Obama and the End of the Military's Ban on Gays

Wouldn't that be novel; gay soldiers serving openly in the military. People willing to fight and perhaps die for freedom allowed to freely be themselves.

With Barack Obama as president it's not just possible. Thankfully, it's probable.

Out on the stump candidate Obama promised to work toward lifting the ban on gays serving openly, calling the ban is a "counterproductive strategy." A typically Obama-esque way to intellectualize what is a moral imperative: the obligation of the government to fight discrimination which, obviously, includes the institutionalization of "separate but equal."

While this will not be an easy fight -- the passage of the bigoted Prop 8 in California only demonstrates the glacial pace the acceptance of Sexual Orientation moves -- it also won't likely be a return to the belabored hearings of the Clinton presidency which produced the Bizarro World Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) non-policy of not asking what nobody's saying.

But attitudes are changing. According to a Washington Post-ABC news poll 75 percent of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly. That's as compared to only 45 percent in 1993 when Clinton made his effort.

Intentions aside, this policy reversal isn't one Obama can perform alone. That is to say, by Executive Order. As Federal law, DADT must be repealed by Congress. To that end California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher has introduced a bill to overturn the ban which has picked up nearly 150 cosponsors. And CNN reports: "More than 100 retired U.S. military leaders -- including the former head of the Naval Academy -- have signed a statement calling for an end to" DADT.

For those who believe spiking DADT is just some social do-goodery, it's much more than that. It's a matter of national security, and not merely in terms of filling the "boots" of our military. Since 1998 the US military has discharged more than 58 Arabic and Farsi translators because they were gay. As I've said previously, here we are told again and again that Americans are in a decades-long struggle to secure Western civilization which will require shared sacrifice from all, yet all are not allowed to share the fight.

And all the talk of negative effects on unit cohesion among the ranks, the ability for gays to serve effectively under pressure... Lies. And we know they are lies. They are lies because have already demonstrated distinguished service in some of the hottest spots on the planet. Just not openly so. And the bromides about lack of ability or the erosion of unit cohesion; same nasty things that were said of Black soldiers prior to President Truman signing EO 9981 which ended segregation in the military (at least as policy).

While it will not likely be Obama's priority to dismantle DADT, and honestly it should not be, I would be personally willing to take the bet that as change truly comes to America, the days of this flawed and failed policy are numbered.

For more news and views go to That Minority Thing.com

Comments

[UVRayburn]

There have always been and always will be gays in the military. DADT simply allows homophobes to remain ignorant to the situation. It is important for homophobes to feel safe from their irrational fears while in the heat of battle. After all, hasn't it been proven that most homophobic soldiers cannot shoot straight if there is a gay soldier in his foxhole?

[SonofLiberty1]

It's all about RESPECT and those who want to shove it down our throats...
don't respect us as much as we respect them as fellow human beings.'

Another name for this is called PROFESSIONALISM!

You go to work everyday, you learn how to do your job and do it.
You get along with your peers at work.

If a single heterosexual male flaunts his escapades in bed he is going to be told to cool it.
Same with anyone who is gay.

In other words, you have to get along with folks.

What you do with your privates, is your own business, not anyone elses and frankly most of us
don't want to really know.

Why the heck can't some gays understand that?

Frankly, I think it's about time to require some respect here, many of us look at our fellow human beings not as a just a carrier of a sexual organ but as a person.

Can anyone explain to me what is wrong with that?

[GingersPawPaws]

I must agree, I dont want to know who what when where why or How,
of anyones Sexual Preferences. So please Show me some respect Im sick of hearing about all this BULL!!
Unless your hurtiing me I dont CARE! Keep it to your self!

[bluerider]

So, if I tell you I am gay and have a same sex partner, that is "shoving it down your throat", but if you wear a wedding ring or tell me about your children, that is not "shoving it down my throat"? I don't get it.
Don't straight people understand that talking about their spouse or children is an announcement of their Sexual Preferences?

[zenlikejen]

I have to ask where people like you live and work that you have gay people constantly flaunting their business in your face in such a disrespectful manor? I can't think of a single gay person (myself included) who been so brazen around straight folks - NOT ONE. I'e been asked some pretty pointed, personal questions outside of work by those who were curious...­.but we don't *offer* that info!

Look, how about you guys stop pretending to be so offended by this BS...my guess is you've been watching too much Will & Grace....

[Steamboater]

You need to stop thinkijng of Gays as sexual beings only who flaunt their privates. Why can't you understand that? You know, it's guys like you who pat us on the vback with one hand and slap us with the other that are more dangerous than out-and-out homophobes. Honestly, there's always that perception in back your mind that somehow we're outside the box when in fact with the exception of same-sex relationships (and I said, relationships and not just sex), we're all the same.) You say that " ... many of us look at our fellow human beings not as a just a carrier of a sexual organ but as a person. I agree. Now you need to start doing that with Gays and Lesbians.

[JohnFromCensornati]

I don't know anybody that publicly "flaunts his escapades in bed". You imply that DADT keeps the lid on that. What a crock of it. You're the one that needs to learn to "get along with folks".

[RogerTheShrubber]

I'm open to discussion with reasonable people. But it's really tough when you base your argument on gays showing you a lack of respect. That's breathtaking. I respect you as a human being. I don't know you nor do I want you to know any of my personal affairs --- but I certainly do want the same civil rights you enjoy. So... until that day comes, perhaps you'd be OK with me and every other gay citizen not serving in our military or in the many government functions that support our military. And, how about if I and every gay citizen take a pass on the percentage of our taxes that go to supporting the military. For that matter, gay couples who are barred from adopting in certain states -- maybe they can take a pass on paying school taxes for straight couple's kids. When I receive health coverage from my partner's company, I get taxed on the full premium as though it were income --- how about if you or your husband/wife start paying on that "imputed income" too? No... don't like these ideas? Well just sit back and keep enjoying our tax dollars and our soldiers' blood and tears. Oh, and by the way, how about if you personally take on the task of visiting every mother/father of a gay soldier killed in action and express to them how much you appreciate their service.

[SonofLiberty1]

I'm afraid you are looking through your own colored glasses here.
If I pass YOU on the street and don't know you, how the heck am I going to know if you are gay or not?

Most of us, I think, don't even consider it.

I don't think you know the definition of professionalism either.

Now, I don't think it's a good idea to fire someone just because you've found out that they are gay and that's what apparently happens in the military and we have also lost quite a number of translators that way..just stupid.

What I'm saying here is, act in an appropriate manner and you should be ok.

At any rate, don't hold your breath on this, it's not more important than saving the nation from a depression.

[LittleChickMotel]

Common sense, well articulated!

Soldiers are willing to fight and be killed, despite their intense dislike of death.

But their dislike of gay men will destroy morale and unit cohesion, and they will be unable to do their jobs ever again?

It'll be nice to have grownups set policy.

[Bosoxfan]

It's strange to me. I served for twenty six years , never got "hit on" by another guy and no one ever asked their sexual preference before we jumped out of that aircraft. Bullets and bombs don't discriminate. It was never an issue with the troops, either. It seems to me that it's always those who never wore the uniform that make the loudest noise or rattle those sabres.( see. W and Cheney). Please, BO,make a statement and get rid of DADT. Once and for all.

[PitBull6]

Actually W did wear the uniform, albeit in the Air Guard. I am wary of peope who claim it was "never" an issue or everything works just dandy in other armies. Just because one doesn't experience it doesn't mean it's not there.

[Bosoxfan]

Sure, he wore it but transferred to the Alabama ANG for a political campaign or maybe he was concerned Alabama would come under attack. Quite a guy!! Never once during my service or since, was it ever an issue on active duty, reserves, or with my Vet friends since. It may be an issue with the Neanderthals but they're pretty much irrelevant. Sounds like something Billo and Laura should latch on to.
P.S. Everything works pretty much "just dandy" in the service.

[kozmik]

I'm probably one of the few liberal, progressive, gay rights advocates who actually doesn't have a problem with don't ask don't tell based on other current practices regarding sexual segregation.

Here's why: Current policy is that segregation by sex is beneficial to prevent relations in combat situations. The question is whether an offier can order a lover into harms way for example, or whether there would be other preferential treatment eroding morale. Another example is gender segregated showers so as to prevent sexual attraction and problems disrupting hygiene. The problem is you can't segregate gay men from the group they're attracted to as you can with hetero men and women.

So, if it's OK to say men and women shouldn't have co-ed dorms in combat environments or serve in the same combat unit then it's also reasonable to exclude openly gay men on that basis.

Some caveats:

In feudal Japan or ancient Greece, warriors were often homosexual or at least bi-sexual, but that was also part of a lifelong warrior culture.

Some armies have less sexual segregation. However, there are also reports of greatly increased instances of rape in the field.

Gays are being excluded from the history books so recognition is needed in some way to historically honor service.

[gaydm]

The problem with your thinking is this, gay people already can see your pee,pee in the shower. They do already, and have already served in the military since the dawn of time. You would prefer that we just lie about being gay, and just peek anyway?

You heterosexual men have NO problem walking around naked in front of each other when you THINK we are straight like you. But if all of a sudden you THINK that someone is gay, suddenly you get squeamish. Sounds like you are just mad because we can look but you can't.
Sorry, but most of us gay people do not give a flip about looking at you when bullets are flying around our heads. I would rather spend my time thinking about how I am going to kick our enemies arse, rather than waste my time gazing at yours.

There is no excuse for ANY inappropriate contact from any party GAY or STRAIGHT. When heterosexual men in the military DO sexually assault female members in the numbers that they do, you do not seem to be raising hell about that. It seems you are excluding the WRONG people.

ALL inappropriate behavior should be prosecuted, but to say a gay man just because he is gay is going to do something does NOT mean they will. Yes you must also treat any gay inappropriate behavior the same as ANY bad behavior.

[SiberianRat]

"gay people already can see your pee,pee in the shower"--LOL!!! I agree with the whole posting, but that was funny. You're dead on about the harassment/assault on our brave women in service.

[Steamboater]

It's thoroughly deceptive for heterosexuals to claim that Gays and Lesbians out of the closet in the military would defeat morale etc when there are just too many rapes of women in the miliary by hetero males. That's not fiction; it's a fact. So who's defeating what? You don't have to live side by side in a barrack with someone to abuse them. The instances of our military women in Iraq raped are the military's dirty little secret and we hear so little about it in the press.

[WoodyCPM]

What makes you think that gay men can't wait to get in your drawers?

[PitBull6]

Why do people have issue with those who state the fact that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex? Have they mapped out some gene which precludes gays from being attracted to heterosexuals? I've known military women who are blatantly hit on in the locker room and such yet if someone brings it up, the first reaction is to deny and then insult one who raises it.

The obvious reason that some heteros get squeamish is that they DIDN"T know before just as a woman might feel squeamish about walking in front of her window if she discovered a peeping tom or a parent would no longer feel comfortable if their day care provider was charged with molestation.

All kosmik is saying is that we already segregate based on sexual preference and it happens to fall along sex lines. Therefore it is a legitimate issue for billeting and showering facilities if openly gay individuals were admitted.

[ponderingmuch]

I love living in a thoroughly diverse community. I live in the east section of West Hollywood, a wonderfully gay city, where the police are actually NICE and the city hall responds, personally,to things like a neighbor complaining, politely about construction next door dumping debris that blocks a parking space, and after responding, CLEANS UP THE DEBRIS!

--Where blacks, Hispanics, Russians, Koreans, Pakistanis,gay men of all colors, lesbians of all colors, young Hollywood aspirants of all colors, sexes and sexual preferences, dumpy white women both with cats and without ( I count as without, but I have Peach Faced Lovebirds, with kinda does count), live not only peacefully, but cheerfully, side by side.

The only groups missing are straight white American born rich families and straight white men who are not actors or writers.

Don't ask, don't tell, is such a ridiculous notion in my neighborhood, where we all celebrate how cool it is to seek out things in common with superficially different neighbors.

TELL! whatever your self identity, and we all celebrate.

I hope that spirit will start to expand to the military.

Imagine a new version of war, where the humans feel a sense of celebration about unity with other humans! Imagine if commingling minds and hearts rather just killing those identified as not in alignment prevailed.

I suppose we would have to start having faith in diplomacy. I think we are inching toward that.

YAY.

[bluevortex]

I suppose we owe "W" a big thank you for being sooooo blatantly divisive. There is a meaning of conservativism that is a good one (even though one might not agree with all of its positions.­) Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has got some things right re conservatism but note that he sounds rather liberal even though Republican­...

Although American is shifting, "W" and cohorts have given the shift a big boost by being so very nasty. And they thought we wouldn't realize the case; they thought we were stupid; but the election shows that we're not even though we may have been blind in the beginning

I am just so happy at our progress-after 8 years of suffocation-even though there's a way to go. But note that the outcome of proposition 8 in California probably isn't representative but is the skewed result of campaigning by the conservative (church) camp

[bill76]

How about the creation of an all-gay regiment? That way gays could serve openly and heterosexuals would not feel sqeamish having to share living spaces.

[IraqAfghanVet]

Wow - this blog has hit an alltime low thanks to Bill76. I've served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and not once have I ever felt "squeamish" about gays sharing a living space with me. In fact I've never heard about service members having an issue with it. Gays are not uncontrollable sexual deviants waiting for an opportunity to pounce upon their "heterosexual prey". Please, do us a service and take your ignorance elsewhere. For those of us serving out here trying to keep America safe, we don't need you opening your mouth and removing all doubt that our efforts are in vain because of a few ignorant Americans. Have a happy thanksgiving in America, and thanks for ignorantly speaking on behalf of us troops who get to spend the holidays out here.

[SiberianRat]

Thank you, IAVet--this is also how the people I know in the service feel. However, there are some other types out there--just have a peek at Berettasskeeter's comments. Anyone who refuses/chooses not to serve the country because they're afraid of gays certainly lack bravery and, quite frankly, smarts. As IAVet states, "gays are not uncontrollable sexual deviants waiting for an opportunity to pounce upon their 'heterosexual prey'." Absurd. With all of the ugliness that gays/lesbians have to tolerate from their countrymen, it's a wonder they'd want to put their lives on the line to protect them.

[sepiasiren]

and why would they feel odd--just as all heteros don't leer at every hetero person, gays don't leer at others who are not interested in their attentions--sheesh!

[MasterfullyInept]

Thats separate but equal.Unco­nstitution­al.

[Steamboater]

We had all black regiments in WWII and that's not equality, it's still discriminatory because the message is blacks weren't and Gays aren't fit to be in the same room with whites or heterosexuals.

[JJK]

Please, don't tell me that we want Obama to spend one penny of his hard-won political capital to reprise the errors of the incoming Clinton administration and make this a featured initiative in his first year in office. He has a lot of other things that impact the lives of all Americans on which to expend that capital. This is a valid issue, but, please, not out of the gate.

[idkwhy]

75% of americans support allowing gays in the military.

i hardly call that using "political capital".

[MRb1000]

Tell me how many of the 75% served in the military. This is not as easy as you think. This military is a volunteer force. 99% of them are not gay. If 10 or 20% leave over by forcing them to live with a outwardly gay person you will be making a big mistake! It will no longer be a gay issue. It will turn into a national security issue and you will lose big time. I would just stick to not kicking gay people out of the military for being gay. This just like trying to have teacher teach kids about having two gay parents is alright. Most people do not agree with this because of their religious belief. Now, this rubs people the wrong way. The more you try to force your way of life on someone they will push back twice as hard. The more you make a big deal out of this you will be ignored.
Just respect others and they will respect you. You cannot make no one love you. You have to show this by how you live your life as an example to others. I knew men and women in the military that were gay. We never said one word about it. Now, when you make a big issue out of this. Now you are pouring fuel on the fire!

[MRb1000]

Barack Obama is not going to change as much as you want with this issue in the military. He needs to gain the respect of these people that served many years in serves. He will listen to the General! Taking this up the first four year is laughable. I would just go for stop kick gay people out of the military! You are not going to get your way. This will take many years before you will see gays openly in the military. I do not think I will see this in my life time. I served twenty years. I just do not see it happening.

[newshawk14]

I was inducted into the army in April of 1965, in basic training I was informed that my privates
were now military property and were now army green, and they were wise to the argument that
it was my soap, my washcloth, and I could wash it as fast as I wanted to. I think the military
should simply follow it's former policy and quit worrying about gays, and concentrate on army
green.

[Berettasskeeter]

Service in the military is NOT a Right! It has, and must have, many barriers to service. Among those are physical or mental disabilities, disciplinary problems, age restrictions (which may be waived during wartime), and behavioral problems. It is no Civil Right, and therefore preventing someone from serving cannot be a violation of one's Civil Rights!
Semper fi

[Akstonist]

Kudos to Mr. Marine (Berettasskeeter) for pointing out service is not a right; however, it is a privilage and one of the most admirable challenges a citizen can seek to participate in America's servicemembers' historically remarkable duty of defending our great nation. The only barriers to service that should exist are those that prevent the military's members from accomplishing their duties. As so many brave gay men and women have already proven through their service in life and in death, being gay does not prevent them from fulfilling their duties. However, the bigotry and homophobic illness that seems to be prevalent in so many servicemembers is exactly the kind of attitude and/or belief that detracts from the fulfillment of such duties. Fortunately, when the Commander in Chief says DADT is to be abandoned as a hopeless relic of a past age, ALL servicemembers have no choice but to say, "Yes, sir" and continue to be professionals, carrying out their priveleged service. If they don't like it, they can finish up their time, get out, and live in one of the increasingly isolated areas of the country who wish to live in the past, separate from this great nation's tide of progress..­.

[Berettasskeeter]

Good thoughts! However, all those homosexual/lesbians who've served have done so, mostly, in the dark. Noone has ever reasonably argued that those folks are physically or mentally capable of the job. It has always been about good order and discipline, and what is best to accomplish the combat missions.
If Obama gets the law changed, you'll get the "yessir's" you crave, but will that solve the problems? You can force me to eat boiled okra, but that does not mean I like it, search it out, or am otherwise willingly associated with it. You cannot force the GI's to be happy with it, and that could well detract from the mission. Do you really wish to possibly detract from combat effectiveness, when it may mean unnecessary death?
Semper fi

[hopefullee]

Berettasskeeter,

Unless you've got an M.D. or PhD after your name, I don't think you should be deciding what constitutes a "mental illness".

[Berettasskeeter]

Never said I was going to make the decisions. That is done by bureaucrats!
Semper fi

[recless]

Service in the military can be made mandatory, therefore it must adhere to socially respected guildlines on enlistment, including discrimination. You do understand you are using the same arguments used to keep blacks out of the Union army, right?

[Berettasskeeter]

If you use the color discrimination argument, you've lost. And the military, during the draft, has never been required to "adhere to socially respected guidelines"! Check your history when you're back in school on Monday.
Semper fi

[indypete]

I knew this article would bring the irrational haters out of the woodwork and I didn't have to look far.

[sepiasiren]

are you seriously comparing being gay with mental retardation--r u serious? News flash--my Dad was gay black man, served well, fought in Vietnam, and made it to LT., Had he died in Vietnam I doubt GAY would have been next to his name on the Memorial..­.

[ProudMormon]

Ending "separate but equal" in the military?

Does that mean the government will give me back my selective service form, which I was forced to fill out?

Does it mean that men and women will now sleep in the same barracks, shower in the same facilities, and receive the same personal hygiene supplies?

Will women be serving in battle tanks, or loading artillery shells?

[bill76]

I tend to agree with you. And I fully endorse showering with the ladies.

[Steamboater]

And men will be forced to slkeep with homosexual aliens and sheep? LOL As for women serving in battle tanks etc, sure. They can do a terriffic job because they wouldn't have their minds in the gutter worrying whether the women next to them are going to feel them up.

[Steamboater]

Mormons. What do you expect.

[jpwripper]

This is not the time to even be thinking of taking on these kind of culture war battles. Lets get the economy in shape, institute Obama's energy policy and fix health care. Only then should these side issues be dealt with.

[luvobama]

I take it you are not being discriminated by nor are your Civil Rights being denied by your very own fellow citizens and government.

[Berettasskeeter]

Which of your Civil Rights are being denied? And I don't mean those which you call by that term, but actual, Constitutional, Civil Rights!
Semper fi

[bbc3341]

Based on the comments here, I didn't realize how large a role showering plays in our armed forces...

[AxelDC]

It doesn't take much courage to do the right thing when the vast majority of the population supports it.

Gay marriage may be controversial, but job discrimination is. How can people be expected to treat gays as equals when the US government treats them as unhireables?

[Berettasskeeter]

The US government does NOT treat them as unhireables. The military has requested, and received, that this policy not be done away with. As the military has normally been given the leeway to make those decisions based on readiness requirements, I fully support the policy. Actually, I support the earlier policy of discharging anyone found to be homosexual/lesbian, but I am rather old fashioned. In the future, when people are more willing to accept a new policy, perhaps. And attitudes are changing! But now, no!
Semper fi

[BruceHNV]

People become ready to accept new policy when they have to live under it - not before.

Equal treatment of minorities has always been driven by the courts, not by popular acceptance.

[recless]

That's the same lame excuse I heard back in the 80's. Who determines when it is time? The military will never implement the policy if it isn't made to, anymore that the M16 was the military's choice. Since you want to boot anyone found to be gay, I suspect you just want to keep the military pure and not poluted by those you find to be undesirables.

[Steamboater]

Agan, the same with blacks in the military and segregation at one time. You're not just old fashoned. You're a bigot out of Jurassic Park. The military is wrong and their policy of discrimination has helped to defeat efforts in Iraq for example because too many gays were thrown out of the military who were badly needed Arabic translators. There aren't enough hetero translators. We needed those Gays but because of a knee-jerk intolerance, they're gone.

What are you afraid of? Are you so lacking in self-esteem and so fearful that some gay man might grab your crotch in the middle of night? The fact is, Gays have more to fear from heteros like you than you have from them? Not too long ago a man rumored to have been gay was beaten to death while he slept in his bed in a barrack. Nice huh?