Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Blow It

Unlike his predecessor, Barack Obama does not see himself as the "Decider." He is at heart a community organizer. And in these first one hundred days, Americans have seen the tenets of community organizing in action. The President has reminded us time and again that we are all in this together, that each of us has a voice and a responsibility. He is also demonstrating that decision-making is a process.

In 1993, we saw what happens when the process is wrong. Nobody wins. Bill Clinton signed "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) into law that year and since then, over 13,000 gay and lesbian members of our Armed Services have lost. Lost their jobs, their careers, their dignity.

And so here we are, 16 years later. The gay community has a friend in the White House again and it looks like we are going to get another turn at bat.

We absolutely must win this time.

Now I am not a patient person when it comes to equality. I spent nearly a decade running a gay rights organization. I spent much of last year raising money for the Obama campaign because I am impatient. I needed to do what I could to ensure the election of someone I know stands with us.

Aubrey Sarvis, the Executive Director of Servicemembers' Legal Defense Network (SLDN), is impatient, too. He illustrated his impatience this week with a full -page open letter to the President in a Capitol Hill publication calling on him to incorporate the repeal of DADT into the Defense budget he brings to the Pentagon next week.

In his letter, he indicates that this is the "logical" opportunity to be done with it.

Logical? Not from where this fellow impatient activist sits.

1) 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is a law. To change it, you need to vote. And you have to be ready for that vote. My point of view -- shared by many closer to the Hill than I -- is that we are not ready. We need sixty Senate votes. We don't have them yet. We can and will get them.

The logical next step? A detailed plan to go out and get them.

2) Injecting the DADT hot potato (regardless of the overwhelming public support -- over 75%) into a Defense budget discussion will turn us from civil rights priority to a distraction. And it could be the red meat some are looking for to undermine a President who by all accounts has had a very good 100 days.

3) The enforcement of DADT has cost the United States hundreds of millions of dollars since 1993 and the idea of ensuring that the budget does not include funding for its enforcement is an interesting angle. But not funding the ability to enforce a law is radically different from repealing the law. The law must go.

4) Mr. Sarvis doesn't trust Mr. Obama's commitment to the LGBT community. A dose of cynicism is healthy. We've been thrown under the bus by politicians time and again. Democrats are all too aware that our issues are the best weapon the conservatives have to fire up their base. Politicians tread carefully with us and President Obama is no exception.

And yet, a look at these first 100 days offers some tangible evidence that we can begin to trust. The Philadelphia Gay News, whose editor was not drinking the Obama Kool Aid during primary season, compiled a very impressive 100 day LGBT scorecard. Worth a read.

Perhaps the pinnacle of these first 100 days was the passage of Hate Crimes Legislation in the House with a Senate vote as early as next week. I want that victory -- long overdue -- much too late to save so many -- to be savored and honored. I don't want that victory blurred by an aggressive push on DADT that we simply may not be ready for.

At a fundraiser a year before Election Day, Candidate (and organizer) Obama encouraged us to be impatient with him. We will. We must.

But I'm looking for "constructive impatience." And if we have learned anything as a community, it is that our fight for equality demands all hands on deck. Gay hands, straight hands, Presidential hands, Congressional hands and citizen hands.

We can't lose sight of our part in all this. And "our part" does not mean simply demanding that the President do his.

On so many issues of importance to the LGBT community, the president has some heavy lifting to do. But make no mistake. So do we.

Comments

[dan-o]

Ms Garry,
Are you waiting for DADT to be repealed so you can join the Military? Personally I don't think wartime is the opportune time to screw with the military culture. In my time in the National Guard (before DADT) we had a few soldiers that were probably gay but if they didn't flaunt it then no one gave a damn.

[PlaceboStudman]

Define "Flaunt". It's NOT like guys are going to be running around the barracks wearing a dress here. We're talking about guys and women getting letters or phone calls from their partners back home, and not having to be ashamed, or worry about being beat up by straight soldiers when someone asks, "who was that?", and the gay soldier says proudly (as he should) "that was my boyfriend/­husband/gi­rlfriend/w­ife"

[PennP]

"The enforcement of DADT has cost the United States hundreds of millions of dollars since 1993..."

"...since then, over 13,000 gay and lesbian members of our Armed Services have lost [their jobs]."

Sources for these stats, please?

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

http://atticuscircle.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/a-guide-to-dont-ask-dont-tell.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-14-dont-ask-report_x.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/22/national/main4818708.shtml

All three sources seem to agree the cost has been about 363 million bucks and has caused the loss of about 13, 000 service members.

[zest]

Why don't they get it. If gays in the military were allowed to marry, straights in the military wouldn't feel vulnerable to unwanted attention.

[randyjet]

The FACT is that those who were kicked out of the military did so on THEIR OWN because the policy is don't tell, don't ask. In other words, the military is not out looking at your sex life as they did in the past. You will only be discharged IF you make no bones about your sexuality. If a gay person wishes to join the military, they can stay and have a career if they choose. If their sexual life is more important than doing ones job, THEN they WILL be discharged.

[david43a]

Spoken like a man who never wore the uniform! and one who knows no person who has been discharged for this reason....­.depending on your unit commander the statement above might be true...
or, you could have a witch hunt, or a rival who outs you...or a "chrisitian" who keeps tabs on fellow soldiers...habits.
The point being that someone who has the faith and patriotism to give four years (or 20, or their very life itself) in service to their country and fellow citizens is a valuable person indeed.
Who ever she/he loves.....

[YellowDogInRedCounty]

You obviously do not quite understand the law. It's more than "don't ask, don't tell". They can interrogate fellow service members, stake out gay bars, etc. A person can be quite circumspect about their personal behavior and still not be guaranteed of a job.

[DRaymond]

The big difference between now and Clinton's first term is that behind the scenes most of the top brass in the military would secretly like to allow gays in order to help them meet their recruiting goals. They have otherwise had to lower standards to a degree that they greatly regret.

Obama can use that to his advantage to get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell with almost zero cost. He should ask Gates to have the Pentagon develop a list of units and specialties where allowing the service of homosexual persons would not affect unit cohesion or effectiveness. Then expect the pentagon to come up with a list that includes somewhere between 80 and 100 percent of the military.

Then Obama can simply say that openly homosexual recruits must be given an assignment on the list and those already in the military should be transfered to an assignment on the list.

I know that may not be as emotionally satisfying as Obama telling the military that that had to accept gays everywhere, but having taken the first step now it would be no more than a footnote for him to do that in a couple of years.

[zest]

You can marry but you can't serve in the armed forces?

[WilliamL]

what sort of polling has been done on this in the military community?

it is clear that so many who find this issue at the center of their uniververse have no relationship what so ever with the military.

for a number of reasons the military wd. be wise to encourage the policy change simply to shut a bunch of people up and also to show the long line of people from the gay community line up to serve.

[VeggieVeal]

"Don't blow it"?? why did you have to use such a loaded phrase? You hurt your constituency!

[WarSkeptic]

Yes that was my thought
Very reminiscent of the teabaggers

[TruthmongerII]

This article isn't factually correct. DADT can be overturned by Executive fiat, whereas Defense of Marriage Act was passed by Congress, and must be voted down through the House and Senate. Obama has a lot on his plate, and it's a stinking mess, but while overturning discrimination is rarely convenient, it is necessary.

[RainbowPhoenix]

The article is factually correct. DADT was passed by congress. Therefore it needs to be repealed by congress.

[VeggieVeal]

No, you are patently wrong. Do your homework.

[newshawk14]

My feeling is president Obama has an awful lot on his plate, and has to carefully pick and choose
his fights. I would like to see him come out in support of gay marriage, but the advocates might
have to wait a bit, before he tackles this item. I'm fairly convinced he will be on the right side of this
issue.

[CuriousInSeattle]

seems that the headline is a contradiction in itself. So which is it?

[ramal]

I am afraid that Obama will disappoint the Gay Community as much as Clinton did. We are made promises for our support but end up being used and abused. Obama could end DADT with the stroke of a pen and the furor would probably be minimal, yet...

[obtusegoose]

There are nine countries that allow gays to serve openly in the military. Why can't our government use their 'template' for handling the transition? This really shouldn't be that difficult of a task. How about telling the homophobic personnel if they step out of line they will be dishonorably discharged. That takes care of 90% of the issues.

[coloredqueer]

Lets not forget that most of the LGBT community leaders donated to Clinton and not Obama and he is still coming out in full force to support our causes. And frankly as a queer person of color, I am happy that Obama is looking into health care, economic stimulus to create more jobs, extended unemployment benefits, immigration reform (for all undocumented people not just binational white gay couples, the only immigrants (most Europeans) that white gay orgs want to let in), lobbying changes, detainee policies, torture, sensible and humble foreign policies and above all he has given people of color including LGBT ones HOPE that anything is possible. So, those issues are equally important to LGBT people of color as these traditionally do not affect most white gays who dominate gay orgs.

And why being impatient with him? We the LGBT people of color are still very patient to see some real "changes" with in the white led gay movement even after the public exposure of ugly, dirty little secret of racism within the gay institutions after prop 8. So, lets be clear that white led gay orgs absolutely do NOT speak on the behalf of entire LGBT community except white gays and certainly not LGBT people of color communities which make a signficant percentage of gay community as well.

[David Greer]

it's very difficult to take your complaints seriously with your liberal (no pun intended) us of the word "white". racism is an ugly thing, regardless of which race is being poked in the eye.

instead of complaining about "why gay organizations", join them and help make them accountable for their biases (i agree they exist, but the huffpost isn't, IMHO, the forum to air this laundry).

[dan-o]

Why is it not the place to air these problems? Are you afraid that the public would see that there is discrimination and rascism in the gay community. It happens there just like the rest of society.

[impik]

You do know that he's been in office for 100 days, and has to deal with the biggest s@it-storm ever, right? Give him a little time and then start put pressure, but seriously, this man got the whole world on his shoulders.

[jstephenclark]

That excuse would fly, impik, if he hadn't raced to issue executive orders dealing with every other groups issues, including abortion and stem cells. As Obama himself said, a president has to multitask. This one is choosing to ignore LGBT issues.