his calmness and unending patience, even when figurative grenades are thrown at him by the opposition and those whose tiny brains exploded when they realized that we elected a non-white President. It makes me absolutely nuts, however, clearly, this approach has worked for him. Just remember the craziness of the Presidential campaign, as he was being attacked left and right, villified, called terrible horrible names, accused of being a terrorist, a foreign insurgent, you name it, he just kept marching steadily towards his goal--and he made it. I would have never believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. I am saying this to say, yes it is important to keep reminding him of the issues he promised us he would deal with when elected President, but it is also important to give him the respect and space to be able to accomplish these things as he sees fit.

[SurrealPumpkin]

DADT is the law of the land, which means it's Congress that has to write a new law repealing it.

Inundate the Senators and Representatives with e-mails, calls, snail-mail to let them know the time is now.

http://www.congress.org/ (I don't like the new look) You can send to all your representatives and the President at one time. Very efficient.

[AlexTryst]

I hope but don't expect Obama to assert any real plan when he speaks. It's too bad when your own party starts to turn, and the party is starting to turn on him on a variety of issues. He has a lot on his plate, but I agree with Jon Stewart, time to get another plate. And for those who think other issues are more important, there is the possibility of this legislation having a positive impact on other areas like the economy.

For example if DADT were repealed, more people (gay Americans included) may want to enlist and work for our government defending our country. That would mean less unemployment benefits the government would have to pay out. Instead they'd pay them for truly important work instead of nothing. There people out there that choose not to entire the Armed Forces due to policies like DADT, so who's to say they wouldn't be inclined to joing once it was overturned? It could have some positive economic impact, not to mention an impact on people's self-pride, knowing they are valued and doing important work.

As for marriage equality, yes, there is some diminishing return on that. Those states that pass it first get more return on their investment, but the point is they are in fact getting economic return on their investment. If the federal government were to overturn DOMA, there is the possibility that nationwide their couild be return on that investment, especially in the retail/hospitality sectors.

[Marnie1]

I disagree with you that "every other' American has rights that gays don't.

Gays because, they are single, are deprived of the same advantages, and perks that all single people are deprived of. Gays do have a few more problems, they can’t flaunt their sexual activities the way some heteros do.

On the other hand non-gay singles also suffer from the same prejudices, simply because they are single. If singles are no overtly, hotly, sexually active with the opposite gender, they are automatically suspected of being homos or "somethng is wrong with them since they are not married."
.
If they are ovetly, hotly, sexually active with the opposite gender they are condemned by religious conservatives and many others, including by many gays.

The issues that arise for gays arise largely from married couples who know they get special privileges because they are married, no matter how horrible the marriage may be or how horrible their sexual morals may be, and it gives them a sense of superiority that they do not want to give up.

What I am saying is quit beating up on single heterosexuals, we are in pretty much the same boat as gays and combined probably make up the majority of the population of this country.

[Jacques415]

What I don't understand is why there are so many Americans who believe their Armed Forces are somehow less disciplined, or less able than the armed forces of so many of America's allies. The British, French, Dutch and, IIRC 20 other nations have integrated GLBT soldiers to good effect. Why do Americans think so little of their own troops?

[Cea80]

It's just ridiculous to claim that repealing DADT would disrupt morale. Proponents would have you believe that the military would become a big gay orgy. This, I believe, stems from the theory that homosexuals are sexual deviants and predators. This mindless bigotry needs to stop.
I fear that the only way DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act get repealed is if we elect an openly gay president. Too many people in this country are homophobic; it's the last openly accepted form of discrimination and it seems to be holding firm. I hope I'm wrong.

[Nommo]

"It's what virtually every other American already has: equal treatment under the law, not just in the military but in every area of life to which such prejudicial laws as "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act extend."

- Sarvis

While it is certainly a phenomena promised in the law of the land it is also an assumption that is easily contested. It should be fairly obvious that there are citizens in the US of A who do not enjoy equal protection and have not since before or after such citizenship. That would be, on the whole, the Black citizens. Women and children do not receive this mythic protection, and in that light it is a gross fallacy and at best, a fantasy.

Strikes me as the sort of thing that if you knew that, you'd avoid that k log mistake that Einstein was famous for.

[Tanyars5]

The illusion/fable/myth that AA's are treated equal in the US is all people want to believe. Fantasy Land is a much better place than reality.

[Beca]

Actually, there are many of us who know African Americans still face terrible discrimination, and we all need to keep working on eliminating that. However, under the law, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone due to their race, religion, political affiliation, disability and age, And there is still discrimination with all "minority" groups, and women--but it is not legal. Everyone except gay Americans can seek a legal redress to any form of discrimination. But it is still legal to discriminate against Gay Americans. That is the difference.
I don't think as a country, we can honestly begin to really break the nasty cycle of discrimination against anyone, if we still find it acceptable to exclude an entire group of Americans from equal protection under the Constitution.

[PlaceboStudman]

My big fear is that the president's speech and the march will go practically unnoticed in the media and general population outside the beltway and a few plugged in bloggers. Will this really have that much of an impact? Will this really be a game changing moment? It won't be if it goes largely unnoticed and is only a quick flash in the pan, as seems to happen with LGBT issues. I long for the day when LGBT issues are taken as seriously and discussed as widely as the economy, "health care" (which really is nothing more than an extension of the economy), the wars, and even abortion.

Put another way, everyone knows what we mean when someone says Roe V Wade. How many people know the significance of Loving Vs Va? and why not?

[Beca]

Unfortunately, given the history and patern of the main stream media, I doubt that they will cover it at all, and if they do, it will be suck somewhere between two major stories, and it will have about a second of exposure and that's it. However, you can be sure that the right wing extremist media like Fox will jump all over it and paint a really ugly picture of the event, the people participating in the event and of course of our President who dared rub shoulders with "those people".

[PlaceboStudman]

Ironically, Fox covering the events might be to our benefit in the long run, because it would force CNN and MSNBC to cover Fox's coverage to counter the disinformation that Fox spews.

The speech did get a quick mention on CNN this morning I noticed, so maybe there is hope. Then it will all boil down to what President Obama says, which could go either way positive or negative for us

[customgreen]

I completely agree with Jon Stewart. The time has passed for the "full plate" metaphor. Get a bigger plate, it's chow time brother, are very good catch phrases that put it out there. People are sick and tired of politicians pushing decisions down the road, sick of delays, sick of lip service. The President wanted the job, he now has it and it is time to dive deeper into the problems that face the country.

[konybvg]

I guess Americans who are out of work and losing their homes are more interested in having social issues such DADT and gay marriage be tackled first. The impatience of every one when it comes to Obama is beyond me. I hope Obama concentrates on healthcare, economy and Afganistan before talking about social issues. This country is going crazy.

[Solja]

I agree. I am not against the issue but I think there is more important things to deal with currently.

[Beca]

In all fairness, the issues the gay community faces are not insignificant, are not "just" DADT and gay marriage. Military personnel who are outed, end up loosing their jobs--meaning they are also out of work and losing their homes. As it stands, gay people can lose their jobs , career opportunities, housing opportunities, even their lives just because of who they are--and thus far it is legal. They are the only group of Americans where civil rights do not apply, where it is still legal to discriminate against them just because of who they are. It is still ok, in most states to beat up or even kill someone who might just "look" or "act" gay--its a misdemeanor--you see 'they must have provoked them'. Its not an issue of whether you like gay people or not, that is not important. It is an issue, that under our Constitution, ALL are created EQUAL, EVERY single American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and EVERY single American has the right of equal protection under the law--yet, in practice, it has been "except" gay Americans. It's just not right, it's not what America is about.

[Beca]

konybvg, the issues of gay Americans are NOT social issues! They are CIVIL RIGHTS Issues, they have to do wtih an entire group of Americans who are denied equal protection under the law, who are denied the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No, is is not a "social" issue.